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 2013/2014 in the Committee of Supply.
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 the sitting times of the Committee of Supply.
Members have been notified that the sittings on the allotted days of 7 and 8 March commence at 12.00 noon, and the sittings on 11 to 15 March commence at 11.00 am. Additionally, pursuant to Standing Order 91(3)(a), I have extended the time for the sitting on these allotted days to 7.30 pm on each day.
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.
Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, do we have a quorum?
[(proc text) Thereupon, a count was made. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: Twenty five Members are required for the quorum. Eighteen Members are present. Ring the division bells.
[(proc text) Members summoned into Chamber as if for a division. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: There are now 25 Members present in the Chamber. A quorum is now present. Asst Prof Tan.
Page: 8
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Engaging Singaporeans on Population Issues","subTitle":"Continuing the discussion after debate on Population White Paper","sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the Government's strategy in seeking Singaporeans' buy-in for the Population White Paper and land use plan; and (b) whether the Government will issue regular updates on progress made in the key areas in order to build trust and confidence in the roadmap to address Singapore's demographic challenge.
\tThe Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean) (for the Prime Minister): Mdm Speaker, following an extensive debate on the Population White Paper and land use plan, Parliament passed an amended Motion that reflects the concerns of Singaporeans, and calls on the Government to work on five key areas.
First, to resolve the current infrastructure strains.
Second, to develop infrastructure ahead of demand, to meet Singapore's future infrastructure needs and build in a buffer where possible. In the case of infrastructure, it is better to build more than we need, rather than be tight in the future.
Third, focus on encouraging Singaporeans to marry and have more children as a key priority, in order to attain a stable and sustainable citizen population even as our baby boomer generation moves into their silver years between now and 2030.
Fourth, ensure that the benefits of our policies flow to Singaporeans, while slowing down the growth of foreign labour.
Fifth, review our population policies and assumptions in the medium term and ensure that our policies take into account the changing needs of Singapore and Singaporeans.
We will continue to study options and engage Singaporeans on population and its related issues on multiple fronts, including through the Our Singapore
\tPage: 9
Conversation and other forums.
We will press on with delivering improvements to our infrastructure, especially housing and transport. We will support businesses in their efforts to increase productivity and reduce reliance on foreign manpower. We will also review policies to ensure inclusive and quality growth that benefits Singaporeans.
Madam, this year's Budget has introduced further substantive steps to put these into effect, including the new marriage and parenthood measures and major improvements to the pre-school sector; tightening of foreign worker levies, dependency ratios, and eligibility criteria; enhanced support to help companies upgrade productivity; the Wage Credit Scheme and significantly enhanced Workfare Income Supplement.
As we continue to engage Singaporeans and work together on policies, address and overcome the specific and practical problems we face and deliver on programmes to benefit Singaporeans, we hope to strengthen trust and consensus among Singaporeans on the future that we must build together.
The Government will continue to provide regular updates on the progress of proposals in the Population White Paper and Land Use Plan, through the release of studies, reports and announcements. We are also working towards a medium-term review before 2020.
\tAsst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Madam, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his reply. I am assured that the Government is taking the matter seriously. I think the debate was rather divisive, but I believe immigration is an imperative. My follow-up question relates to how the Government would seek to encourage Singaporeans to keep an open mind as I think that is important. We are not asking Singaporeans to be wedded to a \"yes\" or a \"no\" position, but rather how we can continue to strengthen trust and consensus given that immigration is an imperative, relating fundamentally to the well being of our society.
\tMr Teo Chee Hean: Mdm Speaker, I certainly agree Asst Prof Tan. The ageing population issue that we face is a very major one. It is a one-off problem which we are facing as a result of the very large Baby Boomer generation, spread over about 15 to 18 years, from the early 1950s to the mid 1960s. This is now coming through our system. We have to make preparations for that future. If we want to maintain a stable, energetic and able population for Singapore
\tPage: 10
and Singaporeans into the future, and be able to support and make sure that our seniors in these coming two decades are able to look after themselves, are well looked after by their children and by our nation, then we have to shape those policies today. I am glad that the debate has focused attention on this very critical issue and also the range of options and choices that we have from those which are on both ends of the spectrum. We will continue to make sure that we discuss this as we go into the future. We hope that as we go along, Singaporeans will understand the issues and choices that we face, better.
Mdm Speaker: Asst Prof Tan, the next question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Emergency Response to Recent Newton MRT Station Fire","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the emergency response by SMRT and the Singapore Civil Defence Force to the Newton MRT station fire on 13 February 2013, including the fire alarm system and evacuation procedures; and (b) whether the inspection, maintenance and operations requirements of the rail network can be made more robust for the protection of commuters and employees.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Lui Tuck Yew): Mdm Speaker, let me assure Members that the safety of passengers in our MRT system is of utmost importance. Therefore, any incident of a fire is taken extremely seriously, even if in this case, the fire was small and localised in the tunnel off Newton station.
I have been briefed on the preliminary findings by SMRT and LTA. I have made clear to both agencies that I expect a thorough investigation to find out the root cause of the fire, and to learn useful lessons on how we can better manage similar incidents in the future, so that we can improve on passenger safety. Both SMRT and LTA will also look into preventive measures.
At this juncture, what we have established is that the fire was caused by a short circuit, most likely due to cable insulation issues. This will be confirmed by laboratory tests which should conclude in the coming few weeks. As an immediate measure, the cables at the affected stretch have been replaced. SMRT has also conducted a complete insulation test of all underground traction cables and stepped up its insulation checks on similar installations at all tunnels.
\tPage: 11
SCDF took swift action to put out the fire and fortunately, there were no injuries to commuters, or serious damage to the MRT system. The regular fire and rescue emergency exercises jointly held by SCDF, LTA and the operators helped in this regard. Nonetheless, we should await the investigations' findings and improve our incident management plans where needed.
\tAsst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister for Transport a follow-up question. I understand that this is not the first fire at Newton MRT Station. I was rather concerned to see that passengers were milling around the train platforms and were also taking photographs that were eventually uploaded on social media websites. I do not know whether the assessment was that it was a small fire and so there was no need to unnecessarily alarm passengers. But is that the protocol? Would that not be somewhat dangerous, given that it is hard to ascertain how serious a fire is, especially in an enclosed area?
\tMr Lui Tuck Yew: Mdm Speaker, the Member is right in that this was not the first fire at Newton Station. The last was in 2004, which incidentally was also the last incident in the MRT system. The passengers in this case were ushered as quickly as possible out of the station, contrary to impressions that they were allowed to mill around and so on. Whether we can effectively prevent any passenger from taking a photograph if they choose to do so is something that needs to be looked further into.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Wages as a Share of Economic Growth and Companies' Profits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he can provide data on (i) the share of total wages in Singapore's GDP, averaged over each decade from 1970 to 2009; and (ii) the ratio of labour income (wages) to profits earned by the private sector in each of these decades.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Mdm Speaker, data on total wages and profits, compiled under the income approach to measuring GDP, are only available from 1980 onwards. In the 1980s, the wage share of GDP averaged at 41.8%. This rose slightly to 41.9% in the 1990s and further to 42.5% between 2000 and 2009.
\tPage: 12
A breakdown of the data into wages and profits for the private sector is not available due to data limitations. Nonetheless, for the economy as a whole, the ratio of wages to profits has remained broadly unchanged, averaging 0.83, 0.86 and 0.85 in the 1980s, 1990s, and between 2000 and 2009 respectively.
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 [25 February 2013], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014.\" – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Madam, I commend the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister for a caring Budget. It shows that the Government cares for the concerns of ordinary citizens. At a time when we are focusing so much attention on the details of the Budget, it would be good to step back and remind ourselves what we are ultimately trying to achieve.
There are many thoughtful proposals for ways to improve things, to transform our economy. These are the ways and means. To what end?
An answer to that central question can be found in the Finance Minister's speech when he sketched out the common vision which has emerged from Our Singapore Conversation platforms. To summarise: a home with a strong Singaporean identity and sense of belonging. A Singapore with affordable living and good jobs that enables a more fulfilling pace of life. A society that values family ties, takes care of the disadvantaged, and helps our seniors to age with dignity.
With that in mind, I would like to focus on three areas: first, the quest for a higher quality of life; second, the plight of the vulnerable groups; and third, an inclusive and sustainable transport system. I will conclude with some thoughts
Page: 13
on national identity.
Madam, the Budget signals yet another shift to transform our economy. But will the transformation improve our general sense of well-being as a society and make us proud to be Singaporeans with a strong sense of belonging?
Increasingly, as our country becomes more developed, such questions become more urgent. Our people want a better quality of life, not just in terms of income, jobs and housing, but also in the intangible aspects. There is a growing sense that the high and rising per capita income has not provided Singaporeans with the sense of well-being they desire.
Going by the objective indicators of well-being such as those used the UN Human Development Index – Singapore scores very high globally. But when it comes to surveys that attempt to measure subjective well-being, the picture is less assuring.
Several recent surveys showed that Singapore workers notched the highest number of hours worked per year, worldwide. They also suffered the highest employee burnout rate in the region.
Madam, we have often spoken about the importance of helping our workers to enjoy a work-life balance, but the reality on the ground is that the demand for productivity, to meet growth targets, to cut costs, to take on multiple tasks, is incessant and is being translated to longer hours and more stress for our workers.
We will be injecting even more stress into society if we continue to encourage Singaporeans to marry early, have more kids, work hard, and then fail to create a strong and consistent work culture which supports families. Already, divorces are on the rise and so is single parenthood.
Many residents tell me they want a better work-life balance. They want to join our community activities, which will give them a sense of belonging and connectedness to the community – but they are often just too busy and too tired when they get home late from work. They desire the kampong spirit. Yet their hectic lifestyles are making it harder and harder for them to help create this.
Madam, helping our citizens to achieve a good work-life balance is essential if we are serious about boosting the birth rate, making this country more
Page: 14
liveable and giving Singaporeans a greater sense of belonging.
We need to change the mindset that working longer hours means that one is more productive. The culture of long hours no longer fits the economy, which must boost creativity and productivity.
We need to soften the national narrative that has been instilled in us for decades – that Singapore has no room for complacency. We have to work hard, or die. Perhaps it is time for a new narrative: work smart, live well; work hard, live well.
We need to devise more creative ways of working hard and working smart that challenge the existing stereotype of the long commute to work, long hours at work and time spent away from the family. One way to do this is to force the pace of companies offering flexible working arrangements.
Madam, in my speech in Parliament in 2004, I had called for flexi-work to be legislated, to give the right for eligible employees to request for flexible work arrangements and for employers to have a duty to consider this request.
Giving both men and women this right will help drive a culture shift in the workplace. It benefits employees who may otherwise feel they have no choice but to leave employment and benefits employers who retain skilled and experienced staff. It also benefits the wider community and economy by providing pathways for increased workforce participation and social inclusion. Unless the right to apply to work flexibly is enshrined in law, companies will continue to resist the request to provide flexible work arrangements.
When I first made the call in 2004, it did not receive much open support. Perhaps it was ahead of its time. But I am glad that my proposal on this was taken up recently by the PAP Women's Wing in its latest position paper and that it is being discussed seriously. If I may add, flexi-work can also help to ease the congestion on our public transport and roads.
I support the call of hon Member Janil Puthucheary yesterday for free travel on public transport before peak hours. However, for a deep cultural shift, this move needs to be accompanied with flexi-work. If workers go to work at 7.30 am, they should be able to leave by 3.30 pm. Otherwise, it will just mean longer work hours and not necessarily productive. Employers should also create more part-time options, with fair wages.
Page: 15
In this regard, I welcome the Wage Credit Scheme to help companies to restructure, increase productivity and raise the salaries of its workers. It is vital, however, to ensure that employers are indeed sharing the productivity gains with workers and not just using them to fatten the bottomlines of the companies, a point also made by several Members yesterday.
It is not the job of the Government to enrich companies and their shareholders. Why should the taxpayer subsidise Scrooge employers? But it is the job of Government to ensure that, as it pushes the pace of restructuring, the vulnerable groups have a life line and a safety net. Particularly vulnerable in this environment are our older low-skilled workers.
Madam, older workers often find it hard to secure alternative jobs, leading to a rise in jobless older workers over the years. The share of unemployed workers in their 50s and above tripled from 7.3% in 1992 to 22.4% in 2010. They also tend to be out of work for a longer period while looking for a job – three months for those aged 50 and above.
When they do find a job, it tends to be of the low-wage variety. Last year, six in 10 residents working as production and transport operators, cleaners and labourers were aged 50 and above. These trends need greater focus. They suggest that because most of these low-skilled workers are older, opportunities for retraining and job options would be seriously restricted if they were to lose their current position.
We need to assure our older workers that even as companies restructure, they will have a place in our workforce with decent and fair wages. We often hear older Singaporeans asserting that employers discriminate against them. We must face this squarely. Ageism is as bad as racism and sexism. We need new solutions to overcome mismatches in our job market and to protect our vulnerable groups from being exploited.
We see an increasing number of such older workers at our Meet-the-People Session (MPS). I have a resident, Mr Koh who is 72, earning about $1,400 as a security officer. Although he has various medical problems, he still works hard and works 12 hour shifts to pay his bills and support his ailing wife. His security company paid him irregularly at one period. So, in desperation, he turned to moneylenders to cover his bills. This decision is haunting him now and we are helping him. What his case highlights is how vulnerable our elderly can be and their sense of powerlessness in the marketplace. Many of the outsourced low-
Page: 16
wage workers, who work for subcontractors, are not unionised.
In this regard, I am heartened by the Government's measures to pay special attention to our seniors. I welcome the expanded coverage of the WIS and also the move to increase the cash portion in the WIS payout, something I have been asking for in my previous speeches. But has it gone far enough?
Given the higher proportion of older workers in these low-wage jobs, we should target a larger payout towards those aged above 60 – and with 60% in cash and 40% in CPF. They have worked to build up Singapore and we should make life a little easier for them if we can.
Madam, sometimes it is hard to accept that there could be people among us who earn so little yet work so hard at jobs that few would want to do – we feel it is injustice. But I take heart from this Budget – it is clear that we do not believe in leaving them to the mercies of the market. The harsh global marketplace is a fact of life, but we can soften it with a shared sense of responsibility in lifting up their lot and respecting the dignity of each individual human being.
To ensure they are not exploited and that their wages are decent, it would be useful to set a living wage – that is, an income which allow for the full participation of workers and their families in the economic, social and community life.
The living wage is usually calculated according to the basic cost of living in the country. It can provide an informal benchmark. It is not to be a legally enforceable minimum level of pay. This would also help us to assess if employers are paying their workers unreasonably, just because they could get away with it, and then benefit from taxpayers who top up the low salaries of their workers with WCS and WIS. It seems to me that basic pay of the low-wage workers have been set too low for too long and there needs to be an adjustment.
Last night, at my MPS, a coffeeshop owner came to see me about hiring foreign workers to work as cleaners. He said Singaporeans were not reliable, their turnover is high and some just do not turn up for work. They do not want to work the long eight- to 12-hour shifts. This is in contrast to foreign workers, he added, who are on fixed-term contracts and so form a stable pool of workers.
I asked him how much he pays the Singaporean workers. He said the market rate is about $5 to $6 an hour for such jobs. I asked him if he would
Page: 17
increase the rates, and may be shorten the hours, take advantage of the new WCS and other Government schemes, so that more Singaporeans can take on the job. I also added that, with better pay and hours, it could improve morale, lower the staff turnover, reduce absenteeism and improve customer service. But he did not look convinced.
Madam, for the Budget measures to work, we need a mindset shift, from both employers, and also workers.
Madam, another key prong of ensuring the well-being of our society is to invest more in public infrastructure to increase sustainability and liveability. Road congestion is an increasing problem in Singapore.
I applaud the Finance Minister's announcement that LTA will be tendering out routes to private operators. I asked for this in Parliament last year. The Members in Tampines have been lobbying for this behind the scenes for some years now, as we have been frustrated by some feeder bus services in Tampines, especially service 291 in my division. To LTA's credit, it has been on the ground with us to help resolve the problems, increasing the frequency and capacity of the bus services, but the problem remains because of the long routes taken and the road congestion at peak hours. I hope that, by having private operators, LTA can experiment with mini-buses running shorter and more frequent loops at peak hours within the town – and starting with Tampines.
Beyond public transport, we need to take a fresh look at cycling as a mode of transport. Cycling offers multiple benefits, including easing road congestion and pollution, improving health and reducing pressure on our infrastructure and public transport systems. Cycling can help Singapore achieve its objective of increasing sustainable transport and move away from a car culture. We need a long-term, sustained and consistent investment and a strategy to move cycling forward.
To make real headway, it is vital to ramp up cycling infrastructure to support cycle-rail integration and community cycling and to ensure greater safety for users. We should take a leaf out of New York's example – another high-density city. It was awarded the Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize last year. The city has redesigned its streets and roads to provide greater space and safety to cyclists and to pedestrians.
Cycling has become increasingly popular in New York. In fact, the number of New Yorkers who cycle to work and school has quadrupled in the past 10
Page: 18
years. To increase safety, New York has installed more than 430 km of bike lanes in its city. It has just launched its bike share scheme. These initiatives not only create a greener New York, but also make the city more liveable and more innovative.
In conclusion, for me, the bottom-line question is: what kind of society are we creating? What kind of Singapore?
There has been some debate lately about S Rajaratnam's ideas on national identity, immigrants and the Singapore Core. The discussion is of particular interest to me, being Mr Rajaratnam's biographer. In all his years fighting for his ideal of a Singaporean Singapore, he was consistent in his fundamental belief that Singapore, as an immigrant and multiracial society, needs a common national identity to unite the people. He believed in the ability of our people to transcend their racial, cultural and religious divisions to create a shared national identity, to which they give their primary loyalty. For him, this was an act of will and faith. He did not differentiate between old and new citizens, core and not core; he differentiated them on the basis of their values. It does not matter where you were born, it does not matter the colour of your skin, the texture of your hair, the accent in your voice. What matters is that your first and last loyalty is to Singapore. He believed in this completely because he himself had experienced the transformation in his own life.
He was born in Jaffna, Sri Lanka. He grew up in Seremban, Malaya. At age 19, he came to Singapore for one year to take his matriculation examinations. When he was 20, he left Malaya for London to study law. He ended up staying in London for 12 years. He returned to Malaya only at the age of 32 and began living and working in Singapore only from that point on.
In one lifetime, he was a Sri Lankan, a Malayan who was a British subject, then a Malaysian, and finally a Singaporean. Yet he had no trouble identifying with Singapore and its causes, and struggling and suffering for them as a founding leader of independent Singapore. He gave us the National Pledge which articulates our ideals as a people, of what it means to be Singaporean. So, when he said: \"being a Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry. It is conviction and choice,\" it was not an abstract idea or an intellectual argument. He lived it. Becoming a Singaporean is an act of will and of faith.
Madam, if I may say, realising the vision as set out in the Finance Minister's Budget speech requires a measure of will and faith as well. But we can do it.
Page: 19
If I may end with this quote from Rajaratnam:
[(proc text) \"The only thing you can be certain about in this otherwise uncertain world is that the past is unchangeable. The present will disappear in a moment. (proc text)]
[(proc text) But there will always be a tomorrow to be shaped as you wish. You can make the tomorrow you want, provided you have the wisdom, the guts and the will to struggle for it.\" (proc text)]
On that note, I support the Budget.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to thank the Finance Minister for coming up with a package that is comprehensive and bold, with a clear objective to tackle current issues and the anxieties faced by the public. In line with the theme of Budget 2013 that exhorts everyone to increase productivity, several initiatives were crafted to help those who are disadvantaged, whether they are ordinary citizens or those doing business. With a determined effort to strengthen the social safety net, I am confident that we are heading towards a better Singapore.
It is very important to explain good policies and obtain consensus, so that there is understanding and support when it is implemented later. In order to face uncertain economic challenges, we must be united and work together with the Government. The best way to obtain public support is through sincerity, responsibility and an accurate flow of information to the people. In this way, good intentions are not misunderstood, or worse, become distorted by liars and their followers. In my experience, due to lack of publicity or lack of awareness about the existence of assistance schemes like the GST Voucher and Workfare Bonus, I often have to remind my residents to fill up the application form or check their bank accounts, especially among the elderly. There are also residents who know nothing about these initiatives and schemes.
For those who did not send in their applications, their dismay and grumblings will be directed at the Government in an unfair manner.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The messages in the 2013 Budget should be conveyed to every Singaporean in a simple and
Page: 20
direct manner. These include providing help to households such as GST Vouchers, U-Save and lowering the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy which would help citizens cope with rising cost of living. In addition, most retirees will pay less or no property tax. This is how the Government show its gratitude to the retirees who had contributed to our nation-building.
The Government will provide more help to low-wage workers. The Wage Credit Scheme will provide subsidy to ensure reasonable wage raise and encourage employers to raise workers' wages. Many companies, especially the SMEs, will receive support to help them restructure. Professional, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) and middle-class Singaporeans can also feel assured that they will have job security and opportunities of growth. For this aspect, I would like to thank the Government because I often talk about how these two groups of people need help and I am really pleased to see that the Government is now offering help to them.
Besides using the media as a one-way channel to announce policies, the Government should conduct dialogues and public awareness promotion activities such as exhibitions, to engage citizens in a two-way conversation. We could perhaps use special TV advertisements or reports to ensure every Singaporean knows what benefits he can get from the Budget and how to get them. The People's Association could perhaps produce and distribute pamphlets with simple graphics and work with grassroots network to explain the goodies in the Budget.
I am pleased to see some of the suggestions I proposed in the past one year incorporated into Budget 2013. These include improving the pre-school sector and helping SMEs raise productivity. I would like to reiterate some issues which I raised earlier. Please relook at the suggestion of providing concessionary fare to Polytechnic students. They are not different from JC students. They have simply chosen a different path towards higher education. Hence, they should also enjoy the same benefits. I also urge the Government to take more actions to improve our public transport system. Previously, I have asked LTA for more bus routes in Yishun so that residents can enjoy faster and smoother rides. I thank LTA for accepting my requests. I believe we can expect similar enhancements to other bus routes.
However, the MRT is far from ideal currently. During peak hours, trains are packed to the brim and we see more and more disruptions in services. This is not in line with our expectations of a world-class transportation system. When we push for more improvements and better maintenance of the existing facilities, the public transport operators should not increase fares. They should
Page: 21
respond to the Government's call to cut cost through raising productivity and innovation. Repeatedly using fare increase to offset rising costs and passing the cost to commuters might be a quick solution but not a convincing one.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, Budget 2013 echoes my relentless calls for enhancing Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC). However, not all companies know how to benefit from it. Here again, I urge for more outreach to engage these companies to get innovative and qualify for PIC. Besides technology, companies also need guidance on improving management practices and company practices. The way a company takes care of its employees is also crucial. After all, motivated and grateful workers are more productive than disgruntled ones. I have witnessed some employers oppressing workers with low wages and long working hours in an attempt to save costs and drive up productivity or, in fact, drive up profitability.
Like the Chinese saying goes, 想要马儿跑, 得给马儿吃草 if you want the horse to go faster, you must feed it adequately. We need to show them the importance of employee welfare. A motivated and grateful employee will in turn contribute to higher productivity. At this juncture, I would like to urge the Government to consider extending PIC beyond 2015. Based on feedback from SMEs who know how to make use of PIC, they feel that we should extend beyond 2015.
I agree that cutting manpower, especially foreign manpower, is the right move in the push for higher productivity and to reduce reliance on foreign workers. However, I am concerned that the pace of productivity increase may not match the cut in foreign workers. Workers and supervisors take time to learn and adopt new technology. In fact, during this transition period, productivity will dip before it picks up and we should give them more help rather than keep cutting.
Take, for example, the construction sector. It was announced in 2010 that MYE will be cut by 40%. So, in 2011, there was a 15% cut and, last year, which was supposed to be a 10% cut, but it was a 15% cut. This July, there will be another 15% cut. So, in total, there will be 45% cut.
Given that the Government is ramping up infrastructures and building more HDB flats, how can the industry cope when almost half of the workers are gone? I see the Deputy Prime Minister shaking his head. That means that there is not going to be so much cut, I hope so.
Page: 22
I am worried that this drastic cut in workers will translate into poorer workmanship, higher construction costs or delays. Worse still, contractors may fold up and projects left in limbo. Certainly, we do not want to see another Rivervale Plaza incident.
To enhance productivity in the construction sector, it is important to have a proper roadmap. BCA, MND, MOM and the construction industry could work together on a productivity roadmap, further aided by universities and research units working on the relevant technologies, methodologies and ways and means of increasing productivity and the time frame. In fact, such roadmap should be developed industry by industry. It should not be one size fits all and at the stroke of a pen, all scrambled! It is a very poisonous pen, indeed.
Moving on to costs of living, high property prices have been causing plenty of grief. For residential properties, it is directly or indirectly causing a myriad of social problems including late marriages, late child-rearing and general insecurity and discontentment. For businesses, high property prices mean high rental costs and a large dent in the pocket for SMEs. I had brought up in this House before, asking the Minister to look into making new BTO flats affordable amidst inflation. I am glad that the Minister has delinked the price of new BTO flats from resale flats price. I hope to see the prices of new BTO flats, not just steady but going south if possible, so that potential flat buyers, especially young couples, do not have to worry about shouldering decades of debts.
With regard to the restriction on private car loans, there has been plenty of unhappiness from the ground, from existing car owners to second-hand car dealers. Recently, I received a very long email from a resident of mine. He told me that he has been in the second-hand car business for 17 years. He started off as a salesman immediately after ROD and he worked his way up and he is currently the CEO of his company. He has 235 cars in hand and 50 staff with him, and he is crying out for help. He told me that he is going to sell his house but he worries that he cannot save his business. As I read his email, my heart really beats with him.
Again, the change is so drastic and immediate that some second-hand car dealers like my resident will have to fold up their businesses. Is this cut so critical and so market- sensitive that Government cannot give any advance notice?
Last but not least, I wish to touch on the topic of sports. I must declare my interest as the President of Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA). I am
Page: 23
glad to note that the Government will be increasing investments in sports programmes in the next five years by 30%. I hope to see that this additional funding will translate to additional funding to deserving National Sports Associations (NSAs). For example, in STTA, we started PCF programme in 2009 and now we are having this programme in 31 constituencies, but we are limited by the funding that we have. With more funding, I hope to push out to more constituencies, perhaps to all the 87 constituencies.
I also hope that the Government will strongly consider a matching grant for NSAs so that those that take the effort to raise funds will see their efforts doubly rewarded with matching grants from the Government, like what we are doing for arts and culture. It is also one of my greatest wishes that the redevelopment of Toa Payoh Sports Hub be given early consideration, as our players are very short of space for training sessions and programmes. At this juncture, I would like to renew my call for more support for our male athletes in national service so as to realise their full sporting potential. Surely, all of us would like to see Joseph Schooling winning Olympic medals or the sons of Fandi Ahmad becoming world-class footballers.
On a more personal request, I would also like to see better and more sporting facilities in Yishun to cater to the growing population. I am excited about the concept of bringing sports facilities to Singapore's doorstep. May I know when will we have the town sports and recreation centres at Yishun Town?
In conclusion, overall, this is a good Budget that benefits many Singaporeans. But it can be even better if there is proper roadmap, more buy-in from all stakeholders so that we are all moving in the same direction with one heart and one mind, 一心一意. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to be part of this debate. Singapore is not a welfare state but we should certainly be a state concerned with the welfare of its people, in particular lower- and middle-income Singaporeans. Our social compact is one of Singapore's prized assets and it is the duty of any government of the day to ensure that it is not left exposed to market forces. With this in mind, I appreciate the series of assistance rolled out in this year's Budget to alleviate the burden of daily living in an increasingly unequal society for lower- and middle-income families. However, I hope that this year's Budget will set in motion a re-thinking on the part of the Government to place more
Page: 24
emphasis on the social compact to improve the nation's well-being.
In my speech last year, I raised three issues: first, empowering our social workers and other professionals in the social service sector; second, reaching out to the vulnerable; and third, adopting a holistic approach in the forging of an inclusive society.
My speech this year will build on my speech last year and I will be raising three more issues: first, assistance for students from disadvantaged and less well-to-do backgrounds; second, support for the Public Assistance Scheme; and lastly the introduction of social services office.
Madam, social attitudes towards the social service sector must evolve with an increasingly ageing population. In February last year, the Acting Minister for Community, Youth and Sports, Mr Chan Chun Sing said, within the next one to two years, we should be able to close the salary very substantially to eliminate the gap. So, from a numerative perspective, it is competitive. I applaud the Government's intention to increase the pay of professional in the social service sector but, I believe, more can be done and the process can be further accelerated to enhance the competitiveness of the industry vis-a-vis the teaching sector, as stated in my speech last year.
The Government should also look at enhancing the recognition and salaries of support staff in the industry such as the Early Intervention Teaching Assistant, the Special Education Teaching Assistant and the Social Service Assistant. They play a crucial and integral role in the smooth running of this social service sector and they should be recognised for it.
Madam, my first point is on financial assistance for students from disadvantaged and less well-to-do families. The Deputy Prime Minister, in his Budget speech, has reiterated the importance of social mobility and he intends to improve it by providing children from less well-to-do families at the pre-school and Primary school levels with a leg up. He also recognised that meritocracy alone is not sufficient in the sustenance of social mobility. Undoubtedly, there are many financial assistance schemes currently in place to assist these students at both the pre-school and Primary school levels. For pre-school students, Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) has been the lifeline of many families. I am glad to know that such assistance is available and tapped upon by these families. Indeed, as someone who worked in a Family Service Centre before, I have seen many children benefiting from this Scheme. However, many in this House would know that KiFAS is only made available
Page: 25
mainly for students in the PAP Community Foundation kindergartens.
Madam, in January 2012, my fellow Workers' Party colleague, Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked a parliamentary question on KiFAS. He asked whether the eligibility for KiFAS could be extended to private pre-school operators and not-for-profit religious or racial groups. In his written answer, the Minister pointed out that there are currently about 240 kindergartens where families can apply for KiFAS. At the same time, it is a known fact that PCF kindergartens are eligible for KiFAS. Incidentally, a quick check on the PCF website would indicate that there are 247 PCF kindergartens in Singapore. You must understand the various considerations a parent has in enrolling his or her children in a pre-school. Among the many factors are proximity and the environment provided by the school. Some parents may, for convenience's sake, choose to send their children to a non-PCF kindergarten. For example, in my Kaki Bukit ward, some parents who are unable to obtain a placement at a PCF kindergarten at Block 519 Bedok North Avenue 1 would have to send their children to a non-PCF kindergarten. Parents would also like to have their children receive their education in a preferred environment in accordance to their beliefs and values. As such, there are parents who send their children to kindergartens run and managed by religious organisations or religious-based voluntary welfare organisations.
Madam, my view is simple and I hope KiFAS can be expanded to all families who are in need. It should be about providing assistance in accordance to economic needs rather than in accordance to one's choice of kindergarten. KiFAS should be made available to all students who require it and should not be limited solely to the 247 PCF kindergartens. Mdm Speaker, I will continue in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam, beside the KiFAS scheme, another scheme that I would like to talk about is MOE's Edusave scheme. Mr Zainal Sapari, Member for Pasir-Ris Punggol GRC, and I raised this issue in the Committee of Supply last year. One of us has given our views on why the Edusave scheme should be extended to students in the full-time madrasah.
Madam, creating an inclusive society is one of the main objectives of the Budget last year and this year. The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tharman, has said in his speech that we, meaning the Government, has taken major steps to ensure the creation of an equitable and more inclusive society. Madam, it is on this call for a more inclusive society that I again call upon MOE to realise this call by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tharman, to extend the Edusave scheme
Page: 26
to students of the full-time madrasah.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, I will continue the rest of my speech in English. Allow me to move on to my second issue on the Public Assistance (PA) scheme. I welcome the Government's move in enhancing this scheme. Any amount of increase means a lot to the beneficiaries. I also welcome the multi-tier approach to the PA scheme. Under the secondary tier, healthcare assistance, such as adult diapers, stoma bags, milk supplements and so on, is long overdue as expenses on these items are not cheap to the affected families. I have also noted the scale of increment ranging from $50 per month for a one-person household to $130 per month for a four-person household. However, clearer clarification and explanation as to how the increment is considered, tabulated and arrived at is required from the relevant Ministries.
Madam, the PA scheme and the other ComCare assistance schemes that are currently in place are meant to ease the burden of needy Singaporeans, and these assistance schemes come under the purview, management and administration of the Community Development Councils or CDCs in short. Apart from enhancing the various components of assistance, is also crucial to ensure that the administration of the aid is thorough and effective. In my last Budget speech, I have expressed my concerns that only 6% of the Investigative Officers from the CDCs are trained in social work. This is not only unfortunate but also worrying at the same time. Investigative Officers on the ground have to make judgement calls that require the aptitude of trained social work professionals who are able to evaluate the needs of the vulnerable with compassion. With the intake of social work students at the University level remaining constant at about 200 each year, I hope to see more plans to make social work and the study of social services a more attractive option for GCE \"A\" levels and Polytechnic graduates.
There is an urgent need to increase the current pool of social work professionals in the industry. This can come in the form of more scholarships and greater societal, remunerative recognitions of their contributions especially in the contacts of a rapidly ageing Singapore. I believe that the quality of social services rendered to our people should not be compromised. It is important to have a professionally trained sector so as to minimise the number of Singaporeans who fall through the cracks and hence move Singapore a step closer towards a more inclusive society.
Madam, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman announced that about 20 social service offices would be established to improve the manner in which the Government delivers social services. In The Straits Times article on 26 February
Page: 27
2013, it is explained that the social service offices serve as a one-stop centre located closer to homes with the function of planning and co-ordinating social services to ensure that the families get holistic support. In short, it is hoped that the administration of social services can be integrated and any duplication avoided. However, I remain puzzled by the introduction of another level of bureaucracy to the existing layers of social service structures and support network. While we frown upon a welfare state, we seem to embrace increase bureaucratisation in the administration of social welfare support. There are too many questions that need answers and I hope these questions can be properly addressed.
Madam, first, I would like to know which organisation would be given the responsibilities to run and manage these offices. Second, social workers that I have spoken to are interested to know more about the function of this office and the roles of the officers stationed at this office. And thirdly, is there a requirement for these officers to be social work trained?
The social service officers appear at first sight without much explanation to be a duplication of services offered by the Family Service Centre or FSC. From my tenure as a counsellor at an FSC, I am aware that FSCs provide information and referral services or INR. It also assumes the role as a one-stop centre for residents who are seeking assistance. Basically, the role of an FSC, apart from providing counselling and casework management, is to provide information on type of community services that are available and wherever necessary conduct the appropriate assessment and recommend referrals to relevant Government agencies.
There needs to a be a clear definition of the different case management roles played by the respective agencies namely the CDCs, FSCs and the social service office. If the social service office does the co-ordination, then what happens to the case manager at the FCS? How does this differentiate from the intensive case management system being put in place now? Seen in this light, may I ask what makes the social service office different from the current Family Service Centres that we have and what improvement can social workers on the ground expect from the establishment of the social service office? What would happen to the existing CDCs, FSCs and VWOs' structure that are currently in place, recognised and accepted by the people whom we want to help?
I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister can ensure social workers and industry professionals on the ground that the social service offices are not mainly satellite CDCs which would then defeat the purpose of the proposal to
Page: 28
set up 20 social service offices.
Madam, I am of the view that it is far more productive to channel the resources in establishing the social service office towards enhancing the functions and the capabilities of the FSCs which incidentally are located in the neighbourhood. As a Member of Parliament for the Kaki Bukit ward of Aljunied GRC, I can attest to the good work done by the staff and volunteers at the Moral Family Service Centre at Block 534, Bedok North Street 3, and any enhancement of the functions and capabilities of the centre would be most welcome by residents and social workers alike staying and working in my constituency.
From my experience as a counsellor, greater support would also be welcomed by all concerned and aware of the situation in many of the FSCs across the island. An efficient and productive FSC will be in line with the fourth pillar of the social strategy painted by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman in his Budget Speech, that the role of the community and the Government providing strong support for the community initiatives by partnering with community bodies and groups of citizens to improve the lives of Singaporeans.
Mdm Speaker, the issues I raised during last year's and this year's Budget are not mutually exclusive from one another. In fact, in striving for an inclusive society which is the core principle in last year's and this year's Budget, these issues are integral and intrinsic components. However, there are no quick solutions to complex issues especially when it comes to issues over social welfare and the role of Government in welfare support. But as long as any government of the day puts the welfare of its people at the core of it policies, exercising compassion with flexible management of resources, while strengthening the social compact, nothing is too difficult to overcome in our case for a better and more inclusive Singapore.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Speaker, I will be focusing on two areas of concerns that I have been hearing from Singaporeans and that this Budget also intends to address. Firstly, on Public Transport, and secondly, the job competition from the EPs in the PME space.
Firstly, on public transport. In the Budget Statement, the Finance Minister made particular mention of the pressing challenges of housing and transport and that the Government will spare no effort in resolving these problems.
Page: 29
Credit to the National Development Minister, I think we are on our way to resolving the housing imbalances in the next one to three years. The slew of demand management measures and the massive ramping up of housing supply has since begun to show some stabilising effects in the property market. All we are hoping now is for a nice soft landing in the next two to three years.
However, in the area of transport, our Transport Minister has on hand a much bigger and tougher problem to solve. For example, just in the area of car ownership, how can the Government fulfill the aspiration for more Singaporeans to own a car? Is this possible?
With our land constraints, it is inevitable that the growth of vehicle population on our island will one day come to zero. We are building new roads and expressways, and we are widening existing ones as well. But there is a limit as to how much we could increase road capacity. Even if we have more and wider roads being built which would help improve traffic, the emerging traffic problems on the ground now are actually bottlenecks and congestions at road junctions and slip roads, made worse by the higher housing density.
The much greater convenience and comfort of owning a car coupled with rising incomes and easy car financing have pushed up COE to historically high levels. But no matter how we tweak the COE system, we cannot run away from the fact that the demands for COEs are higher than the available supply.
The real and sustainable way to manage demand of car ownerships is really to offer a compelling alternative to owning a car. And it has to be public transport in our circumstances. Taking public transport must make sense to commuters in terms of convenience, reliability, value for money and comfort. Unfortunately, our public transport system at this point in time is still some way from the desired state.
Long waiting times, long travelling times and crowded buses and trains are a daily norm. Chaotic scenes at major bus stops and at MRT and LRT stations during the morning and evening peaks are not helping to entice more to take public transport. Often, commuters need to make multiple transfers to reach their destination and at each transfer you have to again endure the waiting time and crowdedness; not to mention contenting with the elements of weather.
To make matters worse, there are clearly many parts of our island that are under provided and underserved by public transport, especially in the HDB towns that have seen sharp increases in the population. We are building
Page: 30
housing at a much faster rate than we improve public transport. This has worsened congestions and crowdedness. My colleagues at my workplace told me that commuting to and fro from work is probably the most unpleasant thing they have to do every day.
While MRT lines will take a much longer time to build, we must do more to speed up the provision of bus services. Hence, I call on the Government to urgently act on some of the following measures I will suggest.
Firstly, significantly speed up the implementation of the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP) including engaging private operators to do the job. I applaud the Government for coming up with the $1.1 billion BSEP. It is a decisive and necessary intervention to ramp up bus capacity. Left to the two public transport operators, the capacity build-up would not be fast enough.
In fact, many Members would agree with me that it has a trying experience working with the Public Transport Operator (PTO) on the ground. Each of the requests submitted to these companies to improve bus services would often end up in a long-drawn discussion. And often, the final get-out answer from the PTO is that they have no drivers to increase the bus services.
I hope that MOT would move away from the two PTOs model and start using more of the private operators to help expand the bus capacity, especially under the BSEP. The privately run bus operators are very entrepreneurial and resourceful as evidenced by the way they scale up their bus fleet in 2010 when they provided the island-wide free shuttle bus service to Resort World Singapore. If the two PTOs are incapable of increasing the bus capacity fast enough, we should not waste time on them and quickly look to other operators to do the job.
Secondly, we need to manage the peak demand and further incentivise the non-peak hour travel. There is this inherent inefficiency in public transport where you design capacity to meet peak window demand. And at the non-peak window, capacity will be under-utilised and hence the overall operating costs would go up.
One of the logical solutions is to encourage employers to adopt flexi-work hours or to start and end work at non-peak windows. I am hearing that a few companies are adopting such practices but it is still a small number. Perhaps the Government and Statutory Boards could lead the way in this area, some of the learning institutions and some part of the Civil Service could take the lead
Page: 31
and experiment with such flexi timings.
The Finance Minister mentioned in the Budget Statement that more measures will be introduced to reduce crowding, including significantly enhanced incentives for commuters who travel during the \"shoulder\" period before and after the morning peak. If the incentives are good enough and can bite, it would certainly make taking public transport more comfortable and less crowded and more appealing. Hence, I join the call by Dr Janil Puthucheary to seriously consider having free or very low fares during the non-peak window in the morning and evening. After hearing Dr Janil's speech yesterday, I did a little research and found out that indeed in Melbourne's Metro, the city metropolitan train operator, do offer weekday free fares for early birds travel before 7 am in their city zones. We should study the Melbourne's experience. Even a shift of say, a 10% of commuters from peak to non-peak, would make a great deal of difference and ease crowdedness.
However, I would want to caution that even as we give free fares for the non-peak window, it should not come at the expense of the other groups of commuters, or cross-subsidise the other groups of commuters. It should be funded from other revenue sources such as the collections from COE, car taxes and the ERPs. So, I await in anticipation the good news from the Transport Minister in the coming Transport Ministry COS.
Thirdly, I want to call on the Government to freeze any public transport fare increase until we see significant improvements in service level and enhancements. Operating costs may well have gone up for the PTOs but that is just justifying it from the company's perspective.
From the public and commuter standpoint, LTA and PTOs have not delivered on its duty to provide reliable and convenient public transport. Commuters feel let down and are disappointed by the current under provision of services and the series of disruptions in trains, LRTs and the buses. LTA and the PTOs have to restore public confidence before we can even talk about fare increase.
Mdm Speaker, I move on now to talk about job competition from EPs in the PME space. Like Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Patrick Tay, I too want to raise the concerns on unfair employment practices where Singaporeans are not getting their fair opportunities.
Page: 32
I noted the Finance Minister's careful choice of words in the Budget Statement when he talked about the tightening of EPs and the strengthening of the Singaporean Core in the PME space. Yes, our EP policy must ensure that firms in Singapore can continue to recruit the best talents – both locals and foreigners – so that companies here can compete in the global markets. But at the same time, we must ensure that Singaporeans have a fair chance to the available job opportunities.
However, there are clearly still a number of firms that had visibly hire a large proportion of foreigners particularly in the managerial level. You cannot help but think whether it is really that difficult to find Singaporeans to fill those managerial positions. These include job roles like HR, finance, compliance, auditing and general administration. Or is it a case where some of the employers or hirers may already have pre-determined mindsets that foreigners with some international experience can do a better job? More engagements with such employers are necessary so that Singaporeans are given a fair chance.
Hence, I agree with the colleagues in this House that some form of market sensing practices when companies apply for EPs is necessary. While it may not always lead to a Singaporean hire, at least it will make the employers more conscious in their hiring process and give our local PMEs a chance.
One sector that demonstrates the leap of faith in Singaporean talents is in the Singapore Real Estates Investment Trust (S-REITs) scene. In the last decade, Singapore REITs has grown in leaps and bounds to become Asia's largest REIT market ex-Japan. It is a sophisticated market and requires specialised skills in real estate, finance, management and coming up with competitive value propositions. If we look closely into the entire development and growth of the S-REIT market, we would have noticed that it has been predominantly led and driven by local talents. The CEOs, CIOs and CFOs of the large market cap REITs are mostly our home-bred talents. And with these local senior executives at the helm, they help develop and nurture even more Singaporeans local talents below them to grow the sector and to expand beyond Singapore. Many of the REITs are more than just a Singapore-listed entity. They own and manage properties across the region. The vibrant Singapore market has also attracted more listing of foreign properties and assets in Singapore. This further deepens and broadens our capital markets and creates many more attractive professional job opportunities.
My point is this, our home grown talents can step up to many positions. What they need are more opportunities and the leap of faith. And my message to employers is this: Singaporeans may not be as articulate as those with
Page: 33
international background, or speak with a flair for the language. But do note that our local talents have solid grounding and have the ability to grow and prosper your company as the S-REIT markets have shown. Importantly, these talents are rooted in Singapore and form the Singaporean Core.
Next, I want to speak for a pool of former PMEs who have either retired early or are now under-employed. Many used to work in MNCs or large companies as managers and engineers. They are still in their employable age – probably at the mid-life age of 50s. They are well-educated and technically well-trained and experienced in their area of specialisation. However, either due to structural changes in their industries or companies downsizing or relocating, many left their jobs that they are specialised in. Few were successful in doing a career switch while many felt dejected in not being able to find jobs of similar terms or similar level of seniority or similar scope. I spoke to a number of them in my constituency. I can sense their anguish and frustration in not being able to find suitable jobs in which they think they can do well. Many went for interviews in numerous jobs but were mostly not successful in roles that they think they can perform. They get the sense that companies tend to favour the younger ones or foreigners. They also feel stereotyped as being less energetic or \"over the peak\".
We must help these Singaporeans to adjust and re-enter the workforce by way of skills conversions, customised career counselling and how they could turn their previous experience and expertise into job enhancing advantage. I am glad we have CaliberLink – a one-stop service point for PMEs under the WDA. But I believe that WDA may need to work with the ground agencies like CDCs, e2i and the community self-help groups to reach out to these discouraged PMEs and help them match meaningful jobs for their re-employment.
We may also again need to incentivise companies to hire these middle age former PMEs so as to give them a headstart. During the 2009 financial crisis, I remember there was this programme where MAS and EDB co-pay part of the salaries of our fresh graduate hires for a period of time to encourage companies to hire young graduates during the crisis. I think we could consider a similar approach for former PMEs who have undergone re-skilling programme. We could also look into giving scholarships for re-skilling or professional conversions in industries that are in need of PMEs, and upon graduation help place them in.
Clearly, more resources and support are needed here. Of course, ultimately, it depends on the former PMEs themselves. They need to respond positively to such programmes, and must be prepared to change their expectations and
Page: 34
attitudes, to embark on a new career journey. If we can gain enough traction, this could help increase labour force participation rate, reduce demand for and dependence on foreign PMEs.
Madam, before I end, I thought it could be helpful if I can share my personal experience on the NTUC Foodfare after hearing what Mr Png Eng Huat has mentioned yesterday. I am not sure if Mr Png has been to NTUC Foodfare, but he would know that NTUC Foodfare is open to members of the public – whether you are a member or not – at affordable prices. Of course, if you are a member, there are some discounts. And, if you are a senior and on public assistance scheme, you will also get some discounts. But members of the public do get affordable prices.
I know this because we do have a NTUC Foodfare at my workplace at Marina Bay Financial Centre (MBFC). Despite the high rentals at that area – I think that is one of the premium office locations – NTUC Foodfare does charge cheaper and provide affordable foods. For example, a cup of coffee costs $0.90. I am not sure whether you will find another public eating place at Marina Bay – air-con ambience – for a coffee at $0.90. So, I thought I should keep Mr Png informed about this. More importantly, it is to do justice to the good work done by NTUC Foodfare, which has kept food prices at an affordable level at MBFC and benefiting thousands of office workers there.
Finally, Madam, there are many things I like about this Budget, most of which were already mentioned by Members here, and I shall not repeat them. I just want to touch on one point that I feel very encouraged about in this Budget. Many ideas and suggestions raised by the PAP Members of Parliament were taken in or being studied. It could be quite a long list to cite. But we know many of the issues are what PAP Members have championed, and in this Budget, we have seen some of them bear fruits. I am glad that we are not in the similar situation or predicament, like what is happening in US now, where their legislature and executive have locked horns, fighting over spending cuts and raising taxes. Even as we speak, they are now faced with this self-inflicted situation where a series of heap hazards and economically destructive spending cuts – known as the sequester – would take effect. All these happened because of the ideological difference between the major political parties and their inability to work together.
From the tone, I garner from the speeches from both sides of the House yesterday, I am heartened that we are in unity for a better Singapore – striving for quality growth and an inclusive society. Madam, with that, I support the
Page: 35
Budget.
Ms Tan Su Shan (Nominated Member): Madam, 30 years ago, this country was poor. But we were united in purpose, we were driven, we were happy. Now, we are a rich country, but we are divided, we are unsatisfied, we are unhappy.
Mdm Speaker, I think a lot of our present issues have been caused by immigration, inflation, and inequality. Hence, I have decided to focus my speech on these three \"I\"s, and I think that some of our issues can be resolved by more Innovation, Integration and Internationalisation – another set of three \"I\"s.
It has often been said that Government policies over the last decade have been good for Singapore, but not so good for Singaporeans. Indeed, the Gallup Poll recently ranked Singapore as the unhappiest and the eighth most pessimistic in the world. We were actually behind Cambodia. Yet, we have a triple-A rating and according to the World Bank, we are the world's easiest place to do business.
So, let us begin by examining immigration and how it has impacted us, particularly its relationship with our income inequality and inflation. Let us talk about immigration.
Our forefathers built a strong foundation for Singapore: we are hence known as a country with transparency, credibility, integrity, policy stability and racial harmony. Perhaps we underestimated the power of these strong fundamentals to attract people to our city.
Perhaps we \"underpriced\" ourselves to potential immigrants. We grew our population by over a million in the last 10 years without a White Paper. There were Singaporeans who benefited from this trend. The property, financial, healthcare, legal and hospitality industries benefited from this increased demand and employment rates – and incomes for some – stayed high.
But we also became congested, crowded and indignant with this new invasion of our limited space. This influx caused inflation and put pressure on our transport, housing and medical systems. Hence, the Government reacted and our national policies took a U-turn. The granting of PRs and new citizenships dropped sharply in the last two years. Foreign worker levies are
Page: 36
going up, taxes on foreigners buying property has also gone up. All these points towards a policy shift the other way. It is natural for us not to want to see an erosion of the Singapore Core. But whilst we debate about what it means to be a Singaporean, we need to be mindful that the international community is watching. When the BBC and boards of international companies start asking if Singapore is becoming xenophobic, we need to ask why.
So, whilst it may be that we were too open on the last 10 years, are we now going \"cold turkey\"? I suggest that an important consideration for the Budget is whether we are reaping the economies of scale of an enlarged population as we go forward, or if we need to beware of diseconomies of scale. Have issues around congestion, competition, transport and housing outweighed the economic benefits? So, the \"I\" in immigration hides another two \"I\"s, which are integration and infrastructure. We need to work on the underlying issues rather than just attack the symptom. An undue focus on the symptom risks the xenophobic tag and this is dangerous for Singapore.
Whilst I agree with policies in the Budget to help the lower paid Singaporeans, I would caution against the continued measures to excessively curb the flow of talents. After all, we should be proud of our Singapore brand and our international reputation as a good place to live and work, and we should accept that as long as we keep this reputation, there will always be people who wish to join us. Hence, whilst it is healthy to slow down to rebuild, and to be selective in our immigration process, we need to tell the world that Singaporeans are not afraid to welcome good talent who can take us to the next stage of growth.
Let us talk about inflation. The Government predicts inflation of 3.5% to 4.5% this year. This is high considering we are comparing with an already high base in 2012.
High inflation is a double-edged sword. It raises asset prices which creates wealth for many. But it also increases the costs of doing business, costs of living, and it is also regressive. It erodes the incomes of the masses, who by and large, do not gain from asset inflation. Whilst the Budget tries to ease price pressures in the property and car markets, these price pressures caused by tighter worker policies could outweigh any correction in housing or COE prices. Many economists believe that the wage spiral we have created will continue to cause long-term structural inflation. This will continue to erode income growth.
Page: 37
As an open economy, we are also subject to global monetary policies. Currently, the MAS has kept its monetary policy tight through a stronger SGD bias, but other countries in the region, like Japan, have a loose monetary policy that is now leading to a currency devaluation war. As global interest rates remain low, and the Sing dollar remains strong, this cash may find its way into our system, causing yet more asset inflation.
Whilst the tax measures have dampened residential housing, this liquidity could move into industrial and commercial buildings. This again puts more pressures on office and commercial rentals, causing yet more cost-push inflation.
At this juncture, it may be time to rethink our monetary policy approach. Traditionally, we have used a strong exchange rate to fight off imported goods inflation. However, it is instructive that neither the US, nor Japan, nor Europe, in fact, none of our major trading partners, are suffering from inflation. Surely, we cannot be importing inflation from them on the trade account. Our inflation is driven by asset price increases from the capital account and this needs a different set of policy tools. Whilst the macro prudential tweaking is a targeted approach, it creates too much policy uncertainty which is risky to our image of consistency.
I now come to the third \"I\" of inequality. This is a global phenomenon and will be the biggest issue facing the world in the coming decade. Increasing Gini coefficients are being exacerbated by a change in the nature of work because of automation. A high income gap could be potentially destabilising for our society. But we are better placed to address this than almost any other country. Why? First, we have husbanded our resources for just such a time; second, we have more reserves and surpluses that can be put to work; and third, we are more open and international, allowing us to benefit from global opportunities.
We have saved for a rainy day. This is the rainy day, because how we handle the transition of the next 10 years will make or break us. Doing a little more with our surpluses to achieve a re-distributive agenda is not a bad thing. A progressive tax rate is appropriate, as are policies that encourage the private sector to participate in this effort. However, the main engine must be the Government through targeted programmes for health, transport and housing. The Budget addresses these, but more is needed with better packaging. Hence, the Budget's progressive wage tax is timely, as is the Wage Credit Scheme to help businesses raise wages for Singaporean workers, and I applaud the
Page: 38
enhancement of the Workfare Income Supplement especially for older workers.
Whilst much of our lowest paid work is in the cleaning and security industries, I believe more can be done to encourage innovation and productivity growth in these two sectors. I think the users of these cleaning and security services may need to be persuaded to reward contracts based not just on cost or number of workers used, but also be receptive to the application of new technologies.
The Budget measures to improve social mobility, whether in areas like childhood education or healthcare, are correct. However, whilst we continue to review our healthcare financing, whether it is to top up MediFund, ElderCare or MediSave, let us remember to keep it simple for our elderly or needy patients.
Finally, as a woman, I believe more can be done to encourage Singaporean women back into the workforce. There are plenty of well-educated women out there who would like to work on flexi time but cannot find the right jobs. SMEs who could hire these women do not seem to have the right SOPs in place to offer such flexi time. Perhaps, Workfare would be extended to cover flexi workers? This would boost household incomes, replace some of the foreigners that our businesses have grown to rely on.
Whilst writing about the intertwining of these three \"I\"s, I contemplated the three \"I\"s that we do not want to be, and that is insular, irrelevant and inward-looking. But if we embark on a U-turn of our pro-business policies, we have every chance of becoming so one day. Instead, why not we focus on the three \"I\"s that we are and can continue to be, which is innovative, inclusive, and international. Allow me to quickly touch on these three \"I\"s.
Innovation. Silicon Valley success stories like Facebook or Google seem to be born out of a garage or a dormitory. Three success factors seem to be low costs of living and business, enough space to dream and experiment, and ability to accept failure.
With our current high cost environment, we have no choice but to raise productivity. The PIC bonus, \"Future of Manufacturing\" plan and the Budget all suggest the Government is planning to make us a more innovative economy. But innovation cannot be manufactured. It is, by definition, experimental and prone to failure. We are not Silicon Valley. We are a sovereign nation that cannot afford to fail. So, rather than force innovation, why not leverage on our competitive advantages that already exist? Rather than focus on small niches
Page: 39
like animation or satellite technology, why not focus on Big Data, on services, on advanced manufacturing where there is more job creation?
I would focus on Data Analytics as I believe this is a game changer and a high growth area that Singapore is well positioned to take a lead in. To do so, allow me to suggest three things. Firstly, our education system needs to groom more talent as Data Scientists and Modellers. Secondly, the PIC scheme should be enlarged to support the building and use of new business models that use big data; for example, using new credit scoring companies versus old credit bureaus. Thirdly, the PACT scheme or the collaborative industry projects should encourage alliances between stakeholders to tackle the various problems faced by Singaporeans in the private and public sector. Big data can be a big opportunity for Singapore. We need to create a public, private partnership for this, and a national registry. We are small enough to achieve this and we will have a lot of productivity benefits.
Inclusiveness. Let us talk about the \"I\" in inclusiveness. The bedrock of our culture is inclusiveness. We are a multi-racial population; our forefathers were all immigrants at some point. To succeed in innovation and productivity, we need to attract younger talents to improve our vibrancy and ecosystem. An SBF report cites studies from high income OECD countries that total factor productivity is much higher in a population with a median age of 35 and below. With our ageing population, if we wish to compete as a knowledge-based economy, and attract R&D, we need to keep our young talent and keep our doors open.
International. Keeping Singapore international is crucial for us. At the end of the day, we are 700 sq km with no natural resources. Why are we relevant to the world? We have prospered by placing ourselves squarely in the middle of global and regional trade and capital flows. Let us not jeopardise this. It is easy to say we should let firms move out, including SMEs. But this is a risky slope. There are many more 700 sq km plots of land happy to challenge our position.
Singapore has typically been seen as a safe and predictable base for companies to create a gateway for Asia. But if our policies start chopping and changing with many U-turns, we will lose that transparency and predictability that make us attractive. And with a home market that is one of the smallest in Asia, we have every chance of becoming irrelevant on the international arena one day. So, let us stay international!
Page: 40
Mdm Speaker, a good democracy is not about populist policies. A good democracy is about good leadership. Hence, whilst we debate the three \"I\"s of immigration, inflation and inequality, let us also contemplate the three \"I\"s that we might aspire to be − inclusive, international and innovative. A Singapore that we can be and continue to be proud of! Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Ms Lee Li Lian (Punggol East): Mdm Speaker, this year's Budget's efforts to ensure stronger support for the lower income groups and the elderly is a good step in the right direction towards creating a more inclusive society which looks into the needs of the less fortunate and less abled amongst us.
Today, families with dependants, those with young children, or those supporting disabled or elderly relatives face many challenges that need to be addressed. With today's cost of living, it is a necessity for both parents to work in order to support the family. At the same time, these families require someone to be able to be at home, caring for dependants.
Caregiving is a role that is often understated and goes unnoticed in society. Yet, it is a job that requires a huge amount of dedication and sacrifice, particularly when it comes to looking after the elderly and disabled. Sadly, despite being important pillars of strength for the family and playing a valuable role in society, they do not get sufficient support despite the many personal sacrifices and reduced income. That itself can take a toll on the family.
Another struggle facing families today is that of having to balance long working hours with numerous family responsibilities. Parents have many responsibilities apart from work to contend with. Looking after their children and being there during their most formative years, caring for elderly parents and also having some much needed personal time. Unable to balance these responsibilities, parents have to turn to paid help which brings about additional costs. At present, parents are squeezed by both high costs of living which require them to both work and work long working hours. Parents often feel caught between stepping back from work and diminishing their career prospects or neglecting their families whilst struggling in the rat race.
The lack of support for families when it comes to caregiving and work-life balance continue to put tremendous stress on the family. In order to provide more sustainable and holistic support to families who have dependants, I believe that the Budget must better support caregivers who in turn are pillars
Page: 41
of support for the family and institutionalise better work-life balance.
In addition to parents of young children who are also considered caregivers, there are over 200,000 caregivers looking after children with special needs, the disabled seniors as well as the sickly in 2004. While there are currently no updated statistics available today, these numbers are projected to increase along with changing ageing demographics.
Caregiving is a full-time job and can be both emotionally and physically draining. On average, caregivers provide close to seven hours of care per day. Just as caregivers are a pillar of support for their dependants, they too need support, relief and personal time to pursue their own interests and careers. These caregivers are often family members. Many of them stay at home or work part time because they are unable to afford hired help and have an obligation to care for their young children, ageing parents or disabled family member. We must look at more ways to ease the immense burden on caregivers and recognise their integral role within the family and in society as well. We must remember that the burden on the caregiver is inevitably a burden on the family. I would like to identify several ways to better distribute the role of caregiving to build stronger and sustainable families.
Firstly, do consider waiving foreign worker levy for certain groups of families. I welcome the Budget's initiative to reduce the foreign domestic worker levy from $170 to $120. This will ease cost for many families in Singapore who currently hire domestic helpers. However, especially for families with young children and those who are looking after the disabled or the elderly, having domestic help is a necessity. For such families, it is not a matter of luxury but of pure need and we should consider waiving the levy for them.
During my house visits in Punggol East, I have seen many wheelchair-bound elderly folks at home being looked after by domestic helpers while their sons and daughters are at work. These helpers also help to pick up the children from school and tend to them as well. Many families have shared with me how despite the fact that there are hired domestic helpers to cope with the many responsibilities of running a family while both parents are working, they still struggle with the cost. Families today are saddled with so many expenses – housing, transport, education, childcare and medical. Many need helpers but simply could not afford it. Their only option then is for the family member, typically the woman, to quit her job to become a caregiver.
Page: 42
According to a report in 2011, only 14% of caregivers currently receive support from domestic helpers. More affordable access to foreign domestic workers means that more caregivers can get assistance and some respite from their responsibilities. This is also in the best interest of caregiver dependants as it reduces the risk of caregivers being burnt out.
Caregivers, with assistance from domestic helpers, can also consider remaining employed either on a part-time or full-time basis. It is reported that 43% of women who are economically inactive have cited caregiving and family responsibilities as reasons. Greater access to assistance could have a portion of these women return to work. This benefits not just the caregiver who may want to seek personal fulfilment through work, it will also benefit his or her dependants as well as the economy.
Next, better access to training for caregivers. It is not easy to be a caregiver for a disabled, those with special needs, or the elderly. Caregivers require specific skills and knowledge to help the caregiver feel empowered and be equipped to provide support to his or her dependants. The Caregivers Training Grant, which is the only support scheme available to caregivers, currently offers an annual training grant of $200 per year to attend training programmes that CEL has pre-approved. However, caregiver courses can range from $50 to $1,300 for disabled training. Elderly caregiver training courses range from $10 to $400. Subsidy should be accorded in proportion to the cost of the course rather than the standard $200 grant which may often not be sufficient to help a family cover the costs, given that they also have to cope with medical bills and special arrangements to accommodate a sick child or elderly person at home.
Lastly, promote work-life balance and introduce flexi-work arrangements. Singaporean workers have been known to work the longest hours. A survey in 2012, found that the Singaporean average working hours amount to 46 hours a week. Work-life balance is important not just for couples considering having children or more children, but also those who currently have children, or who also support disabled family members or elderly parents.
They, too, need to work, not just for income but for self fulfilment. Flexible work means that the responsibility of care is not placed unduly on one member of the family. It can be shared amongst working family members. There continues to be a perceived stigma about working mothers and caregivers, as well as concerns among employees that asking for flexible work may be seen as a negative sign by their bosses, who might lose confidence in whether they
Page: 43
would be able to perform in their jobs.
We need to support a shift in mindsets which can be brought about if the Government takes meaningful steps to institutionalise better flexible work practices. Despite Singaporeans working long hours, Singapore's productivity is low. It is a problem today. At the same time, companies in Singapore are among the slowest in the world to implement flexible work practices. Perhaps, it is time to reconsider the long-held assumption that the longer one works, the more productive he or she would be. There is plenty of research to show this over the years. And it is also telling that some of the most successful and sought-after companies today to work in, like Google, Facebook and Hitachi, for example, are proud advocates of flexible work practices for their employees. Many studies, including the most recent one conducted by Stanford University and the University of Beijing, showed that availability of flexible work arrangements, such as telecommuting and working from home, resulted in higher job satisfaction and greater productivity, as well as efficiency.
Businesses today should not see flexi-work arrangements as an unwelcome cost but an investment in its own future in a changing society. Being able to adapt to a changing environment will ensure that businesses are more sustainable and able to adapt to changes, enhances workplace productivity, creates better gender equality and helps companies retain talent. This was affirmed by a recent report released in 2012 by the Diversity Council of Australia which also continued to encourage businesses to play an active and positive role in the community.
Our top priority, given the declining fertility rates and the consequences that bring to the population, should be to ensure that Singapore becomes more conducive for raising families. I would like to reiterate my call for an independent commission to look into work-life balance practices for equal opportunities for women and a more family-friendly Singapore. Partners and membership should extend to Government, key business leaders, employers, business associations, civil society groups and regular Singaporeans in order to take an integrated approach to work-life balance solutions. The setting up of this commission will signal a commitment to look into the complex issues of work-life balance, taking into consideration the needs of not just businesses but the larger society. The objective of this commission would be to lead public discussions on family-friendly work practices, develop research and promote global best practices to enhance work-life balance, and to develop pro-family business practices and resources to help businesses shift towards a more pro-family environment. It is simply because the issues are complex that we should dedicate sufficient time and resources to look into solutions in-depth for the
Page: 44
long term and not go for the one-size-fits-all approach.
Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, raising a family in Singapore has become increasingly tough. The number one concern of families is how to manage the high cost of living. The accumulated costs are immense, from financing a house, buying a car to transporting young children, paying for childcare, supporting the medical expenses and a host of other bills. What more for families who are also taking care of disabled or elderly relatives?
Today, we want to encourage younger Singaporeans to realise the joys of family and to settle down and start families of their own. Yet, what these young Singaporeans see today are high expenses and parents being stretched by unlimited demands at home as well as at the workplace. When the balance is tilted too far, raising a family can be seen as an opportunity cost rather than a joy.
Mdm Speaker, families are the cornerstones of our society. All the more we should make stronger efforts to relieve some of the burdens they face in both the short and long term, and commit to placing families at the centre of all our policy considerations.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mdm Speaker, the paradox of trust: trust is something entirely abstract, yet the absence of which is painfully palpable. Trust determines the course we take in the future, yet it is so utterly anchored in the present. Trust is unquantifiable, yet reflected in each and every vote cast at elections.
The recent robust debate on the White Paper on Population put in bold, belief in the importance of trust in politics. The Managing Editor of The Straits Times, Mr Han Fook Kwang, highlighted this as well in his opinion piece in The Straits Times on 10 February 2013 entitled, \"Government needs to regain people's trust\".
The planning norm of 6.9 million was much criticised. To me, this is a matter of trust. If public transport does not work well and buses and trains are crowded, when the supply of HDB flats does not keep up with demand and the cost of living rises steeply when the population is at its current 5.3 million, then people will object to a lower norm of even 6.3 million, let alone a norm of 6.9
Page: 45
million.
However, when at a population of 5.3 million, the trains run, the buses are not crowded, HDB flats are built quickly enough and inflation is low, then people will give us the benefit of doubt and support us even when the population planning norm is higher than 6.9 million. Therefore, it is heartening to hear our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance reiterate during his Budget Speech that we will fix the problems we have on hand. He has our trust in this matter.
Mdm Speaker, we are all in the business of trust. Trust is ultimately based on present and past experiences of what the Government has delivered. To the public, the Government includes not just politicians, but also civil servants and even boards and management of privatised companies offering public services, such as those in healthcare and transport. In the coffeeshops and hawker centres, the Hokkien term \"zenghu\" means much more than what bureaucrats and politicians think of what constitutes \"government\".
Trust is based on experience and, in turn, experience has two elements. Firstly, there is the aspect of performance that we are all familiar with – I trust you because you have worked and delivered in the past. Secondly, there is the element of expectation. This is something that we have not discussed much about recently.
Our Government has tried very hard in the past to enunciate what it will deliver for the people. Healthcare will remain affordable, schools will give good education, people will have jobs and so on. The recently announced White Paper and Land Paper are two such examples. The Annual Budget Debates are also examples of these efforts to manage and calibrate expectations.
I would like to urge our Government to go one step further. In the management of expectations, we need to tell the people the bad news. This is not pleasant, but it is necessary. It requires courage, and fans of the BBC comedy \"Yes Minister\" will remember that Sir Humphrey described \"courage\" as a dirty word in politics.
So, what are some of the bad news that we are talking about?
One, we will increase the number of places in Universities and Polytechnics and 60% of Singaporeans will become PMETs, but some graduates will never stay in private housing or own a car. This is because 85% of housing are HDB
Page: 46
flats and only one third of families have a car presently and these numbers will not change drastically.
This country needs to continue to be run as a meritocracy. There is no other feasible alternative. The best will get more. One may rightly question the norms of meritocracy, as in what makes a person more meritorious? One may even ask why are there so many brand-name schools in the more affluent areas in Singapore and not in the new HDB estates. And in the harsh reality of meritocracy, we also expect the meritorious to do what is necessary for meritocracy to remain relevant – they must contribute more than others to the betterment of the society and maximise welfare for everyone living and working in Singapore. Meritocracy cannot be \"take and take\" by the best and the ablest without any obligation to serve and contribute.
Next, even if we increase our TFR to 2.1 in 2013 suddenly, we will need to import labour to care for the elderly over the next 20 years. The babies born now or in the near future will not be ready to look after the 900,000 Baby Boomers retiring over the next 20 years. We are not even talking about money here, but just simply the number of hands needed to care for the number of elderly we will have in 10 to 30 years' time.
Next, our public hospitals will continue to give good care that is accessible and affordable to all. But we will have to continue to have waiting times, and the latest high-tech expensive care options will not be available to all. Ultimately, healthcare is a trade-off between affordability, accessibility and quality. Usually, quality in terms of expensive care is of a lower priority, although we will not compromise patient safety. This is true for most developed countries in the world.
Next, we will make our public transport reliable again and increase capacity. But COEs may never go back to the days of old again. There are limits to our car population, just as there are limits to our human population.
Next, we will limit the influx of foreign labour into Singapore, but we cannot shield our workers from competition. The reality is that our workers will still be competing day and night, 24/7 with workers in China, India or Indonesia.
Mdm Speaker, I can go on with many more examples of such harsh realities that Singapore is facing or must face but I will stop here. The currency of politics is trust. While we must strive to improve on our performance, we also need to
Page: 47
get down to the difficult business of managing expectations.
Expectation is a spectrum. Most politicians only talk about the higher end of the spectrum – the lofty things that are nice to hear. But as responsible politicians governing Singapore, we will have to be honest and we will have to communicate the bad news, the harsh realities that each and every Singaporean has to face sooner or later.
Sometimes, in order to do the right thing, we also need to be foolish. Confucius said, \"明知不可为而为之\" which, loosely translated, means \"We have to attempt to do this even though we clearly understand it cannot be done\". This may sound foolish today, but I think it is the right thing to do.
Managing expectations is a most difficult thing, but I think Singaporeans need to know the limits and realities they are facing or will face. And even if we think the people will refuse to listen or accept the bad news, in the spirit of Confucius, I hope this is an endeavour that this House will undertake as responsible leaders of this country. Singaporeans deserve no less.
In conclusion, Confucius also said, \"五十知天命\" which translated means, at 50, one knows one's purpose in life. I turn 50 this year, and Singapore is fast approaching 50 as a nation. We are now at the crossroads and Singaporeans are questioning what is the Singapore Core and where is our country heading. I urge our Government to listen to the people, to labour for the people and to lead the people. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I continue to believe in the Labour Movement's version of \"welfare\", that is, the best \"welfare'' for Singaporeans is to ensure full employment. This boils down to ensuring a healthy and growing economy with good job opportunities, so Singaporeans can lead a better life. In my opinion, this year's Budget titled \"A Better Singapore\", is, in fact, trying to achieve economic and manpower growth, so that all will have job opportunities and better jobs, better lives, then we can have a better home.
Page: 48
As a country with few resources, we have taken an \"open\" approach to our economy. In fact, Singapore is ranked as the world's second most open economy in the 2013 Index of Economic Freedom. We have not only grown our presence as a hub for international trade, but also attracted many businesses to establish their bases here, creating more job opportunities. This has allowed us to maintain a low unemployment rate, with abundant value-added job opportunities. We should continue in this direction, as this is critical to building a better Singapore.
My key message to all Singaporean employers is to value every worker – and treat all employees with the dignity and fairness they deserve.
Moving forward, we have to ensure that as we calibrate our workforce numbers, we are fair to all workers – both protecting the interests of our Singapore Core and ensuring that foreign workers are treated with rights and dignity that they are entitled to.
At the Migrant Workers Centre, we have endeavoured to not only provide humanitarian assistance, but also proactively address potential conflicts, engaging migrant workers in educational outreach efforts and facilitated integration activities.
These moves set a good foundation for all employers. Valuing all workers – local and foreign – also builds a conducive organisational culture and a fair and equitable work environment that supports cross-cultural teamwork, maintains and builds trust, loyalty, productivity and high morale. It is a win-win move for all organisations to take the \"people developer\" mindset to attract, cultivate and retain talent among all its workers.
In valuing every worker, we should go for quality and not quantity. It is imperative that employers value talent and value-added skills. I would like to emphasise that one must not look at quantity, but quality. In 2010, the Economic Strategy Committee had already suggested progressively reining in the growth of foreign worker numbers. Now that measures to tighten foreign worker inflow have been implemented, we can see its immediate effect. Many are worried they may not be able to find enough workers to fill job positions. I understand these worries.
However, we must also look at ways to ensure the sustainability of our future workforce. More does not necessarily mean better. We must reduce reliance on foreign workers. In this way, we can develop in a sustainable way,
Page: 49
and attract high-quality workers to fill job vacancies.
Skilling-up the workforce with the Progressive Wage Model is the key way forward. All companies, no matter big or small, should make use of the Government's growth package to come up with a comprehensive plan to boost productivity, improve workers' welfare, particularly in terms of increasing wages of the low-wage workers. This is something that can only be achieved with increased competitiveness and productivity growth.
As the social partner within the tripartite arrangement, the Government, being the largest employer, should do more. At the same time, they should ensure that employers understand how they can benefit from the various growth packages, and cut down on red tape. At the same time, the Government should do more to help employers increase productivity and make use of the Wage Credit Scheme to speed up the adoption of the Progressive Wage Model initiated by the Labour Movement, NTUC.
Many employers are concerned about what will happen after the three-year implementation period for WCS runs out. I want to tell everyone that NTUC has already started collaborating with a few companies a few years ago and has seen many success stories. In the past few years, the Customer-centric Initiative by NTUC, SPRING Singapore and Workforce Development Agency has resulted in many companies re-designing their workflow, improving the companies' performance, as well as attracting and retaining more staff, getting more Singaporeans to join the service industry. Recently, the Government lowered the Dependency Ratio Ceiling for the services sector. A few companies have reacted positively by seizing the opportunity and have achieved stable growth. After coming on board the scheme, productivity went up by 23% on average and workers' salaries increased by 16% in some companies.
At Han's Group of Companies, which runs F&B outlets, the company made use of the Government's growth package, and overall productivity doubled. The company has also seen a 58.9% increase in revenue and gave staff a bonus amounting to a generous 15% of their net profits. Han's has gone a step further. For one, it gives $200 to any staff that refers a new employee that stays on for more than three months. In addition, Han's only employs Singaporeans for its office-based jobs. If an employee has done well and is more productive, achieving higher sales figures for the outlet, the employee will receive a bonus equivalent to 2% of his/her quarterly salary. Since March last year, the company has increased wages of their workers twice and has given a pay increase of $200
Page: 50
to employees from its outlets in Singapore.
Han's also tapped on the Government's assistance schemes to bring in advanced equipment and technology, as well as automation systems, in the form of automatic roasters and tablet computers that help customers order while still waiting in line. These measures have boosted sales across its 24 outlets within a year.
Companies that respond positively have all moved a big step forward. They are committed to redeveloping their manpower resources and redesigning work flow, and have seen an increase in their returns while boosting productivity. These companies deserve to be rewarded.
I urge MOM to consider granting short-term DRC flexibility to these companies that have embarked on schemes with the NTUC, the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i), SPRING and WDA, to assist these companies in ensuring their plans are effectively executed.
Mdm Speaker, with a high employment rate and a tight labour market, wages will naturally increase. In order to cope with the ever increasing wage costs, companies must learn from the examples I mentioned above, by tapping on Government schemes to invest in productivity development or reduce reliance on foreign manpower, or move up the value chain. The Wage Credit Scheme is a form of transitional support for businesses before their investments take off. The WCS can serve as a catalyst; it is like the medical ingredient added to enhance the efficacy of medicine. If companies, big or small, tap on the suite of Government productivity schemes, together with the WCS, to increase productivity and restructure, and allow employees to enjoy wage increases, the WCS will definitely be of help. It will allow employees to enjoy the fruits of labour, while ensuring that companies can achieve sustainable growth, and not worry about what will happen in three years' time.
Mdm Speaker, to ensure that Singaporeans have a better life, the Progressive Wage System initiated by the tripartite partners is the way to go. In July and September 2010, NTUC Hospitality and Consumer Business Cluster (HCBC) launched the Core Executive Development Programme in the hotel and F&B sector, and retail sector respectively.
Thus far, the HCBC has worked with seven hotels to create more high value-added jobs with higher wages, optimising their manpower use. Such positions usually command a 30% to 50% premium in salary over a traditional single skill-
Page: 51
set job. For example, one hotel created a new position called Hotel Operations Specialist Team (HOST), which is different from other single skill-set positions, with starting pay increasing from $1,300 to $1,800.
In our pilot phase, a total of 95 vacancies have been created. Other hotels should follow suit. These positions help train workers in more than one skill set, which not only enhances the worker's employability but also allows the hotel to improve productivity. Of course, this has also enhanced the company's competitiveness, and helped the hotel cope with the shortage of manpower.
Mdm Speaker, these schemes not only develop our blue-collar workers. We have also launched these schemes for white-collar PMEs. We launched the Executive Development Programme and Core Executive Programme, which help companies hire graduates from local Polytechnics and Universities. Currently, eight hotels are participating in the initial stage, creating 19 management positions. In the F&B and retail sector, 174 PME positions have been created for graduates from local Polytechnics and Universities.
All these examples show that no matter the size of the company, they can all tap on the Government's productivity schemes and redesign their workflow to strengthen their operations, while increasing job opportunities for workers. With a transitional scheme like WCS and a commitment to gain sharing, SMEs will be able to enjoy a smooth transition during the restructuring process, and achieve sustainable growth. Then, they will have no problems sustaining the wage increases three years later.
Yesterday, I read a quote from a famous entrepreneur. He said, \"Change is the only constant.\" In the midst of change, one should not be pessimistic, because your greatest enemy is not the change in environment, but your self-confidence. If you are unable to stand firmly, nobody can help you. The Government has tried to give companies a boost through various measures and incentive schemes, so companies should also give themselves a boost and advance towards a better tomorrow.
(In English): Madam, in English. Mdm Speaker, another aspect of valuing all workers and treating all employees with the dignity and fairness they deserve is fairness in recruitment. Employers, as responsible corporate citizens, should abide by values, such as fairness. This is the case in recruitment drives. Employers need to play their part to ensure that the qualifications, training and skills required of local workers are the same as that required of the foreign
Page: 52
workers.
At the end of the day, I believe that we need to secure migrant workers with the right technical skills, as well as the social adaptability to co-exist with our locals, who are their co-workers. This will, in turn, help us focus on productivity and continuous improvement to build a bigger piece of the economic pie for all to share, and, more importantly, to ensure that the benefits of growth in terms of job opportunities and salaries will flow to Singaporeans.
One area that the Government should look into is reviewing the entry-level Employment Pass. We must ensure that employers give fair opportunities to fresh graduates of our local Polytechnics and Universities.
Madam, I am pleased about the recent amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act to increase protection of migrant workers and increased enforcement to punish errant employers. We should now review the Employment Act, too. I renew the call for more legislative protection for all workers, particularly in the area of non-payment of salaries, which looks into areas like enhancing the recording of salaries, such as making payslips mandatory.
We also have to come down strongly on employers who do not pay their workers promptly. I would like to urge MOM to prosecute such employers to set a firm stance that such moves are unacceptable.
Mdm Speaker, besides our moves to create a vibrant and dynamic manpower landscape that provides opportunities and productivity outputs in a fair and just way, we must also look beyond just managing manpower to optimise and sustain it. To this end, we must continue our efforts to build a safer and healthier workplace for all. It is essential that every worker, whatever his or her job is, returns to his or her home safe and sound at the end of every workday.
Now that the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act covers all workplaces, the Government must ensure that this Act will really have teeth and have measures to help every worker say no to risks at work and help every company to be equipped to maintain their WSH capability. I urge MOM to roll out more incentives and training support to unions and companies to achieve their WSH targets and monitor that these are sustainable.
Page: 53
Lastly, I would like to reiterate my call for reviewing and enhancing the portable medical benefits. A flexible and comprehensive portable medical scheme is a good form of security for our workers; in particular, we are all more concerned about medical expenses and also with the drive towards longer employment and the implementation of the Re-employment Act. Currently, the Government only gives tax incentives for employers to contribute additional MediSave for their employees. Mdm Speaker, I hope MOF will seriously consider my call again to review its tax incentive scheme to encourage efforts that enable medical benefits to be made portable in whatever form, and not just only this form, so as to help everyone make the medical benefits for our employees portable.
In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, with the new direction – lower dependency ratios, higher levies, stricter manpower regulations – a new reality is upon us. These moves, while challenging now in the initial stage, will serve to help us to do better, be more productive, innovative, self-reliant and be better skilled. I urge employers to take on the challenges and the Government to support efforts that have been put in by the tripartite partners. Most importantly, we must go for quality and not quantity, value every worker in this transition and transformation process. Madam, I support the Budget.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, my speech today is divided into two parts – the first assesses the Budget's attempts to create a more inclusive Singapore, with the second focus on changes to our car ownership policy as a result of the Budget announcement on the same.
Mdm Speaker, a simple \"control F\" of the Budget speech, and a search for the words \"do more\" reveal seven matches. According to the Budget, the Government will do more for retirees, Singaporeans who need help with their medical expenses, seniors so that they have a sense of economic security and fulfilment in their retirement years, and also for children in the pre-school and Primary school levels.
The Government also wants to do more against rising inequality to tilt the balance in favour of the lower and middle income, and for older Singaporeans, with enhancements in Workfare and CPF. The timing of these changes are significant, too – three years before the next General Elections with enough lead time for the proposals to take effect.
Page: 54
Be that as it may, the Government's efforts to improve social mobility and reduce inequality are necessary steps, especially in view of how the global economy and, more importantly, forces beyond this Government's control, are shaping up. Chiefly among which are inequality and economic insecurity.
For the longest time, the state discourse in Singapore has eschewed any reference to welfare. Similarly, the state has tended to place meritocracy on a pedestal. In fact, the political leadership has tended to frame both issues in the extreme, with welfare representing the bad and meritocracy representing the good.
However, this Budget was noteworthy because meritocracy came with a caveat. The Deputy Prime Minister's Budget speech noted that meritocracy alone will not assure Singaporeans of social mobility and that Government policies seek to level up children that come from poorer and less stable families. This is a significant statement as it appears to premonition a shift in the state discourse.
Equally noteworthy, the Budget speech established that while overall healthcare expenditure will go up, Government policies envisage a reduction in Singaporeans' out-of-pocket share of medical costs, with the Government taking on a larger share. Whatever the reasons for these shifts to the left, they are in line with the long-held belief of the Workers' Party and many Singaporeans that for a country with a per capita income of about US$45,000, the Government can do much more on the social front for Singaporeans.
Mdm Speaker, one subject covered in the Budget that affects many middle-class Singaporeans are changes to the Government's policy on car ownership. The significance of the Budget and associated changes to the Government's car ownership policy led the executive director of a leading car dealership to say, \"In my 28 years in this trade, this is the most serious development I have seen.\" An accounting partner of a Big Four firm was quoted as saying, \"The Minister is riding through Singapore's Sherwood Forest to tax the rich who own high-end properties and drive luxury cars.\"
While I would not take it as far as the accounting partner did – as there is much more room for greater progressivity in our tax system – I am in favour of higher taxes paid by those who drive luxury vehicles. It was telling that as the Minister spoke about the tiered ARF for his Budget speech, an MAS circular about a cap on loan-to-valuation (LTV) ratios also started making its rounds.
Page: 55
The circular established that the new loan quantum for a car with an OMV of less than $20,000 would be 60% of the car price and 50% if the OMV was higher. Significantly, the maximum loan repayment is now only five years, from the 10 years previously.
On one level, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance's Budget speech on tiered Additional Registration Fees (ARF) appeared to continue with the theme of progressive taxation, but the possible effects of the Budget announcement and the MAS circular taken together lead me to conclude the opposite: that the rich will benefit from the latest changes to our car ownership policy as the changes do not address the high disposable income of the rich.
In the context of the Budget statement, it would have been helpful if the Minister had addressed the changes to the ARF with the policy intent of the MAS circular, especially since the two are so inextricably linked. If these changes were implemented to force Singaporeans to use public transport, the system, as it stands, leaves much to be desired, especially during peak hours. I am not sure what the effects of these latest changes to our car ownership policy will be, as there are differing views on the impact of the latest policy changes on COE prices and, as a result, the price of cars. But the effect of the new LTV ratios is likely to be most acutely felt by families with two or more children and those with elderly family members or the disabled who need the mobility provided by a car but are unable to cough up the down-payments since the larger household size necessarily entails a lower disposable income set aside for the higher down-payment required now.
There is also the tangential concern about the inability of larger families to purchase a vehicle which, from a policy perspective, may well indirectly stymie efforts to promote our TFR, since the lack of mobility for family, leisure, travel and support will well factor into a person's decision to have fewer children and prejudice those who already have large families. It would be imperative for the Government to look at possible tweaks to the system if indeed larger families and families that include disabled Singaporeans or elderly parents are genuinely affected, as the effects of the new policy kick in over the next few months.
One specific way could be to raise the LTV ratio for cars back to 70% as it was previously, but only for families with two or more children so as to buttress and incentivise the Government's efforts to raise TFR.
Page: 56
Mdm Speaker, it would be a tragedy if younger Singaporeans included the inability to purchase a car as a reason for wanting to look abroad for greener pastures, in addition to the visceral insecurity of a more crowded Singapore in the future. It may be helpful for the Government to solicit feedback from Singaporeans about our car ownership policy going forward, particularly on the aspirations of owning a car, even if the stated objective of this policy is to discourage Singaporeans from over leveraging.
This may entail a deeper look into the COE system or even larger national considerations, such as the future population size of Singapore, so that the policy fear of a more crowded Singapore does not operate to scuttle the aspirations of Singaporeans to own the car of their dreams, unless of course the Government's intention – be it directly or directly – is to remove the dream of car ownership for middle-class Singaporeans.
On the flip side, I am encouraged by tweaks to the COE policy that give greater business flexibility to SMEs. In January 2013, I asked the Minister for Transport in a Parliamentary Question whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the COE bidding system for goods vehicles and buses to alleviate the costs of doing business for SMEs. While the Minister replied that there were no plans to review the COE system for the said category, he did say that, as part of Budget 2013, his Ministry would carefully consider if more help was needed. To this extent, I welcome the flexibility granted to commercial vehicle owners whose vehicles have reached the end of their 10-year COE, as they can now choose to renew their COEs for five years in the first instance, and a further five years later.
Likewise, the granting of a one-year 30% road tax rebate for goods vehicles, buses and taxis is also welcomed. It would be helpful if the Government could make the extension of such road tax grants permanent, especially for the \"mom-and-pop\" SMEs with a headcount of five or less, when COE prices reach astronomically high levels as they have been in the recent past for Category C COEs. In addition, as some SME owners, particularly hawkers and sundry store owners, work with narrow margins, it may be helpful to look into allowing Category C COE holders to extend their COEs every 30 months or two-and-a-half years, rather than every five years, as the Budget has announced. Such a move would allow for even greater flexibility for SME owners and nudge them to consider pulling an older vehicle off the road since the decision-making cycle of renewing of COE would be shorter.
Mdm Speaker, post Budget, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance acknowledged that the country continues to be in an unhappy part of
Page: 57
the property cycle, following up from the Budget speech that reiterates that the Government will spend more efforts in resolving the present challenges facing housing and transport. While I look forward to the resolution of these problems, it would be equally important for the Government to explain the reasons behind significant policy shifts instead of leaving Singaporeans to second guess the Government's real purpose, as has been the feedback for MAS' changes to the car ownership policy. Such engagement will help reduce unpredictability and encourage a more participatory democracy and allow Singaporeans to plan for their future with more certainty.
Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on Budget 2013. Madam, this year's Budget has many initiatives for both companies as well as for Singaporeans, especially those more affected by the high cost of living and in doing business. I feel that while the intention of the Budget is very good, to be an inclusive Budget, we really need to be more targeted on how we roll out the various schemes and incentives and the Minister could have consolidated many of the Budget measures into three clear areas.
First, increasing the real wages of Singaporeans, especially for the lower income Singaporeans; second, helping companies survive the short-term pressures of cost and manpower crunch by introducing cost mitigation initiatives; and third, to recalibrate the rate of restructuring.
Madam, on helping companies, I feel that the current year's Budget did not adequately address the cost of doing business issues that are faced by many of our companies. The problems that they face are multi-faceted – the high cost of rental and real estate, high cost of the Singapore dollar therefore making us uncompetitive, the increasing labour costs, and the demand and supply imbalance of infrastructure and vehicles that has skyrocketed prices of goods and services in Singapore.
This year's Budget could, therefore, have focused on cost competitiveness, especially since we are already facing steeper competition from many of our neighbouring countries. The Government has placed all its bets on productivity improvements, which, we all know, will take a little longer to be achieved and that, too, not easily. So, in the meantime, all the other bottomline cost issues will plague companies rendering them uncompetitive. We need to give companies some breathing space to survive first and then restructure to
Page: 58
become competitive and, then, strong. How can we build a strong and resilient economy if the bulk of our companies are struggling to stay afloat with these issues?
The tax rebates to help mitigate costs which, although is a welcome move, will help only those companies that are profitable and will not do much to help those companies that are already struggling to make profits.
On achieving productivity gains, it is good that we are now really focused on productivity-driven growth, as a small and expensive country like Singapore should be pursuing such a growth strategy in the first place. But I think we are putting the cart before the horse by increasing levies and restricting foreign workers before productivity improvements can take effect; and this is a risky strategy that the Government is taking, in my opinion.
In the past, we also tried to pursue a productivity-driven growth, through the Construction 21 project in late 1999, to address the increasing problems in the construction sector. Then, there was Retail 21 launched in March 2001, which was part of the SME 21 vision of doubling the impact on the productivity level of the retail sector in Singapore. And there was ProAct 21 launched about a decade ago for Singapore to become a knowledge-based economy, deriving its competitive edge from productivity.
All of these did not produce the desired results. But we also started to forgo many of these productivity initiatives as we pursued the growth-at-all-cost economic strategy with the import of cheap and, in many cases, unskilled workers.
It is good that the Government is now serious about the productivity drive and I hope we will not make future U-turns on this as we did in the past, but I am asking the Government to be realistic about the rate at which companies can restructure their businesses.
The Government needs to ask whether the current schemes, like the PIC and the intended Wage Credit Scheme, are going to change the behaviour of companies and also that of the employees. The way things are going with the PIC, in my opinion, is that companies that are going to spend on some big ticket items, especially the larger companies, are benefiting by claiming back money from the Government for what they are going to spend anyway. But did they have a mindset change in terms of doing more things to improve productivity? My gut feel is that a small number only really did something to change
Page: 59
behaviour towards productivity-driven business models. The same will be with the Wage Credit Scheme, in my opinion. Companies, especially bigger companies, will anyway be increasing their employees' salaries and it would have nothing to do with new productivity behaviour and they will be claiming millions of dollars from the Government. It will be a pity if this is widespread. We should, therefore, relook and sharpen some of these productivity intended tools introduced in this year's and past years' Budgets.
On survival versus restructuring, I urge the Government to recalibrate the whole process. I think this is something that we really have to think about very seriously, to allow companies to survive first before going for aggressive restructuring. We are now forcing companies to fight for their survival and aggressively restructure for an aggressive productivity goal, all at the same time.
I would like to suggest we recalibrate the process and timing and focus on a five-year goal where we slow down in the first two years but we speed up even faster than the current projected five-year rate, from the third year onwards. We will still arrive at the same destination, with the same goals that we want, but through a different journey or route. If, after two years, companies fail to restructure, despite the grace period given by the Government, they will face even greater challenges from the third year onwards, and they will have to make even steeper changes as the rate of restructuring then becomes much more intense. And if they fail to restructure in the first two years, then I think it will be a fair proposition that the Government cannot help any further because they failed to help themselves when they were given ample opportunity.
The Minister might say that the Government did give ample notice to companies about the impending foreign labour cuts, but I want to say that many in the business community thought that the Government would again make a U-turn on its labour policies, as it did in the past. Now that everyone knows that the Government means business in the restructuring drive and that there will be no more U-turns, let us give companies a last chance to restructure properly. I am afraid that we are pushing companies beyond the tipping point unnecessarily with the aggressive pace of restructuring.
What about the impact on labour policies? I hope that the Government will tweak the labour control measures. We need two things to happen. First, how can we make it more attractive for locals to enter the workforce and, second, we need to recalibrate the reduction rate of foreign workers. While I agree that in the longer term we need to be less dependent on foreigners, in the short term, we cannot suddenly turn off the tap. So, let us recalibrate the reduction rate to
Page: 60
give companies some time to restructure their business models.
MOM is already working on many things to attract more locals to the workforce and I hope these will work well. This year's Budget also announced a number of measures that, hopefully, will attract locals to the workforce. I believe we will have some success by these measures but we need to attract them with reasonable wages. The current approach by the Government is to encourage employers to raise wages, but I feel that it may take too long and we may lose the battle for restructuring in the near term. I feel that we cannot wait and hope for wages to go up by encouraging employers. We have waited too long and we should, therefore, take a more decisive action right now.
Therefore, I would like to once again call on the Government to adopt a formal minimum wage system to speed up the reform of wages for locals. Some say that the minimum wage adds to the cost problems for companies. I am, therefore, suggesting a Government-assisted, time-reducing minimum wage system, something like the Jobs Credit Scheme where the employer pays a certain level of wages he can afford and the Government tops up the rest needed to make up the minimum wage. There can be a five-year decline in the Government top-up which zeroes out in the sixth year and then the company will have to pay the full minimum wage from the sixth year onwards.
For companies, what this means is that they will have a clear roadmap of reduction of foreign workforce quotas − a five-year reduction and also a five-year roadmap of having to pay higher wages. This will be an excellent way to compel companies to restructure and work seriously on productivity and, if they fail to do so, they will know that it will not be viable for them to operate here in Singapore and may perhaps have to relocate or shut down. We will therefore not artificially kill companies too early with our desired pace of restructuring.
We must also have greater confidence that Singaporeans with minimum wage will not be a deterrent for employers. We have many other good things going for us − good infrastructure, good connectivity with global markets, good financial system, stable government, a hardworking work force and, of course, low taxes. These will be enough to balance any negativity that may arise as a result of a minimum wage system here in Singapore.
Over the Chinese New Year period, I spoke with a senior banker from Hong Kong who told me that the Hong Kong government was worried that the minimum wage will result in companies leaving and job losses for people. But this did not happen and Hong Kong's economy, in fact, remains vibrant and
Page: 61
continues to boom and they are now advocating − just after one year − an increase of the minimum wage that they had set a year ago. I believe that as long we have a vibrant economy, we should be confident and not be afraid of establishing a minimum wage system.
Hong Kong's lesson is that the minimum wage policy helped enhance the incentive to work. The labour force participation rates rose across different age groups and educational levels, especially among women and the elderly. Even in the US recently, President Obama announced an increase of the minimum wage, and I do not think the US economy is less vibrant as a result of this policy.
In Singapore, I am suggesting that the minimum wage could be around $1,500, something less than what the US practises. This will allow Singaporeans and their families to have a basic decent quality of life based on our current cost structures. If we pay people well, they will do the job. I firmly believe that what we consider as jobs which Singaporeans are not willing to do are such because we have depressed the wages in industries like construction, security and cleaning industries. It is unfair for such jobs to pay Singaporeans just $800 or $900 per month when cost of living is so high. If we pay a reasonable salary for some of these jobs, I am sure Singaporeans will be willing to do them. It is happening in all the developed countries in the world, like Australia, USA and Japan where locals proudly do these jobs because they are paid well and because the jobs are restructured to be more value added than the way we have structured these jobs in Singapore. We should raise the salary base to uplift the lives of lower income Singaporeans and use the quotas on S Passes to lift the median wages of Singaporeans.
The Wage Credit Scheme is a good attempt to help encourage companies to pay employees more, but I do not think we will achieve the desired objective easily for a few reasons. First, the three-year limit of wage support will put an overall salary burden on companies from the fourth year onwards. Fearing that they may not be able to support the future wage all by themselves, we may not achieve the objective of uplifting the workers' salaries in the near term. Second, the scheme requires companies to pay the salary first and claim later, in fact, I think at the end of one year of employment. So, companies incur costs first, adding to their cost and cash flow woes. It will be viewed as a cost-adding component although the intent is to have companies pay higher wages for Singaporeans who otherwise may not want to take up a job. Third, bigger companies will benefit most from this scheme because they would in any case be increasing their salaries to retain and hire staff. And in the case of hiring new staff, they would in any case be raising salaries after a typical probation of three months or so. Why compensate them when they do not really need it? I recall
Page: 62
when we implemented the Jobs Credit Scheme after the 2009 recession, this is exactly what happened. When I spoke with some CEOs, some actually told me that they did not really need the money but it was a welcome addition to their income, a few million dollars each for some of these big companies.
Why are companies struggling to pay higher wages to Singaporeans? Because the overall cost of doing business is very high, especially rentals. If we had a good handle on costs, companies may not use their employees as a squeeze point. It is unfair for employees to face the brunt of the serious business cost issues that we are facing as a result of our past economic policies and also because of the liberal investment environment we adopted in the past, that is, investment in commercial and industrial properties by locals and foreigners who are just financial investors and have no vested interest in businesses. Therefore, I strongly feel that unless JTC or any other Government agency goes back to providing affordable rentals for our companies, we will have little chance of seeing future local entrepreneurs starting and growing in Singapore. And we will see many of our SMEs actually not being able to operate. One other way of reining in prices is to strictly enforce that industrial property should be only used for goods and services producing activities and not for office and other non-producing activities. The current liberal usage rules have distorted the rentals of industrial properties and, therefore, made it too expensive for industrial users while it may be much cheaper than the office and commercial users.
If we still believe that we need cooperatives like NTUC FairPrice, NTUC Choice Homes and NTUC Foodfare to inject reality to market prices, then why do we not believe that we need JTC rental factories to manage factory rental prices? So, let us bring back the JTC of the past to help us inject some reality into the rentals of industrial properties. In fact, this will discourage the investors from playing with our industrial properties to make monies for themselves because the JTC, leveller of rentals, will not make their returns in investing in industrial properties attractive.
In summary, I would like to urge that we keep things simple and make the measures sharper and more targeted towards achieving the originally intended recipients. These simple measures are, first, the wage gap. Let us combine the WIS, wage credit and some of the GST rebates to have one simple minimum wage scheme supported by the Government for a five-year period. Then, people do not have to feel that they can only survive because of the handouts that they get from the Government. Second, cost of doing business – combine all the initiatives, including the wage credit, to help companies manage cost and cash flow, instead of a blunt tool like the wage credit, as it is intended right now, that
Page: 63
also benefits companies that do not really need it. Let us allow companies to apply for the money that will compensate for their cost of doing business. It may be more cumbersome but it is more targeted, causes companies to justify why they should be given support to manage their costs. So, roll all of the measures into one cost mitigating package. And third, restructuring for productivity. I urge the Government to give companies a five-year roadmap and support the smaller companies with more resources in a more targeted approach to help them restructure. In this respect, I hope that we will add more resources to organisations like SPRING.
If we can do all of these things, we can definitely help companies here a lot more in coping with the restructuring while keeping our targets fixed on the same objectives at the end of the five-year period. I hope the Government will consider these initiatives and make sure that our restructuring plans are effective. As I mentioned at the beginning, we have many excellent ideas in this Budget, but I think we just need to re-target them and we will be very effective in achieving our restructuring goals. On the whole, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, every Budget is a step in nation-building. I rise to support two important principles that undergird Budget 2013 − the notion of an inclusive society and shared growth, which are the cornerstones of the PAP Government's nation-building ethos. So, I am actually happy to hear the Member, Mr Pritam Singh's acknowledgement of the Government's ethos, but disagree that it is a departure from the Government's long-standing principles. In fact, part of my speech will show us why, and there is no need to second guess.
Mdm Speaker, first, on inclusive society. When Mr Lee Hsien Loong first became Prime Minister, he reiterated the importance of building an inclusive society. And in recent policy debates, I hear of public intellectuals and Singaporeans at large concerned that we remain an inclusive society, and that no one should be left behind because of their background or the nature of their talent or ability. These people care, and that is good news to a government that has been committing 47 years to building this ethos.
The PAP Government leads by example, actively helps its people beat the odds, whether it is SARS or financial crises, administering help even when it does not seem to be the wisest thing to do within the capitalist market system.
Page: 64
It has done this through its commitment to educating the nation, levelling-up those in need, creating an active income policy, and negotiating with the business sector and labour unions as partners so as to ensure that business and economic growth translate into better jobs and wages, and, of course, ultimately, a better life. The aim is to serve its citizens first.
However, each age has brought its special problems, and, as a sociology student, I know that, with success, you see further sedimentation of class and that is what the PAP Government must try to redress. And it did through this Budget.
If we recall, in the 1960s, we were all almost equally poor but we had a lot of young people. Over the past 40 years, we reaped the demographic dividend via social cohesion and a vibrant economy. As wealth builds up and given the miracle of compound interest, wealth replicates itself a lot more with each generation, contributing, in part, to a higher Gini coefficient. It is not useful to beat ourselves up just because we have been successful in wealth creation. However, what we must do is to mitigate this via progressive taxes and egalitarian fiscal policies, so all boats can be lifted when the tide comes in.
So, the PAP Government has never simply relied on market forces alone to improve the lives of Singaporeans. Equal chance does not equate equal outcomes, and there is a need for active state intervention to address gaps and market failures which erode meritocracy.
There are three aspects in this Budget which I am delighted with. First, helping the marginalised keep up with living costs. The Government improved the support to the lower income and other disadvantaged groups. Positive steps include the increase in the quantum of the GST Voucher, the top-up of the MediFund and ElderCare Fund, the edging-up of the Public Assistance payout and additional help for the disabled population. Together, these measures help these groups to keep up with the rising cost of living.
Second, jobs remain the best welfare. There is dignity in work and in wishing to take responsibility for one's needs. Jobs give people a sense of purpose and fulfilment. The Workfare system reinforces the idea that jobs are the best form of welfare. Hence, the expanded and improved Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) and the newly introduced innovative Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) will help up to 70% of our working citizens cope with cost-of-living issues while living a dignified life. It is a hand-up, not a handout.
Page: 65
Third, which is probably the most important that underpins this Government's ethos, is really social mobility via education. Think of the massive ramp-up in education that has enabled Singaporeans to move from a position of few jobs in the 1960s, to the blue-collar jobs of the 1970s to white collar jobs in the middle class today. This was, in fact, the kind of lifestyle that our people used to aspire back in the 1960s, 1970s and even 1980s.
In the 1970s, only 1% of the population had University education and 11% were in PMET jobs. In 2010, 22%, close to 23% of our resident population, had University education and about 50% of Singaporeans are in PMET jobs. By 2030, well over 40% of each Singaporean cohort will have accessed publicly funded University education and it is expected that two-thirds of Singaporeans will be in PMET jobs. That will be the aspirations that parents of pre-schoolers today have for their children.
The commitment to education as the route to social mobility, therefore, has been a long-standing one. In fact, in December 1990, in a speech to the grassroots, the then Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong said: \"I want to elaborate on one of the central pillars in my approach to building a better Singapore. Essentially, I want to maximise and equalise opportunities for Singaporeans to improve themselves. I do not want anyone in our society to miss out on a chance to better his life because he cannot afford the opportunities. I want to give everyone the same chance for a good start in life. I shall do this primarily through education.\"
With that, we saw efforts placed on \"levelling-up\" policies – the re-invention of our technical education, which then we had VITB and Primary 8, where students suffered low morale as a result of being labelled \"non-academic\" or \"cannot make it\". Today, we have world-class and world-admired Polytechnics and ITEs that others envy, and our young people are proud to be a part of.
Then, in 1993, Edusave was introduced to encourage children of varied talents to pursue their dreams – be it in sports, arts or others. It recognises that success can be achieved in different forms, given we could do more in this area.
Under Prime Minister Lee's leadership, levelling-up through education has gone beyond that of the formal school years. We now have a systematic way to foster life-long learning – from the Workfare Training Support Scheme to the Continuing Education and Training (CET) system. These are pathways to ensure that people have the means to continue to learn, to re-skill and realise their full
Page: 66
potential and earn a good living even as market conditions change.
So, why has the PAP Government done this? This is because the PAP has always been conscious of the need to ensure there is social mobility and that we are an inclusive society. So, at every stage of your life, there is some help from the Government to level up, change course and do better than that we might expect from our \"starting point\".
On pre-school education, Mdm Speaker, I am especially happy to learn about the large investments that will be put in. Currently, there is a lack of childcare and kindergarten places and teachers, and this needs to be addressed urgently. Many of my residents are waiting and frustrated that some mothers cannot go back to work as a result of the lack of places. I urge the Government to tackle this actively.
Beyond the clear and present shortage, I am glad that much work has gone into thinking about pre-school teaching pedagogy and its delivery. I hope that the enriched pedagogy will be extended to all, especially to children from disadvantaged homes.
Starting with bigger investments in pre-school education and early intervention programmes will mean a lot, especially for the disadvantaged families. Since 2010, I have been a frequent visitor to the two blocks of rental flats in my division in Punggol North. There are about 500 units there, with many young children and the elderly. My heart aches whenever I see and hear that the little children of school-going age are still unable to read A-B-C or count one-two-three. They are capable of it, and I know that. But they did not have the environment to nurture them. We need to help them and give them a fighting chance to life, to break out of their poverty cycle.
Therefore, my grassroots leaders and myself started a relentless campaign to persuade the then MCYS and HDB to allow the void deck space to be turned into a pre-school education centre. We also persuaded a VWO to design both the space and jobs to cater to the elderly population and generate jobs for the residents of the rental blocks. We hope to showcase students who show potential in both the academic and non-academic arena, and, in so doing, inspire the rest of the students and parents in our rental blocks to strive for a better tomorrow. The simple message is: there is hope when we all work together. The centre is now almost built, and I will do my utmost to make it a success.
Page: 67
So, please do not allow anyone to say that this Government or the leadership has neglected this key objective of social mobility and inclusiveness. Perhaps, what we need is a bigger, bolder vision to really stir the soul. Could it look something like this: could we, say, set the target to send our poorest children up the socio-economic ladder – such that in 20 years, X number of children whose parents are in the bottom 30 percentile of today's income ladder, would be amongst the top 30 percentile of tomorrow's income ladder? Are we brave enough?
Mdm Speaker, let it be known that this House has, over the past 47 years with the PAP Government, stood firm in its commitment to improving the lives of Singaporeans. Today, it is part and parcel of the Singaporean culture, spirit and ethos to uphold the ideal of an inclusive society. The market served us. It should never be the other way around. Measure that. Put it into our Public Service Outcomes Reviews that MOF conducts. Better still, adopt my proposal from last year's Budget debate to properly develop a \"Singapore Inc(lusive) Balance Sheet\" and an index of well-being to institutionalise this fact that a PAP-led Government puts citizens' well-being first!
Now, onto the second point on shared growth. I applaud the Wage Credit Scheme and the rest of the three-year Transition Support Scheme. In responding to the need to restructure the economy so that we rely less on manpower, the Government is saying that, through the packages, it will try to recognise the costs of doing that and will play its part to soften its transition. I do agree with Member Inderjit Singh that we need to make sure that we do not put the cart before the horse. But it is far from being a strategy of \"labour shock therapy\" to turn off the tap to what our industries need.
What piqued my interest was the $100 million that will be set aside for the Collaborative Industry Project that will enable SMEs to join hands to find common solutions to problems they face. Collaborative innovation is the way to go, but I would like to know how this will really work on the ground, especially in the social services sector. Meanwhile, at every Budget, I will relentlessly push the ideas of social innovation and social enterprise. This year, I will do the same and the new idea is called \"collaborative consumption\".
Mdm Speaker, the well-being index I spoke of earlier champions multiple bottom lines and not just the financial or fiscal one. In past speeches, I have offered several examples of how social innovation could strengthen social cohesion while addressing practical economic needs.
Page: 68
This year, the new idea is called the \"sharing economy\" or \"collaborative consumption\", which is a new idea that has taken the world of social innovation by storm. In 2011, Time magazine called it the top 10 ideas that will change the world. In February 2013, Forbes magazine estimated the revenue to surpass $3.5 billion this year, with growth exceeding 25%. At that rate, peer-to-peer sharing is moving from an income boost in a stagnant wage market into a disruptive economic force.
So, how does this work? Simply put, this is like going back to the kampong days when people did not have everything they needed, but they shared what they had with each other. In other words, the emphasis is not on ownership, but on access to resources. Many homes have power drills or tools that are used only once and occupy space. If these tools could be shared for free or for a fee, we will maximise their value and also utility.
My first example has to do with land transport and this is the idea of the Zipcar. I used Zipcar in Boston and Connecticut back in 2007. All I had to do was have a phone and a zip card, find out if a car was available nearby and reserve it, and then use my card to unlock it and drive it away. I do not need to worry about parking, because I could park everywhere where Zipcar is made available. It was so convenient that owning a car became unthinkable.
Another example is Airbnb, started in 2007 by two young guys with a need for rooms to accommodate conference guests. Instead of using more land to build hotels, Airbnb solves the bed crunch by allowing people to advertise their spare rooms or properties in a website and, suddenly, tens of thousands of rooms and houses are made available in more than 34,000 cities and 192 countries. If you search the listing under Singapore, you will find 471 properties listed, a boon to both owners and guests, with pictures, details and so on. Singaporeans are already contributing to the sharing economy and we should encourage it.
Zipcar is estimated to be worth US$500 million, while Airbnb is valued at US$2.5 billion. These are just two amongst many of the examples that I could quote. But, what is more interesting would be how we can use this concept to solve some of the supply shortage crunches in Singapore today.
Could we come up with car sharing, bicycle sharing, neighbourhood childcare networks, elderly step-down homecare, and so on and so forth? I think these are entrepreneurship that could tackle social concerns based on the principle of self-help and mutual help, of trust, of achieving utility while reaping
Page: 69
social dividend and economic benefits.
Aided by modern technology and peer-to-peer connection or social networking, the Sharing Economy prioritises access to goods and services over ownership and convenience over ego. We can do more, own less and rent the rest with the help of ICT. It cuts waste, good for the individual's pocket and good for Mother Earth. It is smarter and a boon for cash-strapped families in a weak recovery. It also frees up the much-needed space in the house and puts cash in the pocket for more productive use. This accumulated saving could spur more innovative entrepreneurial activities, especially for young start-ups waiting to change the world with their new ideas. Obviously, to share effectively, people have to help each other, trust each other, learn to take care of common assets and build on their social bonds.
The Government should create an incentive framework for the Sharing Economy to happen here, in the same way that it has set aside the $100 million for collaborative industry projects. Why not set aside another $100 million for collaborative consumption projects? Further, liberalise some stiff rulings in the transport, housing and other areas where there are currently a severe supply shortage, and allow people to start innovating. It will bring a paradigm shift to how we could frame our economy. If successfully implemented, it will provide a sustainable framework for the Government to think about our economic eco-system such that it brings about a higher quality of life and lowers the cost of living, reduce inequalities, increase trust and social cohesion amongst Singaporeans.
So, to end, I think there should be no mistaking – we are committed to building an inclusive society, collaboratively, with each group and sector bearing responsibility so that society as a whole can progress, as Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has put it very aptly in his Budget Speech.
I am glad that we do not have a pure Robin Hood situation, where we rob from one and give to another.
We can see that the Government is prepared to pick up the tab for economic restructuring and, as we know it, to achieve inclusive, quality growth for all. Perhaps, what we have is a happier Stone Soup situation. The story goes this way: long ago, a village was starving when a boy said that he would make \"stone soup\" to feed the community. He is poor but has a big heart and a big vision. He threw a stone into a big pot of boiling water and started to stir. This inspired the villagers to throw into the soup whatever little bits of vegetables
Page: 70
that they could find – a carrot, some potatoes – and each contributed what little that they could get from their homes or even just along the road and in the trees that they could pick from. At last, the village soup was born and stomachs were filled.
The positive energy of the stone soup story brings the real change we want for our people. No effort is too small, so long as we all do our part. We take care of one another. We progress together, levelling up where we can, waiting for one another when it takes a little longer. Because this village is called Singapore, my home, our kampung. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, Budget 2013, the narrative reads \"A Better Singapore: Quality Growth, An Inclusive Society\". The last three words are also the three most meaningful words – when we build and have an inclusive society, we will have a Better Singapore. So, today, I wish to confine my speech on just this aspect.
Building an inclusive society cannot be mere rhetoric. It covers several tenets. It is about looking after and offering a dignified life to all segments of our population; it is about caring and doing the right things for various groups in our community, our staff, our fellow Singaporeans; it is about helping the poor and elderly, those who are physically challenged or have special needs; or those who had served time in prison and strive to start afresh; it is also about helping and providing better jobs for our fellow citizens. For corporates, it is about being socially responsible to their staff, their community and the environment they operate in. It is about making normal and reasonable profits and, certainly, not about maximising profits.
For corporates, the notion of an inclusive society compels us to put our money in our talk. I am talking about this creature called social enterprise. Let me first declare my interest as the co-chair of Social Enterprise Association of Singapore and also declare my interest as the CEO of NTUC Fairprice Co-operative which is part of the stable of social enterprises under the NTUC Group. I think social enterprises play an invaluable role in helping us build a more inclusive society. It is a rare creature that has a capitalist mind but a socialist heart. In this Budget, and in future budgets, I hope the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance can look to see how we can further recognise, fund and incentivise social enterprises and also the people behind these social
Page: 71
enterprises.
Let me now share some inspiring stories of two such social enterprises here that have done well and played a significant role in helping us build a more inclusive society and, in turn, a better Singapore.
Last December, I was honoured to attend the inaugural President's Challenge Social Enterprise Awards, and I was delighted that Benny Se Teo was one of the winners of the Social Enterprise Awards. Chef Benny Se Teo founded Eighteen Chefs in 2007. It is a social enterprise which employs and trains ex-drugs offenders. Benny Se Teo takes in ex-offenders like himself during their last few months of their jail sentence to train them in necessary skills so that they can have a new start in life. Through employment, he helps to ease their integration back to the society. Benny went in and out of prison between 1980 and 1993 for heroin addiction from the age of 14. After a near-death experience, he turned over a new leaf and started learning how to cook. Benny serves up not only good food, but a strong dose of hope for other ex-offenders.
More recently, just last month, in February, Mdm Sim Sin Sin, who is the CEO of Laksania, invited me to join her and other friends to celebrate the opening of their latest eatery at Upper East Coast. Laksania is another social enterprise, a social enterprise that Sin Sin herself started in 2008. Their social mission is to help persons with mental or physical disability to gain employment. Laksania employs them and enables them to earn a living using their own efforts. They have set up a central kitchen to hire and train clients of IMH. These clients are encouraged to be self-reliant and have gained important inter-personal and other life skills, setting down the road to financial independence.
These groups have benefited from on-the-job training in the various aspects of F&B and have been fully integrated into their business model – one which is sustainable. Laksania, for those who are not sure what they are, as the name suggests and implies, it is a laksa specialty café where you can try all kinds of laksa. You will be amazed what kind of laksa and how many different types there are. Indeed, in this year's Budget, all social enterprises will benefit from the various schemes, such as the PIC, Wage Credit Scheme and others. But, certainly, I hope they could be given even more help.
Let me now turn to a different kind of social enterprises – co-operatives. UN Secretary General Mr Ban Ki Moon said, \"Co-operatives are a unique and invaluable presence in today's world. They help to reduce poverty and generate
Page: 72
jobs.\" In his message to commemorate International Year of the Co-operatives in 2012, Mr Ban Ki Moon emphasised the role that co-operatives play in strengthening communities socially and economically. He recognised that co-operatives are value-based businesses and are rooted in their communities because they are owned by their members. I certainly agree with what Mr Ban Ki Moon has said and wish to state upfront my contention that co-operatives also help to make for a Better Singapore. As you know, NTUC has set up various cooperatives and they include NTUC Fairprice, NTUC Income, NTUC First Campus and NTUC Foodfare.
Mdm Speaker, yesterday, the hon Member Mr Png Eng Huat made some statements about one such NTUC cooperative, NTUC Foodfare, to be precise. His comments, I felt, cast certain aspersions which I feel compelled to respond and clarify.
Foodfare Co-operative was set up by NTUC in 1995 – just like all other NTUC social enterprises – to help all Singaporeans, not just union members or certain target groups. Foodfare was set up amidst a backdrop of rampant price increases and profiteering by F&B private operators during the introduction of the GST. Foodfare's mission is to keep cooked food prices affordable and ensure that all Singaporeans and consumers can benefit from its initiatives.
How do they do this? First and foremost, Foodfare benchmarks its food and beverage prices against similar locations to ensure they are fair. It moderates the prices of its food and beverage in the coffeeshops and food courts that it operates at by controlling price increases to prevent unchecked increases that hurt consumers. Foodfare has, on many occasions, held prices of basic food and beverage down during recessions when the need is greatest. For example, in February 2011, when there was a tide of price increases within the coffeeshop/foodcourt industry, Foodfare announced that it would hold off any price increases at all its outlets for the rest of the year. While Foodfare is not immune to the business pressures of rising food, labour and rental costs, it did so in order that all Singaporeans, not just union members, can better cope with inflation. By setting this price floor, Foodfare stood against the rage of others who had been raising their prices and, as some would say, profiteer. I think this is something to be applauded, not derided.
In addition, in April 2011, Foodfare launched its One Million Plates for Singapore, an initiative to help Singaporeans cope with the rising cost of cooked food. Under this initiative, Foodfare set aside one million NTUC Value Meals, which are available not only to union members, but to all Singaporeans in all its outlets. The meals, at discounted prices, can be redeemed via coupons
Page: 73
at every stall. In order to better reach out to the poor and needy who are not union members, Foodfare also partnered the Community Development Councils (CDCs) to distribute 200,000 coupons out of the one million to needy residents so as to make a difference where it is most needed.
Foodfare's efforts to do good for the general public to moderate the cost of cooked food are also being acknowledged by a private property owner of Marina Bay Financial Centre. In fact, just now, hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa talked about his own personal experiences. Foodfare was invited by the owner there to operate the foodcourt there in order to provide reasonably priced and quality cooked food to the general public and the working people in the Marina Bay area. I know for a fact that many office workers and PMEs there, they all wished NTUC Foodfare had opened much earlier so that they could have saved more money from the meals they had to otherwise take elsewhere before Foodfare was there.
Now, let me give some more specific examples of the good that Foodfare has done for all Singaporeans and consumers. For example, Foodfare's Breakfast Set delivers very good value at just $1.80 to the public. And what does $1.80 give you? Two eggs, a toast and a cup of coffee or tea. If you compare that with the average price sold in the market today, I think they range between $2.50 and $2.80. Additionally, its basic coffee or tea prices start at how much? $0.70 and $0.80 at their coffeeshops and food courts respectively. These are good benchmarks. These prices, offered to all customers, have not increased since 2006, regardless of where the outlets are.
They strive to ensure that basic food offerings, such as fishball noodles, yong tau foo, duck rice and others, are one of the cheapest and provide great value for its customers – again, regardless of whether they are union members. For example, you can get a bowl of fishball noodles at $2.50 in their Clementi coffeeshop. If you like chicken rice, there is $2.80 chicken rice at Yew Tee coffeeshop, and char siew noodle at its Rivervale Mall foodcourt for $2.80 a plate.
It is not an easy task to balance quality options and affordability for the masses and, at the same time, balancing the business aspirations of their tenants. In addition, they strive to also deliver these in a good shopping ambience – standards and comforts befitting what the customers want. Members heard earlier their foodcourt at Marina Bay Financial Centre. Those who have not been there, pay a visit. It really serves up a menu at heartland foodcourt prices which are easily 5% to 15% cheaper than any neighbouring
Page: 74
foodcourts in that area.
While Foodfare strives to serve every Singaporean, not just its union members, Foodfare does strive to do even more for the poor and needy. So, I wish to put this question to Mr Png: should the poor and needy or those on the Public Assistance scheme not be helped more? Let us not be naive. Foodfare helps nobody if it cannot first make its numbers work. But given what they have, they have already decided not to make super-normal profits. Further, from the margins that they have, they have to decide where to give this help. It makes sense, certainly to me, to channel this to where the need is greatest. If this logic is faulty, I would thank the Member for Hougang for correcting it and, more importantly, provide his own distributive logic.
As a social enterprise, Foodfare has extended an extra helping hand to those who are on the Public Assistance scheme and to the elderly. This can be seen really from its $1.99 economic rice community project, as well as its recent launch of its Budget Pick programme where these groups of people get extra help with discounted meals. And for the avoidance of doubt, NTUC Foodfare Co-operative does not enjoy any subsidised rental from the Government or NEA in any of the premises they occupy. They still have to make an offer and, if they are successful, pay at market rates for the premises, just like anyone else. So, I find some of the comments made yesterday a bit incorrect, not just to the co-operatives, but they also cast a certain slur on our efforts and it also demeans the work of the many people who work in and for the co-operatives.
Eating out at hawker centres and kopitiams is a favourite pastime for all of us. And, indeed, at NTUC Foodfare stalls, they provide a convenient and affordable meal option for all Singaporeans and consumers alike. But, of course, if you want to stretch your dollar even further, nothing beats cooking and eating at home. And this is where another NTUC co-operative, NTUC FairPrice comes in. We work for over 630,000 owners − all Singaporeans who own our shares. We employ about 9,000 staff and they are overwhelmingly Singaporeans. Over two-thirds of our staff are female and over 40% of them are above 50 years old. I cite this because the national profile will show that about 31% of our workforce is more than 50 years old. This shows that we are very pro-mature workers.
FairPrice also ploughs a large part of its surpluses to the community to help the poor and needy, the elderly and low-wage workers, as well as to VWOs and many charities. We also do our best to help moderate the cost of living. One good example is the senior citizens discount that we give out every Tuesday. The figures would show some five million transactions each year benefiting over 90,000 senior citizens each week. I checked the figure yesterday, which was
Page: 75
a Tuesday, and, indeed, over 90,000 senior citizens came by. What does it cost us? Over $2.3 million each year and this amount can only grow.
We are also a strong promoter of local SMEs and their produce. We do our best whenever a crisis strikes us − Bird Flu, SARS, rice crisis and the list goes on. Whenever the opportunity for profiteering arises, we will certainly be there to try to stand up against it by taking the first hit. All these are not by chance but deliberate policy and guiding principles that we subscribe to because we are an NTUC co-operative with a social mission.
I am stating all these because not so long ago, in October 2011, Mr Png's colleague, Mr Yee Jenn Jong, also made some statements concerning NTUC co-operatives, which I had also addressed and clarified. But since Mr Png raised some of these issues, I wanted to take this opportunity to shed more light.
Mdm Speaker, co-operatives are a check on pure market forces. They have social, not political ends. I am a PAP Member of Parliament and a staff of NTUC FairPrice Co-operative. I am clear where one set of duty ends and another begins. I thank Mdm Speaker for allowing me to provide the same clarity for others in this House.
Finally, I hope, through these examples, the Government – and I am looking at the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance – would continue to look at ways to further build, nurture and grow the social enterprise sector. Social enterprises and cooperatives can help us in our journey to build a more inclusive society and, when we do, a Better Singapore would follow. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, I am encouraged that the Budget is designed to build a Singapore that provides better opportunities and a better future for all Singaporeans.
I would like to make two recommendations for MOF and the Deputy Prime Minister's consideration. Firstly, respect every job and value every contribution. In the past, many freelancers and self-employed had indicated that they needed more support. They do not receive CPF contributions by employers, nor do they enjoy medical or leave benefits. Some have to deal with clients who do not pay up, or take a long time to pay for the services rendered. I have spoken with many of them recently and they have reiterated that these remain major
Page: 76
concerns for them.
This year's Budget has brought much cheer to them. Many will enjoy income tax rebates, GST rebates, enhanced Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) and MediSave top-ups. These measures will go a long way in helping them manage cost pressures.
With the evolving economy, we are actually seeing more and swifter changes to job options. Many people are becoming self-employed and freelancers, whether they are taxi drivers, adult educators or tour guides, as examples. Many of them I spoke with hope that society will respect their career choice and not perceive this choice that they have made as a fall-back option. What they do every day contributes significantly to our economy. Our economic transformation should include the self-employed. We can do more to make their jobs more respectable and their choice a better one. Let me cite two examples to illustrate what I meant.
First, taxi drivers. I would like to declare that I am the Adviser for the National Taxi Association, and many taxi drivers that I spoke with share their sentiments with me. I hope taxi drivers and taxi operators will be able to strike a good partnership. Drivers should be viewed as co-owners, instead of the current taxi operator-hirer relationship. Take, for example, the Government has just announced a one-year 30% road tax rebate for commercial vehicles, including taxis. The immediate response by some taxi operators to the call by the National Taxi Association (NTA) to give back the savings to drivers is a good start. We hope all taxi operators will follow suit.
Older taxi drivers I spoke with are also pleased with existing programmes, such as the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) by MOH, to help them manage healthcare costs. The NTA, together with dental and healthcare groups, has also rolled out discounted schemes to enable taxi drivers to enjoy affordable medical care. Recently, the Health Promotion Board has also stepped in to provide some level of support for taxi drivers.
All the stakeholders have taken very proactive steps. However, with rising medical costs and needs, affordability remains a major concern. The drivers I spoke with welcomed the one-off MediSave account top-up of $200. In addition, they have two requests to make this Budget a more inclusive one.
Firstly, this Budget enhanced the WIS and created the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS). This was good news to many. However, as self-employed, they hope
Page: 77
that they will be able to receive the same amount in WIS as employees. Today, they also receive a smaller amount in cash. Mdm Speaker, many are pleased with the generosity of the WCS. But as self-employed and freelancers, they do not benefit from this programme. While there is no direct scheme to help the self-employed in this Budget, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could consider further refinements at a later date.
Secondly, taxi drivers work very hard every day. What they hope to see is that the Government and operator can offer greater support to help them build up their CPF savings. They grapple with rising business operating costs, such as higher taxi rental, ERP charges, diesel tax levy, petrol costs and insurance premiums. They have suggested reviewing an existing old scheme and re-calibrating it to meet today's reality, and that is the diesel tax levy. With cleaner diesel technologies and more Euro IV cars on the roads, perhaps the Government can review the annual diesel tax levy and its utilisation.
One way is to explore taking part of the levy collected from drivers and transferring into the drivers' CPF accounts. This way, resources can be directed towards giving them greater security for their healthcare, housing and retirement needs.
Another group of the growing pool of self-employed is the adult educators. Efforts over the last few years by the Government in Continuing Education and Training have actually expanded the market for more local trainers. The Singapore Workforce Development Agency estimates that, today, there are probably over 15,000 training practitioners. I have spoken to some of them recently and they welcome the recent announcement that training for Singaporean workers would be boosted and the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund will receive a top-up. To them, this represents a bigger market share – more people going for training, more businesses for the adult educators. Our brand as an adult training hub has also gone up among our regional neighbours. I am also the Executive Secretary of the Education Services Union and we recently conducted a survey among adult educators. Their main concern is about income security.
In this Budget, many workers can look forward to benefiting from the enhanced Workfare and WCS. Many will see their wages and skills rise through the progressive wage model illustrated by Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang earlier on. Adult educators have not been left out in this effort. Together with the Institute of Adult Learning by the WDA, industry practitioners and the unions have been working on the progression pathways for adult educators. Today, they can progress from being a trainer certified under the Workplace
Page: 78
Trainer Programme to attaining an advanced certificate, a diploma and even Masters in Training and Development or in Lifelong Learning. And the good news is these courses are co-funded by the Government.
Such a pathway enables adult educators to deliver better services, handle more complex needs, such as assessing training outcomes and designing curriculum. Moving forward, they are able to better earn higher income and access new markets, both locally and regionally. Indeed, adult educators can seek the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance's consideration to give them more help, more funds. But as one of them remarked to me, the best help is to expand his market reach and deepen his professionalism, not more money.
Hence, I call upon the Government and employers to speed up the recognition of training certification, whether it be WSQ or other certifiable courses. Such skills recognition is key to our efforts to embark on quality growth. We should also engage the services of training practitioners with the right qualifications. This is especially important since they have a significant role to play in bringing about positive impact to our workers.
Adult educators gain expertise in their fields and have valuable skills that allow them to perform well in their job. Their work should be highly valued and their career choice respected. I hope that buyers of their services will want to work closely with them, respect their work and, of course, pay them in a timely manner.
Finally, my second point is to help Singaporeans get a job quickly. I support Ms Mary Liew and Mr Heng Chee How's call to help more segments of Singaporeans to find good jobs quickly. Last year, the Minister for Finance announced enhancements to the Special Employment Credits (SEC) scheme. The Acting Minister for Manpower, in a recent reply to a Parliamentary Question, also shared that he is open to extending SEC or some variant form of it to ex-offenders who are under the Yellow Ribbon project.
Previously, I had called for the SEC to be extended to other vulnerable worker segments, be it back-to-work women or ex-offenders. I have also visited the Prison to find out more from inmates about their employment concerns. In my constituency, I continue to meet many ex-offenders and back-to-work women who face challenges to return to the workforce. Some have shared that employers tell them that the cost of having to make adjustments for hiring them is not viable. For example, they may have to create a more flexible work schedule or create a mentoring system. And job seekers also share that they
Page: 79
find it challenging or costly, sometimes, to attend courses and there are obstacles they face along the way.
Perhaps, the Minister can consider bundling some of such support services together so that the job seekers are trained before they are sent to the employers. And employers are prepared in their workplace with certain incentive schemes to receive these groups of job seekers. I hope that the Minister can also review the plans to use the SEC scheme to enable more back-to-work women and ex-offenders to re-integrate back into society quickly.
Mdm Speaker, I think it is important that we do more for the self-employed. It is not always through giving out more grants, although I am quite sure many will welcome it. For many, this career route was not their first choice. They may have lost their jobs in other arena and have to look for alternative ones. It is unfair to leave them alone, assuming that because they are self-employed, they can look after themselves. I believe that, with greater help and support, we can deepen their skills and enable more people to appreciate the self-employed and the work they do.
It is equally important that we adopt the right mindset towards such career options and create the right working environment for them to thrive. Their jobs, whether as taxi drivers, adult educators or other forms of freelance work, must be considered as a viable long-term career. Every contributor to our economy, be they employees or self-employed, is critical and their inputs valuable. They, together, will make a better Singapore. Mdm Speaker, with that, 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 3.55 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.32 pm until 3.55 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
Page: 80
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong): Mdm Speaker, I would like to deliver my speech in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the Population White Paper published several weeks ago has been much discussed among Singaporeans. As this Paper concerns the happiness and prospects of Singaporeans, it garnered high levels of attention from various groups. This is a heartening sight. When people are concerned about the affairs of the state, it enables all parties to have in-depth discussions about issues. If we can reach a consensus, we can stand by one another to build our future together.
The Budget debate which began yesterday saw many fellow Members raising many views and suggestions on the various measures. I notice most of us are only concerned with bread-and-butter issues. Of course, tackling bread-and-butter issues are very important. As the sayings goes, \"When the family is in harmony, everything goes well\" and one has to \"conquer the battle within\" before overcoming the external enemies. If a country is plagued with domestic unrest and problems, it cannot concentrate on tackling other issues.
However, we need to be mindful that Singapore's future does not depend on domestic factors alone. The bigger and tougher challenges actually come from the external environment. Being a city state and a highly open economy, international affairs, regional competition, balance of powers, and certain unforeseen circumstances could jeopardise our prosperity and survival anytime.
Mdm Speaker, there are three types of major international and regional events which can greatly impact Singapore – politics, economy and environment: (a) economic uncertainties include the European debt crisis, US fiscal cliff, whether China's economy has a \"soft landing\" or \"hard landing\", and the stability of crude oil supply in the Middle East; (b) political uncertainties include internal strife within Middle East countries, peace talks between Israel and Palestine, nuclear facilities in Iran, nuclear build-up in North Korea, the tension between East Asian countries in the East China and South China Seas, the pace of economic development among various Southeast Asian countries
Page: 81
and how defence development within the region would shift the current balance of power; (c) environmental challenges cannot be overlooked either. Singapore is an island surrounded by waters. Global warming and the melting polar ice, sea levels rising and shortage in water and food supplies will have a crucial and long-lasting impact on Singapore in the next 30 to 50 years.
The above-mentioned issues may not have been directly addressed in the Budget. Thus, I hope that the future Budgets could be more specific on these issues. This is an \"investment\" to tackle future challenges. Having such an awareness will broaden our international perspective so that we can have a more macro-overview in our Budget discussions.
As the saying goes, \"One who lacks foresight is bound to run into problems\". The international challenges mentioned earlier may seem very far away. However, as long as there are major changes in international politics and economy, Singapore cannot be insulated from them. As the saying goes, \"Every citizen is responsible for the rise and fall of their nation\". It is, therefore, not the Government's responsibility alone to pay attention to global affairs. The people should also do likewise. I like to read the classics and tap on ancient wisdom to shed light on current issues, as they are often enlightening and thought-provoking. Thus, I was glad to hear Mr Sitoh Yih Pin quoting from the Analects of Confucius. It makes me feel that I am not alone. So, now, it is my turn to reciprocate his gesture by quoting from a Confucian text – The Book of Rites. There was a passage which was illuminating in cultivating oneself, managing the family, governing the state and conquering the world.
The passage reads: \"Consider preparing yourself before taking actions as one is deemed to fail without preparation. Consider your thoughts before you speak so that you don't run out of words or put yourself into a corner. Consider your plans before implementing so that they can run without hindrances. Consider your actions before acting out so you will not have regrets. Guide yourself with a set of guiding principles so that you can always act accordingly.\"
This passage tells us that in doing anything, we can achieve success as long as we make good preparation, but without preparation, we will surely fail. And we need to recollect our thoughts before we speak in order to substantiate our points and not stumble on our words. Likewise, we need to be well prepared before acting on our plans, to plan ahead of obstacles and setbacks. We also need to be decisive in carrying out our plans and not have any regrets. Lastly, we need to have a set of guiding principles so that we will not go astray in our course of actions. This passage may be written more than 2,000 years ago, but
Page: 82
the essence is still applicable now.
As the saying goes, all good things come to an end, and it is not uncommon to see successful people or companies going downhill. Likewise, in running a country, challenges are present even during prosperous and peaceful times; therefore, to be always prepared for contingencies has always been the way for Singapore. Presently, the Government has initiated a discussion on the population and infrastructure blueprint for Singapore between 2020 and 2030. This is to plan ahead and make preparations, so that we have the ability to handle any crisis.
Besides paying attention to bread-and-butter issues, we should also pay attention to changes in our external environment. As such, I urge all Singaporeans to put the same intensity into discussing how to overcome international challenges. Just as even the wisest of men might make a mistake, even though the Government is already looking into formulating strategies for some time, it would be more beneficial for every Singaporean to participate in the discussion so that we could look into the details, or look at issues from a broader perspective, to come up with better and more creative solutions for the future challenges.
Mdm Speaker, Singapore's success did not come easy. The first generation of Singaporeans worked hard to build the nation from scratch. The second generation diligently carry on the work. Perhaps, in another 10 to 20 years, the decades of hard work would not be worth mentioning anymore. But we should not forget the sacrifices and contributions of the first and second generation, for they had made Singapore into what it is today. This Tang poem puts it well: \"Without going through the bitter cold winter, one cannot enjoy the sweet fragrance of plum blossoms\".
In another 10 to 20 years, the third generation will take over the baton and lead Singapore into another era. This generation of Singaporeans surpasses the first two in terms of education, knowledge, technology and international perspective. However, the challenge that Singapore faces has moved from surviving domestically to competing globally.
Mdm Speaker, in this global economy, regional and international factors have crucial impact on Singapore. Therefore, in the next 10 to 20 years, besides looking into domestic issues, we need to have broader perspectives and look beyond Singapore. Solving bread-and-butter issues alone will not help us preserve our country. We need to increase our overall competitiveness in order
Page: 83
to survive in the global game. As \"one should look far ahead when making big plans\", one wrong move may cost the game, but one good move may lead to a checkmate. Governing a country is like playing chess. Looking around us, we will notice that many countries have risen and fallen, and, very often, one mistake causes them a lifetime of regrets.
Recently, I saw a couplet which was very interesting. I would like to share it with everyone, as an exhortation and as a reminder. The first line goes: \"The perspectives of the world\", and the second line goes: \"The spirit of braving through storms\". What I get from this couplet is the nation of Singapore was built upon the changing state of affairs among countries, thus we always need to look at domestic matters with a global perspective, and we need to build our nation with the same kind of spirit our pioneers had – to brave the storms and work hard to build our nation.
If the Government and the people can be of one heart and work together, we will continue to have a bright future. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Good afternoon, Mdm Speaker. I speak in support of this Motion. When Singapore proclaimed its Independence in 1965, one of the aims in the proclamation was to \"seek the welfare and happiness of her people, in a more just and equal society.\" Reading this Budget brought that aspiration to mind, as it seemed that many of the measures in this Budget are geared towards building a more just and equal society in this modern age, with the welfare and happiness of the people in mind.
In 1965, the reference to \"a just and equal society\" was a declaration that all people should be equal before the law and should have equal rights and opportunities. This is something that we take for granted in many ways, but, at that time, it had to be fought for. Now, over the decades, since Singapore's Independence, Singapore has prospered. Equality of opportunities has allowed many people to benefit, some more than others. Unfortunately, over the years, equality of opportunities often means inequality of outcomes. This has led to the current situation where we have rising income and wealth inequalities in Singapore.
One big danger of this inequality of outcomes, in rising income and wealth disparities, is that it may lead to inequality of opportunities as well, if the children of the wealth-off have better chances, while the children of those who
Page: 84
are less well-off do not have as many good opportunities.
In that sense, the entire debate of whether or not we should strengthen our safety nets or maintain meritocracy, is perhaps not necessarily an accurate debate. What is perhaps a better characterisation is how we should strengthen and support our safety nets so that we can maintain meritocracy and keep equality of opportunities.
In that respect, I support many of the measures in this Budget. I think the broadly re-distributive themes are in the right direction. The property taxes are a very good way of capturing those who have wealth and who are enjoying it. At the same time, the higher distributions in terms of bigger workfare payments, as well as more generous GST Vouchers, are very good means of redistribution.
In this speech, what I hope to do is focus on another group – and this is really the middle-income Singaporeans, those who may live in 4- and 5-room flats, and who may be struggling with both the upbringing of children as well as caring for elderly parents within their families. Within my constituency, this certainly represents a very large proportion of the households.
Many of the measures in this Budget move in the right direction for this group of people. But I think there are still some areas where more can be done, and I will just go through some of the bigger areas that are in many people's minds.
The first is childcare and child-raising. I think everyone in this House agrees that one of the biggest challenges that Singapore faces is how to improve our total fertility rate, what we can do to encourage more people to have children. Certainly, in my ward, which is a much younger estate, there are many families with children. One of the biggest challenges that many of them raised to me is that getting childcare is difficult and very expensive.
In that sense, I certainly welcome the expansion of childcare and student care benefits in this Budget, as well as greater subsidies for pre-school education. I also welcome the reduced levy on foreign domestic workers – they can also help with the child-raising. But perhaps, aspirationally, we could go even further in this respect. If we look at Primary and Secondary education, the philosophy we have always taken is that the large chunk of the cost of Primary and Secondary education should be borne by the state, with parents paying a certain amount of fees. The fees are never enough to pay for the whole cost, but the parents would, by and large, pay something so that they still value the
Page: 85
service.
As a matter of philosophy, it might be helpful if we did this for childcare as well. What this means is that we will be socialising the cost of childcare a great deal more and taking away the burden from individual families. This means parents will pay a certain amount, but it will not necessarily be in the hundreds of dollars. If we want to maintain the cost, we could make it something token. For lower income families, this already happens. Those who pay $5 or $20 a month for childcare are very happy. But this does not apply to the majority of the households. There is a hope for socialising the cost of child-raising even more and providing more subsidised childcare for middle income families.
Another aspect in many people's mind for the young working adults is, \"What are my prospects going to be like at work? What is going to happen?\" A big concern here is what happens when we have rising numbers of foreign workers coming in. In this respect, the measures that increase the levies and tighten the quotas on both S Pass and Work Permit holders are welcomed, especially by lower income Singaporeans, who might feel that they are facing competition from them. As I mentioned in my previous speech for the White Paper debate, there is also scope for expanding this protection to Employment Pass holders, perhaps introducing some method of labour market testing, or even restricting the numbers. I am glad that there seems to be some steps in this direction made in the Budget as well. This is a measure that I would support.
SMEs are another important area that need a lot of support. I welcome a lot of the schemes that are in place in this Budget. I have filed COS cuts on these and I will take that up in more detail in the next session. SMEs do employ a very substantial part of our workforce and it is necessary for us to make sure that any workforce restructuring we do still keeps their interests in mind.
Now, let me deal with the third element that is big on the minds of many of these young Singaporeans and, that is, healthcare. A lot of the young working families tell me that they are stuck with paying very expensive cost for child raising. At the same time, they may have elderly parents staying with them and are concerned about what happens if their parents suddenly fall ill. For a lot of low-income families, there are very substantial subsidies for healthcare. But for middle income families, especially when means testing takes place, this may not be as generous, and the middle-income families may be forced to make more serious trade-offs, in terms of what they can and cannot do. This again places a greater burden on the middle-income families.
Page: 86
Aspirationally, could we provide healthcare that would be substantially cheaper for a large majority of the population after they reach a certain age? I understand that the current measures that expand Medisave and Medifund are in the right direction. This could be one means of doing it. Another way of doing it would be to expand the coverage of MediShield and include a larger amount of conditions in that and reduce exclusions.
I recognise all these measures would obviously mean much greater Government spending in the upcoming years. I could deal with that in a while.
One more aspect, since we are being aspirational, that I would like to discuss is housing. Again, a number of middle-income families have told me that while they would like to have bigger families, it would be nice if there were bigger flats available and the specific request was flats with more rooms – four bedrooms or five bedrooms. One couple was telling me that they have two children – one is a boy and one is a girl – and the husband's parents. So, the parents take one room, he and his wife take one room, and there is one more bedroom for the children. It gets a bit awkward, as the boy and girl get older, for them to share the room. I guess in the past, we may have been more prepared to have more children sharing rooms and so on, but I guess, as Singaporeans get wealthier, their aspirations rise. I guess they would like to have more comfortable housing options available, too.
As long as we can build flats higher, one more option might be to actually provide larger flats for people to buy. If we want to restrict these to families that are growing, we could even say that these flats are only available for those who are upgrading so that you will not have a lot of first timers going towards them. Those who have a bigger family who wish to take in their parents within the flat would have that option, too.
Having mentioned a lot of measures which I think will probably add to the strain on Government finances, it is probably responsible to mention a little bit on the revenue front as well. Most Members in this House can see lots of areas where additional Government spending would be helpful, but the big challenge we face is where are we going to raise all these revenues from? I think there are some options we could look at.
The first is revenue from Government land sales. At the moment, most revenue from Government land sales goes into the reserves and all we are allowed to spend is the income from it. Now, this, in a sense, appeals to one's innate sense of responsibility because when we sell away land, it may have a
Page: 87
30-year lease or 99-year lease and it would be irresponsible to spend everything in one year. But if you look at a lot of the Government spending, a lot of it also involves investment. So, for example, if you are investing in infrastructure, if you are building hospitals, these also have a long lifespan. Certainly, in Hong Kong, government land sales are recognised as part of government revenue and used for annual spending. So, if we need more spending, this may be one option by which we can raise the revenues.
Another option is to look at using a larger proportion of our net investment income for our yearly spending. At the moment, we use about 50%. I think there is potential to use a much larger proportion of this, provided that we account for inflation. This, again, would give us more options for fiscal spending.
And, finally, of course, taxation. If we provide a society where we can say that we will socialise the cost of childcare, socialise the cost of medicine even more, then people might even be prepared to pay higher taxes if they do not have to worry about these costs on an individual basis. I guess this is a question that we can look at if the numbers require it.
Overall, I think this Budget is a very good Budget because it goes towards helping us create a more just and equal society and to look after the welfare of the people. But I think there is more we can do in terms of reducing the significant cost pressures the middle income faces.
One last point that I should probably make is, as a matter of philosophy, what this also means is that we will probably be growing our reserves at a less aggressive rate because we will be having less revenues going in from land sales, and less of a proportion of our net investment income. But, personally, I think this is something that I am comfortable with because, if we look at where we are in our stage of development, we are probably looking at a stage where the Baby Boomers will be growing older up to 2030. So, we are looking at a stage of exceptional spending for, maybe, the next 17 years or so. But after that, if we actually see a declining population, we may not actually need such substantial reserves. So, if we look at breakeven, that means balancing the budget and not seeing our reserves diminish substantially over the next 17 years, I think we would be in a fiscally responsible position as well. I certainly hope that in the upcoming years we can be more generous in extending our social safety nets and that we can still continue to balance our finances in the way we have always done.
Page: 88
Mr Teo Siong Seng: Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, fellow Members of Parliament, good afternoon! Firstly, I would like to declare that I am the President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry. After the announcement of the Budget 2013 in Parliament, our chamber members have aired their views and provided us with their recommendations. Everyone hopes that I could help them express their views in Parliament today.
I feel that this year's Budget is an inclusive and forward-looking one. Elderly, low-wage workers and preschoolers have all been suitably covered. Moreover, a package of incentives for the next three years will encourage enterprises to restructure and upgrade and promote the sustainability of Singapore's economic growth.
The most heartening part of the Budget is that some of the appeals that the Chamber had put forward on behalf of businesses have found responses in this year's Budget. Apart from this, five out of the 12 items on the Chamber's Pre-Budget Wish-List submitted at the end of December 2012 had also been responded to positively. These include strengthening, streamlining and broadening the Productivity and Innovation Credit Scheme (PIC), reducing transport costs, lowering the corporate income tax rate, establishing a three-year Transition Support Package similar to an \"Economic Restructuring Grant\" which we had proposed and extending the scope of the Job Flexibility for Productivity (JFP) initiative.
In order to build a better Singapore and help enterprises during this period of economic restructuring, the Government has rolled out a three-year package of incentives worth $5.3 billion. Integral to this is the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS). This would not only help to increase the salary of local employees, but help to reduce companies' wage costs, with benefits to both employees and employers.
However, we would still urge employers to strengthen their communication with workers, and help them to fully understand the integral connection between the growth of an enterprise and driving up productivity, to manage the unrealistic expectations of workers on wage increases. For example, if a company had originally wanted to increase its worker's pay by $100 and the
Page: 89
Singapore worker knows that the Government will co-fund 40% of the increase, he may hope to get a higher wage increase of $166. The scope of the Wage Credit Scheme needs to be more closely examined. It would only apply to those workers who earn up to $48,000 in gross annual wages, including bonus, that is, $3,000-plus in gross monthly wages. It would not apply to those who earn gross monthly wages of $4,000. Other than this, the WCS is applicable only to Singaporeans. When a company increases its wages, it should also consider the performance of its non-Singaporean employees. Businesses should, therefore, proceed with caution in utilising this scheme and wage increases have to be linked to productivity growth. Otherwise, they would not be able to withstand the pressures of higher labour costs after the scheme expires in three years' time.
While Singapore is stepping up its pace of economic restructuring, it is a painful process that is unavoidable, but neither should it be overlooked. Today, I would like to use three points to appeal on behalf of two of our Chamber's trade association members.
One, the latest financing curbs on motor vehicle loan amounts and their tenure have a severe impact on the used car market. We hope that the Government would differentiate between new cars and used cars, and offer some financing schemes to help industry players that are affected.
Two, liberalise the space utilisation for neighbourhood shophouses, allowing SMEs, and especially micro-enterprises, some flexibility for restructuring.
Three, during the process of economic restructuring, there should be greater coordination amongst different Government agencies, in order to solve speedily any difficulties encountered by SMEs and micro-enterprises. This would also ensure that Singapore's culture and core values have an opportunity to thrive.
On my first point, last week, local car dealers experienced a \"tsunami\", with announcements in the Budget and from the Monetary Authority of Singapore. The immediate curbs on car loans have been very unsettling for the industry and its customers. On the afternoon of 25 February, the new Budget announced the introduction of a tiered Additional Registration Fee structure with higher ARF for luxury cars. On that same evening, the Monetary Authority of Singapore suddenly announced that, with immediate effect, the maximum motor vehicle loan amount would be reduced to 50% or 60%, depending on Open Market
Page: 90
Value, and the tenure of a motor vehicle loan will be capped at five years. The Singapore Vehicle Traders Association (SVTA) and the Automobile Importers and Exporters Association (AIEA) quickly approached our Chamber to give us their feedback on the three big challenges the car dealers would have to deal with as a result of these cooling measures.
The first challenge: what would happen to new cars which have already been ordered? Based on the market trend, car dealers have already ordered their cars from suppliers to meet their sales targets for 2013 and paid up a 20% deposit. Those new cars delivered to Singapore would already attract import duty. With such immediate cooling measures, car dealers would have to honour their orders and cannot possibly pull out.
The second challenge: what would happen to the 20,000 used cars in the used car market? The value of the used car stock amounts to $1 billion. All along, the used car market has been patronised by the working class. These curbs would have an effect on those families which really need cars as a mode of transportation. In general, car dealers would buy used cars from the car owners and apply for floor stock financing from the banks to help with their cash flow. With these newly introduced cooling measures, car dealers need a longer time to offload their used cars, translating to higher costs for the interest payable.
The third challenge: what would happen to the Used Car Centre which has been leased and renovated not long ago? As an assistance to their members, the SVTA had signed a three-year lease (2012-2014) with the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) for the MacKenzie Used Car Centre. The association has invested $700,000 into renovating the place. Immediately after the cooling measures were announced, SVTA received calls from some car dealers that due to the bleak market outlook, they would be pulling out from the Used Car Centre.
SVTA offered three suggestions. Firstly, could the Government consider applying the financial restrictions to new cars and not the used cars? Such cooling measures would not only control buyers but cut off the lifeline of the car dealers. This would cause severe damage to the entire industry. Could the Government consider waiving the financing curbs for car importers? Secondly, could the Government's cooling measures be implemented progressively? If the Monetary Authority of Singapore could give a six-month to 12-month grace period, car dealers could have some respite and probably sufficient time to deal with their stock. Thirdly, could relevant Government agencies offer assistance schemes to tide over this critical period for the car dealers? If banks and financial institutions react to these curbs by raising interest rates, some 1,000 car dealers would suffer heavy financial burdens, and the consequences would
Page: 91
be devastating.
If different Government agencies were to tighten their policies at the same time, this would definitely add to the burden of the car dealers. This can be likened to patients in the hospital who may be treated by a number of doctors. If each doctor treats the patient without communication or coordination with each other, the patient could receive injections from each of the doctors. Each injection, while intending to help the patient, may cause the patient's condition to become critical. SVTA hopes that relevant Government agencies, such as MOF, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, SLA, MOT and LTA could organise joint dialogues to coordinate on their respective policies to prevent the situation from becoming worse.
I have asked SVTA why the dialogues needed to include SLA. They said that since the Used Car Centre was set up, they have to sign leases every year with SLA and this process did not pose any problems. However, starting from last year, SLA started to implement a bidding system. SVTA had no choice but to pay a four-fold increase in rental to keep the lease, for the benefit of their members. With the immediate cooling measures, some used car dealers are unable to cope. The entire industry has entered a crisis situation. While we support the Government's economic restructuring policy, we also hope to help our member companies solve their urgent problems.
The second point I wish to make is that local SMEs need to make every effort to restructure within this new environment. However, some micro-enterprises face numerous difficulties in the process. I refer to the case of some small businesses operating in 2-storey neighbourhood shophouses with living quarters under HDB. Prior to mid-2012, HDB had allowed bakery and cake shops to do cake decoration and icing, and store their cakes in refrigerators within the air-conditioned area on the second storey. Then, from mid-2012, due to Hygiene and Fire Safety reasons, the second storey of the shophouse was no longer permitted for such activities and could only be used for the intended purposes as \"living quarters\". Neighbourhood shops, when renewing their licences, have to strictly observe the rules imposed by HDB, SCDF and the National Environmental Agency.
The monthly rental for a neighbourhood shophouse in a central location averages $10,000, and other business costs are also on the rise. Added to this, Government agencies control the usage of commercial space. The small industry players are like hairy crabs with all legs tied up and with no room to move. Although the Government has been promoting the use of shared services for the industry, using outsourcing services and establishing central
Page: 92
kitchens to improve productivity, cakes made from the same mould and thus look and taste the same would not be appealing to consumers or retailers. Thus, many of these shops which are affected by the new rulings would rather give up their bakery business.
Micro-enterprises are the most affected by economic restructuring. They are too small to benefit from automation. Insufficient capital limits their expansion. Even if they want to expand their operations, they need to move out of the existing small premises. Food manufacturers suggest that the Government set up a public cold storage facility in the food industry zone, which can be rented out to smaller factories. This would allow existing factories to free up some space, purchase automated equipment and raise the productivity of the whole industry.
Thirdly, to recap the above examples, we would suggest that, going forward, at certain crucial stages of economic restructuring, Government agencies need to intensify their mutual coordination efforts and work together. At the same time, under the tightened foreign worker policy, we hope Government agencies could streamline some of the over-stringent Government rules and create a more pro-business environment for the economic restructuring measures to truly benefit the industry. Twelve years ago, the Government established a Pro-Enterprise Panel (PEP) and we hope that the PEP could make its role even more useful and beneficial at this time.
Two thousand thirteen is a year of reform for local enterprises and a major operation is needed before the process of economic restructuring can be completed. We are willing to help member companies to meet this enormous challenge, and hope that with constant dialogue and interaction between Government and business, we could reduce the risk of this big operation. If this operation succeeds, it would give business a new lease of life. If it fails, businesses would be in dire straits. Hence, the only option is to cooperate and brainstorm over how to succeed.
At the same time, during this period of economic restructuring, we should not ignore Singapore's unique character and traits, which consists of many small components. Those small shops which line the big streets and small alleys are also part of Singapore's cultural heritage and form part of our core values. We want to improve on our effectiveness and productivity, but we should not do it at the expense of culture and tradition. Over the years, large malls have become a part of the retail landscape, with each mall having many similar shops selling the same merchandise and providing the same services. There is hardly any space left for SMEs and micro-enterprises. I am concerned
Page: 93
that if these enterprises are not able to survive, our city would also lose a part of its vibrancy and part of Singapore's unique charm.
Going forward, the Chamber will be doing its utmost to help its trade association members pursue productivity-led growth, as well as to preserve its original character. Hong Kong is also facing an ageing population and encounters the same pressures of escalating rentals. However, not only can their retail, services, food and beverage industry and other SMEs and micro-enterprises survive; they are also extremely resilient and vibrant. There must be a reason for their success. We have already led groups of local enterprises to Taiwan on study missions. This year, the Chamber plans to organise study trips for local SMEs to visit Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea to understand and learn from their SMEs. Singapore enterprises need to learn how they survive and obtain some experience, and hope that the answers would be forthcoming. I hope that when the Government rolls out policies which are related to SMEs, they could also do appropriate research and learn from the practical experience of other regions. What they can do, we can, too! Having said this, I support Budget 2013.
Mr Alex Yam (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget. Let me first begin, Madam, by looking outside of our little red dot. The world economy as we know it is still very much in flux. Unemployment and underemployment rates remain high globally. In the Euro area alone, unemployment in January of this year was 11.9%; simply put, 19 million people are out of job in Europe.
The young are not immune from the impact of economic slowdowns. The International Labour Organization (ILO) projects that young people are three times more likely to be unemployed than adults, and, currently, over 75 million youths are looking for work. This is what the ILO calls a \"scarred\" generation, facing a dangerous mix of high unemployment, under-employment and high working poverty.
In Singapore, we have so far avoided the pitfalls through a combination of sound economic policies and a hardworking resilient population. But is it anything to crow about?
Greece and Spain, and even the UK have all seen rising discontent and pent-up anger amongst disenfranchised youths, seemingly kicked out from
Page: 94
even the rat race, without any sense of ownership in the society that they live in. It all boils down to a single thought – a lack of a sense of fairness.
Budget 2013 promises a better Singapore for the future. It takes into consideration the different profiles of our working demography. I echo the calls made by my fellow labour Members for our different worker segments. It again boils down to a sense of fairness for our workers, that they are valued and not just statistics.
But I make an additional call, Mdm Speaker, for the young job entrants of Singapore. As we aspire for a better Singapore, as this Budget calls for, as we grow qualitatively and build an inclusive society, let us not forget that our youths are not just beneficiaries of a better future Singapore but are also co-owners, co-builders and co-drivers as well. The future cannot be shaped in a vacuum; the future generations of Singaporeans must have a hand in the future success of our country. It is none more important than to ensure that they have a fair chance of being more than just building blocks, but co-creators of growth.
Over the past few Budgets, little mention has been made of our youth job entrants and the challenges that they will face or to address their many varied aspirations holistically.
We have, however, made some inroads in recent years, including the Max Talent scheme for young PMEs in SMEs, entrepreneurship grants for young Singaporeans who aspire to run their own businesses, progressive education and greater quality vocational training with additional pathways, such as the SIT and SUTD. But more remains to be done.
The next three years will be crucial ones for Singapore. As we continue to ensure that we have a viable economic future, I hope that our young job entrants will have a fair deal. I have three main areas of focus today.
Firstly, a fair employment market for our young job entrants. One of the biggest stumbling blocks for our fresh job seekers is what I call an \"experience trap\". A significant number of young graduates that I spoke to recently, expressed their disillusionment at a lack of opportunity. This seemingly runs counter to the employees' market that we are supposed to be experiencing.
The hurdle, simply put, is that employers require minimum years of experience for applicants to get a job. It is an oxymoronic situation. If young job entrants are not given an opportunity, then they will never get the experience
Page: 95
required of them.
Contract work and long-term internships are also becoming the norm. A recent article in the New York Times on 1 March was titled \"The No-Limits Job\". It alluded to the fact that the notion of traditional entry-level jobs are fast disappearing. In its place are longer hours and less job security. In addition, the concept of a 22-22-22 worker is emerging. And no, it is not a Toto combination, but meaning a 22-year-old who is willing to work 22 hours a day earning just $22,000 a year. This is a frightening proposition.
I urge the Government to consider more measures for young job entrants to better protect them over the next three years. I agree with the hon Member Mr Patrick Tay that protecting a Singaporean Core for PMEs, especially for young PMEs, through robust labour market testing may be required. But I also urge that young job entrants get a fair deal and fair employment, that they are not taken advantage of, in terms of pay or benefits; that they are better educated of their employment terms and be work-ready even when completing their education.
This brings me to the point of a future-ready workforce for future industries. I am heartened that the Budget calls for developing capabilities for new growth industries. The Future of Manufacturing and Satellite Industry Development Fund will commit close to $600 million over the next five years.
Yet, I am also apprehensive. If we look back into the not-so-distant past, we have similarly welcomed new growth industries into Singapore. However, the dilemma has been one of heightened investment but little downstream positive economic impact for the average Singaporean.
The early workers in these industries have tended to be skilled foreign labour to staff these start-ups. Singaporeans, especially aspirational young job entrants, are right to feel that they have been left out of the equation. Entrenchment of skill sets within these industries also creates the impression that it is not possible to break in.
As such, I urge our education, manpower and economic agencies to work closely together to chart future growth markets. This is so that we can prepare early for a future-ready workforce. So that the young potential job entrants can chart for themselves a future that they will have a hand in shaping; that they are allowed to be at the forefront of the excitement of spearheading new industries.
Page: 96
I further suggest the widening of programmes jointly promoted by the NTUC and SPRING Singapore. These programmes, also mentioned by the hon Member Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, such as the Core Executives Programme and the Management Associate Partnership, for our fresh graduates from our Universities and Polytechnics for these new growth sectors. This is to institutionalise a way forward to ease their entry into these sectors.
But not just future-ready for future industries. This can apply to current industries as well. In the OPEC cluster which is still a growing and vibrant one, ITE graduates are being well engaged through the NITEC course in Chemical Process Engineering as well as the Higher NITEC in Process Plant Design and other related courses. I understand that the pioneer batch of over 80 students have already gone through some of these courses and have been employed in the industry.
In the Electronics and Precision Engineering sector, though not yet a popular choice amongst young job seekers, it is in reality a sector full of opportunities where young job entrants can make meaningful careers for themselves. So, beyond focusing on the \"sexy\" jobs, all jobs should be seen as good jobs for growth.
As such, I call on the Government to continue to focus on new industries and at the same time rejuvenate existing core industries and ensure that all our young job entrants have fair opportunities to be part of the growth of our economy.
Lastly, for young Singaporeans to have a fair chance to take chances. As our society progresses, so opens new pathways and new opportunities. Many more young job entrants are exploring new possibilities and creating waves in the process. Yet, we are perhaps still a nation stuck in a traditional mode of industry, an economy still focused on the end state of material gain and GDP growth.
Young Singaporeans often relate that they feel stifled, that the values of a generation of helicopter latchkey parents have driven them to only concentrate on what is economically in their best interest.
But as the experience of creativity in other countries tells us, such as in the US where pathways are created where there were none, where the expression of the young are also a major driver of local economies, we may be better placed perhaps if we encourage more options for our young job entrants to
Page: 97
explore. A better Singapore should be one of vibrancy and multiple routes for young Singaporeans to take.
I am glad that the SUTD and SIT have been set up to allow additional avenues especially for our Polytechnic students to go further with their aspirations.
However, in spite of this, this year's Budget again focuses on the traditional core of work, such as manufacturing, electronics, data analytics, finance, maritime. I urge the Government to seriously consider the aspirations of our young in shaping a future economy. Let our young Singaporeans, our young job entrants, have a fair chance at taking a chance.
I also propose that a National Youth Incubator Fund be considered to be set up to allow young Singaporeans to propose ideas to better prepare Singapore for the future and allow them the funding to testbed their ideas.
Mdm Speaker, before I conclude, I beg your indulgence to share some slides, to introduce two inspiring young Singaporeans I met recently who have very different aspirations.
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.
Mr Alex Yam: Firstly, Jonathan. Jonathan is 21 this year and serving with the Police K9 Unit. He had a rocky start to his education. He failed his PSLE, retook and went from EM2 to EM3. But he persevered, passed his PSLE and went on subsequently to ITE. He did well and excelled in the course of his choice, graduating with a NITEC in Community Care and Social Services.
He was inspired by his late mother who passed away from cancer in October 2008. But he feels that it is a privilege to live her legacy of serving the community. As a chain smoker in his Secondary school days, he quit and, not just that, he became an \"I QUIT Ambassador\" for the Health Promotion Board to motivate others to quit as well.
For this and his other community effort, he was awarded the Star of SHINE by the National Youth Council last year. He aspires to be a social worker and to be there for others. In addition, he also aspires to be a world-class illusionist, to use magic to motivate others. In his words, and I quote, \"I want to give back to
Page: 98
the community, society, nation and the world my 200%.\"
The second young Singaporean is Tay Jia. She is 19 this year. She studies at Ngee Ann Polytechnic and is an active volunteer with the Thye Hua Kwan Moral EIPIC Centre as well as the National Library Board. She received a scholarship last year from the PCF to continue her studies in an area of interest. Because Tay Jia loves children, she aspires to be an educational psychologist eventually. In her words, and I quote, \"I have a passion for interacting with children and I aspire to be able to make a difference in their lives. I feel that it is a challenging yet rewarding career.\"
Her hope is for a future Singapore with a resilient economy providing career opportunities and learning resources to groom active and thoughtful young people for a better tomorrow. Some may say idealistic, but I say we need to give more opportunities to young Singaporeans like Tay Jia, Jonathan and many others.
Mdm Speaker, three years from today, I hope that we can find ourselves in a better Singapore where young Singaporeans have fair employment deal, are future-ready and, like Jonathan and Tay Jia, be given a fair chance to pursue their dreams.
We must value every young job entrant but not just every young job entrant, but value every single worker in this transition and transformational process. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Lim Swee Say): Madam, there is a saying that people do not care how much we know until they know how much we care. As we strive for a better Singapore, what do we really care about? From the perspective of the Labour Movement, a better Singapore must be about enabling Singaporean workers to live a better life.
Madam, it is often said, money is not the only thing. But if there is no money, how to do anything? This is the reason why as a Labour Movement, we have always firmly believed that a job is the best welfare and full employment is the best protection. I am happy to say that this philosophy, this commitment, is actually embraced not just by the Labour Movement but by our tripartite partners as well. As a result, decade after decade, we work very closely together to ensure that we keep unemployment low and employment rate high so that
Page: 99
workers can have the best welfare and the best protection.
As a result of this concerted effort, today, while other countries are trying to lower their unemployment rate, here in Singapore, we are talking about how to increase our employment rate. Other countries are stuck with wage stagnation. Here, in Singapore, we are talking about how we can sustain real wage increase. Other countries are fighting for job growth because they simply do not have enough jobs to go round their workers. Here, in Singapore, we are having a tight labour market, shortage of workers, we are talking about how we can pursue better paying jobs.
Madam, as we go through this period of transition, I feel it is very important that we keep what we have done well and at the same time improve on areas which we have not done as well. As we strive to do better, we must make sure that this better Singapore will be better for all Singaporeans. Over the last two days, my fellow labour Members have touched on the aspirations of the various types of Singaporean workers.
For the older workers, my fellow labour Member, Mr Heng Chee How, called for the re-employment age to be raised to 67 from the present 65. For the low-wage workers, my fellow labour Member, Mr Zainal Sapari, called for the licensing of certain low-wage sectors so that workers can enjoy fair wages. For the women workers, Nominated Member Ms Mary Liew, called for more measures to be introduced so that women can have a good career and a happy family both at the same time. For the PMEs, my fellow labour Member, Mr Patrick Tay, called for fair opportunities through the introduction of labour market tests and even quantitative measures, such as the imposition of dependency ratio ceiling. For the SME and service sectors, labour Member, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, called for more support to encourage bottom-up breakthrough in productivity gain and gain sharing. For the self-employed, labour Member, Mr Ang Hin Kee, called for greater attention to be paid to them to help them to upgrade better, at the same time, to help them to save more for their retirement, for their medical needs and so on. And last, but not least, for the new job entrants, labour Member, Mr Alex Yam – Members have just heard from him – called for a fair employment market as well as making sure that our new job entrants will be future-ready.
Madam, putting all these together, I would just like to highlight two aspirations of the Singaporean workers, from what we know through our interactions with Singaporean workers.
Page: 100
Firstly, Singaporean workers really aspire to do more to strengthen the Singaporean Core in every sector of our economy. Yes, every five years, every 10 years, when we look back at our progress, I think every one of us hopes that Singapore would get better every five years, every 10 years. The Singaporean workers want to see not just a better Singapore, but rather they want to be able to say that we the Singaporeans made it happen. Yes, Singaporean workers recognise and the Labour Movement recognises that the Singaporean Core does not equal to Singaporeans only. In fact, we should welcome foreign manpower as our partners and friends but we must remain at the core. In other words, yes, we would like to achieve a better Singapore with the help of foreign workers and foreign manpower, but not the other way round.
Madam, the second aspiration for many Singaporean workers is that a better Singapore must be and will be inclusive of all Singaporeans and progressive for all Singaporeans. We would like to see a broad base upgrading, in terms of skills, productivity, career and wages so that all Singaporeans can have better jobs, better pay, and live a better life. We would like to see a Singapore where we all respect each other, care for each other and work together with each other. But most importantly, we would like to see a Singapore where we, as one people, live not just in one nation, but more importantly, live together in one same world.
Why do we say that? Singapore has made the transition from Third World to First. I think we often say that. But from the workers' point of view, there are still many jobs today that are stuck, that remain in the Second World and the Third World. We have to change them for the better and change them fast. Of course, one option is to introduce minimum wage. I think Member Inderjit Singh mentioned it. From the Labour Movement's point of view, we share his concern, that more needs to be done and done faster.
Madam, minimum wage is highly attractive. More than 90% of the countries in this world have already adopted minimum wage. So, Singapore belongs to the minority. Why is it so? Minimum wage as a policy has its upside and its downside. The limitation of minimum wage is that if you want to maximise the upside, then there will be more downside as well. If you want to minimise the downside, then the upside will be limited as well. So, in other words, minimum wage can be a zero-sum game. You cannot have high upside and at the same time, low downside.
Singapore has been studying this minimum wage approach all over the world very carefully for many years. We have come to the conclusion that, firstly, there is no one way of implementing the concept of minimum wage. Various
Page: 101
countries implemented it differently. In the case of USA, for example, they have a minimum wage. At the same time, they have an income tax credit, similar to our WIS. In the case of Australia, they implement minimum wage sector by sector. In the case of Germany, they do not have minimum wage, but they allow minimum wage to be implemented selectively in certain sectors.
We studied all of them. We then asked ourselves in Singapore, can we try to do better? Can we put in place a so-called \"minimum wage system\" whereby we can have maximum upside and yet, at the same time, minimum downside? After all these years of exploration and experimentation, I think, today, we have finally settled on a model, not the final model yet, obviously it has to be evolved, but I think it is taking shape quite nicely from the perspective of the Labour Movement.
Today, with the Workfare Income Supplement, all workers earning below $1,900 will receive Workfare Income Supplement. So, it is a way of topping up the salary. The important point to note is that the Workfare Income Supplement adds to the CPF, adds to the cash taking for the workers without imposing any burden on the employer. So, in a way, we are able to maximise the upside for the workers without the employers having to live with the downside.
At the same time, we introduced the Workfare Training Scheme (WTS) to ensure that low-wage workers in particular can be upgraded as quickly as possible. Last year, we introduced the Progressive Wage System whereby we finally pull together four factors – the skills, productivity, career path as well as wages of the workers.
With the WIS, WTS and Progressive Wage Model, we believe we have now the minimum wage model. In fact, it is more than the minimum wage model whereby we can maximise the upside for the low-wage workers, at the same time minimise the downside. Of course, as labour Member, Mr Zainal Sapari, mentioned yesterday, even though the Progressive Wage Model is a good model, but the implementation will take time. Yesterday, Mr Zainal suggested that we can go beyond accreditation. Can we go for licensing? If we were to go for licensing, then, effectively, we have put in place a minimum wage system, sector by sector and, on top of that, WIS, WTS and on top of that, not just minimum wage but a wage ladder. So, a cleaner need not be stuck at the minimum wage of $1,000, as advocated in the Progressive Wage Model. The cleaner can move from $1,000 to $1,200 to $1,400 to $1,600 through the collective effort of the tripartite partners.
Page: 102
Madam, I share the concern that a lot more needs to be done and within a shorter time for low-wage workers. I am confident that if we put our efforts together and align our efforts, with the Workfare Income Supplement Workfare Training Scheme and the Progressive Wage system, we can do a lot for the low-wage workers a lot faster.
Madam, as we pursue this better Singapore to stay ahead and for Singaporeans to live better, we need to ensure that all sectors at all levels will go through a transformation, not just the low-wage workers and low-wage jobs. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Mr Tharman announced the three-year transition support package. As a Labour Movement, we are very encouraged by this package. Over the last week or so, since the announcement of the package, the most discussed component in the transition support package is the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS). There are some questions asked about whether this will actually help the SMEs, will the SMEs lose out, will it really lead to productivity gain and will wages actually drop at the end of the three-year WCS support.
Madam, if we look at wage increases, a normal wage increase would typically take into account, for example, the seniority of the workers, the performance and, of course, the market situation. If the market is tighter, the employers will typically grant greater wage increases. So, these are very normal market forces at work. However, given our present situation of a tight labour market and the expected tight labour market over the next few years, our assessment is that, on the ground, many employers, especially SMEs, will find themselves having no choice but to grant somehow a wage increase to the workers.
Basically, companies can have at least three options. First option is to not grant any wage increase. So, no wage increase means no Wage Credit Scheme. Of course, it is not an option open to companies, including SMEs. But for these companies and SMEs, I am very sure that many of them are fully aware that it can be a risky move in the tight labour market because you could end up losing your workers – not able to attract new ones, and may not be able to retain the existing ones.
The second option for the SMEs to adopt is that since the labour market is tight, I have no choice but to grant wage increases and then draw on the Wage Credit Scheme. So, if the SMEs grant $50, they can claim back $20 from the WCS, so their cost has come down to $30. If they grant $100, then $60, and $40 from the WCS. However, if these companies adopt the attitude that they just make use of the WCS to lower their wage cost without doing anything different
Page: 103
– the job is still the same, the skill is still the same, and the operation is still the same, then at the end of the three years, they will be back to square one, because nothing has changed. The operation is still the same. Like what the Chinese say: \"一寸光阴一寸金，寸金难买寸光阴\". In other words, yes, you can make use of WCS for the next three years, but what is even more precious is that you would have missed the opportunities to upgrade and enhance in these three years. At the end of three years, if the companies are back to square one, I think they will face even greater challenges.
The third option, which obviously is the preferred option from the standpoint of the Labour Movement, is for companies to take full advantage of not just the Wage Credit Scheme, but the total package under the transitional support package because, at the end of the day, it is important for companies to recognise that as we enter this new stage of development, in fact, the bottleneck of the Singapore economy, the bottleneck faced by all businesses, is now the bottleneck of manpower.
The limiting factor of the Singapore economy as we move ahead is actually manpower. Given such a situation, a wise and logical thing to do obviously is to try to break this manpower bottleneck by making best use of every worker and every person. For example, making best use of every worker could mean giving everyone and every worker the best opportunities and do the best to reward them. For the younger and better educated workers, over the next five to 10 years, we are going to see the majority of the workers becoming PMEs. Like what labour Member Alex Yam mentioned, many workers of today aspire to be future-ready. They look forward to the factories and services of the future. When Deputy Prime Minister Tharman announced the future of manufacturing plan, I was actually very excited. It was not discussed much in this sitting of Parliament. But in my view, it is the kind of incentive, programme and initiative that would bring Singapore to the next stage of development, creating all these exciting opportunities for the workers of today and tomorrow to really enable them to rise to their full potential.
At the same time, we must find ways to help our workers to do their jobs more effectively. If the job is already a first-world job, let us do whatever we can to further enhance the job to stay as first-world. If the job is a second-world job today, upgrade the second-world job to a first-world job. And from the third-world to second-world, and eventually to the first-world. So, we believe that is the best way we can break this manpower bottleneck. I am happy to say that within the unionised sector, we are, in fact, seeing more and more companies adopting this concept. We now have more and more companies – from aerospace to hotels to F&B and so on. What they are doing now is to pursue
Page: 104
breakthrough in productivity, to have the gain and, at the same time, share the gain with the workers in a very fair and reasonable manner.
Madam, simply put, of the three options – no wage increase, or just normal wage increase, or, thirdly, invest and share – we believe that this investing in productivity and sharing the gain is the way to go. It will not be easy, but if we apply our minds together, we believe it can be done. Of course, for many SMEs, one of the challenges they face is that you can invest in your productivity today, but it may take another one or two years before you realise the gain. In the meantime, what do you do? In fact, this is where the Wage Credit Scheme comes in. Because with the Wage Credit Scheme, the Government is now co-funding the sharing of the productivity gain, even before the gain is fully realised by the companies. We really hope that more companies will make full use of the PIC, WCS and all the other programmes to ensure that they can invest in productivity gain and share the gain.
Madam, looking ahead, our challenges, of course, would be in terms of can we speed up the momentum? I, for one, am a lot more confident today than before. Some Members expressed their concern that we had been talking about productivity gain 10 and 20 years ago, but there is not much breakthrough in some of these sectors. But today, I feel a lot more confident that, this time round, productivity will happen.
The reason why I am more confident is because we have decided to tighten on the increase of the foreign manpower. As I mentioned earlier, if we look ahead to the next 10 to 20 years, manpower will be the bottleneck of the Singapore economy. With manpower as the bottleneck, I am a lot more confident now that more and more companies will take this transformation towards a productivity-driven, innovation-driven economy a lot more seriously. We hope that enough companies will come forward so that we can look ahead into the future whereby more and more companies will be able to compete for customers by offering products and services which are cheaper, better and faster, and yet at the same time, able to attract, retain and reward the workers with better jobs and better pay.
I read in today's paper that there could be some confusion when my fellow labour Member Zainal mentioned yesterday that \"cheap is no good, good is no cheap\". It has created a bit of misunderstanding. Someone told me, \"Lim Swee Say, you said cheaper, better, faster. But your labour Member said that 'cheap is no good, good is no cheap'\". Actually, there is no contradiction between what Zainal and I are talking about. \"Cheaper, better, faster\" refers to the product and services. \"Cheap but no good, good but no cheap\" refers to the workers.
Page: 105
Workers do not equal to products and services, and products and services do not equal to workers. So, let us be very clear. In fact, we want to have both.
Madam, towards a Better Singapore is a journey. We will not see the completion of the transition in three years. But if we do not take the first step, there will not be a second step. Therefore, what is important is for us to make sure that in the next three years, let us take this first step together. What is even more exciting is that we can take the first step together towards a better economy, and along the way, contribute to a better society as well. Why? Because as we move towards a better economy, we must learn to value and respect every worker. If we could do that as a society and economy, I believe that the Singapore society can be a better and gracious society.
Ask ourselves, when was the last time we said \"Hello\" and \"Thank you\" to our bus captain, taxi driver, cleaner, security guard, waiter, waitress, employees, colleague or employer? When was the last time we did that? When was the last time we said \"Thank you\" to the person who holds the lift door open for us and to someone who gives way to us either in the shopping mall, on the highway or wherever? When was the last time we did that? In other words, it is very important that as we value every worker, we must also learn to respect every worker. That will make us, I believe, a much better society and economy. Madam, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our aim is to build a Singapore of tomorrow that will be better than the Singapore today. However, I hope that the better Singapore will be similar and yet different from the Singapore of today.
In terms of similarities, I hope that the future Singapore will continue to be a nation with full employment, high employment rates and continued wage growth. At the same time, I hope that the better Singapore of tomorrow will be different from the Singapore of today, that elderly workers will be better remunerated and are able to work for a few more years.
I hope that low-income workers can see swifter improvements in their jobs and enjoy higher wage increases than other workers. I hope that working women can not only have successful careers, but also happy families, and not have to choose between the two. I also hope that our professionals will have more space to develop their talents. I also hope that the self-employed will not be overlooked, that more attention will be paid to these workers, in terms of skills upgrading, retirement and healthcare. I also hope that future graduates
Page: 106
can have a better chance of joining the sectors they are interested in and have better careers.
Of course, to achieve a better Singapore is not an easy feat. Hence, we hope that the entire nation and the tripartite partners will work together to help and rally our workers and businesses.
In all, I hope that the better Singapore will be a country, society and people that value and respect every worker.
(In English): Madam, life is for the living. So, it is important that we help each other to live a full and better life, and I believe that is what a Better Singapore is all about. So, let us value every worker, value every Singaporean and make it happen for all Singaporeans. With that, I support the Budget.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang): Madam, this morning, I was elated to hear of my young special-needs staff, Wong, who happily showed his colleagues the $915 Workfare notification he had just received. Wong, who hardly speaks, was previously folding envelopes at a job centre with a monthly pay of about $220. My team and I offered him a job and pay that match his ability and potential. He is now an administrative assistant earning $1,020 a month. Wong is not the only one happy with his Workfare cheque. His employer also receives a Special Employment Incentive of 16% of his payroll, about $160 per month. Madam, this is the kind of good news that arises from good and thoughtful Budgets.
As a committee member of Our Singapore (OSG) Conversation, I thank Deputy Prime Minister Tharman, Minister of State Josephine and their team for yet another Budget with a Heart. In particular, I wish to touch on three of the 12 aspirations that were raised by thousands of Singaporeans in the OSG National Conversation. The three are: A Society that Takes Care of the Disadvantaged; A Society Where Everyone Can Age with Dignity; and A Singapore with a Strong and Vibrant Economy.
A Society that Takes Care of the Disadvantaged. Madam, this year's Budget continues the provision of a stronger safety net for the disadvantaged. It testifies to the coming of age of a Government that used to be wary of measures that smack of welfarism. This Budget is now more aggressive in its efforts to
Page: 107
provide help directly to the more vulnerable in our country.
I am grateful that Public Assistance recipients now not only receive an increased quantum, but also additional tiers of assistance in the cost of consumables, such as milk feed, adult diapers and so forth.
I am happy that low-income workers now receive a higher salary top-up through a more generous Workfare scheme. More people now benefit from the scheme, with the qualifying monthly income raised from $1,700 to $1,900. Payout of Workfare is also increased by 50%, with a larger portion paid out in cash.
I am happy that low- and middle income families remain in the radar, with additional GST vouchers and personal income tax rebates of up to 50%.
Madam, I believe that this Government has crossed the chasm of the fear of welfarism. But taking care of the disadvantaged cannot be done through Government alone. The perspective emerging from the OSG Conversations is, \"A society that takes care of the disadvantaged\" not just \"a government that takes care of the disadvantaged\". Singapore cannot be considered successful and will be much less significant if only a few people do very well, whilst the lowest segment struggles or the average-income cannot catch up. Singaporeans at the top of the socio-economic pyramid, either by way of inheritance or meritocracy, must be persuaded that no one reaches the pinnacle without help.
That is why I want to talk about a \"do-good tax\". I am heartened that the Government has carefully introduced more progressive tax systems on wealth. This is done carefully this year through what the Deputy Prime Minister calls the wealth tax – higher taxes on luxury cars and non-owner–occupied properties. Madam, we can see taxes of this nature as penalising the wealthy or, worse, discouraging hard work. But I urge those who are affected to see it in a different light. The value that those of us who do well must also do good – is worth anchoring and applying throughout Singapore.
In this respect, I urge the Government to re-consider the recommendation I made in last year's Budget speech to render the personal income tax structure of Singapore even more progressive. I am happy that the Member, Ms Sylvia Lim, for example, supports this, and I am mindful of Mr David Ong's and Dr Amy Khor's views to implement this with caution.
Page: 108
The highest income tax rate for a person earning a taxable income of over $320,000 today is still 20%. This is way below that paid by the highest-income earners in many countries, such as the Nordic countries, Australia, New Zealand, China and the United States.
I propose the introduction of a \"do-good tax\" that will compel the most wealthy and successful to contribute more to the tax chest. Specifically, I propose a 1% increase in income tax payable for every half a million dollars of taxable income above S$500,000. Persons earning above $500,000 to $1 million taxable income to contribute 1%, and an additional 1% for every $500,000 additional income bracket up to a maximum of 25%. This is still lower than that in many other countries. I propose also that the Government study how the principle of \"do-well and do-good\" be applied to the public sector, starting with those which are Government-linked.
Next, a society where everyone can age with dignity. Madam, Singaporeans who joined the OSG Conversations also said that they want a society in which everyone can age with dignity. Indeed, this Budget has provided a slew of measures that honours the seniors in our midst. These measures include: a $200 MediSave top-up for some 1.5 million Singaporeans aged 45 years and above; higher personal income tax rebate of 50% for those aged 60 years and above, subject to $1,500; a further discount in the foreign domestic worker levy, down to $120 per month, for families with elderly members; a restoration of CPF contribution rates for older workers; and extension of the Senior's Mobility Fund to allow claims for a much wider range of assistive devices, like hearing aids, shower chairs and motorised wheelchairs.
Madam, one of the top anxieties voiced by our elderly at many platforms – the OSG Conversations and house visits – is the rising cost of living. The fear of these seniors who are either not receiving incomes anymore or on the verge of retiring, or receiving not sufficient CPF income, for example, is the out-of-pocket cash expenses, such as outpatient clinic visits, medication for chronic illnesses and transportation costs. Hence, I urge the Government to consider two more visible measures to honour the seniors.
One, the healthcare Vouchers for Seniors. Instead of topping up their MediSave Account, which is not visible and likely not appreciated, issue holder-specific healthcare vouchers, similar to utility vouchers, that will allow seniors to purchase medical supplies, visit the clinics and procure outpatient medical or dental services; and
Page: 109
Two, provide free public transport for seniors. For all Singaporeans above 65, grant them free public transport during off-peak hours, instead of the more complex discounted fares that many seniors may not easily understand or appreciate.
Next, a Singapore with a strong and vibrant economy. Madam, one of the key aspirations that OSG Conversation participants want is a Singapore with a strong and vibrant economy. In this regard, I would like to focus on our SMEs – which form the backbone supporting our dream of an economically strong Singapore to foot the bills of the society we want.
Madam, like recent Budgets, the Government has provided a slew of measures for the business sector – most visibly this year, the three-year Transition Support Package comprising the Wage Credit Scheme, PIC bonus, corporate income tax, road tax rebates, and others.
I am glad that the Government has considered my suggestion to nurture high-potential SMEs, such as Mr Bean and others. I have heard from many SMEs who are appreciative of this year's measures. But many also continue to be concerned over the restriction of foreign labour inflow and restructuring for productivity gains remains a dream for some. The cost of doing business remains a key challenge. I have three suggestions for the Government's consideration in this regard.
First, higher to lower levels of WCS Support. Since the Wage Credit Scheme is not directly linked to productivity gains, I can only deduce that it is a measure to plainly help SMEs contain business cost. One of the key worries facing SMEs is the million-dollar question of \"what happens after three years?\" It would therefore make sense to reduce the level of WCS support to enable their weaning from such a subsidy. I propose a higher to lower scale of support, example 50% in Year 1, 40% in Year 2, and 30% in Year 3.
My second suggestion: install cooling measures to reduce business rental. It is not a surprise that Singapore real estate investment trusts (REITs), including retail REITs, remain a darling amongst the financial analysts. 2012 was a bumper year for them. OCBC, in fact, recently reported that looking into 2013, the sector offers the highest yield spreads compared to other major markets, with very positive outlook and financial position. But it is a known fact that many SMEs and even private food court stallholders have been suffering from the seemingly uncontrolled spiral increases in rental. Rental hikes that run way ahead of GDP have been the bane of businesses. If allowed to continue, rental
Page: 110
increases will put out not only current small businesses but also extinguish the flames of small businesses of the future. Even good online business models need warehousing real estate. MAS should install cooling measures and place a cap on the REITs' rental income rates. The increase should be a function of not only supply and demand, but also GDP and inflation indices.
My third suggestion: commission an independent study of the effectiveness of current productivity measures. Madam, many had lamented the slow progress of the productivity movement – which is the lynchpin of a continually strong and vibrant Singapore economy. Unless the numerous productivity incentives, grants, and support packages yield tangible results, many SMEs, including those with potential, will exit, leaving a major negative impact on jobs and workers. Madam, I do not believe we have solved these issues at the root cause level. I believe we have not yet found the key to the productivity problem. I propose that before we do more and more, we commission a qualified independent task force with actual corporate turnaround experiences to study this important issue.
In conclusion, Madam, a Budget is only the means to an end – a resource allocation. The end of resource allocation must be to create a Singapore that we all aspire to be. Madam, at this point, I seek your permission to distribute a handout from the OSG Conversation.
This OSG Conversation handout presents the latest summary table of the perspectives that emerged from more than 16,000 Singaporeans, more than 130 volunteers and more, who participated in Phase One of OSG. There are 12 emerging common aspirations arising from the largest national conversation ever held in our country. What Singaporeans would like to see are:
A society with diverse definitions of success;
A Singapore with a more fulfilling pace of life;
A Singapore with a strong and vibrant economy;
A society with strong families;
A Singapore that is affordable to live in;
Page: 111
A society where everyone can age with dignity;
A society that takes care of the disadvantaged;
A society with a greater sense of togetherness;
A Singapore for Singaporeans;
A society where Government and people have a more collaborative relationship;
A society anchored on values; and
A Singapore with a trustworthy government.
These are the voices of the people. They represent the hope of many of us. But these aspirations will not just self-execute. My fellow Members and I can advocate for many free things for Singaporeans. But the truth of the matter is there are finite resources and infinite needs and wants – sometimes conflicting ones. The hard truths remain – our ageing population, our declining birth rates, our shrinking local workforce, and income inequality in a global economy that values different skill sets and pace for them. Solutions to these complex issues cannot be thought of and mandated by the Government alone. They need to be crafted with the inputs of Singaporeans, with as many of us understanding the nature of the hard truths that we face, and opt for the best possible, and sometimes, painful solution, such as economic restructuring.
But as one of our national songs goes: we are Singapore, we will stand together and stand up for Singapore. We are after all Singapore; we made it when people said we could not.
Madam, I encourage fellow Singaporeans to join phase two of our on-going Singapore Conversations – to seek first to understand the issues, and then to be understood, so that their aspirations and ideas will continue to be considered and reflected in future Budgets. Madam, I support the Budget.
[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
Page: 112
Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, economic growth is an imperative for Singapore. At the same time, how this growth is achieved is central to who we are and what we are as a sovereign nation-state. The quantum of growth is important but equally, if not more, important is the quality of growth. Economic growth ultimately must achieve the bottomline of an inclusive society. An inclusive society is a non-negotiable.
This coming financial year's Budget seeks to continue the restructuring of our economy. There will be Singaporeans who are unable to take advantage of the restructuring and economic globalisation. This is where the Budget has to operate not merely as the Government's fiscal statement but as much as a social policy as well.
In my remarks, I will address three broad areas: one, the effectiveness of the Productivity Innovation Credit and the Wage Credit Schemes; two, the imperative of Shared Economic Growth with the focus on improving social mobility; and three, dealing with middle-class anxieties and the woes of the business sector.
In last year's Budget debate, I spoke of the need for Singapore to make an assertive return to the fundamental of shared and inclusive economic growth as the cornerstone of a revitalised social compact. Equitable, rather than equal, sharing must be the theme of our Budgets, and this is manifested in that those whose needs are greater will receive more while those who pay the most taxes do not get as much.
Having Singaporeans buy into and support this is a crucial challenge. This fundamental governance philosophy is even more important in light of the persistent income disparities, notwithstanding the slight moderation through income transfers from the Government's coffers.
There is a need for both redistribution and social mobility in our society, although I believe that our efforts should be primarily targeted at enhancing social mobility. While inequality is inevitable in any society and the income gap an abiding concern, I hope that we will keep redistributionist tendencies to a minimum.
Redistribution tends to harden class distinctions. A class war between the \"haves\" and the \"have-nots\" is debilitating. To be sure, the Government is expected to reduce the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and to avoid
Page: 113
situations where the system creates undeserved sources of inequality.
Sir, the Budget strikes me as having \"appeasement\" tendencies. I hope the Deputy Prime Minister can elaborate on the development of an even more progressive tax system. In the context of today's political climate, does the increasing progressivity of our tax system also signal the rise of redistribution as a means of managing the inequalities in our society?
On the other hand, income transfers have become larger over the last few years. It may well reflect that the Government did not do enough in the past. But I worry that the frequency and size of the income transfers could unintentionally give rise to a \"crutch mentality\", a dependency on the state that can, in some cases, sap the will to be responsible, self-reliant and resilient.
Given the severe limitations of what income transfers can do, I hope we can make a serious effort to establish non-income support as a central feature of our eco-system of care and caring. This would include a system of holistic care, early intervention and attendance to psycho-social needs, counselling, and so on.
Sir, I am fully aware that economic globalisation and our economic policies have not resulted in every Singaporean being able to benefit from them. Indeed, a considerable number feel hard done by it and find the economic restructuring disconcerting. Their sense of displacement is understandable as they see the nation's prosperity seeming to pass them by. Hence, I hope we can take bolder measures to help them help themselves, and renew their trust and confidence in our system and in the country.
Yes, we must continue to strengthen our social safety nets. Yes, we must pay special attention to children from less privileged homes. Yes, we must not be overly tight-fisted in social welfare provisions and delivery such that people in genuine need of help are driven to desperation and denied their dignity. But let us also be cautious about our goal of an inclusive society becoming a slippery slope or a back door to a welfare regime that takes away the dignity of work and the centrality of self-reliance.
Sir, the abiding imperative to improve our productivity and to spur innovation must not become fixated with key performance indicators. In short, while targets are important, we must not privilege form over substance if we want to engender real and sustainable change. The Budget has a slew of
Page: 114
measures to promote restructuring for quality growth.
My concern is whether the measures will successfully result in our becoming less addicted to the infusion of cheap, foreign labour. Will it engender appropriate behavioural change such that productivity and innovation become hallmarks of our restructured economy and economic activity in Singapore? Are we getting value for the expenditures that seek to increase productivity and innovation? Or will the productivity and innovation improvements be transient, merely a function of the infusion of funds? Will the addiction to cheap labour be now replaced by an addiction to generous Government funding to give temporary boosts to productivity and innovation?
Under the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme, a gamut of IT and automation equipment qualify for enhanced deduction or allowances. The list includes what many would regard as basic or essential equipment in today's workplaces, such as computers, mobile phones, PDAs. Is this not a simplistic understanding of productivity, and are we promoting a simplistic understanding of productivity? Equipment does not necessarily change behaviour; it is practice, mindset and leadership that change this behaviour.
Have the expenditures on the PIC scheme resulted in appropriate attitudinal change towards productivity and innovation, or is this an expensive way towards trying to cajole businesses to engineer a different but short-lived way towards doing their business? If so, economic restructuring will be a mere facade, with grave implications for our already flagging competitiveness. Could the Government enlighten us on the effectiveness and efficacy of the PIC scheme?
Similarly, while I appreciate the Wage Credit Scheme's (WCS) initiative to incentivise employers to share productivity gains with employees, I am not entirely persuaded that the Government's co-funding of 40% of the wage increases for Singaporean employees earning up to a gross monthly salary of $4,000 is going to radically promote restructuring and productivity.
At a $3.6 billion price tag for the WCS over the next three years and without the need for the employer to show restructuring or productivity gains, the WCS strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to redistribute income, independent of whether there is quality growth in the first place. Are we subsidising businesses to remain unproductive and lacking in innovation?
Page: 115
Sir, if we ask the wrong questions in policy matters, then we do not even have to worry about the answers at all. The WCS seems to flow from the wrong question of \"how do we show that productivity is intrinsically good?\" The answer in the Budget appears to be: \"Through increased wages that the Government co-funds through the WCS.\" Are we putting the cart before the horse?
Sure, the employer will still be responsible for 60% of the total wage increase. But there may not be productivity gains in the first place or a mindset change. In my view, the correct question ought to be: \"How do we incentivise employers to internalise productivity and innovation in their operations, and encourage them to share productivity gains with their employees?\" And the answer will almost certainly not include the blank cheque of wage increases that are not supported by productivity gains derived from deep restructuring. If this is the case, is the WCS inherently about re-distribution but masked in the cloak of restructuring and productivity gains?
I go on to my second point. Sir, whether it is redistribution or social mobility, we must ultimately be concerned with the basic need to improve access to opportunity in our society. Here, a key policy and societal objective is to secure as best as possible equality of opportunity, rather than an equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity requires social mobility to be as optimal as possible, while equality of outcomes tends to emphasise redistribution.
Sir, studies have shown that inequality and social immobility are positively related. Singapore must guard against the double whammy of increasing inequality within a stagnating or low social mobility environment. We must double our efforts to increase declining inter-generational social mobility. Otherwise, faith, trust and confidence will undermine the meritocratic basis of our society. Here, it is not that merit is not central but rather that merit will tend to be the preserve of a privileged class. Less social mobility also leads to a hardening of class distinctions, compromising social cohesion.
The knock-on effects of social immobility will result in the failure to restructure our economy. This is because the societal drive in our people to develop and nurture a deep-seated culture of broad-based entrepreneurship, productivity and technological advancements will be severely stifled, if not extinguished. The well-being and prosperity of our society will, consequently, be fundamentally affected.
Page: 116
Sir, I therefore welcome the budgetary impetus to education. Education is an essential means of ensuring social mobility and this is where I hope future Budgets' emphasis would lie as well. The decision to more than double pre-school sector spending in excess of $3 billion over the next five years, and the establishment of the Early Childhood Development Agency are steps in the right direction. They should ensure that children from less well-off families are not disadvantaged simply because of their home backgrounds.
Again, no amount of state spending will remove the \"opportunity gap\" between children from different home backgrounds. Rather, the drive to expand the pre-school sector's capacity and competency as well as to ensure high quality and affordable pre-schools will go a long way to ensuring that the \"have-nots\" have as best an access to opportunities as the \"haves\". More crucially, as a society, we must jealously guard the need to ensure that Singaporeans, regardless of their socio-economic standing, are able to take full advantage of the access to opportunities.
Much as we speak of equal opportunities, not equal outcomes, we must endeavour to ensure equal access to equal opportunities. Children from lower income homes must not be disadvantaged by the fates and fortunes of their parents.
Sir, I commend the Government for recognising that there are limits to what a meritocracy can do vis-a-vis social levelling and that there is a necessity to leaven the extreme workings of meritocracy, especially in light of persistent income inequality in our society.
As such, I welcome the expanded coverage of the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme from $1,700 to $1,900, which will benefit three in 10 of our citizen workforce. The increase in maximum WIS payouts and cash payments and the tightening of the WIS criteria are timely indeed. Collectively, they help to make the case for the importance of a living wage, even as we operate in a meritocracy and continue to underline the virtue and dignity of work.
The Budget's tangible support for the strengthening of social safety nets is necessary and I hope the Government will continue to ensure that our social safety nets are robust and resilient enough and be integrated with the requirements of individual responsibility and family support. In this regard, I look forward to the outcome of the review of healthcare financing in the Budget for FY2014-2015. The Government should not be afraid to revolutionise our
Page: 117
approach to healthcare financing. The absence of significant social risk-pooling arrangements in our insurance coverage must be critically examined.
Sir, my final point is about the need for businesses to see themselves as an integral part of our society. Singapore Inc is a subset of Singapore. They are a part of Singapore but I despair that they sometimes appear to prefer to be apart from the larger community and the real concerns faced by Singaporeans.
Sir, even as the Budget seeks to extend support to the bottom 30th percentile of Singaporeans, we need to be mindful of those in the so-called sandwiched middle class, which experience much middle class angst, anxiety, and − in recent months − anger.
To reiterate a point I raised last year, we have paid much attention to the threat to jobs. However, increasingly, the threat to wages requires close watch as it affects the large group of sandwiched middle class Singaporeans, who have their jobs but their wages are stagnant relative to the rising costs of living.
In their 31 January 2013 letter to the Acting Manpower Minister, seven foreign chambers of commerce in Singapore expressed their concern in no uncertain terms about the slowdown in the increase of foreign manpower as outlined in the Population White Paper and I emphasise again in this year's Budget. Their concerns, and I quote, \"relate to the certainty in the ability to employ candidates with the necessary skills, knowledge and experience required and also to be able to tap into a larger labour workforce than is available in Singapore\".
But nowhere in the letter was there any recognition or sensitivity shown to the average Singaporean's real concerns over the immigration policy on PMETs and non-PMETs. Neither was there any mention of what they are doing, individually and collectively, to develop the core Singaporean workforce.
Sir, businesses that operate in various jurisdictions engage in what I call \"immigration regime arbitrage\". Essentially, the idea is to seek a jurisdiction that provides the best immigration policy for them to employ workers and managers. Nothing wrong with that. But it would seem that the seven foreign chambers of commerce have become addicted to a very liberal foreign manpower policy and have become somewhat callous to the legitimate domestic sensitivities. For Singapore, immigration will remain an imperative for economic and existential reasons. But it must be a win-win situation for all stakeholders.
Page: 118
Sir, every Budget must reinforce our social compact, and the business community is a key stakeholder, given the role that they play in our lives and our livelihoods. The Budget recognises that quality economic growth and a cohesive society are not and cannot be mutually exclusive if we are to prevent two Singapores from forming.
I welcome the overall tenor of the Budget Statement. I hope we will continue to take a refreshing look at how the Budget can be a catalyst for the type of society we aspire to be. Sir, I support the Budget Statement.
Mrs Lina Chiam (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Budget sends a right signal to Singaporeans. The Government has indicated that it is willing to listen to Singaporeans in controlling the rapid growth in our non-resident population. As Singapore is facing an ageing population, I am also heartened that the Government will expand the current Senior's Mobility Fund into a Senior's Mobility and Enabling Fund – top-up of $10 million – which will cover a wider range of assistive devices to set off the costs of basic aids, such as hearing aids, walking frames and wheelchairs.
Measures have been developed to raise the wages of Singaporeans and to help businesses restructure. The Singapore People's Party feels that some of the initiatives could go further. Singapore has seen decades of growth at full capacity, but it was supported by low wages and low productivity. To reverse this trend, the Government urgently needs to prescribe stronger medicine. We hope the Budget 2014 can achieve this.
The Minister has said that instead of the expected balance of $1.3 billion or 0.4% of GDP, we now expect a higher surplus of $3.9 billion or 1.1% of GDP growth. With a surplus of $2.4 billion being budgeted for the next year, why is there a need to raise taxes, like property and vehicle taxes?
We have had huge surpluses in about nine out of every 10 years. If we consider the $5.6 billion top-ups to endowment funds, which other countries would not count as expenditure, then the surplus may have been even higher at $8 billion.
We do not expect the Government to spend more just because we see a surplus in our books. Rather, we hope more money can be invested in education, infrastructure, economic restructuring and in social care. Unlike short-term
Page: 119
financial instruments, these investments will yield returns in the long term. It takes a strategic government to make these investments.
For example, the Singapore People's Party has, over the years, consistently spoken out for the need for smaller class sizes, which would mean more resources channelled to each child. Can a teacher adequately address the needs of all his 43 students, compared to a teacher with 20 to 30 students? New batches of well-nurtured students will quickly emerge as a more competitive workforce for Singapore's economy within 10 years. The payback time is not that long. We urge the Government to rethink some of the fundamental educational principles. There are, of course, other issues on education, including the examination-focused learning and lack of critical thinking in the syllabus.
Beyond education, we would have wished that the budget surplus could have funded infrastructure growth in Singapore. We should have more MRTs in Singapore. Our MRT construction strategy has been too-little-too-slow for more than two decades. We also believe that privatisation of public transport in an industry that is essentially a monopoly, is inherently wrong.
There are concerns, too, with this Budget. If you are younger than 35 years old, you might not qualify for most of the incentives.
When the employee's CPF contribution rate moves up to 20% from 16%, the take-home pay for a Singaporean worker holding onto a fixed pay will be affected negatively. There will be no guarantee that the employer will not adjust the cash component downwards to meet the 20% requirement.
A needy Singaporean below the age of 35 may not qualify for Workfare, the $200 top-up of Medisave and income tax rebate.
While the Government is willing to subsidise pay increases by 40% under the Wage Credit Scheme, those on hourly wage may not benefit, despite them requiring the most help.
On transport, we applaud the Government for opening the way for private operators to step in to provide the supply of bus services. Competition from these private operators can act as competition for the current bus operators. We look forward to changes in regulations that would lower the hurdles for these private bus operators to serve commuters. We believe this can be
Page: 120
particularly useful for bus routes that require more vehicles to ply them.
We hope that this is not just a stop-gap measure, but a new direction to support the transport infrastructure in Singapore. We hope this could be extended to encourage the ownership of taxis.
On cars, we seriously need a better COE allocation mechanism if we believe in a fair structure. A COE for a car should be guaranteed for every family nucleus at an affordable rate. It is the second and subsequent COEs for each family nucleus that should be subjected to higher bidding prices in the open market. Let us not punish first-time car owners. There are reasons why public transport may not suffice for some. For instance, those who have elderly parents who are not mobile, school children and salespersons who desperately need a car to commute due to their business. It looks like the very rich or the very poor will not be affected by the COE new structure.
We agree that a restructuring of the economy is required. Firms that are overly dependent on low-wage workers will need to restructure their operations. They will find Singapore increasingly unsuitable for low-wage operations. However, this must take place quickly as there is a high cost of having more foreign workers. The Government must take the lead to develop competitive sectors through organs like SPRING Singapore. In one of our COS cuts, we will introduce the idea of venture capital funds to invest in new markets, new infrastructure and new businesses.
The Three-Year Transition Support Package – consisting of the Wage Credit Scheme, Productivity and Innovation Credit, and Corporate Income Tax Rebate – cannot be used as a subsidy to sustain low value-added sectors anymore. We should no longer pay lip service to economic growth.
We would urge the Government to use the funds for the new growth industries only. We are disappointed that foreign worker policies will not be tightened significantly across all sectors, manufacturing and logistics. We will use the influence we have to ensure that businesses continue to restructure as the SMEs decide which activities are suitable for Singapore and what is not. We believe that competitive businesses, not subsidised by schemes, will be the key to creating good, well-paying jobs for Singaporeans.
As businesses are restructured, there will be some pain. Some Singaporeans may find their skill sets obsolete in the short term. How will this strengthen social mobility unless specific schemes can be co-introduced to
Page: 121
develop new, critical skills for Singaporean workers? For instance, they will need skills to innovate rather than to operate.
The influx of those sectors of workers that have consistently shown low productivity should not be cut immediately, to facilitate business restructuring. More acute measures must be introduced to lead businesses in the right direction. Social costs, transport burdens are unquantifiable costs that must increasingly be reflected.
I wish to mention the construction business. A budget should be set aside to review the construction sector and assess the critical mass required to support construction projects in Singapore. We should explore the regional supply of construction services instead, in order to reduce the disamenities of low value material storage and to attempt to reduce the over-dependence on low-wage foreign workers in the construction industry.
The Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) bonus of up to $15,000 over three years should be increased. This is the fundamental contributing factor to long-term productivity increases.
Nevertheless, may I ask how the Government intends to be accountable for the disbursement of the PIC funds and whether there is a set of KPIs that the public can track?
The core strategy to increase the real wages of lower income Singaporeans may be fundamentally flawed, because of the assumption that employers will share most of their productivity gains – if they are ever achieved – with workers by increasing their wages.
With rising costs from higher foreign worker levies in some sectors and jobs announced in the Budget, rentals, COE and so on, will most employers share most of their productivity gains with workers?
On the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS), the $3.6 billion WCS would certainly help to mitigate some of the impact of the manpower crunch, particularly in the F&B Industry. But it is unsustainable as this is a direct subsidy. What will happen to wages after the scheme expires? A better way will be for companies to invest, with support, in machinery to increase productivity.
We have also neglected the poorest in Singapore. We propose a minimum wage of at least $4, an amount that is still a pittance compared to Hong Kong's
Page: 122
minimum wage which has recently risen to HK$30 or S$4.82.
We also need to take note of women who are not employed, that they do not get marginalised in a progressively transformed economy. Only 58% of women are currently in the labour force. Towards this end, more incentives for promoting flexible work arrangements are needed.
The higher Workfare payouts for low-wage workers have a personal income ceiling of $1,900. This ceiling disadvantages those supporting big families with many children. The per capital household income should be used instead as a ceiling, so that those earning above $1,900 will not have a disincentive to work.
The full restoration of the employee's CPF contribution rate to 20% eventually for lower income workers may mean a lower disposable income for some workers, and make their lives even harder. It may also make some lower income Singaporean workers even more expensive now to hire, relative to some foreign workers.
The increase in MediSave contribution for the lower income self-employed may also have the same adverse impact of having less disposable income.
Caregivers are important figures in an ageing society. At this moment, the market does not price their salaries right. We can help to improve the situation through a few measures. Firstly, we can provide scholarships for potential caregivers to upgrade their education and skill sets. Secondly, we should learn from international best practices by sending caregivers overseas for international internships. In 10 years' time, our ageing society will benefit from their experience. In short, we purchase experience; we invest in healthcare and human capita at the same time. Can these returning officers impart knowledge to the second generation caregivers? I think so.
To conclude, may I make a general observation. Social mobility is under threat and, as seen through the increase in car and housing prices, can weaken the Singaporean Core. In the 1960s and 1970s, a hard-working taxi driver, a diligent teacher could afford a landed house after decades of hard work. The same teacher could pay down his HDB flat, if he chooses a HDB flat, within five years. Cars were not necessary, public transport would have sufficed. It was a simple town-to-town bus strategy, not a complex spoke-and-hub strategy. We managed.
Page: 123
Now, this is not possible. You find it difficult to fork out your monthly payments for HDB loan. You might be afraid that you have insufficient CPF funds for retirement. Increasingly, HDB flats do not impress the common Singaporean anymore. If a family sells its 5-room flat for $700,000, can it really cash in the profits, keeping in mind that a 4-room flat would cost something near $500,000 in the same precinct? After settling the administrative costs, how much can he be left with? We think that HDB flats were never meant to be an asset, an investment portfolio, a retirement fund. A second or third condominium can be assets. The HDB flat is not, and cannot be, an asset.
Social mobility is under threat if one cannot afford an HDB flat comfortably. There is no room for error when paying off a home loan – unforeseen circumstances, such as retrenchment – especially when one is also providing for one's children. Needless to say, the hurdle for landed properties and cars is even higher. If we had our way, population should never increase beyond a critical point. We believe the critical point is 5 million to 6 million. Other cities have suburbs and a hinterland as a buffer. On weekends, you can take a retreat to these places. During holidays, you could move back to your home. In Singapore, we cannot, and this leads to an increased stress level for our commuters. We need to actively manage it to mitigate the social disamenities. I thank the Minister and his team for preparing the Budget.
Mr Ong Teng Koon (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. First of all, I wish to congratulate and applaud the Government for introducing this year's Budget, which undoubtedly is a comprehensive set of measures with a clear direction to help businesses restructure to a higher productive growth path, while at the same time maintain its commitment to a socially responsible and inclusive society.
I would also like to voice my appreciation to the Government for returning a modest surplus on last year's Budget, exhibiting discipline and sound management in a time when many governments are in fiscal deficits.
A main thrust of this year's Budget is the reaffirmation of this Government's commitment to inclusive growth. I am happy to note that the Social Development Expenditure in this year's Budget continues to grow from the previous years' in a trend that was started in 2006.
Page: 124
Many have voiced concerns about this Government's preoccupation with growth. They argue that this Government views growth as an end in itself. I say that this is simply not true. Why do I say this?
The evidence points to the fact that there is a direct relationship between growth and Social Development Expenditure. In the years from 2001 to 2005, the economy was weak due to the dotcom crisis and SARS; and as a result, spending in Social Development flatlined between $12 billion and $13 billion. In the years from 2006 to 2012, the economy recovered and the Social Development expenditure grew from $13 billion to $23 billion – this is a 76% increase.
This Government fixes the roof while the sun is shining. But the starting point has got to be that the sun is shining. Fiscal responsibility, coupled with steady management of the economy, has allowed more resources to be channelled to the Social Development sector, and I voice support for the Government on this account.
A related concern has been the widening income gap and, with it, a high Gini coefficient. It is my view that it cannot be the case that we do not allow the best and brightest and the most entrepreneurial in Singapore to do their best, and erstwhile be appropriately compensated.
It is in the country's interest to create an environment where incentives are aligned, and those doing well continue to do so and create a tide that uplifts all boats.
This is the way to create wealth and value for the country. We cannot will that the rich be less rich just so that we derive a statistic to appear as an equitable country. They are the engine that creates the wealth so that we can have the wherewithal to channel resources back to help those that are doing less well, to uplift all incomes and, hence, all well-being.
To paraphrase what Margaret Thatcher famously said to the British Parliament in 1990, \"That you would rather the poor be poorer, and the rich less rich. That way you will never create the wealth for better social services.\"
Our existing tax structure has been one of our strengths and an important factor to incentivise our labour to do their best. Some commentators in the media have called this year's Budget a \"Robin Hood Budget\" while others in this House have called for even more taxes. I wish to frame our situation in what I
Page: 125
think as an appropriate context.
This Government has put us in a strong fiscal position because it has exhibited prudence and sound management at every turn. We are fortunate not to be in a fiscal mess that some other governments have gotten themselves into, especially in the West. The political climate in these countries has thus made it fashionable to make the rich pay more taxes and attack big bonuses. Examples abound in proposals for the Buffet Tax in the US, a 75% super tax in France, EU and Swiss proposals to cap bonuses. We should not let this currently fashionable thinking influence our own approach, because our finances are sound and even reserves that were used in the worst recession in recent memory were promptly returned the very next year.
I do, however, agree with progressive taxation. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman introduced the concept of progressive property and vehicle taxes being a wealth tax and described it as an efficient tax. I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister.
I would like to go further by arguing that our existing tax structure is already progressive. Only the top 20% of income earners currently pay any form of income tax. GST-Plus implements a permanent GST Voucher Scheme and, in this year's Budget, a one-off GST Voucher Special Payment which mitigates what superficially appears to be a regressive tax. And in the 2011 Budget, the tax burden of the middle class was lessened.
There is always a cost to increasing taxes. Nothing is free. In an age of flexi-work arrangements, high-speed computer connectivity and easy air travel, it is no longer inconceivable to be doing one's work lying on a beach somewhere else. With globalisation, the competitive advantages that we try to put up in the form of creating an eco-system around our industries, ease of doing business and high-quality living are getting less and less compelling. The marginal increases in taxes from a high rate might not be more than the marginal decrease from an exodus. We might end up with a smaller tax pie instead; and in the process, also succeed in decreasing our incentive to work.
I hope the Government will consider any structural changes to the current tax system very carefully.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as we set ourselves up for the next stage of development in our economy, I would like to voice support for the Government's prudence in taking a measured and calibrated approach with
Page: 126
regards to the speed of restructuring.
Is Singapore heading in the right direction to restructure our economy with an emphasis on productivity? The logic of this approach cannot be in doubt. It is the only way to maintain high quality and sustainable growth. The question really is: are we doing it too fast or too slow?
The Government is very mindful of seeking the right balance between helping SMEs to restructure by relying less on labour, but at the same time, not to the extent of choking off the oxygen that keeps these SMEs afloat. With a comprehensive set of measures outlined in the three-year Transition Support Package, I am confident that the Government will succeed in meeting its objectives.
The centrepiece of this year's Budget is the $3.6 billion Wage Credit Scheme. I am especially appreciative of this scheme as it is a very good example of unconventional thinking. The Wage Credit Scheme achieves two main objectives, and they are to help businesses mitigate costs and uplift incomes of Singaporean workers, while at the same time, leaving efficient allocation of resources to the market.
This scheme, in my view, is superior to a minimum wage scheme because it minimises distortionary effects to the economy. If businesses are in a position to raise wages, Government will step in with help. If businesses are not in a position, then workers will leave to more efficient and profitable businesses to work. Businesses will also have to think hard between employing a foreign worker versus using those resources to encourage the local worker to be more productive.
But the point is that, in all these scenarios, the worker benefits from being in a position to achieve a higher wage. The wage increase would go directly to him. And businesses are given help for three years to restructure their operations.
I hope the Government will look into improving the efficacy and implementation of the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme. Anecdotal evidence from businesses suggests that disbursements of PIC benefits can be bureaucratic and slow moving.
For example, a business owner cannot receive a claim if he presents an electronic receipt instead of a paper one, or that a business owner has to wait
Page: 127
for six months to receive a claim which might have helped to ease his cash flow. I believe this Government has the ability to solve these teething problems in PIC, especially when I look at how efficient the automatic process is in the payout of Wage Credits.
It is critical that the Government extends its support for Continuing Education and Training (CET) to facilitate workers, especially older workers 45 years and above, to acquire the skill sets to remain as productive stakeholders in the restructured economy. With skills getting obsolete ever so quickly on the back of globalisation, providing continuing education must be emphasised just as much as pre-employment education.
Restructuring of the economy is necessarily painful. The process of Schumpeter's creative destruction will mean that some less efficient businesses get displaced. This would also mean that workers, especially older workers who have been in those displaced industries, find that their skill sets unsuitable for newer, more modern industries.
Commitment to education has always been a core value of this Government. I hope this commitment will be extended to older workers who might be structurally displaced. Not only will this help them to remain economically productive and reduce the state's burden in providing welfare; it will also aid in social cohesion as it reduces a layer of discontent from the unemployed or underemployed who are often vocal with their angst.
To this end, I welcome the Government's initiatives at Workfare Training Support and the $500 million topping up of the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. But I hope that the Government can do more.
First, I hope the Government can consider an annual spending target on CET equivalent to a certain percentage of GDP, similar to how MOE targets spending on pre-employment education. Second, I hope CET can offer vocational courses with more rigour; for example, diplomas in mechanical engineering or aerospace engineering via modular courses in our ITEs and Polytechnics. Third, I hope enrolment for CET programmes will consider job experience and existing skills, and not just be solely based on prior academic qualifications. Fourth, I hope MOE can work closely with MOM and industry associations to identify possible ways of collaboration and to bring about more awareness to these programmes.
Page: 128
Mr Deputy Speaker, I made a case for Singapore's SMEs to emulate Germany's Mittelstands in last year's Budget Debate. I applaud the Government for putting in place a comprehensive set of measures in this year's Budget for our SMEs to close the gap with the Mittelstands. However, I would also like to ask the Government to consider publishing statistics on a regular basis on how we fare in terms of productivity as compared to the most globally competitive companies in each industry sector, so as to create an awareness of what is humanly possible and also to encourage the adoption of best practices to help our SMEs ascend the productivity ladder. On this note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am part of the post-65 generation born in Singapore after Independence. I served my National Service in Infantry. I carried my M16, wore my No 4 and ate what the SAF optimistically called \"combat rations\". I spent time in the soil of the jungles of Singapore and Taiwan with other Singaporean males, who have become my friends.
I view my NS with pride, just as I am sure many Singaporeans do. NS is a common touchstone for us. We will never do anything quite like it, at least we hope not to. Even decades later, we talk about it with friends. It brands us as Singaporeans. When people talk about a \"Singaporean Core\", NS is one of the ingredients that lie at the heart of it.
Last month, I wrote a series of posts on my Facebook page suggesting that we impose a national defence tax on non-citizens as a way of sharpening distinctions between citizens and non-citizen residents, and using the proceeds to benefit NSmen. I was happy that my posts sparked a lively debate. It brought into focus the larger issues of whether Singaporeans, new citizens, PRs and foreigners are successfully integrating in our society and the implications for us if they do not. The problem, I think, is that we have largely dealt with these issues on a superficial level.
I would like to share with this House some things I have been told online and in person in the course of the debate. I believe they represent the views of a good number of Singaporeans. They raise serious issues which I hope the Government will look into.
Page: 129
First, many Singaporeans recognise and appreciate the contributions of new citizens, PRs and foreigners. They have no desire to discriminate against them. They acknowledge that this country would not be the success it is without their contributions.
Second, many want to see new citizens and PRs genuinely integrate better with Singaporeans and be part of our society. We want them to demonstrate that they regard this land as their home; that they believe in our cause; and that they, too, have a stake in Singapore's future. What grates most on our nerves is the thought of those who seek the privilege of citizenship and permanent residency do so purely out of convenience or economic gain, and that they will abandon us at the slightest risk or sign of trouble.
That is why National Service is such an emotional topic. Doing National Service, or giving an undertaking that your son will do National Service, is a tangible demonstration of that commitment. Many talk about shedding blood, sweat and tears. But it means more than that. It forges a common bond which is unique to us and, in some ways, helps define who we are. There is also a real financial sacrifice. For men from poorer Singaporean households, it means two years of earning a nominal allowance when they could have joined the workforce and helped supplement the family income. So, it disturbs us when we perceive others avoiding NS by playing fast and loose with the rules and taking easy rides in the system. That is the true cheapening of National Service.
Thirdly, most demand that those liable to do NS must perform their duty. It is not enough that NS-dodgers pay a penalty and are barred from returning to Singapore. We would rather that they stay and serve with us. But we must accept the reality that some PRs will arrange for their sons to leave when they reach a certain age. Not a single person who has posted or given their views believes that the current sanctions against this are adequate.
That is why I proposed the National Defence duty − as a practical response to a practical problem. We cannot force people to remain in Singapore who do not want to stay here. But we can make it so costly that they would think twice or three times before taking PR status or arranging for their child to dodge NS. As with all proposals, some liked it; some criticised it; some felt it did not go far enough. Some even accused me of proposing that PRs who were liable for NS be allowed to pay their way out of their obligation. Of course, I never made any such suggestion. But one thing most appeared to agree on: something needs to be done. The status quo will not do.
Page: 130
This issue should be tackled as part of a national effort to promote integration. We can and need to do a number of things, and these are my suggestions.
Firstly, at a macro level, we need to explain better the importance of keeping Singapore an open society with an open economy. \"Singaporeans first\" does not and cannot mean \"Singaporeans regardless\". These issues are complicated and, frankly, we do not do a good job of explaining things. This is sad because we have such a compelling story to tell. Neither will the approach that people should trust us because we know what we are doing works. We cannot take the people's trust for granted.
Secondly, we need to convince Singaporeans that Singaporeans remain central to Singapore and its future. This year's Budget takes a step in that direction. More is being done to help members of our Singapore family who are in need of more help – increasing incomes for low-wage workers; securing their children a better education; helping the elderly age with more dignity. More is being done to share the prosperity that Singapore has achieved. We become a better, stronger society when the lot of all Singaporeans are improved.
Thirdly, while foreigners and PRs are important, we must also demonstrate that there are privileges in being a citizen. We have thus far largely dealt with this on a piece-meal basis, with different Ministries announcing changes or measures at different times, whether it is securing places in Primary schools, differentiating medical fees or property ownership. We should have a comprehensive review of all these measures and look at how we can make changes on a fair and principled basis. Some have said that such a move would be xenophobic. By that definition, any privilege given to a citizen is xenophobic. Of course, it is not. It is legitimate for a government to draw distinctions between citizens and non-citizens. In any case, I firmly believe that most Singaporeans are not xenophobic. But they are genuinely unhappy because of perceived unfairness of treatment. We, in this House, need to address this squarely and rationally because if we ignore this, this only gives cause and strength to the less rational voices.
Fourthly, we should review our approach to granting citizenship and permanent residency. It has to be more than just satisfying criteria or completing forms. I have a constituent who is a Singapore Citizen. His wife is a Malaysian, gave birth to their son in Malaysia and the boy became a Malaysian citizen. The boy is now about 20 years old, not well educated but hard working and wants to improve himself. He has been working as a cook in Singapore for
Page: 131
about two years on a work permit. The boy wants to live in Singapore with his Singaporean father, become a citizen and do NS. This is what he tells me. His application for PR has been rejected several times. Why? Not clear. Is it because of his lack of education? But he is the son of a Singaporean, who wants to live with his father and do NS, and does a job which Singaporeans apparently shun. Why do we regard him as less qualified to be here compared to sons of Permanent Residents, who may or may not choose to stay and do NS when they come of age?
Fifthly, we should have new citizens and PRs perform some form of compulsory service. If NS is not suitable by reason of age or other circumstances, other forms should be introduced. This can be for short periods annually, much like how Singaporean men do reservist training. The point is not to discourage foreigners from sinking their roots here, but to emphasise that they now have a stake in the country as well. One commenter on my Facebook page mooted the idea of having some of them serve in the Volunteer Special Constabulary (VSC). It is worth exploring. There are even practical benefits as it helps with the current manpower shortage in the Home Team. In fact, there are currently 52 Permanent Residents serving in the VSC on a voluntary basis. At a recent award and appreciation ceremony, I met one of them, Cpl (V) Yanase Yoshitaka, a Japanese who has lived here for 12 years. He is proud to serve in the VSC. He told me he wants to become a Singaporean. Others can do the same. Give them a chance. They may surprise us.
Finally, we need to have a more robust and effective response to those who undermine our efforts to integrate. I have spoken about PRs who send their sons away to avoid NS. We also need to deal with allegations that some employers favour hiring foreigners at the expense of Singaporeans, or retrench Singaporeans before releasing their foreign staff. This story is always different, depending on who you speak to – employers who say they cannot find Singaporeans despite their best attempts or that Singaporeans are unrealistic about pay and benefits; Singaporean employees who say they have been discriminated against because their employers want to hire cheaper foreigners or help their fellow nationals.
I know of cases where my constituents have gone to the CDC looking for jobs, only to be told that nothing was available, or to be sent on interviews which proved a waste of time. This should not be happening in a tight labour market. So, where is the real problem? Let us get to the bottom of it and show where the truth lies.
Page: 132
Some have mooted rules or laws to compel employers to prove that they cannot find Singaporeans before they are allowed to bring in a foreigner. We should find simple ways of doing this. For example, the CDCs and NTUC can help by offering a comprehensive job matching service, not just for low-income workers, but for PMETs as well. To make sure their efforts are sincere, we can have them certify that job matching has failed before an employer can make an application for a foreign worker. In this regard, an employer who has proven that he is unable to secure a Singaporean for a reasonable wage should be given some leeway to bring in foreign workers. For some industries, you can only improve productivity so far and workers are needed to keep the business going.
But it cannot all be one way. Singaporeans must also bear responsibility for themselves. Singaporeans who unreasonably refuse to take up jobs or to improve themselves should not expect to keep getting support from others, whether through the Budget or otherwise.
Mr Deputy Speaker, integration is a long and complex journey. It was something that Singapore did very well. In one of my first speeches after becoming a Member of Parliament, I told of an encounter which made that clear to me. More than 20 years ago, in 1991, shortly after my final University examinations, I undertook a backpacking trip with some of my friends around Asia, the ASEAN countries. So, on a hot day in Bangkok, my two Chinese friends and I walked towards a street vendor selling drinks. Before we could open our mouth, he looked at us and said \"Singaporean\". We asked him, \"How did you know?\" And he said, \"Different colour, walk together; must be Singaporean.\" We laughed at the incident but, you know, I have never felt prouder to be a Singaporean. I hope always to feel that way.
We have lost our way somewhat on integration. It is not too late to get back on the right road. The Government must lead the national debate on immigration and integration. It should come up with a comprehensive package which Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners can accept as sound, compulsory community service, monetary and non-monetary measures, carrots and sticks. We should not avoid this sensitive topic, but embrace it as part of the evolution of our young country. It is a fallacy to think that a country can stand still, frozen in time and never change. Change is inevitable, and change can be a good thing, provided we manage this process fairly and rationally, involve Singaporeans and, most importantly, act in the interests of Singapore.
We are a very different Singapore from the Singapore of the 1970s and we will be a very different Singapore in 2030. Nonetheless, we must remain a multi-
Page: 133
racial, multi-religious society defined by values embodied in our pledge of unity, democracy and equality to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for all. I support the Budget.
Ms Faizah Jamal (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Budget debate.
When my daughters were younger, I used to read them Lewis Caroll's \"Alice in Wonderland\". Of our many favourite parts in the story, one particular exchange between Alice and the Queen stays in my mind until today. This is where Alice said, \"There's no use trying. One can't believe impossible things.\" In reply, the Queen said, \"I daresay you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it half an hour a day. Sometimes, I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.\"
It is in this spirit of \"believing in impossible things\" that I wish to add my perspective on the Budget debate. At the outset, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me unequivocally say again what I had stated in my speech on the Population White Paper debate, which is that I believe that an economy for the 21st century has to be one that goes beyond the idea of limitless growth or one based on material gains and numbers only as the only measurement of well-being.
Indeed, to borrow the words of the Prime Minister of Bhutan Jigmi Thinley at the United Nation's first High Level Meeting on Happiness and Well-being last April, the new economic system should be, I quote, \"a system that promotes harmony and respect for nature and for each other; that respects our ancient wisdom and traditions and protects our most vulnerable people as our own family, and that gives us time to live and enjoy our lives and to appreciate rather than destroy our world. It will be an economic system, in short, that is fully sustainable and that is rooted in true, abiding well-being and happiness.\"
Mr Deputy Speaker, a Budget reflects not only the values that the Government espouses but, in many respects, is also a reflection of the society that we are and what we feel is important to us. While indeed the Budget has much that is commendable, there are some fundamental areas which I believe are not thought about, which upon reflection, are ideas that are not only obvious, but also doable, and what is even better, accords a win-win-win situation for all concerned. All it takes is some imagination to believe in
Page: 134
impossible things.
This is the reason why I believe that I would rather focus not on the specific goodies in the Budget like many Members of this House have done so well but rather to focus on something that quite a few Members had alluded to – questions raised, for example, about how Singapore should be resilient and flexible and the importance of being \"one united people\". In other words, the fundamental issue of values.
Sir, I am struck by four themes that Deputy Prime Minister Tharman mentioned in his speech – \"transforming our economy\" and \"partnering the community\" and, in particular, his words \"the emphasis on harnessing the value of older Singaporeans\" and the focus on flexi-work practices. I will submit that how we treat our elders reflects on the kind of people we are and, in that context, I will make suggestions as to how we can acknowledge and value their contributions.
In addressing the issue of transforming the economy, I will share some thoughts on potentially new economic growth sectors yet untapped which is not just about making money but also has an underlying basis of our respect for something bigger than ourselves, the Environment.
Secondly, pre-school education. In my COS speeches, I will detail a missing element in the present early childhood education and training which must be included because it will reflect our acknowledgement of the bigger world that we are connected to.
Thirdly, healthcare financing. In my COS speeches, I will detail this further. For this Debate, I will focus on the fact that the Budget is silent on the issue of preventive healthcare.
Mr Deputy Speaker, a common thread that runs through all of these themes for me is how the preservation and conservation of nature and heritage spaces is one way towards \"quality growth\", a term that has been chosen as this Budget's tagline and a step closer to the vision of how the new economy should function, as laid out by the Prime Minister of Bhutan mentioned earlier.
First, the issue of transforming the economy. It seems to me unfortunate that the details in the Budget show that the underlying paradigm is the same one of increasing productivity within the existing industries.
Page: 135
Let us take heritage. Young though our country is by comparison to other developed countries, there is much that we can be proud of, coming as we all did from such diverse races, dialects and religions.
I am therefore heartened that, increasingly, there has been support from the Government, particularly the National Heritage Board, to encourage the documentation of the old way of life, both through creating self- guided heritage trails as well as by using the latest technological tools. Among such examples are the Kampung Glam Heritage trail, the MyQueenstown app and the documentation of disappearing trades and the Memory Project.
In fact, just two days ago, on 4 March, in the TODAY newspaper in an article entitled \"Bridging the generation gap with yarns of yore\" through an initiative by the NTU students of Wee Kim Wee School of Communications, young people were invited to share stories and memories of their seniors through Instagram photos, which aims to encourage 19- to 26-year-olds to communicate with their elders. In the course of all of these documentations, interviews with people who used to stay or are still staying in these areas were conducted and formed a large part of the end product.
However, it seems to me that not enough is being done to acknowledge the contributions of the people, mostly seniors, who contributed to these initiatives. It seems to me the end product of such rich stories and experiences of the seniors have made them no more than sound bites or a name on the credit roll at the end of a video documentary as we seem to focus more on the marvellous technological tools that have made this initiative possible.
Sir, in the Budget is the phrase \"harnessing the value of older Singaporeans\". Gerontologist Linda Fried, the Dean of Columbia University's School of Public Health, had this to say, \"Older adults constitute the only increasing natural resource in the entire world.\"
Sir, in many traditional and indigenous societies, there is even a term \"true elders\" or \"ripened leaders\", meaning people who have, as a result of accumulated life experiences, are ripe with wisdom and who are revered as keepers of ancient knowledge, responsible for imparting their experience to the next generation through songs and stories.
If, in the words of the Budget, we want to \"harness the value of older Singaporeans\", then it would be from where they stand and their gifts, talents, passion, their wisdom, their resilience, their courage that they already have,
Page: 136
rather than only by thinking that as long as we provide jobs for them that fit our flawed economic model, we have done enough. It also seems to me that in our society, the familiar and repeated refrain seems to be the burden that seniors put on our economy, our medical care and our savings rather than the strengths that they offer us.
Sir, last year, in July, and then again in November, together with an open group of people calling ourselves \"Singapura Stories\", made up of academics, students, history enthusiasts, ex-residents of Kampong Glam and just about anyone interested in the rich layers of the Kampong Glam heritage area, I co-organised two gatherings for ex-residents of the area to get together and share stories of their life prior to the hip and trendy Kampong Glam that we know today. Both these events were open to the public.
It is truly humbling how the senior ex-residents were so willing to share their personal stories that were new not only to those who did not grow up in the area but also those, like me, who were born and bred there and yet did not have the experience or even knowledge of such stories.
Beyond hearing such a rich tapestry of the place where my family has been for four generations, what struck me most was how these senior citizens were so articulate, so measured, so humorous in the way they spoke, having grown up in an era when people were taught to take pride in language, in demeanour and in how they speak. Even more striking was how the seniors themselves felt touched when young people were interested in what they had to say.
I daresay, Sir, that there are seniors who are just as personable in estates like Tiong Bahru, Queenstown, Toa Payoh and many others.
It is from this experience that I realised the extent to which these senior citizens are an untapped resource and not just for the transactional reasons we are all familiar with. Simply getting them to share their stories for documentation, with perhaps a mention in the credit roll at the end of a video, does not do justice to their potential as \"true leaders\" or \"ripened leaders\".
So, my suggestion is that the relevant Government agencies seriously consider accrediting and licensing such senior residents who are able, willing and qualified, as specialised heritage guides where they are allowed, as licensed guides, to share their stories on site, and for the time and effort and contribution that they make, that they be paid for their work.
Page: 137
Such a licensed specialised scheme is not new. Some years ago, STB licensed Singaporeans with the requisite experience, skills and knowledge as nature guides, who are duly entitled to earn an income from the nature-guiding work that they do. In this way was a new industry created, where visitors, both local and foreign, engaged the services of such guides and, as a result, got a richer experience of our natural world.
I suggested this in the background of questions in this House some months ago regarding tour guides who are not licensed and, worse, who provide inaccurate information to visitors. I am, however, mindful of the need to protect the work of licensed and experienced tourist guides who might reasonably be concerned that my suggestion might tread upon their territory. I would counter this by suggesting that, like the nature guide scheme, which is limited to specific nature areas, these senior citizens are limited only to their sphere and place of residence.
Further, such specialised heritage guides with their passion, their ability as story tellers, as many of the elderly ones in our society are capable of and the ease in which they express themselves, provide quality, authenticity, credibility and an all-round more enriching experience for visitors, both local and foreign, as their tours will be based on their personal stories and anecdotes. Is \"quality growth\" not, after all, what the Budget wants in the end?
Another reason for my suggestion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is my concern on reading reports in the press last year of the increasing incidence of elderly suicides. Many reasons may, of course, have contributed to this. However, I would be so bold as to say that the fast pace in which Singapore is changing and the loss of the places that were familiar to our elders, may well be contributing factors. After all, it is known medically that when a place that holds a deeply cherished memory disappears, a part of our psyche dies and we deeply grieve the loss and we are emotionally affected. By encouraging and rewarding our seniors to open up and share their stories, we would be supporting them in more ways than one.
Listening to my respected elders from the Kampong Glam heritage area that I have mentioned earlier as they recounted their stories, I was struck by how these respected seniors themselves were overcome with emotion at the memory of their family, their friends and the places they held dear, emotions which may well have been suppressed, at least in public, because of the fear that no one would have appreciated hearing old tales. It struck me then that it might well have been a cathartic and healing process. I cannot help but feel that by acknowledging and validating their experiences, giving them as many
Page: 138
opportunities to share as well as to give them a chance to earn an income for their time and effort, must surely go a long way in easing their sense of displacement and discomfort at a world turning too fast.
Sir, this suggestion also ties in with the theme raised in the Budget of providing for flexi-work. I would therefore go further with this idea and extend it to homemakers who had grown up or are still living in such areas that I have mentioned before, and who may potentially have an interest and an untapped gift for story-telling of their childhood experiences in their neighbourhoods, who wish to obtain an income and still maintain their ability to manage their time and their families.
In this way, will we re-create the storytelling days of yore when parents and grandparents would sit in circles bonding and sharing their wisdom with the younger generation and with guests, albeit with a modern twist now. In this way, can we create a new industry which at the same time also manifests the importance and pride that we place on the inherent value of our people, our places and our relationships with each other.
My second point relates to an interview I read in The Straits Times dated 19 February 2013 where visiting sociologist Saskia Sassen had this advice for global cities like ours. She said they \"should not be caught up in the race to outdo competitors because all global cities have different strengths and specialities\".
Sir, all too often, we have been told that Singapore has to stay competitive, to stay afloat. We are dictated by the demands of external forces and the rules of a global economy of which we have grown to believe we have no choice but to be part of. As a result, sometimes we bend over backwards to appease these masters and at the cost of our own values.
We have also grown up believing that Singapore has no natural resources and that there is not a whole lot that we can enjoy in terms of the natural world either. While it is true that we do not have the magnificence of the majestic mountains and the flowing rivers of the other countries, I would bust the tired refrain that there is nothing exciting here and contend, like the Queen in \"Alice\", that we need to believe in what may seem \"impossible\", to re-imagine the meaning of \"natural resource\" and be more creative in our approach of \"transforming the economy\".
Page: 139
If economic paradigm, and by extension, Budget is a reflection of who we are as a society, then it seems to me that we do not think very much of our natural gifts that we have been bestowed with at all.
Sir, it seems to me that policy-makers may either not be wholly aware or may not be completely appreciative of how profound it is that the treasures we have in our backyard and our natural habitats form part of the oldest tropical rainforest that has existed for millions of years. In my speech on the Population White Paper debate, I had mentioned the uniqueness of our natural habitats. This bears repeating here as it relates to the suggestion I have in mind.
In this little island we called home are more than 10 native eco-systems, both terrestrial and marine. That means each of these eco-systems have characteristics distinct and different from the others. Just as an example, we have 364 bird species, 301 butterfly species, and some of these species are even more than in some of the bigger temperate countries. In our least affected forests in the Central Catchment area are some species of flora and fauna found not only anywhere else in Singapore, but nowhere else in the world.
In our waters in our little red dot are dugongs, wild dolphins and even the endangered green turtles, as well as the bamboo sharks and the black tipped reef sharks. So, now we know, right?
Our total intertidal anemone species is greater than the north-eastern Pacific coast from Victoria in British Columbia to Santa Barbara in California put together. At 255 species of hard coral inhabiting Singapore's waters out of 800 species in the world that makes it about 32% of the total hard coral species found worldwide that are found in our boundaries.
In fact, in a recent initiative by NParks last year, a comprehensive survey of Singapore's marine fauna conducted between October and November last year on our northern shores by NUS Tropical Marine Science Institute and the Department of Biological Sciences, as well as volunteers from all walks of life revealed more than 1,000 specimens, including new records and rediscoveries. If that is not something to be proud of, I do not know what is.
Very recently, a 15-minute video documentary called, in true Singlish style, \"Singapore Got Nature Meh?\" was made by David Tan, Joscelyn Sze and Eunice Soh. It was Singapore's first ever crowd-sourced nature documentary, bringing together the photos and video footage volunteered by nature enthusiasts from all over Singapore to tell the story of Singapore's surprisingly rich natural
Page: 140
heritage. It is available on the YouTube channel and I highly recommend that Members of this House view it. You will be pleasantly surprised.
So, what is the significance of this information, you may ask? It relates to my second point, which I feel has never been addressed in any economic policy that we have in this country thus far. In being in that enviable position of living alongside the treasures of non-human species, we are in a very unique position and are well-poised to take on a role in the yet untapped industry of eco-tourism.
How is this different from our usual brand of tourism? Increasingly, people all over the world are no longer looking simply for an experience of being entertained. Discerning travellers are willing not only to travel and pay for the experience of the natural world but also to be part of conserving and preserving such nature spaces. In fact, countries like Sabah and the Maldives are encouraging their visitors to be part of their marine conservation efforts as well as efforts to preserve local heritage places and culture. In other words, these travellers look for holiday places that manifest the values that they themselves espouse – that of conscious and ethical choices, integrity and authenticity.
By encouraging the sustainable development of eco-tourism, we can create opportunities for young people to take on new careers in these fields. Already in the course of my interaction with young people, there are many who have shunned the traditional professions and routes to a career, and would rather channel their passion and awareness for the environment, for example, into income-generating work.
In fact, in Republic Polytechnic where I am adjunct lecturer, the Environment Education course that we teach has already sparked interest in my students who are keen to pursue \"green jobs\" that involve the outdoors and nature. A recent talk organised by a non-profit group called Green Drinks on \"green jobs\" attracted a full house, mostly young adults.
Eco-tourism is one way they can channel this interest. Like the Queen in \"Alice\", I can believe what may seem impossible now and imagine the many kinds of related industries that can sprout from this. I have mentioned that we already have licensed nature guides. Their work should be promoted and made more visible. Nature guiding should be seen as a professional and respectable career comparable to being an educator. Much like how arts management has taken on a life of its own and is now a credible career to be in, I can imagine the same thing happening for Environment and Nature Education or Management
Page: 141
and related careers.
Sir, I am mindful of the pitfalls of eco-tourism when not managed well, not least of which is the paradoxical situation of a nature area becoming too popular and being unduly stressed. By learning from the mistakes from other countries, we can counter this, so that we can have a sustainable and credible industry. In this way, there are more than sufficient reasons to keep our natural spaces from a more tangible perspective, for those of us who insist on speaking the language of numbers.
Sir, it is strange to me that we should pump in millions of dollars to bring plants from faraway places and create supertrees with technology that require large amounts of money to maintain, and to create unfamiliar eco-systems in places like River Safari when we have our own pride and joy right here. It is strange to me that we do not seem to be proud of what we have and have this huge need to bring in all things foreign even when we do not need to. What does this say about us as a society?
In a world increasingly characterised by sameness and monoculture and cookie-cutter entertainment, it is all the more imperative that we take pride in our own uniqueness whenever and wherever we can. Is it not the STB tagline after all \"Uniquely Singapore\"?
My last point is connected to the one above and it relates to healthcare. I am happy to note that the Government will take robust measures in this respect. However, what is lacking in the Budget is preventive healthcare. In fact, several experts from the industry have already raised this concern in the press. For example, in The Straits Times report dated 28 February, Assoc Prof Phua Kai Hong of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy stated that \"healthcare financing should promote prevention and public health rather than disease care\".
In another report in The Straits Times dated 2 March, Mr Jeremy Lim, a healthcare expert, said that \"we have become a hospital-centric, doctor-heavy health care model\". It seems to me that this works very well for the medical and pharmaceutical industries which can rake in the big bucks but does little for the man and woman in the street. Mr Jeremy Lim advocated for preventive healthcare and one way he suggested is through technology.
I agree that the Government should pay more attention to preventive healthcare. Unlike the two gentlemen I mentioned, however, my suggestion is
Page: 142
based on the old-fashioned, tried and tested, and now scientifically proven one, of Nature as healer.
What I said in my speech on the White Paper debate that in nature places lies our balm for physical mental and emotional wellness bears repeating at this point. Many a scientific paper has now shown that nature has \"restorative ability\" capable of transforming negative emotions of lethargy, depression and low self esteem to positive ones of optimism, hope, resilience and the courage to continue dealing constructively with the stresses of modern day living.
Like the Queen in \"Alice\", it is not impossible for me to imagine that the very existence of such places, even if all we do is to stare out of the window and look at the trees by giving us a heightened sense of physical mental and emotional well being, can even reduce our burden on the healthcare system. And in that way, reduce the need to use our reserves or our children's reserves to pay for our medical needs. It will even address the cases of the elderly suicides that I mentioned earlier.
And to end, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is interesting to me that the cover for the Budget speech report had a photo of a girl holding a little flowering plant in her hand, with its soil still intact. This visual invites one to see it not only as a metaphorical statement of planting new ideas for a better future, but also the literal one of the importance of nature in our lives.
It will be hugely ironic if the Budget and the policies thereafter negate this powerful visual by our inability to see how much value, both tangible and intangible, that Nature and the environment has for all aspects of our lives.
Page: 143
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":"In Parliament","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order No 2 (5)(d), I propose to extend the time of this day's sitting beyond the moment of interruption for a period of up to 30 minutes to facilitate the completion of business.
","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) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Nicholas Fang (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this significant debate. This year's Budget is an important one and it seeks to achieve some essential objectives. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has rightly pointed out that our economy and indeed the society are both undergoing a transition. We have yet to attain the levels of productivity and income that are representative of an advance economy but we can certainly no longer be classified as a developing one. At the same time, we are facing a social evolution and emerging trends such as widening income inequality, infrastructure strain, particularly in the housing and transport sectors, as well as a changing social compact between the Government and people.
There are many reasons for these social developments and many different reactions from the ground. Some are unhappy, some are angry, some choose to express their emotions outwardly, some choose to leave and others stay and adapt.
In addressing the need for a social and economic transition in Singapore, this year's Budget has a focus on creating quality growth, that which is to achieve through innovation and increased productivity which will benefit all Singaporeans. Indeed, the focus on creating more inclusive society, which was the theme of last year's Budget, continues in 2013 and has been bound together with the drive for quality growth.
Page: 144
Sir, transition periods can be challenging and Budget 2013 is one of the most generous in recent years with a number of measures totalling $5.9 billion in helping businesses struggling to re-invent themselves to cope with the changing times. As we seek to manage this transition, we have to be mindful of one key factor – the pace of the changes we are trying to implement.
Minister Lim Swee Say has pointed out that if we restructure our economy too slowly, we risk losing our competitiveness amid an increasingly competitive global stage. If we move too quickly, companies in Singapore, especially SMEs, could be left high and dry and unable to adapt to the new requirements. This adds to the Government's already difficult challenge of managing all the various moving parts that make up a country's economic and social policies.
In this year's Budget, it was heartening to see that the poor also receive help as part of the drive to narrow income inequality in the country, with $1.7 billion in financial aid to be dispersed through various means, such as GST Vouchers, conservancy rebates and MediSave top-ups. The provision of such financial assistance is important as it will have a direct impact on Singaporeans trying to cope with the current challenging environment and also on closing the income gap. This is especially critical for those working at the lower rungs of the income ladder, who have seen little or no rise in real income over the past five years. But it will be important to see if these measures will enable wages of all Singaporeans to keep pace with the rising consumer prices which have been rising significantly in recent years. Many Singaporeans I have spoken to have expressed scepticism that this can be achieved.
There is also increasing concern that middle income Singaporeans, the so-called sandwiched class, will begin to feel increasingly disadvantaged as they face slow income growth on one hand and inflation on the other. While Singaporeans benefit indirectly from measures such as the increase in assistance in healthcare which will benefit those with aged parents, they also feel the squeeze from other policies like the new restrictions on car loans. I hope that future measures and policies will be able to offer more direct help to this large group of Singaporeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is important to ask if the measures in this Budget and those of previous ones would be enough to build a better society that Deputy Prime Minister Tharman mentioned in his Budget speech. The issue of a better quality of life was raised during the recent debate over the Population White Paper, and Deputy Prime Minister Tharman alluded to this when he said that we should aim to shorten working hours over time and allow Singaporeans
Page: 145
to enjoy a better worklife balance to improve productivity.
At the moment, the strategy to achieve this better life quality is apparent to many Singaporeans. We are generally victims of our own success having been conditioned to aim for certain definitions of academic, financial and career successes, sometimes at the expense of other concerns. We are accustomed to social and economic policies that are effected through financial incentives and disincentives. But these are not necessarily suited towards creating the intangibles and make up a better-quality living.
Deputy Prime Minister Tharman said that this year's Budget will make significant investments to nurture the sports and arts and acknowledge that this plays a growing role in enriching lives in Singapore. It is certainly heartening to hear that 30% more investment will be made into sports programmes while investment in regional and community level sports facilities will be doubled. I will speak more on this during the Committee of Supply.
The Cultural Donation Matching Fund will also go a long way in terms of encouraging more donors to come forward to support arts and cultural activities here. Funding for activities such as sports and arts have typically been low compared to other sectors in Singapore. And this reflects the priority of the Government and, indeed, Singaporeans. So, it is welcome news to hear that the numbers are going up, but at the same time financial support is not the only thing that is needed.
For pursuits, such as sports and the arts, much progress is made when true passion drives and motivates athletes and artists alike to commit and sacrifice for their craft. Having a secure financial pathway, of course, helps, in terms of motivation, but, in many cases, it is about being given the space to grow and develop that passion without conflicting pressures and demands on our time and energies.
The Sports School and the School of the Arts are good initiatives which will hopefully create new generations of sportsmen and artists who have nurtured their talent and ability and passion from an early age. But it is also imperative for us to encourage the rest of society − individuals, schools and other institutions – to also support such individuals and activities by recognising the important role that sports and arts can play in creating a better quality of life and more fulfilling lives for Singaporeans. This will require a shift in our attitudes towards what is deemed as traditionally important – academic results, high salaries or soaring career trajectories – and other less tangible but no less
Page: 146
important elements that feed the soul of a country. The need for the Government to balance this shift against the imperative to maintain the country's competitiveness and economic growth is yet another challenge to be managed in the ongoing transition and transformation.
Sir, another area I was heartened to hear in the Budget Speech was the recognition that meritocracy, a long-held core value of Singapore, may not be the key to achieving and sustaining social mobility and an inclusive society. Meritocracy holds that individuals should be recognised and rewarded based on merit. It perceives intellectual talent as well as ability as measured through examination or demonstrated achievement. It has been a cornerstone of Singapore's growth story and the driving force behind many of our achievements. But it also encourages a very self-centred approach to life with one's own interests, progress and achievements – the key concern. This could then lead to, at best, an indifference to the plight of our neighbours and fellow Singaporeans and, in the worst case, a beggar-thy-neighbour outlook.
Building a more inclusive society has been an aim of this Government for a number of years now. If we are to succeed in this, then an alternative loss of the other than meritocracy, especially meritocracy taken to its extreme, might be needed.
We can learn from other cultures, including some in the West, where progress and success is celebrated at a community level and not just individuals, and also where definitions of success are not restricted to just the attainment of top jobs or salaries but include those who excel at whatever their chosen path is. The creation of a new philosophy and culture will take time of course, but I believe now is a good time as any for us to think about it, given the broader transition that we are facing.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in my debut speech in Parliament at last year's Budget debate, I mentioned that communication between the Government and the broader society would be important in rebuilding the social compact. In the current social climate, I believe this remains important when it comes to securing broader buy-in from Singaporeans in support for policies and plans that are needed to keep us moving forward.
There have been a few examples in recent months where policies were unveiled at times and in ways that created unnecessary unhappiness and angst. While the perfect time and place and message is an elusive target, I feel strongly that more effort needs to be invested in ensuring that all aspects of policies and
Page: 147
programmes are clearly communicated to all Singaporeans in ways that create a more informed society where intelligent debates and discourse become commonplace. If we are unable to do this, then much of the effort now and in the future may be destined to fail to achieve the whole potential impact. And that will be a shame if it affects good policies in that of improving lives and creating a better society for all of us. Sir, I support the Budget.
Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the key thrusts of this year's Budget to spearhead quality economic growth and build an inclusive society. Faced with rapid globalisation and an ageing population, Singapore will encounter many challenges to sustain its economic competitiveness and provide a good quality of life for Singaporeans. In an increasingly globalised and competitive world, Singapore has no choice but to enhance our competitiveness through productivity and quality improvements.
Sir, increasing productivity will help our companies to secure more business thus creating more jobs for Singaporeans. Focusing on quality of our products and services will help companies to sustain their business operations, and thus continue to provide employment for Singaporeans. Therefore, it is crucial that we invest in both productivity and quality growth of our businesses, workforce and business operating environment.
Sir, many Singaporeans welcome the $1.7 billion assistance and benefits given to them to cope with the rising costs of living. However, I would urge the Finance Minister to be more generous in giving out more U-save and S&CC rebates to the lower income HDB heartlanders living in 1- to 4-room flats.
Sir, there are three areas of concerns which I would like to urge the Finance Minister to consider in the Budget: first, safeguarding interests of low wage workers; second, setting up a Health Promotion Endowment fund; and third, supporting active ageing of elderly Singaporeans.
First, safeguarding interests of low-wage workers. Sir, the Budget provides innovative solutions to boost wage increase of Singaporeans through the Wage Credit Scheme and the tightening of foreign workers. The control of S Pass and employment pass holders will create more job opportunities for Singaporeans. But these measures will also increase business costs and threaten the sustainability of businesses, especially smaller firms.
Page: 148
Sir, SMEs face enormous challenges to recruit and retain good staff to sustain and grow their businesses. As such, the staff turnover affects the productivity and quality of their businesses. Furthermore, SMEs lack resources to invest in technology to improve productivity and quality.
Therefore, I am concerned that the three-year transition support package and Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) bonus may not be effective in encouraging many SMEs to achieve higher productivity and quality.
Although technology can help to improve productivity, the key driver of productivity and quality of SMEs is the quality of manpower. Thus, I would urge the Finance Minister to consider providing more support for SMEs to retain good staff through a \"Work Performance Support\" scheme.
For example, the Government can co-share 50% of the annual variable bonuses, that is the Annual Wage Supplement or Annual Variable Compensation, given to workers earning up to a gross monthly wage of $4,000. The co-sharing support can be capped to the yearly bonus payable to civil servants. In this way, SMEs will be in a better position to reward and retain their staff, thus enhancing productivity and quality.
To further safeguard the interests of low-wage workers, I would urge the Government to provide free NTUC union membership to low-wage workers. This will provide better safeguards for low-wage workers and enable them to enjoy union membership benefits such as discounts at NTUC Fairprice or Foodfare outlets.
Sir, at present, many part-time, contract and casual workers are working without written employment contracts, employment benefits, and CPF contributions. Such unfair employment practices of low-wage Singaporeans are not acceptable and should be stopped.
The Government must ensure that all Singaporean workers are properly employed with fair terms and conditions. Every Singaporean worker must be registered and make monthly CPF contributions irrespective of the amount of their salary. This will ensure that all low-wage workers can benefit from the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme and receive proper employment benefits entitlements.
To further increase the salary of low-wage workers, I would urge the Government to provide higher quantum of WIS to all low-wage workers
Page: 149
including part-time, contract and casual workers.
Two, setting up a \"Health Promotion Endowment\" Fund. Sir, although the total expenditure for MOH in Financial Year 2013 is estimated to be $5.68 billion, only $176 million or about 3% is allocated to the Health Promotion Board (HPB) to build a nation of healthy Singaporeans.
In a recent The Straits Times report on 28 February 2013, healthcare experts have recommended that our Government should spend more on preventive care and public health rather than disease care.
Sir, as the saying goes, \"Prevention is better than cure\". We need to invest in preventive care services instead of focusing on healthcare. More needs to be done to keep Singaporeans fit so as to reduce their needs for medical treatment. This is especially so for an ageing population.
Sir, in North West CDC, we have been advocating healthy lifestyle among our residents for the last 12 years. Despite much outreach and engagement efforts, we only managed to encourage 18,000 residents who are active in participating in our healthy lifestyle activities, such as brisk walking, health qigong, dance-fit, community aerobics, swimming and sports. It is indeed an uphill task to encourage Singaporeans to exercise regularly.
Sir, there are three lifestyle habits which will increase the healthcare costs and shorten the lifespan of Singaporeans. These are: (a) cigarette smoking and alcohol drinking; (b) excessive eating; and (c) lack of exercise.
Over the years, many health promotion pilot projects were launched to address these health hazards. But not many of these pilot projects are successful to be implemented nation-wide to produce good health outcomes. As a result, we are still facing problems of obesity, chronic illnesses and cancer deaths among Singaporeans. If HPB were to set a Body Mass Index (BMI) cut-off point of 23 as the passing standard, many Singaporeans will fail.
Sir, I urge the Government to invest in the health of Singaporeans and allocate more resources to promote healthy lifestyle among Singaporeans both young and old. MOF must understand that it is difficult to set KPIs for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion programmes. Thus, MOF should consider setting up a Health Promotion Endowment Fund instead of working out yearly budget for health promotion initiatives.
Page: 150
More sports and fitness facilities should be built in the community to encourage Singaporeans to exercise regularly. The Government must be prepared to subsidise or provide free usage of community sports facilities to maximise the usage of such facilities.
Investment in health promotion and the health of Singaporeans will definitely yield more returns both economically and socially. It will also reduce healthcare expenditure in the long run. Thus, I would urge the Government to set up a Health Promotion Endowment Fund to support Health Promotion initiatives of the public, private and people sectors on a sustained basis.
Three, supporting active ageing of elderly Singaporeans. Sir, many Singaporeans welcome the top-up of MediFund and ElderCare Fund to provide more assistance to the needy and elderly. The top-up of the Senior's Mobility and Enabling fund will also improve the quality of life of seniors. But many seniors are facing rising costs of living and depleting income or savings. This has caused much anxiety among our seniors, especially those with limited savings.
As such, many seniors are trying to stretch their savings so that they can maintain a certain standard of quality of life. One way we can better support our seniors to live an active and healthy life is to consider providing free bus services, and free usage of sports facilities during non-peak hours. This will encourage our seniors to be more active and keep fit, thus improving their quality of life.
Seniors can also build better social support groups among themselves through active participation of healthy lifestyle activities. This will further strengthen community bonding and enhance the quality of life of Singaporeans. Sir, every healthy elderly in a family will bring much joy and happiness to the family. Sir, I support the Budget.
Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Deputy Speaker, Sir, Minister for Finance and Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has certainly given us much to discuss. He has presented a comprehensive Budget Statement and introduced many initiatives which will help Singapore to remain competitive and for Singaporeans to fulfil their life goals.
Page: 151
The highlight of the Budget 2013 certainly is the Wage Credit Scheme, which will help many employers raise the wages of middle to lower income workers. The Government has agreed to cover 40% of wage increases of workers earning $4,000 and lower, and I commend the Government for this very generous offer. At the same time, Sir, I know that employers are aware that this co-funding is for three years, and that for businesses to sustain the increase after this period, they must ensure that they can raise their workers' productivity. Otherwise, they will be saddled with higher wages and find that they cannot sustain the increase once the co-funding ceases.
In anticipation of such a situation for some employers, the Government must make extra efforts to help companies find ways to increase their productivity. This would mean that the PIC must outdo itself and productivity must be the order of the day. I hope the Government will go beyond the current models and schemes, which many businessmen have told me are too restrictive, because they depend on approved vendors or consultants. Businessmen argued that many of these vendors and consultants offer cookie-cutter solutions, which do not truly help businesses to raise the bar – whether it is in manufacturing productivity, or service innovations.
In short, we must help the companies, whether they are big or small. I believe we should allow companies to seek solutions to the unique issues facing their particular businesses. We must make the productivity grow our obsession and the single most important pre-occupation for the next few years at least.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sure that this House will agree with me that in all that we do, we must always think of Singaporeans first. We are after all, the elected representatives of Singaporeans. I believe we can do more to ensure that Singapore always has a strong Singaporean Core and that Singaporeans must always come first, even as we welcome newcomers and new businesses who are sinking their roots here. I do not think anyone, either individual or company, will argue with the fact that while we welcome them in Singapore, we would also like to be assured that they will contribute to the Singaporean Core.
In this regard, I would like the Government to take steps to ensure that whenever a foreign company sets up in Singapore, in addition to offering them investment incentives, the Government should also require that companies set out plans to systematically transfer knowledge and skills to their Singaporean workers. The bottomline is they must have what I would call a \"localisation\" plan. The Government should strictly monitor the implementation of such plans, so that over time, the core jobs within such companies are filled by
Page: 152
Singaporeans. This will allow upward mobility among Singaporeans, and it will go a long way to address some of the complaints, especially among our higher skilled and higher-level workers that they face glass ceilings when working in foreign companies. I hope the Government will give due consideration to this suggestion.
Sir, I believe this Budget goes a long way to establish Singapore on a firm road to growth and prosperity for Singaporeans. It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that no Singaporean is left behind. However, even as we manage the influx of foreign workers, we must not choke the legitimate needs of businesses and these are real needs. I agree over the longer term, businesses must come to accept the new reality, but again, it is incumbent on the Government and on us in this House, to voice their legitimate concerns and seek solutions together which can be sustained over the long term.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am told that perseverance is a virtue. So, I would like to touch again on the subject of public housing, which I brought up in this House last year. I concede that MND and, in particular, HDB has an unenviable task of housing a nation, amid rising expectations of quality and rising anxiety over prices.
I am very glad that the Minister for National Development has announced that HDB will be building ahead of demand. That is really wonderful. Building ahead of demand. He also said that the cost of HDB new flats is not linked to market prices. This is very reassuring, but I am sure that Singaporeans will be much more reassured if they had a better understanding of how HDB flats are priced, whether land cost is included and how land is priced.
I would like to highlight an interesting article in The Straits Times by Dr Tan Meng Wah, a research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS). He made an interesting argument that HDB could consider charging the cost of land only when a buyer sells his flat, after the minimum occupancy period. Let me read what he wrote, and I quote:
[(proc text) \"… new flats are to be sold by HDB at cost-based prices; and priced differently depending on location. The land value is announced but is omitted to keep selling price affordable. (proc text)]
[(proc text) After the minimum holding period − now five years − when a home owner decides to sell the HDB flat in the resale market, HDB will have the first right to reclaim the predetermined land value from the capital gain of the flat: the resale price minus the original purchase price. But if the capital gain is less than the land value, the shortfall
Page: 153
will be borne by HDB.\" (proc text)]
The argument in the article is that if land costs are omitted, then, the buyer could take a smaller loan and thus enjoy substantial benefits in interest cost savings. I would be interested to learn the Government's comments about this suggestion.
Similarly, Sir, I would like to further reiterate my call in this House which I had done on several occasions for HDB to go back to its fundamental and core business, which is to offer affordable housing to Singaporeans. In this regard, I would like to once again propose that the HDB seriously consider regulating the sale and purchase of 3-room and 4-room flats which are originally intended for low-income Singaporeans. I have previously suggested that 3-room and 4-room flats should not be bought and sold in the open market. Instead, the HDB should take over the role as the sole seller and sole reseller of such flats. If, for example, a 3-room or 4-room flat owner wants to sell his flat, the HDB should undertake to buy it back, at its original sale price plus inflation over the years that the owner has held the flat. HDB can then resell the flat to qualified buyers. The HDB will have much better control over pricing and thus can keep the prices of 3-room and 4-room flats truly affordable for the low-income Singaporean families. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I am proud of the positive development and achievements of the Malay community in Singapore. Now, it is normal for us to hear news about the excellence of Malay children in their class or in important examinations in schools. We also have more Malay professionals of high calibre – doctors, accountants, lawyers, engineers − and they lead and shine in various industries. At the same time, I am also proud of the growing number of Malays who succeed in business including those who shine in the arts and the creative fields.
But, Sir, the community is still facing a number of problems, especially among the low income and the poor. If we look deeper into the problems of those families who are stuck year after year in the same situation, continue to earn low income and do not enjoy positive progress, you will find certain characteristics. For these families, that I often meet, it seems like they have lost hope, and they are resigned to their fate. If the parents are low-educated, their children often do not have the determination to succeed, or they fail in school and drop out. Why does this continue to happen to these dysfunctional families? Is it possible that these children who come from such families are required to start working to assist the family? But I feel that the Government and the community must provide more assistance to these dysfunctional families so
Page: 154
that they can break this cycle. We must help the parents of these families so that they have the hope and the high aspirations for their children. Whatever the challenges and problems faced by these families, we must work more closely with the community organisations to raise their development and status in life.
Sir, we do hope that from the generous Budget this year, the Government will give assistance to community organisations and work with them to help these dysfunctional families break this vicious cycle: where the parents are unable to fulfil the aspirations, their children will be able to do so; so that the children will succeed in school, they will work harder and they will want to upgrade their skills and abilities for a brighter future for their children.
We should work together with the parents, teachers, schools and community leaders so that every child will have the opportunity to achieve their potential. I would like to call on members of the community who have succeeded to show interest and concern. We hope that they will come forward to help with the effort to uplift the needy families. With their involvement, they will not only achieve a sense of personal fulfilment, but also remind ourselves that every Singaporean, whether well-to-do or not, has an equal stake in Singapore.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I come now to my final point. It is clear that the Government is making great efforts to address the concerns of Singaporeans. Concerns about the high costs of living are genuine, and the Government's plan to help Singaporeans increase their earnings is a long-term solution, while the credits and rebates offered by the Government are to stem immediate-term needs. We are also building more flats and are expanding our transport system – both immediately and in the long term. This is all well and good, and I am sure Singaporeans will appreciate all these efforts. But, Sir, I would like to signal that we are still some way away from restoring the trust that Singaporeans have given to us for so many years.
Many Singaporeans that I spoke to still feel that their concerns are falling on deaf ears. They feel that our policymakers are too isolated from the situation on the ground. Sir, we risk losing the art of explaining our policies in a way that makes common sense to the common man. We risk losing the pulse of the ground and we are in danger of paying a dear price – that there will be a disconnect between our residents and ourselves. Once we completely lose our residents' trust, we will no longer be able to call on them to support difficult, yet necessary steps, accept painful policies, to ensure Singapore's long-term survival. If that happens, Sir, then Singapore will be no different to many other
Page: 155
countries – where governments have populist policies to win the day, but the populace suffers the long-term effect. If that happens, then, we have failed Singapore.
We must never allow this to happen. Sir, we must continue to hold Singaporeans at the core in whatever we do. And we must take pains to explain ourselves, so that our residents can see the bigger picture, and that they have a role in building the future of Singapore together. And most importantly, we must make every effort to understand and truly listen to the concerns of our residents. Sir, I support the Budget.
","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, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
[(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.
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.\" – [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.23 pm.
\tPage: 156
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Transport Operators' Annual Share of Advertising Licensing Fees from Bus Stop Billboards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is each public transport operator's (PTO) annual share of advertising licensing fees from billboards at bus stops from 2008 to 2012; (b) whether there are guidelines on what such monies can be used for by the PTOs; and (c) whether the PTOs' share of advertising licensing fees from billboards can be increased in absolute and relative terms.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: With effect from FY2012, the Government has decided to allow the public bus operators, namely SBS Transit and SMRT Buses, to retain a portion of the advertising licensing fees from billboards at bus stops. The portion each operator receives is determined by the scale of its operations and the total advertising licensing fee collected. For FY2012, SBS Transit is expected to receive around $13 million and SMRT Buses $5 million.
Prior to FY2012, the bus operators did not receive any revenue from bus stop advertisements.
\tPage: 157
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":75,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130306/annex-Report.pdf","fileName":"Report.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":2450,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130306/vernacular-New Template - 6 Mar _ Er Dr Lee Bee Wah on Budget Statement.pdf","fileName":"New Template - 6 Mar _ Er Dr Lee Bee Wah on Budget Statement.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2451,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130306/vernacular-New Template - Lee Bee Wah Budget 6 March 2013_chinese.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Lee Bee Wah Budget 6 March 2013_chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2452,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130306/vernacular-New Template - 6 Mar _ Mr Muhd Faisal A Manap on Budget Statement.pdf","fileName":"New Template - 6 Mar _ Mr Muhd Faisal A Manap on Budget Statement.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2453,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130306/vernacular-New Template-Yeo Guat Kwang Budget 6 March 2013_chinese.pdf","fileName":"New Template-Yeo Guat Kwang Budget 6 March 2013_chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2454,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130306/vernacular-New Template - Sam Tan Budget 6 Mar 2013_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Sam Tan Budget 6 Mar 2013_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2455,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Teo Siong Seng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130306/vernacular-New Template-Teo Siong Seng Budget 6 March 2013_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"New Template-Teo Siong Seng Budget 6 March 2013_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2456,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Lim Swee Say","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130306/vernacular-New Template - Lim Swee Say Budget 6 March 2013_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Lim Swee Say Budget 6 March 2013_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2458,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zainudin Nordin","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130306/vernacular-New Template - 6 Mar _ Mr Zainudin Nordin on Budget Statement.pdf","fileName":"New Template - 6 Mar _ Mr Zainudin Nordin on Budget Statement.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}