1 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the basis for the latest increase in electricity tariffs and gas prices; (b) whether the consumption of electricity and gas has increased as more residents work from home; and (c) whether increased development in alternative sources of energy has helped reduce the overall cost of electricity for consumers.
The Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, good afternoon. I thank the hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his question. I have circulated a chart which has been placed on Members' seats, so that it can show clearly my explanation. [Please refer to Annex 1.]
Sir, electricity tariffs and gas prices generally move in tandem with global fuel prices and they have averaged around 24.58 cents/kWh and 18.36 cents/kWh respectively, since January 2018. Since dipping to their lowest levels in the past 20 years in April 2020, fuel prices rose by 46.6% in the third quarter of 2020 – the quarter that has just passed – and this is in tandem with the resumption of global economic activity. So, the electricity and gas tariffs therefore rose to 22.93 cents/kWh and 17.19 cents/kWh in the fourth quarter this year, as fuel prices rebounded.
However, the electricity and gas tariffs in the third and fourth quarters of 2020 still remain lower than in the first quarter of 2020. And the prices, the tariffs are amongst the lowest since January 2018. So, the prices for this last quarter that has just passed, are still amongst the lowest since January 2018.
For electricity tariffs in particular, it is also worth pointing out that Q4 2020 tariffs still remain at 11.6% lower than Q1 2020 and 6.7% lower than the average electricity tariff between January 2018 and September 2020. May I request for all Members in this House to refer to the chart for more details; I think it will give a much clearer explanation.
Around 47% of all households will not be affected by the new tariff prices because they have already switched to the Open Electricity Market.
Alternative energy sources today constitute a small proportion of our power generation because of our natural geographical limitations. However, our Government is actively partnering industry partners and industry players to deploy more solar power to enhance our energy resilience, our competitiveness as well as longer term sustainability. We aim to increase our solar capacity by five-fold. Today, we are at 0.4 gigawatt-peak or GWp. We are trying to achieve at least 2 GWp by 2030 – in about 10 years' time. And we hope that that will contribute to around 3% of our energy consumption in 2030. Consumers who are interested to procure solar power can do so by engaging our local solar companies.
Moving on to households’ average monthly electricity and town gas consumption, and if we looked at the consumption from April to July 2020 – this is for the monthly average electricity and town gas consumption – it was 16% for electricity and 34% for town gas. So, 16% and 34% higher compared to the same period last year respectively. It is a difficult point to note on discussion, so, I want to repeat that: households' average monthly electricity and town gas consumption from April to July 2020, was 16% and 34% higher compared to the same period last year, respectively.
This is mainly due to the fact that Singaporeans spent more time at home during the circuit breaker period and during the early stages of our phased re-opening, as part of our national efforts to manage local community transmissions of COVID-19.
We have also provided Singaporean households with more support for their utility bills this year. Every household with at least one Singapore Citizen received a one-off $100 Solidarity Utilities Credit in their July or August SP Group utility bill. The GST Voucher – U-Save that eligible households receive has also been doubled this year through a one-off GST Voucher – U-Save Special Payment. Eligible HDB households with five or more members also received a first tranche of further GST Voucher – U-Save rebates of between $60 and $100 per household in October, with a second tranche to be disbursed in January 2021.
Before this year, the annual amount of GST Voucher – U-Save that households in 1- and 2-room HDB flats received was equivalent to about three to four months of their utilities bill. Those living in 3- and 4-room HDB flats received support equivalent to about one to two months of their utilities bills on average. And this is very targeted. We want to make sure that the support is given to families most in need and hence, the higher quantum in terms of the GST Voucher – U-Save that the households in 1- and 2-room HDB flats received compared to those in 3- and 4-room flats.
With the additional support this year, households in 1- and 2-room HDB flats will receive support equivalent to at least six to eight months of their utilities bills on average. And households living in 3- and 4-room HDB flats will receive support equivalent to at least two to four months of their utilities bills.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. Two questions, the first related to communications. When the tariff announcement was made, the headline that came up was that there was a 9.3% increase for the month of October to December. It came across from almost every media outlet. So, what the Minister just explained gave a lot of context and details that indeed, only a certain percentage of the population is affected – about 53%. So, such headlines do cause anxiety, especially during this period where the environment is really difficult and indeed, residents have consumed more electricity because of working from home, staying at home more often. So, I want to ask the Minister how we can better communicate this, so that we do not cause unnecessary alarm or concern when residents see the headline number of 9.3% increase.
The second question is, the Minister mentioned that the tariffs affected 53% of the households and the remaining 47% households are not affected. Given the unsettling effect of price changes quarter-to-quarter, would the Ministry perhaps use this opportunity to encourage more Singaporeans to go on the fixed price plan, so that there is some certainty; whether that can be pushed out to more residents to adopt and to sign up; whether there are other incentives that can encourage our Singaporeans to sign up as well?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his suggestion. In terms of the communications to the households, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you look at the breakdown of all of the utilities bills that SP and some of the retailer send out to the households, these are detailed breakdown in terms of the tariffs charged. At the same time, in terms of the rebates, many of the households in the 1-, 2-, 3-room and 4-room flats would have gotten their rebates. In terms of those rebates, as I have alluded to earlier on, in the 1- to 2-room flats, they get between six and eight months of rebates, and for the 3- and 4-room flats, they get between two and four months. We believe that that has been communicated quite adequately across. Of course, in terms of communications, we will find ways and means in which we can continue to improve and further fine-tune how to educate many of our households in terms of managing their utilities bills.
One of the key initiatives as a result of these fluctuations or volatility of prices, it is important for us to note that our tariffs are based on what is the prevalent crude oil price. It is benchmarked against that. Ninety-five percent of our electricity is generated by the generating companies or gencos using piped and liquified natural gas from overseas.
It is in the interest of many people to switch to the Open Market retailers, to switch onto some of these packaged price plans, as what was surmised by the hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa. If it is possible, most households should look at many of these plans that are available and move on to a more fixed price package for more certainty in electricity prices. Because I think in the ensuing quarters ahead, there will continue to be more volatility and fluctuations to happen.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Development Support and Learning Support Programmes at Non-Anchor Operator Preschools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry has plans to introduce the Development Support and Learning Support programmes to non-Anchor Operator preschools.
\tThe Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): The number of pre-schools offering the Development Support or DS, and Learning Support or LS programme has increased by 60% from 350 pre-schools in 2017 to about 550 pre-schools today. Of these pre-schools offering the DS-LS programme, about 150 are non-Anchor Operator pre-schools.
\t
Pre-school operators with a critical mass of centres, such as the Anchor Operators or AOPs, are DS-LS providers in their centres with their own in-house Learning Support Educators. Other pre-schools generally tap on regional DS-LS providers to deliver the DS-LS programme in their centres. There are currently three regional DS-LS providers namely, Asian Women's Welfare Association or AWWA, SPD and Thye Hua Kwan, providing the DS-LS programme at about 150 non-AOP pre-schools.
The Early Childhood Development Agency or ECDA is working closely with the regional DS-LS providers and pre-schools to expand outreach to more non-AOP pre-schools. Pre-schools that are interested to offer the DS-LS programme can contact the regional DS-LS providers to learn more about the DS-LS programme and for assistance to screen children with suspected developmental delays for early intervention support.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Could I just ask whether we are aware of what is the number and the percentage of children who are differently-abled or who are in pre-schools that do not offer this DS-LS programme.
The second point, I think that there are some that are out there, who are in these schools that do not offer the DS-LS programme. I am wondering whether ECDA is watching this space and seeing how we can support these children. Because I am worried that without the DS-LS programme, it really will be detrimental to their development.
Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his question. The 550 pre-schools I had mentioned earlier form about 30% of pre-schools. I do not have the number or the exact breakdown of the number of children who do not have access to the DS-LS programme but I can come back at a later stage and provide those numbers to the Member.
I understand where the Member is coming from, and indeed, the early intervention teams at MSF are looking to work closely with the AOP and Partner Operator Scheme or POP providers to expand the LS-DS provision and also working with the regional therapy teams at the three regional DS-LS providers that I mentioned earlier, to expand their outreach and the provision of these services to the non-Anchor Operator pre-schools as well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"SkillsFuture Programme Attendees Who have Procured Work Related to Their Course","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education (a) of those who attended the SkillsFuture training programmes in the past year, how many have successfully procured work related to their course; and (b) what efforts does the Ministry take to measure the outcomes of these training programmes.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): In 2019, almost 7,000 job placements were achieved through the Professional Conversion Programmes and Work-Study programmes provided by Workforce Singapore and SkillsFuture Singapore. These were Place-and-Train programmes where employment was secured before training. Another 2,400 placements were achieved through Train-and-Place programmes in 2019, where trainees received assistance from the training providers upon completion of the course.
As part of the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package to support jobseekers, we are significantly scaling up the training capacity of programmes with placement outcomes in mind. In 2020, we are offering up to 20,000 training places under the SGUnited Skills programme and another 10,000 places under the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways (Company Training) programme.
These are a subset of SkillsFuture programmes, which are designed to meet the diverse training needs of Singaporeans. There are also many shorter training courses which enable working adults to better equip themselves for their present and future jobs.
To measure the outcome of these training programmes, SkillsFuture Singapore conducts both post-course surveys on the course quality, as well as programme-specific surveys such as the Work-Study Programme Outcomes Survey. The latter collects data such as employment and retention rates, as well as wage outcomes of the graduates. In 2019, 87% of the surveyed graduates were employed in full-time jobs within six months after completing the Work-Study Programme.
Follow-up surveys are also conducted with trainees six months after completion of the SSG-funded courses to ascertain post-training outcomes. More than 80% of the trainees surveyed in 2019 indicated that they were able to perform better at work after undergoing SkillsFuture training.
We will continue to monitor the outcomes of SkillsFuture training and adapt these programmes to meet the upskilling and reskilling needs of Singaporeans.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for her response. I am heartened to know that the Ministry is indeed tracking closely the outcome of the training programmes. Can I ask the Minister of State on some upcoming efforts by the Ministry to improve the awareness of such training programmes and how they have resulted in some positive job placements?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank the hon Member Mr Yip Hon Weng for the question. Indeed, I think awareness of the SkillsFuture programme is critical, so that Singaporeans who need these programmes know where to go and how to apply for these courses. More recently, we have started partnership with several agencies to build a pool of SkillsFuture Ambassadors.These ambassadors provide face-to-face and personal services and advisory to jobseekers who want to know where these SkillsFuture training opportunities are.
With the Community Development Councils or CDCs, we also have a programme that has lasted several years, where the SkillsFuture Ambassadors in the communities conduct courses, workshops and advisories to residents who want to find out more about SkillsFuture programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"SGUnited Traineeship Applications and Matches","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how long will the SGUnited Traineeship programme be available for; and (b) between ensuring adequate scrutiny and efficient processing of SGUnited Traineeship applications, how many full-time equivalent staff does the Singapore Business Federation currently have and is projecting to hire and train in the next six to 12 months so as to shorten processing time to help jobseekers and graduates start work sooner since they have found employers keen to hire them.
5 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower since the set-up of the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres (a) how many Singaporeans have sought assistance at the centres; (b) how many successful job and traineeship matches have been made; and (c) how many training and skills placements have been made.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Questions Nos 4 and 5 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Thank you. The National Jobs Council is coordinating efforts to provide job, traineeship, attachment as well as training opportunities for jobseekers under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package.
The SGUnited Traineeships and SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programmes were introduced to provide company-hosted traineeship and attachment opportunities for recent graduates and mid-career jobseekers respectively. These programmes aim to help jobseekers who are unable to find permanent jobs in the current job market, gain industry-relevant skills and build professional networks so as to boost their employability.
The SGUnited Traineeships Programme was launched on 1 June 2020, and the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme, on 1 August 2020. Workforce Singapore and its programme manager, the Singapore Business Federation or SBF, have worked closely with host companies to open up earlier-approved traineeship positions as company attachments for mid-career individuals under the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme as well.
By now, over 20,500 traineeship and company attachment opportunities have been made available. The top five sectors which together account for more than half the openings are: financial services, infocomm technology and media, professional services, wholesale trade and electronics. More than 2,800 local jobseekers have been placed.
Although the focus must now be for the host companies to secure more successful placements, SBF continues to accept new applications by companies to host attachments for mid-career individuals that commence before 31 March 2021. The SBF has a dedicated team of 25, of which 80% are filled and will be reaching full strength by end-October.
I had earlier updated the House that SBF undertakes a rigorous screening process and scrutinises each application to ensure that host organisations structure their traineeships and attachments appropriately with clear development plans, so that participants can have a positive and meaningful experience. How quickly an employer's application is approved depends in part on the comprehensiveness of its submission. Factoring in time for SBF to seek clarifications and enhancement, most applications are approved within four weeks. This is, however, not a key bottleneck right now as there are already many existing openings available to jobseekers. After suitable matches are found and necessary supporting documents are submitted to SBF, the traineeship or company attachment can commence.
To help our local jobseekers access the available jobs and skills opportunities, we have brought career matching services closer to the heartlands. We have launched the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres in phases. Since early July and by end-August, one had been set up across all 24 HDB towns. Although all satellite career centres were only in operation from end-August, Career Ambassadors have advised about 4,200 jobseekers by now.
Jobseekers are reached through multiple channels and assisted through a variety of means. It is therefore more useful to consider their collective impact. Between January and August this year, we have provided career matching services to about 44,200 jobseekers through the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres as well as WSG and NTUC's e2i's five permanent career centres.
Since the launch of the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package in April 2020, we have placed 33,100 jobseekers into job, traineeship, attachment and training opportunities. This is in spite of a two-month lockdown and the deep economic recession.
We will continue to curate more opportunities while seeking to increase placements of jobseekers.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister for her reply to the question. My concern is about the resourcing to process the number of opportunities available. I think it is heartening that there are many opportunities available, but given the 25 staff at SBF right now, processing over a thousand host organisations base on the statistics, that is about 40 host organisations per SBF staff.
So, would the Minister not agree that for those who have lost their jobs and everyone in the family has lost their jobs, we would need to increase or a ramping up of resourcing and expedited channel to help them access these job opportunities as soon as possible? Would the Minister consider creating a priority or fast-track channel for trainee applicants under the traineeship programmes whose families have no other working or income earning individuals?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Carrie Tan for her concern. In the beginning, SBF did encounter quite a lot of difficulties because it had responded to the opportunity to curate, to manage the SGUnited Traineeship programmes. It wanted very much to be of service to their members – meaning the companies that potentially can host these opportunities – as well as to jobseekers.
So, I would acknowledge that in the earlier stages, it did take SBF quite a while to assemble the team and to process the applications from the host companies.
I would also say that because the programme was very new at the time, what constitutes a meaningful traineeship experience, was something that was still being worked out. But, I am glad to say that by now, all these kinks have been ironed out. SBF certainly expanded their team and, as I had mentioned earlier in my reply, it will be at full strength by the end of this month.
\tRight now, if you look at the total number of opportunities that have been made available, I think that period is past. Right now, the focus has to be on the companies making these opportunities available to jobseekers, letting the jobseekers know that they are interested to take in people as trainees or as mid-career attachments. Right now, the action is less on SBF and more on the companies to get this done. So, it is within the companies, their own HR teams that have to follow through with the approved positions, advertise the positions, collate the CVs, the interest that have been made known to them through various sources, and then, arrange for the interviews to take place as well as to make the selection and then follow through with SBF.
So, right now, a lot of the action has to be undertaken by the host companies, themselves.
I should also add another point to Ms Carrie Tan's concern. SBF is one of the many partners that we work with. It is not the only one that is involved in this whole network that is trying to bring together jobseekers as well as companies that still have openings. Other trade associations and chambers are involved. The whole network of Career Centres, including the 24 in the HDB Towns that I mentioned earlier in my reply, are also involved.
If you add all of them together, the resourcing has increased quite considerably. Today, if you look at the overall opportunities that have been curated, there are about 117,500. We have been able to place 33,000 or so. So, the opportunities are available. The next step as to whether the job matching can happen is no longer just a matter of facilitation. The jobseeker must feel that he wants the job; the employer must feel that he can give the jobseeker an opportunity. And that is not something that you bring about purely through more facilitation. Although, I will give the Member the assurance that if more resources are needed in that regard, certainly, we have no hesitation to enhance them.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply as well as commend MOM for a very good initiative – the traineeship programme. I just want to ask whether we are thinking ahead, now that many of them have secured traineeships; what is the next step for them? Are we also encouraging the companies to convert these traineeships into permanent jobs?
Would MOM also do some early survey to find out from companies how many of the trainees would be retained as permanent employees and how many may be released, so that they can better plan the next stage of helping the young graduates?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his concern. Indeed, we are following up closely with the companies to have a sense of what they are thinking of for the future. I would say that if you look at the range of opportunities that have been made available, quite clearly, a lot of the companies are looking ahead into the future and seeing that this is a good time to expose more jobseekers to their industries or to the jobs that previously were perhaps less well sought after by the jobseekers. So, they do have that objective in mind.
As to whether they can follow through to offer the trainees a specific job, an opening, probably will depend on two things: one, whether they see a need to fulfil that position on a permanent basis and that will depend on their assessment of the business outlook; second, I think they will also assess the specific trainee, whether during this period, the trainee has exhibited good ability to gel with the team as well as to contribute to the organisation.
Some of the ways in which the Government is trying to be helpful and to nudge the employers in this direction is through the introduction of the Jobs Growth incentive. This Jobs Growth incentive, essentially, encourages employers to expand their hiring and if the wage support that is provided is able to provide that additional resourcing to the employers, they could also bring forward their hiring. That is what, we think, will potentially encourage the employers to think in that direction.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres are focused mainly at helping PMETs or does it include non PMETs as well. I have quite a number of non PMET residents who are seeking jobs but find that most of the jobs matched by SGUnited's Jobs Programmes, including the traineeships, seem to be targeted more at PMETs. Is there another channel that non PMETs, and specifically unskilled jobseekers, should approach instead?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, there are a variety of jobs that are being made available. I mentioned earlier that total opportunities that have been curated under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package is about 117,000. Of these, 70% are jobs and the jobs are of different nature – some are long-term jobs, some are short-term jobs; some of these jobs are suitable for PMETs, some of these jobs are suitable for non PMETs.
At the satellite Career Centres, as is the case for all the other touchpoints we have with jobseekers, all these jobs can be made available. For some of the non PMET jobseekers, we understand, for example, language may be a barrier. So, even in these career-resourcing centres, there are colleagues who speak Mandarin or speak other languages that will be of help to these jobseekers. So, there is a variety.
The Member is incorrect to think that most of the jobs that have been matched are for PMETs. Our experience is that matching people into PMET jobs takes longer. The reason is very simple: if you are a PMET, you see yourself as having a set of skills that you would like to find the best match for in an employer that recognises your experience and is also able to pay a premium for those skills that you have. It has actually been easier to match people in non PMET roles. I do not have the numbers offhand, but I can assure you that the matching for non PMET has actually been the majority of those under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Policy Considerations for Long-term Population Growth","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Poh Li San asked the Prime Minister in view of Singapore's population statistics for 2019 (a) whether the Government will review the long-term population targets given the increasing trend of outsourcing work overseas and reduction in the employment of foreign workers in Singapore; (b) whether the proportion of annual new citizens will remain at approximately 70% of citizens by birth; and (c) how will changes in Singapore's population demographics affect national infrastructure planning.
7 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the projected trends of birth rates, life expectancy and immigration in the next decade; and (b) whether the Government has a long-term population target and what are the policy considerations.
\tThe Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, may I take the question from Ms Poh Li San and the next question from Mr Liang Eng Hwa together.
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Sir, the Government has clarified via a media statement and Factually articles in March and July 2020 that it does not have a population target or seek to achieve any particular population size. Singapore’s population size is affected by many factors, including birth rates, life expectancy, as well as global developments affecting immigration and employment. In March 2018, we updated Parliament that given recent trends, Singapore’s total population size is likely to be significantly below 6.9 million by 2030. This outlook remains valid today.
Like most developed economies, Singapore’s resident total fertility rate or TFR is below replacement. Our most recent resident TFR, for 2019, was 1.14, unchanged from the year before.
To moderate the impact of ageing and our low birth rates, we take in a stable and measured number of new citizens and Permanent Residents or PRs every year.
To the Member’s question on annual new citizens, over the past five years, we granted an average of about 22,100 new Singapore Citizenships each year. This included about 1,600 children born overseas to Singaporean parents every year. We also granted about 31,700 new PRs on average each year, over the past five years. The total size of the PR population has remained at around half a million for many years now. New citizens either share family ties with Singaporeans, or have studied, worked or lived here for some time. They are drawn from the pool of qualified PRs who eventually make the serious commitment to take on citizenship. Citizenship and PR status are granted selectively to applicants who are committed to making Singapore their home, and who can integrate and contribute to Singapore.
Infrastructure planning is a long-term process guided by many factors, not only demographics. These include, among others, land use needs for economic growth, improving housing and transport for our people, socioeconomic and technological trends, as well as ensuring a good environment and resilience to climate change shocks. Our infrastructure planning process allows us to be flexible and responsive in catering to the changing needs of our residents, and ensure a good quality living environment in Singapore.
We will continue to monitor our population trends closely, and regularly review our population policies along with our infrastructure and social development needs. This will ensure that Singapore remains a cohesive society and a good home for all Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister. First, before I put my question, I would like to declare my interest as the strategic advisor to local charity Daughters of Tomorrow which works with many low-income women, including Long-Term Visit Pass-holders who are married to Singaporeans and have Singaporean children.
Given our low fertility rate that the Minister had shared, would the Prime Minister's Office consider making the citizenship status more accessible to Long-Term Visit Pass-holders who already have Singaporean children in Singapore for the long-term viability of giving them better access to support and employment opportunities within Singapore, in order to provide more conducive environments to bring up their children?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for her question. There are various factors that we look at when we grant citizenship. We cannot only grant citizenship on the basis of giving access to benefits. That cannot be the sole criterion, so, we do look at many things. Importantly, we look at family ties, we look at contributions to Singapore, we look at the stability of the family unit. In short, we will assess each application holistically, but we will give priority to family ties and family support. And even if the parent may not be Singaporean, where the children are Singaporeans, we will also make sure that the Singaporean children are adequately supported and taken care of.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, I thank the Minister for giving us the indication of the trends of our population. Clearly, the ageing population is expected to accelerate in the next decade. Can I ask the Minister how would that impact the tax burden of the working population then, and more importantly, how do we mitigate that kind of tax burden for that generation working population, going forward?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, that is actually a very important question. I would like to thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for raising it.
\t
\tYou have seen from the figures that I have mentioned that our TFR is at 1.14, so it is not a replacement rate. At the same time, we do have an ageing population. Last year, about 15% of Singaporeans were aged 65 and above. By 2030, this will increase to around 25%. What this means is that we have a smaller proportion of the working population contributing for a population that is growing older. So, the ones who are not working, the numbers are going to expand, and if we do not have replacement, the numbers who can actually come into the economy and contribute is going to shrink. That is the scenario that we are looking at.
The question is, how are we going to manage this? There are several strategies. The first and most important, which is what this Government has been doing consistently over the years, is to put in place resilient systems and measures for each generation to save for its own retirement needs.
For example, the CPF helps Singaporeans to save for their old age, covers medical expenses and purchase basic health insurance. With the introduction of CareShield Life in 2018, we now have an enhanced system, which includes CareShield Life, CPF LIFE and MediShield Life. With this kind of national risk pooling schemes, we are better prepared to manage the uncertainties associated with ageing in a sustainable way. Then, the other thing that we have done is we have actually set aside funds. For example, for the Pioneer Generation Package and the Merdeka Generation Package. These are committed funds which you set aside because you know what the numbers are like roughly – the package or size – and it means that no matter what, these funds are available to help that group of ageing Singaporeans.
But there will be new requirements that will come along because as we know healthcare is not a sort of a gentle slope that increases. It actually increases exponentially as you get older. And you will need recurrent revenues for that, especially when we are ageing at a faster pace. For example, the average annual healthcare spending is expected to rise from 2.1% of GDP today to almost 3% of GDP over the next decade.
What this means is that aside from savings, you need revenue. You will need fresh revenue and you have to keep your revenue sources diversified. The share of personal income tax or PIT, of our tax revenue has remained at about 18% from FY2016 to FY2018. The other taxes which contribute to our revenue are corporate income tax, GST and asset related taxes.
When you have recurrent spending, you also need recurrent revenue. That was a key reason why we introduced GST in 1994 because we recognised then, that an ageing population structure would require us to reduce our reliance on personal income taxes. If we continue to rely principally on personal income taxes, the tax burden will weigh increasingly heavily on younger Singaporeans who are still working. You have to try and spread it out and make sure that you have some reliance on personal income taxes, but it is also necessary to have consumption taxes such as the GST. And GST lessens the problem by balancing the taxation more broadly among the population.
But that is not all. You save, you tax, but you can only tax if there is something to tax on, which means that you must grow the economy. So, transforming the economy is very important, which is why on every Budget, you hear Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat talking about economic restructuring and transformation – it is to grow the economy. We need to raise the productivity of workers and we need to also ensure that our resident labour force is able to support our economic development. That is why we supplement the local workforce with foreign skilled workers, especially in areas where we do not yet have the needed number of local skilled workers; although obviously we want to grow the local skilled workers to be able to do those jobs. And in the long run, raising birthrates. That remains the most sustainable solution to our demographic challenges.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pricing Policy of HDB's BTO Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the pricing policy of HDB's BTO flats remains the same in using the average mean income of each income group as a reference and not the prevailing market price; (b) what is the pricing policy for BTO flats in mature estates and whether there is a difference; and (c) whether there is a plan to address the pent up demand as a result of record sale prices crossing a million dollars in mature estates.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, when pricing new flats, HDB first establishes the market value of the flat by considering factors such as the price of comparable resale flats nearby, the individual attributes of the flat and prevailing market conditions. A subsidy is then applied, so that new flats are priced at a significant discount to the market. The pricing approach is the same for Build-To-Order or BTO flats in mature and non-mature estates.
On top of the subsidised price, HDB also offers first-time flat buyers, the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant or EHG, of up to $80,000, to give more help to lower to middle income households buying their first home. The EHG was introduced in September last year, with no restriction on the flat buyers' choice of flat type and location.
These significant subsidies keep HDB flats affordable. Today, HDB BTO flat prices remain at less than five times of median annual household income or less, compared to other major cities in the world, where the ratio can be nearly 10 or 20 times. The vast majority of first-timer families are able to buy BTO flats in the non-mature estates and service their monthly mortgage instalments using CPF, with zero or minimal cash outlay.
Apart from BTO flats, some buyers also look to the resale market, where there is a wide range of flat choices. While there have been several resale flats with attractive attributes that are transacted at headline prices of over a million dollars. These transactions are a small minority, representing less than 0.3% of the total resale transactions this year. So, in absolute figures, it is 38 out of more than 14,400 resale transactions so far this year.
The Government will continue to monitor the housing market closely and ensure that Singaporeans have access to affordable public housing.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): I thank Minister for the reply. The underlying concern is that because of the million-dollar transactions that we have seen recently, there is a concern that that might create anxiety. There might be a pent-up demand and as a result, anxiety. How would HDB review and manage that?
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member. Certainly, when there are these headline-grabbing articles which talk about HDB flats transacting at those prices, it may cause people to have the impression that overall there is a very, very high demand and that prices are escalating significantly. But I have said, it is 0.3% of total resale transactions each year that are in that category.
HDB, as I have said, continues to monitor closely housing affordability for both the BTO market as well as the resale market. For the BTO segment last year, we built 14,600 new flats; and this year, we are aiming to build 16,700 flats. And so, each year, we will calibrate the number based on demand.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Career Pathways of Local Madrasah Graduates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs whether there are studies on (i) the career trajectories of local madrasah graduates from previous and existing cohorts and (ii) what kind of jobs the graduates pursue and in which industries.
10 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) whether there are proportional statistics of those in the madrasah student cohorts who pursue the \"secular\" or non-religious academic pathways in their post-Secondary/tertiary education; (b) of these, how many successfully graduate from our local secular tertiary institutions; and (c) whether there are support structures for madrasah students who wish to transition from religious to secular schooling.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, can I have your permission to take Question Nos 9 and 10 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Thank you. Madrasahs play an important role in developing our future Islamic religious scholars and teachers, or what we call in our community, asatizah. Our asatizah provide leadership and religious guidance to our Muslim community, amidst an increasingly diverse and vibrant socio-religious landscape. Our madrasahs have produced key religious leaders such as our current Mufti and Deputy Muftis.
Madrasah students receive a comprehensive education in Islamic subjects that is complemented by a strong foundation in secular subjects. This dual education equips our madrasah students with the knowledge and skills to apply the practice of Islam to Singapore's contemporary and plural society, as well as to pursue tertiary Islamic studies later on.
In the past three years, around 35% of students in each madrasah cohort, pursue pre-university madrasah education. They form the steady pipeline of religious leaders for the community. Most of these students will further their tertiary education in the Islamic sciences, in areas such as Islamic Jurisprudence and Islamic Theology. They later return as asatizah and contribute to the religious sector as religious scholars and teachers and mosque religious officers. Some of these students may choose to use their Islamic training to pursue careers in adjacent sectors, such as social services, business and research, that complement the religious sector in serving the needs of the Muslim community and the larger Singapore society.
Madrasah education also enables students who want to pursue non-religious career paths. Some madrasah students move on to post-secondary education at Junior Colleges, Polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education or ITEs, after their GCE \"O\" level examinations. For this group, their career path may depend on the field of study that they opt for at these institutes of higher learning. Madrasah graduates in this group have ventured into a wide range of industries such as media, finance and the creative industries, sometimes adding value to these sectors through their trilingual language competencies.
MUIS will continue to work closely with our madrasahs to ensure the curriculum prepares the madrasah students well for future careers in the religious sector.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
\tDr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. With regard to the pathways and support structures that are in place for our madrasah students, I would like to know more about the dropouts; those who drop out from their studies midway through the madrasah. Are there any support system for them? And are there any support system for them to transition from, maybe, \"N\" level or \"O\" level to the Polytechnics and Universities?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. MUIS' focus must be to produce the best religious teachers for our community, because otherwise, we will be importing them from all over the world and you would have seen the result it has produced in many parts of the world. Therefore, for now, we are quite satisfied with the number of students that are retained at the pre-University level that will move on to acquire professional, recognised degrees in religious studies that will help to guide our community.
For the rest of the students – that means about 70% of them – they pursue a secular educational pathways. Most of them – about two-thirds of these 70% – do it after their \"O\" level. Which means that they have accessed to the systems of support in the MOE system to choose the right career, to choose the right studies that may fit what they want to do.
In any case, MUIS will be also looking at the madrasah's system holistically, in line with the Committee on Future Asatizah or COFA that Dr Maliki Osman has concluded for us. With that, we also would want to look at the other students who will not be pursuing madrasah education for their career and the kind of support that may be lacking if the national system of support is not enough for them.
\tMr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): I thank the Minister for the clarifications. I would like to ask about the adjacent sectors for madrasah students, in particular, in my speech for the Motion of Thanks to the President, I did propose the expanded capability of the Syariah Court, in view of the increasingly complex Muslim inheritance and estate planning matters. Is MUIS exploring any collaborations with MinLaw, Law Society or even the Syariah Court to expand the capability and experience of the madrasah students in this regard?
\t
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Indeed, this was the discovery of the COFA that Dr Maliki chaired, that the landscape or the kind of careers that our asatizah get launched into are no longer quite simplistic. In fact, they have to deal with quite difficult circumstances, even when it is about socio-religious matters. Which is why now we also want to develop adjacent competencies and we are glad that SUSS has opened up this opportunity for madrasah students through lifelong learning opportunities; at the same time to acquire qualifications that will allow them to practise just like any other lawyer or social worker in a way that will contribute to our community, as well as in the future, if they want to go to the larger sector, they can do so too.
\tMs Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): I thank the Minister for the support given to the madrasah community. I would just like to raise a question on the level of parity between the support given to the madrasah community by MUIS versus by MOE, in particular, as we look into the future support that is given by MOE in the sense of continuing education as well. I understand that today, madrasah students are not eligible for Edusave bursaries. And things like the IMDA support programme for computers are also done through MUIS. I would just like to know if, and this can be done in future, I guess, whether the level is at parity. For example, are the thresholds for means testing the same as applied by MUIS to be eligible for certain support programmes?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Parents who opt for their children to pursue madrasah education at the Primary school level are actually exempted from the Compulsory Education Act. So, they have made a choice to move into a sector where they know that funding from the Government may not always be available, particularly because it is in the religious sector.
Having said that, they still have options to go back to the MOE system that will provide the full support that they may need. In fact, for some of the areas like for those with learning difficulties, it is best that they go and pursue within the Government sector. Because this is where not only is it available but quality, quantity and availability are made available for everybody.
Having said that, for our community, our focus, as I had mentioned just now, is to produce religious leaders that will be impactful and also relevant to our community, and of course to help Singapore integrate into the multiracial, multi-religious landscape that we all are in.
We will try to increase the support for our madrasah with the resources that we have. As you know, these resources come largely from the community themselves. They are adequate, they have been increasing over time, and I thank all the donors, all the generous donations that the community has provided to support madrasah education as it stands today. In fact, if we compare ourselves to many other places, the structure and the institution of our madrasah are serving us; I would say it is adequate but I will not say that it is something we will settle for and we will continue to improve over time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale to Link Workfare Special Payment to MediSave Contributions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in respect of the Workfare Special Payment (a) what is the rationale behind having up-to-date MediSave contributions as a qualifying criteria for the payment; (b) how many low-wage workers who are otherwise eligible for this payment have been prevented from receiving this due to arrears in their MediSave contributions; (c) how many of those who are not eligible for this payment have contribution arrears amounting to more than $3,000; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider removing such contributions as an eligibility criteria especially in this difficult time when liquidity and cashflow is needed by individuals to survive day to day.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, the Workfare Special Payment is a one-off Workfare payment to provide additional support for lower wage workers receiving the Workfare Income Supplement for Work Years 2019 or 2020. In other words, to receive Workfare Special Payment, you will need to qualify first for the underlying Workfare Scheme.
The need to contribute CPF in order to qualify for Workfare is not new and this requirement was put in place because the CPF is a key pillar of Singapore’s social security system, which enables all working Singaporeans to save towards their own retirement.
For employees, the CPF contributions are made on a monthly basis by their employers. For Self-Employed Persons or SEPs, they will only need to make MediSave contributions at the end of the Work Year after declaring their incomes and this is the cause of MediSave arrears.
SEPs have until March 2021 to declare their income for 2019 and make their required MediSave contributions, to be assessed for Workfare. As at May 2020, 49,900 SEPs have declared their income for 2019 and are eligible for Workfare. Amongst them, about 44% have made their MediSave contributions, and the rest have until March next year to do so. Letters will be sent to these SEPs to remind them of their MediSave obligations.
There are about 600 Workfare-eligible SEPs who have MediSave contribution arrears of more than $3,000, accumulated over the last two Work Years.
We recognise that this is a difficult period for many Singaporeans. But it is important for SEPs to continue saving for their healthcare needs through MediSave, while they also get support from the Government through Workfare. The CPF Board has helped SEPs who faced difficulties by working out alternative arrangements for them to meet their MediSave obligations. Many lower income SEPs would also have received support under various Government schemes. Those facing difficult circumstances can also visit the MSF Social Service Offices if they need further help.
Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Minister for his reply. While I understand the importance of CPF and MediSave, and the important role those play in ensuring long-term security for our workers in terms of their retirement and healthcare needs, would the Minister not agree that for individuals already facing cashflow difficulty in the current period, expecting them to make their MediSave arrears first before allowing them to get this payout to meet their immediate needs, is in fact defeating the purpose of the scheme in alleviating immediate financial challenges faced by these individuals? This is in allusion to my maiden speech where I mentioned the good intentions of the Government to 雪中送炭变成雪上加霜.
So, in view of that, will the Minister agree that we can allow these individuals to work out an instalment payment arrangement for their MediSave arrears, while at the same time making them eligible to receive the Workfare Special Payment?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I share the concern that Ms Tan has over the difficulties that many SEPs face during this difficult period. I am sure many Members have shared similar concerns and you would have seen residents who have similar difficulties.
I would encourage everyone to look at this particular requirement, not in isolation but to look at the full suite of help measures that the Government has put in place. Yes, there is Workfare Special Payment which is tied to the underlying Workfare requirement. But there are also many other help schemes in the Budget, through ComCare, through SIRS, through GST Voucher, where the help is provided more immediately and are not tied to any CPF contributions.
Secondly, I take the point that the Member had suggested, that we should do more to help SEPs meet their MediSave obligations and pay their arrears through instalments. As I had mentioned earlier, the CPF Board is already doing its part to reach out to them and provide instalment plans to help these SEPs fulfil their MediSave obligations. To the extent that some of these SEPs need more time to fulfil their MediSave obligations and they extend beyond the deadline for the Workfare Special Payment, we will be prepared to consider such appeals – meaning to say, they take time to fulfil their MediSave through instalments, but then they have passed the Workfare Special Payment deadline or the Workfare deadline, we will still be prepared to consider such cases for eligibility for the Workfare Special Payment.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. I am just wondering if the Minister can clarify for us whether in this particular period, there has been an increase in the subsidy payouts on the part of Workfare for citizens, in part because, obviously, due to COVID, some of these services may have actually seen reductions in their demand. So, I am wondering if he could clarify for us.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I do not have with me data on the Workfare payout, certainly not the latest periods of Workfare payouts. I will not be surprised if there are more payouts, partly because there may well be people who are in the lower income categories who will benefit from Workfare and, perhaps, more payout has been given during this period. But, certainly, because of the Workfare Special Payment, and if you pool it altogether, the Government is giving more to lower wage workers and we will continue to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Keeping Singapore's Workforce Competitive In Light of Remote Workers From the Region Willing to Work For Less Pay","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how can Singapore's workforce remain competitive when remote workers from the region are willing to work for usually far lower remuneration; and (b) how will our labour laws be updated to address the impact on our locally-based workforce and tax base.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, COVID-19 has necessitated a change in the way we work, in particular with remote working becoming commonplace for many of our workplaces. Some companies, such as Facebook, have announced that all employees can work from home. UBS has started experimenting with issuing its home-based traders with virtual reality headsets to recreate the experience of working in a packed trading floor. Increasingly, traditional jobs which require physical presence may also be done remotely. For example, port cranes could only be operated from their cabins in the past but now they can be automated and controlled from a remote centre.
The impact of remote working technology is, however, not fully clear. Even when staff are able to work from home, employers may still prefer to bring teams of workers together physically, on a regular basis, for learning and collaboration. Face-to-face interactions with clients and partners will still be needed. As with digital technologies, which have mostly been adopted to augment rather than replace the work performed by people, it is likely that remote working technology supplement rather than fully replace physical interactions at the workplace.
Nonetheless, remote working may indeed prompt companies to redistribute their activities to take advantage of manpower availability in lower cost countries. This is similar to how activities such as garment manufacturing and call centre operations have shifted out of Singapore over the years. In their place, we have now grown new manufacturing clusters such as biomedical sciences and expanded the services sector.
\tAt the same time, activities that remain in Singapore moved higher up the value chain. With limited land and manpower, we no longer compete on cost alone but on productivity, connectivity and ability to support business innovation. However, with each potential new disruption, we cannot take our relevance as a given. The effort to transform our economy must continue, to retain a competitive edge.
First, we must strengthen our business environment and ensure that Singapore remains the preferred location for trade and investment, particularly in emerging growth areas, such as additive manufacturing and fintech. The anchoring of global companies, which meet our desired profile and the aspirations of Singaporeans, will help to preserve and spur the creation of good jobs.
Second, we must sustain efforts to help Singaporeans build skills relevant to the global talent marketplace. This is why we started the SkillsFuture movement and complemented it with a range of career conversion programmes. They have helped Singaporeans take up new jobs in growth areas.
As for whether labour laws need to be updated, this is an on-going process that takes into account feedback from our tripartite partners. We are also actively monitoring shifts in workplace practices due to remote working and sharing views with our international counterparts, to assess the need for policy intervention.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. I wish to ask: how will MOM work with the Labour Movement to deal with the impact of remote workers from overseas competing with our local workers?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Indeed, Mr Speaker, the Member has pointed out that markets are certainly dynamic and businesses will often make decisions based on what makes business sense. So, it is important for our economy to continue to be relevant, to continue to be conducive, stable and to ensure that our companies remain, jobs continue to grow and we create new jobs and new opportunities for Singaporeans.
But what it also means is that we need to help our workers stay relevant, skilled, to remain competitive so that these jobs are not substituted or moved overseas so easily. Therefore, I think that the whole eco-system needs to be worked on and this is where the Labour Movement plays an important role, working with the Government, especially on our SGUnited Jobs and Skills programmes.
One of aspect of the programmes is to upskill workers, work on job matching, trying to garner and harness some of trends out there and see where the emerging growth areas are. But more importantly, apart from just providing opportunities and job matching, it is also helping workers get the right skillsets, working with companies to redesign jobs, to help us move up the value chain. Beyond that, I think it is still important for the Government to keep an eye on growing the economy. Because ultimately, the stronger our eco-system is, the more rooted companies will be here; and for the more rooted, the jobs will be here despite remote working being a trend.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies Who Reduce Headcount of Existing Employees While Leveraging JGI to Recruit New Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Manpower in respect of the Jobs Growth Initiative (JGI), what safeguards will be put in place to guard against companies reducing their headcount of existing employees and at the same time leveraging on the JGI to recruit new workers with the Government providing salary co-payment resulting in no net growth of jobs.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, the Jobs Growth Incentive or JGI, supports firms to accelerate the hiring of their local workforce over six months. JGI was announced in August 2020 and will be provided to qualifying hires from September 2020 to February 2021. Eligible local hires can attract salary support for up to 12 months.
To be eligible for JGI, firms must achieve an increase in their local workforce size from the level in August 2020.
Hence, a firm with no net growth of jobs will not receive JGI payouts. A firm that initially increased its local headcount but subsequently reduced its local headcount below its original level would also stop receiving future JGI payouts. In addition, to ensure that the increase in local workforce is meaningful, it must be accompanied by an increase in the number of local employees in jobs that pay at least $1,400 in gross monthly wages.
There may be valid reasons why a firm that receives the JGI has to later let existing employees go, such as retirement or voluntary resignations. If we were to impose the condition that the firm promises not to let any worker go, that would create significant rigidity to the firm. In practice, firms would likely prefer to moderate their new hiring than have to deal with the risk of support being withdrawn.
Hence, we take a practical approach, where a firm's JGI payout is reduced in proportion to the number of existing employees that left the firm after the scheme started in September 2020. This gives the firms assurance of funding support while signalling clearly that they should make the efforts to retain existing employees even as they bring in new hires.
In addition, IRAS has put in place a robust anti-gaming framework to identify risks and prevent abuse. IRAS uses data analytics and risk profiling to identify cases, which are sent to a dedicated team for review. We view any attempt to abuse grant schemes very seriously and will not hesitate to report any malpractices or abuses to the Police for investigation and possible prosecution.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on GPFirst Programme at Changi General Hospital","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) what has been the experience of the GPFirst programme launched by Changi General Hospital; and (b) whether the Ministry has plans to extend the programme to other public hospitals and their respective nearby general practitioners in the community.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, the GPFirst Programme was piloted at Changi General Hospital or CGH in January 2014. It aims to encourage patients with non-emergency conditions to seek treatment at General Practitioners or GPs rather than at Emergency Department or ED. This enables the ED to focus on attending to patients with life threatening and critical conditions. Patients assessed by the participating GPs as requiring emergency care would be referred on and be given priority to be seen earlier at the ED. These patients will be given a $50 subsidy on their ED bill to help offset the cost of their GP visit.
From 2014 to 2017, there was a reduction of about 8.5% in the self-referred attendances at CGH ED, which may be attributed to GPFirst and other measures implemented during this period of time.
MOH has expanded GPFirst beyond CGH's region in phases. As of September 2020, GPFirst has been expanded to involve more GPs around Khoo Teck Puat Hospital and the Urgent Care Centre @Admiralty Medical Centre, and will be progressively implemented in the region surrounding Sengkang General Hospital, National University Hospital and Ng Teng Fong General Hospital by the end of 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate for 2-room HDB Flexi Flats in First Half of 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the take-up rate for 2-room HDB Flexi flats for the first half of 2020, especially for retirees and singles; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider building more of such flats to meet the demand.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, HDB launched about 1,000 2-room Flexi flats in the first half of 2020, with another 1,800 units launched in the August 2020 Build-To-Order exercise. Of the 2-room Flexi flats launched in the first half of this year, about 80% have been booked, of which more than 90% were booked by seniors and singles.
HDB will continue to monitor the housing market closely and ensure that our flat supply remains responsive to the housing needs of the population.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Singles Who Have Bought HDB Resale Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development in each of the past five years, what is the number of singles who bought HDB resale flats, broken down by type of flats.
\tThe Second Minister for National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, in the past five years, from 2015 to 2019, out of an average of around 22,000 transactions of resale flats per year, about 6,000 resale flats per year were bought by singles under the Single Singapore Citizen Scheme or the Joint Singles Scheme. Of these, about 46% were 3-room or smaller flats, 39% were 4-room flats and 15% were 5-room or bigger flats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Determination of Maximum Permissible Noise Levels for Construction Work","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how are the current specified maximum permissible noise levels for construction work determined; (b) how are the noise levels measured; and (c) when were the noise limits and penalties last reviewed.
\tThe Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Desmond Tan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, NEA stipulates maximum permissible noise limits for construction sites in order to protect public health. The noise limits take reference from the World Health Organization's guidelines and are further tailored to local context. To minimise noise nuisance to residents, the noise limits are further differentiated based on the time bands, with more stringent limits imposed at night from 7 pm and 7 am and on Sundays and public holidays, when most of our residents are resting.
To measure the noise levels generated from their worksites, construction companies must install noise meters at the nearest affected buildings and monitor the noise levels regularly. For larger projects of contract value more than $3 million or those which involve demolition and piling, contractors are required to install noise monitoring systems, which allow real-time monitoring of the noise levels by both the contractors as well as by NEA.
My Ministry regularly reviews the construction noise limits and penalty regime. For instance, NEA tightened the noise controls and implemented the no-work rule in 2011 to prohibit work activities at construction sites located within 150 metres of residential premises and noise-sensitive premises, such as the hospitals and nursing homes, on Sundays as well as on public holidays. The penalty regime was also reviewed in 2014. And NEA is working with other agencies and industry stakeholders on an on-going review of the construction noise limits and penalty regime.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I would like to raise two supplementary questions regarding his answer.
The first is whether, as part of the on-going review, the post COVID environment will be considered, in particular, new features, such as working from home, students doing home learning and furthermore, looking at the built density of our HDB estates. I raise this because, especially during the recent and on-going examination season, a number of residents in Clementi have been very worried about noise from nearby construction developments.
Secondly, Mr Speaker, I would also like to ask the Minster of State, whether as part of the review of the penalties framework, they can also consider the economic levers that may be applied to the construction firm. I raise this because when a private development generates noise and disamenities to residents, such as residents along Clementi Avenue 1 and in the Faber Hills area, these disamenities are socialised, whereas in many cases, a private development results in privatisation of gains from the construction.
\tMr Desmond Tan: I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Certainly, in our on-going review, we will take into consideration the current situation and, of course, the economic conditions that we are going through. I have to remind Members of the House that noise management has to be considered in view of the cost as well as the duration of the construction time. It is of our most important interest to make sure that public health is being protected, to make sure that noise levels do not exceed the noise levels that are prescribed by the World Health Organization.
We will take into account the current as well as future conditions. We have to work closely with the built environment and the industry to ensure that whatever penalty regime as well as noise limits that are imposed will first has to protect the public health of our people and at the same time, also to ensure that our construction work continues to be completed within the time frame and within the cost that is stipulated. So, we will take into account the current and future conditions.
The second question that was being raised was about the economic levers. Today, we have a penalty regime that has been reviewed over the years and it has been effective in bringing down the number of feedback as well as enforcement actions. So, for instance, in 2012, we saw that the number of feedback per construction site was about 2.7. And last year, it has dropped to about 1.6. And also, in terms of the enforcement action, it has also dropped from 1.6 in 2012 to about 0.8 per 10 sites in 2019.
However, we will continue to look at how this penalty regime will have an impact on the construction noise and in particular for repeated offenders, as in construction sites, that have been given the same warning over and over again. So, these are the things that we look at in our on-going review – the noise limits, the ability to measure them as well as the penalty regime. These are the three areas we will look at in the on-going review.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bill. Second Minister for Finance.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 19, 21-23 and 25 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 18, 20, 24 and 26 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 15 October 2020.]
[(proc text) \"to make supplementary provision out of the Consolidated Fund to meet additional expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021 and to reduce certain appropriations for that financial year due to exigencies\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time immediately after the conclusion of proceedings on the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for FY2020/21, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Overview of Government's Strategy to Emerge Stronger from the COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":"Debate on Ministerial Statement","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [5 October 2020], (proc text)]
[(proc text) “That the Ministerial Statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance on the Overview of Government’s Strategy to Emerge Stronger from the COVID-19 Pandemic be considered by Parliament.” – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance] (proc text)].
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and the Finance Minister for the Ministerial Statement that sets out the context for the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditures for FY 2020/2021.
Given the very extensive set of fiscal measures that were introduced in quick succession over the last eight months, it is most timely that Deputy Prime Minister Heng updated the House again on the Government’s continued response to the on-going pandemic and outlined the next bound of support.
While COVID-19 continues to be a threat to our lives and livelihoods, we are today in much different position than we were in, in March. We now know a lot more about this virus and better able to mitigate the risk than six months ago. We have weathered the sharp spike in cases with our concerted response and has help kept the fatality rate at a very low level.
There is now much higher public awareness on the virus and Singaporeans have largely adapted to the new normal of wearing masks, distancing, safe-entries and many other precautionary measures. It is therefore timely that the Government signal that we are entering into a new phase of our battle with the pandemic. And importantly, to also set our sights on how we will eventually emerge from the crisis and press on with our longer term strategic priorities.
Sir, I will touch on three areas: firstly, fiscal management; secondly, jobs; and thirdly, economic growth.
First, fiscal management. Since February this year, the Government has committed a massive $100 billion to help businesses and Singaporeans cope with the pandemic fallout.
To fund this gigantic support package, we have used up all of the accumulated surpluses from the last term of Government and also drawn on reserves for an unprecedented amount of $52 billion. As we have just entered into the new term of Government and in its first year, the Finance Ministry would not have any accumulated surpluses at their disposal to pay for the further spending.
We know that the COVID-19 support measures continued to be necessary; although we can now be more targeted in the next phase. The continuation of these support measures would cost the Government a further $8 billion.
In his reply to my Parliamentary Question and also in the Ministerial Statement, Deputy Prime Minister Heng has shared that the additional expenditures will be funded by reallocating monies from other areas where projected spendings have either been delayed or reduced due to the pandemic.
I noted from the Third Supplementary Estimates that the main reallocations are from the development items such as: MOT $3.6 billion, which is the highest of the reallocated amount; MTI $745 million; MND $615 million; MSE and MOH, I supposed it is related to hospitals and polyclinics, each about $500 million; and the other Ministries like MINDEF, MCCY, MinLaw for their projects, each a couple hundred million dollars.
These are developmental expenditures set aside but unutilised at the moment; and this amounted to $6.8 billion.
Also, in the Supplementary Main Estimates, we saw that despite having downward adjustments by some Ministries, there is a net increase of $1.7 billion due to increase in spending estimates by the other Ministries.
Taken together, it provided MOF with a net freed-up funding of $5.1 billion to pay for the continuation of the COVID-19 support measures (which costs $8 billion).
If there are no new revenue sources to offset, there would be a potential deficit contribution of about $2.9 billion; just a few months into this new term of Government.
On the revenue front, the pictures look daunting as well; with latest estimates projecting a drop in operating revenue of $12.3 billion or a 16.1% projected decrease.
Even with the NIRC added, the Government is likely to run an overall deficit of $ 74.2 billion; a record number in our history.
Sir, I have few questions for the Deputy Prime Minister:
Firstly, given the revenue outlook and the likelihood of further COVID-19 support needed, how does he envisage that we could balance the Budget in the next two to three years; and constitutionally we need to balance the Budget for the term of Government?
Secondly, while the reallocated unutilised funds can temporarily be used to pay for the continued support measures, this outlay would need to happen as soon as the projects meet its progress payment milestones or are completed. Where would the Government find the funding for this outlay if the revenue situation continues to be weak?
Thirdly, some of these projects are actually capability investments for the future, which will enable us to emerge stronger. So, these are necessary spending. Would the Government consider a further draw on the reserves again; considering the magnitude and severity of this crisis and these are essentially also investment items?
Sir, I move on to jobs. In the immediate aftermath of the pandemic crisis, the economic knock-on effects impacted all sectors of the economy. The Government’s swift and broad base support to businesses, helped in averting the situation of massive job losses.
With gradual opening up, we have seen some of the demand and businesses recovered. Companies have adjusted to the different operating environment and many pivoted into different business models and products.
However, there are sectors and businesses where the pandemic has significantly altered the business propositions or changed the operating landscape permanently. Demand that businesses used to enjoy before COVID-19 may never return.
Businesses live and thrive on demand for their goods and services; where they generated revenue to stay profitable, to stay as a going concern.
We know that no amount of Government stimulus or support can possibly make up for the lost demand and revenue in a sustained way; or bring back the business viability of the past.
As the Government taper down the support and assistances, we can expect the companies to start releasing more workers.
Some companies may not survive even with the best of efforts.
This is the phase of the crisis where we may see deeper structural adjustments, changes happening to the business eco-system and also inevitably, we will see harsh adjustments to the labour market.
Hence, in our next bound of response to the crises, we need to now intensify our efforts to help Singaporeans who are retrenched and unemployed.
In particular, greater effort must be channelled to help mid-career PMET jobseekers; as they face the greatest difficulties to find new employment. Making mid-career switches is an uphill task; especially under current circumstances. Job seekers are also often under tremendous pressure to find a new job quickly so that they can continue to support their families.
There are also many inherent frictions to content with; such as skills and expectation mismatches, employers’ biasness, individuals’ psychological barriers and many others.
We must avoid the situation of structural unemployment from creeping up and taking roots.
There are high expectations for our National Jobs Council chaired by Senior Minister Tharman; not only to implement the Jobs and Skills Package but also bringing to bear the resources of the various stakeholders to produce tangible results.
One notable commitment by the Government is the setting up of the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centre at the heartlands.
I am very thankful to MOM and WSG for setting up a SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centre at Bukit Panjang Club. Since the opening in August, hundreds of residents have sought jobs and training opportunities at the centre and I have received emails of gratitude from residents who have found employment through the centre.
We are, at the grassroots level, stepping up publicity and awareness; including exploring roving centres at different parts of the town or neighbourhood locations just to help as many of our residents as possible.
In other words, it makes a great deal of difference to the job seeker, if there is someone to talk to and to hand hold the job seeker through the journey.
I remember when I was studying in Australia, I used to visit neighbourhood job centres to look for vacation jobs. The friendly job counsellor were always there to reassure you, to help point out to the opportunities out there and these are all important psychological support as well.
So, the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centre is a commendable initiative by MOM and I appeal to the Manpower Minister to continue supporting and resourcing the centres well beyond the crisis.
Sir, thirdly, on economic growth. Earlier, I spoke on the huge deficit expected for this FY and possibly next; due to higher spending and reduced revenue projections.
Cutting cost to balance the Budget would be a painful option. We do not want austerity budgets as it will actually aggravate the situation; both economically and socially.
We cannot keep tapping on our reserves in an unlimited way; as that will undermine our long-term viability; including possibly weakening our international credit ratings and weakening our Singapore dollar.
Hence, the sound and sustainable path ahead is really to grow the economy.
We grow our economy; so that we could, firstly, generate the revenue to pay for the expenditures and, secondly, to create good jobs for Singaporeans.
Without new economic growth, not only are our well-being at risk, our survival as a Nation is at stake.
I am heartened that our economic Ministries and agencies are going all out to drive new growth and attract new investments; even as we battle the pandemic crisis.
We are pressing on with economic transformation, developing capabilities in our companies to digitalise, innovate, internationalise and raise productivity; sector by sector, thanks to the stewardship by the Deputy Prime Minister.
MTI and EDB continued to draw in quality investments in recent months like the new Hyundai Motor Group Innovation Centre, Siemens Advance Manufacturing Competence Centre, Tata Consultancy’s Digital Acceleration Centre and others.
This crisis actually presents an opportunity for us to seize new growth opportunities if we can quickly respond to the new realities and develop new competitive edges.
The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned in his speech about the works by the Emerging Stronger Task Force, the various progress made through the Alliances for Action and remaking Singapore as a global-Asia node by enhancing both physical and digital connectivity.
I am glad that he has also raised the bar by highlighting that we are not going for growth just for growth's sake but actually focusing on inclusive and resilient growth. What it means is that the economic growth that we pursue must bring about opportunities for fellow Singaporeans, including continued wage progression and supporting the vulnerable.
The Deputy Prime Minister also mentioned how we achieved resilience through a diversified economic structure, where no one industry accounts for more than 20% of our GDP.
Here, I would like to suggest that another area of resilience that we should look into is the sources of our foreign labour, especially in the low-wage sector. How we can we reduce this dependence and reliance over the medium to long term?
Sir, the underpinning fundamentals and values that made us a vibrant, strong and sustainable economy have not change. The Government still has to do what is right and what is in the long-term good for the country and for Singaporeans. As a small and open island state, we have to remain open and competitive. Fostering social harmony continues to be an important nation-building imperative and a necessary condition for sustained growth.
We continue to need a capable political leadership and stability to steer us through the storm that will come time and again, and to chart an exciting future ahead.
Sir, this crisis has hurt us as a country. But we should also capitalise on this crisis to write another exceptional chapter of the Singapore story. Sir, I support the Third Supplementary Estimates.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I record my appreciation for the Deputy Prime Minister's responsiveness and adaptability to the needs of the population. Looking ahead, we must focus on our medium to long-term strategy to boost our economy, help Singaporeans find jobs and signal a positive vision for our post-COVID-19 economy.
I will address the following topics in my speech: first, on unemployment; second, on debt repayments; and third, on boosting infrastructure for economic resilience. We have been and must continue to address these issues, enhancing or changing our strategies, if necessary. Times are changing, so our policies and infrastructure must move with the times. We must heed the changing landscape of employment and the demand for new infrastructure to support growth sectors and changing work habits.
Mr Speaker, on my first topic – helping the retrenched and unemployed. It is heartening that amidst depressing news of mass retrenchments and job losses, there are still many job openings to be filled. I note that MOM and WSG are roping in employment agencies as placement partners to assist with job placements. This is a good initiative and idea to tap on the expertise of the recruiters with a good understanding of the sectoral human capital trends and expertise.
Perhaps MOM can share more about the top hiring sectors and the specific job roles in these sectors that are being created. What are the targets set for successful job matches and how will the various agencies measure effectiveness of outreach efforts? It would be good if the Ministry can share how it determines the number of job opportunities. Is it based on the number of job listings submitted to SGUnited platforms or are there other factors?
A young resident shared that she had spoken to a career consultant who said some employers are still cautious about hiring but posted their job listings to test waters. In case business picks up, they would have a ready pool of applicants to pick from. So, they are not advertising for jobs that are currently available but plausibly in the near future. In my view, such practices would distort the statistics on current job vacancies.
The current measures made available by the Government are timely and excellent but clearly focused on keeping Singaporeans gainfully employed. Each employee is supported by up to around $50,000 worth of subsidies over a 17-month period if their companies are eligible for the highest tier of the Jobs Support Scheme or JSS. Yet, if someone loses their job and their company does not offer retrenchment benefits, they would receive a smaller amount over a period under the COVID-19 support grant as well as potentially, financial assistance from various organisations.
A direct comparison may not be very appropriate as not every employee who benefits under the JSS draws a salary of $4,600 and above but the disparity is apparent.
Indeed, having a job is the best insurance to preserve livelihoods. But despite best efforts, some are struggling to find stable employment. The gap between someone who is gainfully employed with income for months and someone who is unemployed will simply keep widening if the economy continues to see scarring in some sectors. And I am not just referring to the atypical scarred sectors such as aviation, travel and retail but even sectors in manufacturing and services with local SMEs.
I recently met a 60-plus year old resident who was laid off with no retrenchment benefits after working for the company for more than three decades as the company closed. And his was a narrow expertise in the production line.
Mr Speaker, If I may refer to what Monetary Authority of Singapore Managing Director Ravi Menon said on Monday at a forum hosted by the Institute of International Finance, namely that we have not seen the full extent of the crisis and as much as 20% of the economy will face \"deep scarring\" from which they may not recover. He said that non-performing loans and bankruptcies probably would rise through the start of 2021. This is certainly a cause for concern over the next 12 months.
On that basis, if overall average household financial conditions do worsen, I urge the Government to consider allowing CPF members to temporarily tap on a small amount of their CPF to resolve their emergencies if needed, subject to eligibility criteria. In Australia, for example, in July this year, as part of the jobseeker policy measures, those affected by COVID-19 are allowed early release access up to AUD10,000 of their superannuation in fiscal year 2019/20 and a further AUD10,000 in fiscal year 2020/21. The intent of the measure is to support people or sole proprietors who are adversely financially affected by COVID-19 and need help to meet expenses. They do have stringent eligibility criteria but accessibility to these funds was created nonetheless.
In Singapore, currently at age 55, the CPF account holder can withdraw up to $5,000 from his or her Special and Ordinary Accounts or your CPF savings after having set aside the Full Retirement Sum in your Retirement Account, whichever is higher. I would like to suggest that the Government consider allowing citizens to tap on an early release of $5,000 from their CPF balances, subject to meeting the eligibility criteria similar to that in Australia. Those who are younger than 55 may utilise this sum from their CPF early but there can be an option, if they so wish later, where the funds used can be put back eventually if they withdraw before age 55.
These are difficult times and we should exercise creativity and flexibility to ensure everyone gets help in a timely manner.
Mr Speaker, I am cognisant that accessing the CPF funds early will affect citizens' future retirement income but this $5,000 amount would have been able to be used in any case upon attaining age 55 as long as they have sufficient funds. At this juncture, it could help meet the needs of some Singaporeans.
This brings me to my next focus area on financial solvency of households and individuals.
For the unemployed individuals and struggling businesses, mortgages and debt are crippling. I am grateful that the Government will extend loan repayment relief measures into 2021. Can we have more perspectives on the segment of the population who require these deferments?
The Government had previously shared some data on loan deferments. We are looking at 38,900 applications for property loan repayment deferments. Out of these, 90% or $20 billion worth of mortgage deferments were approved. It would be good to know what proportion is owed to banks versus those to HDB loans.
The volume of personal credit deferments has also increased. Which SME sectors are affected most by the moratorium?
I worry about a potential \"household and corporate debt\" cliff effect when the extension of payment moratorium ends. I hope there will be further enhancements by the MAS and the Government to monitor the situation to ensure that businesses and individuals have a feasible strategy to make these loan repayments when it comes in 2021. One way is to form an inter-agency post-COVID-19 financial conditions task force to ensure as much help is provided as we wean away from some of the payment moratoriums when it happens. But we need to anticipate and take steps to get ready for mitigation now.
Mr Speaker, my third topic on post-COVID-19 infrastructure to boost economic resilience.
COVID-19 has changed society in many ways and it is unlikely that we will ever return to pre-COVID-19 normalcy. We must plan our infrastructure to align it with our post-COVID-19 vision, especially in shaping Singapore into a global-Asia node of technology and innovation as mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister in his Statement.
In the past months, global tech giants have moved or expanded their operations in Singapore. This is thanks to the excellent foundation the Government has laid in terms of political stability, ease and cost of doing businesses, openness to global talent and a diligent and reliable workforce. Our infrastructure must be capable of supporting these companies' operations.
I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for sharing the Government's refreshed economic strategy for a post-COVID-19 world last week and this includes securing our external economic linkages as a vital global node in Asia and rebuilding and growing our physical connectivity as well as enhancing and expanding our digital connectivity.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister share plans on building up our data infrastructure, such as how can our fibre and satellite networks be enhanced to be future-proof, go faster and be more reliable? In the past, there have been a number of major Internet outages in Singapore domestically, with one of them even lasting more than a day.
Geographic diversification is critical to our economic resilience. Work-from-home arrangements will become a possible norm so we have to consider decentralising the CBD and creating more business hubs in satellite towns around the country with the necessary amenities and data connectivity to support large-scale remote work.
Over the course of the circuit breaker, we have also heard from workers and students across different demographics and different sectors facing challenges working at home due to distractions from their family members and neighbours, not having the necessary equipment and so on. So, among some of these amenities could include more shared and private work and meeting spaces for rent or access at the heartlands.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have one final point that I want to raise and this was raised by some of my residents. My last point is on the $3,000 Baby Support Grant.
Many residents asked me why the grant only applies to babies born from 1 October. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and even before the circuit breaker, many people were laid off or had their work hours and salaries cut. I hope the Government will consider extending eligibility to include babies born in 2020. Many would consider 2020 a year of misery but every baby born is a bundle of miracle and this one-off support records our appreciation, encouragement and shared happiness with the family in this difficult year.
Sir, to recap, it is heartening to see all the help the Government has raised over the last four Budgets in a space of six to seven months, including help from Singaporeans broadly. We could do with more tailored help for the retrenched, unemployed and viable companies that are struggling. Moving ahead, policies – particularly those concerning employment and infrastructure – must be enhanced to help us move with the post-COVID-19 times to put us in better stead for the future. Mr Speaker, I support the Statement.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I would like to start off by acknowledging the close to $100 billion of support measures to deal with COVID-19 as laid out in the four earlier Budgets. While the COVID-19 situation in Singapore appears to have stabilised, the same cannot be said for many other countries and our trading partners around the world.
We must remain vigilant and reopen safely to prevent a resurgence of COVID-19 cases in Singapore. Similarly, on the economic front, we too must take proactive steps to support our businesses and fellow Singaporeans to ensure a sustained economic recovery.
On this note, I would like to present four points that I would like to cover with regard to the on-going efforts and plans for Singapore going forward.
The first is the continued need for an accommodative fiscal policy. Singapore, like many other countries, has responded to the negative economic impacts via expansionary fiscal and monetary policies. The MAS estimates that the combined Budgets will prevent the economy from contracting by a further 5.6% of GDP in 2020 and 4.8% in 2021.
I also note Minister Ong Ye Kung’s Statement last week that this is not the time to talk about an environmental tax. I believe this same logic can and should be applied to the lives of all Singaporeans, in the sense that any increase in taxation, especially regressive taxes, such as an eventual GST hike after 2021, could worsen the already precarious financial position that many Singaporeans are in right now.
With the depth and duration of the current global economic crisis still to be ascertained, we must caution against being overzealous in strengthening our revenue position through a GST hike.
Here, I would like to be clear that I am not for the squandering of resources built up by the blood, sweat and tears of the generations that came before us. In fact, just as Deputy Prime Minister Heng has mentioned, I believe in the need to exercise prudence when planning for the future. However, we need to acknowledge that the current weak economic environment requires sufficiently accommodative fiscal policy. Instead of contractionary fiscal policies, such as raising taxes on consumption, which might, in turn, lower consumer spending, we should be focusing on policies that aim to stimulate and boost domestic demand and keep our economy going.
In a similar vein, I agree with Deputy Prime Minister Heng’s position to maintain a disciplined and judicious use of borrowing. There is perhaps scope to rethink our position on debt, however. In May this year, the UK sold negative yielding Government bonds, similar to Germany in 2019, meaning the UK government is being paid by investors to borrow from them.
Singapore’s long bond yields are currently at less than 1%. Temasek, a private company, albeit owned by MOF, has issued 50-year bonds at 2.5% – 50 years. In this lower for longer interest rate environment, we should, as a Government, be open to exploring such possibilities, instead of funding our expenditures with higher cost equity funding or funding from our reserves. This is especially if the funds are being used for quality investment projects that will benefit current and future generations of Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker, I would like to reiterate the importance of an accommodative fiscal policy environment, more so now than ever. If we, as a country, have the ability to help Singaporeans get back up on their feet in their time of need, then we must do so.
The second point I would like to cover is on the Jobs Support Scheme or JSS. The JSS has, indeed, been an important policy measure to support our businesses and save jobs, amidst these trying times. The conversation in my view, however, should move towards considering how we can help SMEs more and how we can more directly support Singaporeans who have lost their jobs.
As Deputy Prime Minister Heng has clarified, SMEs currently get $10.5 billion out of the $16 billion that has been given out to firms thus far. That accounts for about 65% of the total amount of JSS being given out. However, SME workers consist of 73% of the local workers supported by JSS. At the heart of the policy, JSS aims to save as many jobs as possible during this period. It would, therefore, be more effective to direct a higher proportion of JSS payouts from the scheme towards SMEs, who make up a bigger proportion of jobs saved in comparison to larger MNCs, which tend to have more resources on hand to tide them through the crisis.
I would like to take this time to ask about the review of the JSS that has been mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister Heng in his answer to my Parliamentary Question on 4 September and whether the Government will consider redirecting more resources away from companies that have been resilient or even thriving in this period of time, towards companies that are struggling to survive.
Administratively, I note that we already provide differentiated rental support for SMEs where, under the rental relief framework, eligible SMEs which have experienced a 35% or more drop in revenue qualify for additional rental relief. As a further example, the Australian Jobkeeper Payment scheme separates the eligibility of the scheme based on business size.
For their scheme, businesses with AUD1 billion or less in aggregated turnover require a fall in expected or realised income by 30%, whereas businesses with an aggregated turnover of more than AUD1 billion will require an expected or realised fall in income by 50% or more to qualify for the same scheme. This actually helps the Australian government to direct more help to smaller businesses that require more assistance, rather than larger ones with more resources to stay afloat. A refinement, such as this, should not be expected to have significantly higher administrative burden and would definitely be a more efficient allocation of resources to those who need it more.
Ultimately, we may need to think of implementing automatic stabilisers instead of discretionary ad-hoc schemes, as I have mentioned in my maiden speech. Direct assistance to companies, such as the Jobs Support Scheme, could arguably provide indirect support to employment. Yet, many have still lost their jobs, even as the companies they work for receive JSS subsidies. I am sure many Members in this House can attest to the frustrations that unemployed residents face, particularly for those who are victims of disguised retrenchments and are unable to receive financial support from the COVID-19 support grant as a result. Rather than providing blanket wage subsidies across companies, it is perhaps the workers themselves that are most in need of direct support and financial buffers in the event of unemployment.
Thirdly, I would like to seek clarification regarding the expected NIRC contribution in the revised revenue estimates and FY2020 fiscal position under the Third Supplementary Estimates.
In it, I note that the NIRC estimates as at 18 February and the revised FY2020 estimates today are the same at $18.63 billion. I would like to seek clarification on how this was determined.
In MOF's Addendum to the President's Address in August this year, I note that we have drawn on our reserves equivalent to over 20 years of past Budget surpluses. We have used a generation’s worth of savings to combat a crisis of a generation.
I understand that the NIRC estimates are based on expected long-term real rates of return and not based on short-term returns which tend to be volatile. However, I would like to ask: if the draw on reserves is that sizable, that is, a generation's worth of savings, would it not cause a rather large decrease in our reserves and, therefore, reduce the NIRC, based on the simple mathematical formulation of returns multiplied by assets? In the spirit of prudence, is it still relevant and an accurate representation to keep the forecasts unchanged?
Finally, I would like to seek clarification on the Budget adjustments to Development Estimates. Development expenditures across Ministries are lowered by a substantial $6.8 billion. Among the notable reductions are MOT at $3.59 billion, MTI at $744 million and MND at $614 million.
As the paper notes, a majority of the lower revised estimates are due to COVID-19-induced construction delays. I would, therefore, like to seek clarification on what the nature of these big-ticket project items are, how much of a delay is estimated in these projects and how much of these can be deferred indefinitely or even cancelled.
For example, Changi Airport Terminal 5 has already been delayed for at least two years. I would also like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if we can consider re-assessing the need for some of this projected spending, in the hope that we might be able to direct more of these resources towards investing in Singaporeans, particularly in the more vulnerable groups in society instead.
Mr Speaker, I would like to conclude my speech by summarising what I have said. Firstly, I believe in the continued need for an accommodative fiscal policy environment. Secondly, I enquired about the status of the JSS review, in the hope that we may focus on channelling more funding to vulnerable SMEs and affected workers. Thirdly, I would like to seek clarification on the expected NIRC forecasts in the spirit of prudence. And, finally, I would also like to seek clarification on the development expenditure adjustments, in the hope that we might be able to reassess the necessity of these deferred projects and direct investments into the more vulnerable in society instead.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Ministerial Statement made by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, which provides a clear path forward for our nation to reopen our economy safely and emerge stronger from this crisis.
Since the Deputy Prime Minister first presented the latest set of relief measures on 17 August, Singapore’s employment landscape has experienced another sharp contraction. According to the latest labour market report published by MOM, more than 11,000 jobs were made redundant in the first half of 2020. This figure does not include the large-scale layoffs recently announced by Resorts World Sentosa and Singapore Airlines, and we can expect that retrenchment and unemployment numbers will continue to rise in the second half of the year.
While the figures from MOM’s labour market report are concerning, the reality is that retrenchments could have been a lot worse, if not for the swift and decisive measures put in place by the Government. Many companies have told me that initiatives, such JSS, have been instrumental in helping them to retain their workers while they work on adjusting to the new normal. I am, therefore, heartened that the Government will continue to provide tiered wage support to sectors that are hardest hit by this pandemic.
Mr Speaker, beyond job preservation, we also need to provide better mental health support for our workers. In his recent address to the World Health Organisation, Prime Minister Lee acknowledged the impact that COVID-19 has had on the mental health of our population and that protecting mental health takes a collective effort. I fully agree.
The Multi-Ministry Taskforce recently announced that more employees will be allowed to return to the workplace and that the Government is working on a roadmap towards Phase 3 of the safe reopening of our economy. Working from home will, however, continue to remain as the default. In recent Parliamentary sittings, I have repeatedly highlighted the challenges faced by our workers who telecommute. They must juggle multiple responsibilities, such as looking after children, taking care of elderly parents and trying to remain productive at work. To make matters worse, because they work from home, their bosses think that it is easier for them to answer work-related calls and emails at any time of the day, even after office hours. Workplace burnout has become an issue, as many employees are not well-rested.
To help workers cope with workplace burnout, I recently asked in this House whether it was timely for us to consider a “Right to Disconnect” legislation. Since then, Singaporeans have written to me to share their thoughts and personal experiences, support as well as criticism. Let me first address the criticisms that I have received and explain how I think the Right to Disconnect can be applied to our local context.
The three most common criticisms against having a Right to Disconnect in Singapore are:
One, it would be too rigid to legislate work hours, as every sector is different, and doing so would not be feasible for those working in essential services.
Two, productivity would drop if workers are not allowed to work outside of their specified hours and it would erode Singapore’s competitiveness as a global hub.
Three, colleagues who work longer hours would obtain better appraisals from their supervisors because this is, after all, a “dog-eat-dog” world.
Mr Speaker, these criticisms, while seemingly valid, show that many people do not quite understand the exact scope of a Right to Disconnect legislation. Let me reassure critics that I am not calling for rigid laws that specify working hours, nor am I calling for Singaporeans to be less productive and, certainly, not for Singapore to be any less competitive! It is simply about ensuring that our workers have protected time to rest. But I can see why some have this misconception about rigid working hours.
In France, where this was pioneered, their labour laws were modified in the year 2000 to specify that the length of their work week was 35 hours, exceeding which, overtime had to be paid. When the country implemented its Right to Disconnect legislation in 2017, that is, 17 years later, people got confused between the scope of these two separate pieces of legislation and mistakenly thought that it was forbidden to send work emails outside of 6.00 pm.
But the reality is that many French workers still choose to work beyond their official work hours and get paid overtime. The difference is that they now have to respect their colleagues’ personal time and cannot expect them to work past official hours for non-urgent, non-critical tasks that can be completed the next working day.
For those worrying about the delivery of our essential services, our frontline officers have actually been practising protected time for years. When I was with the Police Force, my officers and I would be on call 24/7. We would receive phone alerts on incidents happening throughout the day. But between the “silent hours” of midnight to around 7 am, these alerts were restricted only to a specific list of critical, sensitive cases. This was to ensure that we were sufficiently well rested, even while we are always on standby.
On the criticism that a Right to Disconnect would erode our competitiveness and productivity, research provides evidence to the contrary. According to a 2014 study by Prof John Pencavel from the Stanford University, overworking beyond 55 hours per week causes a sharp decline in productivity per hour. He also observed that overwork led to increased workplace accidents and injuries. The professor's findings are not unique, and other researchers have also found that well-rested employees are more productive, more careful and are better able to contribute creatively at the workplace.
There were also some who were concerned that a Right to Disconnect would disadvantage them as they felt that bosses tended to favour those who worked longer hours. This is fundamentally an issue of presenteeism at the workplace, which a growing body of research has found to be detrimental to a company’s performance. According to a study by the Global Corporate Challenge, presenteeism reduces productivity and many employers have been moving away from using time spent at the office as a proxy for good performance. Staff’s performance should be measured by the outcomes achieved against clear goals set, not by the extended hours spent.
Mr Speaker, in simple terms, what I am calling for is that we help our employees carve out protected time for them to rest and recharge.
In France, the Right to Disconnect legislation makes it mandatory for employers and employees to negotiate on the protocol for non-emergency calls and non-critical emails outside of working hours. Disconnecting is all about creating protected time to rest and recharge – not unlike what MOE does for its teachers during the school holidays.
Even the Germans – who according to a survey, work on average five hours more than their contractual hours each week – they too understand the need for clearly defined periods of rest so that they can be more productive the next day. The Germans have a concept called “Feierabend”, which describes the time after their work day ends and when their rest time begins. Our German friends understand that they need to have dedicated time outside of work to rest properly in order to have the energy to work hard and be productive again the next day.
For those who remain unconvinced, let me share the experience of Rebecca Wong, a Singaporean currently working in France, who wrote to me last month. She shared that when emails are sent outside of office hours in France, it is usually accompanied with a disclaimer to state that no immediate response is expected. Alternatively, they can use technology to schedule their non-critical emails to be sent out only at 8 am the next working day. These are certainly not radical practices, but baby steps which we can easily adopt here in Singapore.
But I do agree with Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamed that we should study in greater detail how a Right to Disconnect legislation could be implemented in Singapore. But in the meantime, I hope that the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health – which the Senior Minister of State had assured last week would be published soon – will include aspects of the Right to Disconnect.
With clearer guidelines, our unions can start a conversation with employers on the protocol to answer non-critical work calls and emails outside of working hours, as well as the provision of appropriate help for those facing workplace burnout, while keeping their identities confidential.
I also urge MOM to conduct a yearly survey on workplace mental health. This will allow us to track how well our workers are faring mentally, what are the best practices among our companies and guide our collective efforts to provide better workplace mental health support.
I hope that tackling workplace burnout will be a key priority in the newly announced COVID-19 Mental Wellness Taskforce. After all, a mentally resilient workforce leads to a safer work environment for all.
Mr Speaker, as we gradually move towards Phase 3 of our safe recovery, we need to pay special attention to workplace safety. The latest Workplace Safety and Health or WSH report published by MOM found that workplace accidents and injuries fell for the first half of this year. This is not unexpected in view of the suspension of most work activities due to the circuit breaker measures. The number of workplace fatalities had, however, remained similar to the first half of 2019.
As more workers return to their workplaces, there is a need to ease them back gradually into their jobs, as many have not returned to their worksites for months. It is imperative that companies implement a structured re-orientation programme for workers returning to work, especially in high-risk worksites. Companies should also conduct refresher WSH courses for all returning workers so that safety remains at the top of everyone's minds.
Experiences from other countries have shown that workplaces have the potential to become super-spreader events. A factory in Sri Lanka where over 1,000 workers caught COVID-19, a five-star hotel in Hong Kong and even the White House are just some of the recent high profile cases of the coronavirus spreading unabated at the workplace.
We need to ensure that Safe Management Measures are adhered to strictly. We need to avoid complacency and prevent virus clusters re-emerging from the workplace. To do so, I hope that MOM will finally heed my repeated calls for a mandatory WSH officer at every workplace.
To conclude, I would like to commend every Singaporean and resident who have been involved in this tireless fight against COVID-19. From our healthcare workers fighting hard at the frontline, to every individual who practises Safe Management Measures\tevery single day – wearing a mask, using SafeEntry, carrying the TraceTogether token and simply keeping a safe distance where possible. It is not easy and we still have a long way to overcome COVID-19, both as a public health crisis and as an economic crisis.
Let us continue to stay united, keeping each other safe and sane as we transit together to a new normal. Mr Speaker, I support the Ministerial Statement.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on a topic that is professionally very important to me as the Director of the NTUC’s Women and Family unit, as well as a career woman in the making for the past 20 years of my life.
Just two weeks ago, in my Secondary school alumni chat group, one of my alumni mates posed a question to the ladies in the chat group. She asked for our opinions as females progressing in our careers and workplaces. Mr Speaker, Sir, I may like to declare at this time, that I studied in an all-girls environment for 10 years of my life and it was not by design that we excluded men in our straw poll.
Now, in that chat group, we have women born in the1970s, 1980s and even 1990s. Many are executives in MNCs, SMEs, some are business owners, recruiters, community leaders and we even have Members of Parliament in there – not just me, but also the hon Ms Carrie Tan. As the answers came in, I saw the most fulfilled and happiest of us, are women who are able to adapt well because they have the opportunity of choice. Due to these choices, they are able to move freely in and out of different work arrangements.
Indeed, we all know of sisters, mothers, daughters in our lives who have made changes to their work and lives due to changing family responsibilities. These are women who have heeded the call of motherhood, taken on the role of being sole care-givers, stepped up to take on extra work in the face of job and wage cuts.
I recently met with Ms L, who used to work 9 am to 6p m in the office as a manager, but now works full time as an interior designer at home to take care of her home-bound adult special needs brother. She intends to continue to make adjustments to her work and her life as her brother and her grow old together. She is both the sole breadwinner as well as the sole care-giver in her household.
I was excited to hear from Deputy Prime Minister Heng that he will be setting up an initiative to look at creating micro-jobs in the community through the good and safe networks of our Community Development Councils or CDCs. Women need choices in their work arrangements and I believe that micro-jobbing would be something very welcomed in our communities.
In my constituency work, I have come to recognise that more women are coming back to the workforce as part of their efforts to supplement their household incomes. However, in reconnecting with work, the issues that took women away from the workplace still remain. Their children and elderly loved ones still need caring for and women need to be able to be in full control of when they work, where they work and how they work.
Thus, the prospects of in-community micro work will be an attractive option for many women. However, in enabling women with this option, we must be certain to be able to provide protection and safety nets. As micro-jobs pick up in popularity and leave the safe protective hands of the CDC and into the invisible hands of the free market, the House may need to consider some protective areas.
Take Mdm H for example. She was contracted to look after an elderly for three hours while his family members went out for the afternoon. After four hours, the family had not returned, and Mdm H had to leave to pick up her granddaughter from school. The elderly she was caring for told her to come back another day for payment, as his family member had left him with no money to pay Mdm H. Till today, Mdm H has yet to be paid for her services, but she has kindly deemed it to be an act of community service, even though she needed the money for her own family.
Mr Speaker, in considering safety nets, we may need to look at the following.
One, awareness and education. As micro-jobs and other non-traditional employment types come into play, we will need to educate both micro-jobbers and their service buyers of their obligations. Perhaps all micro-jobs below a certain amount needs to be cash upfront payments as an informal industry standard. Such informal practices are set by strong first movers and I look forward to the leadership by the CDCs.
Two, contractual safety nets. Micro-jobs run into the danger of work agreements that are contracted with no overriding legal agreements set into place. This is especially so should the work be contracted with individuals as service buyers. Without dampening the spirit of the flexible nature of micro-jobs, it is necessary to look into some standards for issues such as payment terms and service waivers. We perhaps can take a page from the Public Transport Council that penalises and fines fare evaders through the Public Transport Council Act.
Three, dispute management and mediation. Hassle-free escalation pathways need to be created to protect both micro-jobbers and their service buyers. In Mdm H’s case, she had no recourse other than herself to recover her service fees. She is not covered by the employment act, and TADM would be too large a blade to weld in her representation. Could we perhaps have a mediation hotline set up for a small fee for such cases?
Micro-jobs and other non-traditional career pathways can be viable livelihood choices for women seeking to balance work with home. These choices should not be seen to be second-best options. Through implementing strong protective safety nets, we can remodel these choices into strong first choices that merely look different. We need to ensure that no one falls through the cracks, so that we can build for our women to reach for the stars. Mr Speaker Sir, I support the Budget adjustment.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for his Ministerial Statement, which sets the tone for our eventual emergence from the COVID-19 crisis. I fully support the efforts. However, there are some concerns and clarifications that need to be voiced and addressed.
At this unusual time, it is crucial that our population has unshakable faith in the Government to lead them. However, the Government does not inspire confidence by hastily increasing taxes and fees while at the same time pledging COVID-19 support measures. Our population could view this act as \"giving with one hand and taking with the other.\" Let me give you some examples that give rise to such a sentiment.
Firstly, the MediShield Life premium increase of between 11.5% and 35.4% to be effective in early 2021 was announced on 29 September. That means an insured person who used to be paying $1,000 in annual premium will now have to pay $1,350 per year.
While this change is under public consultation until end of October, the MediShield Life Fund already has $8.3 billion of total assets and continues to accumulate large surpluses of about $0.9 billion a year. Also, the new actuarial assumptions behind the projected future liabilities have not been disclosed. Such information is fundamental in determining the fiscal health of the scheme and justifying any increase in premiums.
The increase in coverage which accompanies this premium hike is scant comfort to Singaporeans who are still struggling with the financial woes of COVID-19. In any case, there is also no information on how much this increased coverage would have cost the MediShield Life scheme if it had been implemented in earlier years.
Secondly, the 9.3% electricity tariff hike for the October to December quarter of 2020 was announced by Singapore Power, the SP Group, on 30 September. This is already approved by the Energy Market Authority. Here is a power-grid monopolist which does not generate electricity but makes billions of dollars since the liberalisation of the electricity market in 2012, sparing no time in raising prices at the first available opportunity even as Singaporeans struggle under the COVID-19 crisis. While the increase is for paying a higher price for the power generating companies, the gencos, the SP Group could have easily absorbed the increase from the past profits it has earned instead of passing the increased cost on to consumers.
Thirdly, on 9 October, LTA announced that the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) at six gantries along the CTE would be increased from 12 October to ease congestion during peak periods. While ERP charges at some gantries along the CTE have been reintroduced in July and August following the end of the circuit breaker, it is hard to imagine that congestion has already built up to the pre-COVID-19 level.
These untimely announcements were made consecutively in a short period of two weeks, adding hundreds of dollars more to household expenditures during these austere times when every cent counts to the average Singaporean.
These policies only act as a catalyst to heighten the already increasing public apprehension of more tax and fee hikes coming their way, giving rise to concerns, such as whether the GST will be increased soon, after 2021, for example, given that $6 billion is still parked under the GST Voucher Fund although the Government needs to draw down from the Reserves – when, in fact, announcing the shelving of the GST increase indefinitely could be a much-needed boost to the ailing consumer sector and remove another potential uncertainty on Singaporeans. We could also then make better use of the $6 billion parked under the GST Voucher Fund.
This begs the question of the timing of these tax and fee hikes when the support measures are being phased out slowly. Can these hikes not be shelved till later? Can the SP Group not absorb the tariff increases with their past profits? Can ERP increases not wait? Can premium increases not be deferred for a period of one to two years as the current insurance claims are still way below the collected premiums after all?
The man on the street must be baffled by the seemingly contradictory actions of the Government. On the one hand, it is purported that the Government is putting up $100 billion to help with COVID-19 support measures. Yet, on the other hand, the implementation of the tax and fee hikes.
Is the country so overstretched financially that we have to replenish our coffers with those hikes in such haste?
This leads to the three key questions often asked by Singaporeans regarding the $100 billion of COVID-19 support measures: how is the $100 billion spent? How is the $100 billion paid for? How much reserves are left after paying the $100 billion?
Although the Government has given most of the relevant information in answers to Parliamentary Questions, Ministerial Statements and published financial statements, these questions need to be answered in a more precise and simplified manner so that the layperson can comprehend. I have attempted to do this below and I would welcome the Deputy Prime Minister to correct me if I am inaccurate in my humble attempt to address those queries.
Firstly, the $100 billion spending is approximately broken down into the following categories: $37 billion of financial transfers to Singaporeans, PRs and local companies; $12 billion of tax and public fee rebates; $29 billion of increased expenditure to fight COVID-19; and $22 billion of loan guarantees.
Of the $37 billion of financial transfers, $23 billion is paid to local companies through the Jobs Support Scheme to preserve jobs for Singaporeans and PRs. Seven billion dollars are paid directly to Singaporeans in the Care and Support Package, Solidarity Payment, Self-Employed Income Relief, SingaporeRediscovers Vouchers and so on.
Of the $12 billion of tax and public fee rebates, $2.5 billion is in the form of rental relief for SMEs and $0.9 billion for worker levy waivers. The drop in GST and betting taxes accounted for about $4 billion.
The $29 billion spent on fighting COVID-19 includes spending on the upgrading of testing facilities, providing new housing facilities for the foreign workers, funding projects like the $2 billion allocated to the SG Together initiative, $2 billion to the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package and $1 billion to the Jobs Growth Incentive.
The $22 billion of loan guarantees are for the Government to provide guarantees of up to 90% of the loan principal for various forms of credit given by commercial banks to SMEs. Hence, this is not an immediate expenditure as the loans are provided for by the banks.
The $100 billion support measures are paid for by $18 billion of accumulated fiscal surpluses of the previous term of Government; $52 billion of drawdown from the Reserves; $8 billion of reduced current expenditure for FY2020; and $22 billion in loan capital.
According to the Deputy Prime Minister's reply to hon Member Mr Leon Perera in June this year, the $22 billion in loan capital is expected to be repaid in the future and is, hence, fiscally neutral.
Thirdly, while the Government does not want to disclose the National Reserves for security reasons, it has nonetheless published detailed annual financial information on our national assets and liabilities. In its latest Government financial statements as at end March 2020, it was reported that we own a total of $1.35 trillion in financial assets – and $1.35 trillion is $1,350 billion.
At the same time, according to the latest revised fiscal position for FY2020, the Net Investment Return Contribution (NIRC) remains at $18.6 billion. Given that the NIRC is 50% of the Net Investment Return (NIR), the NIR for 2020 is $37.2 billion.
Accordingly, the net decrease of the total financial assets for FY2020 will be the $52 billion drawdown minus the $37.2 billion NIR, which gives us $14.8 billion. This is still a very sizable sum. But it is not $52 billion or $100 billion. This $14.8 billion represents only a 1.1% decrease in our total financial assets.
The conclusion from all these is that we have used up only 1.1% of our total financial assets to fight COVID-19 in 2020. We commend the Government for its shrewd financial management skills and, at the same time, Singaporeans can rest assured that our national finances remain intact and we are far from squandering away our past savings.
So, it appears that there is no need for the tax and fee hikes to take place so soon. We should let Singaporean households recover from the aftershocks of the pandemic and find their footing before we take further action.
The finances of many Singaporeans have been severely affected by COVID-19 and the Government must support Singaporeans as they work to recoup their financial losses. It is the most opportune time to focus on grooming the resilient Singaporean and not just economic resilience. Economic resilience belongs to the Government-led economic development model, which has become ineffective in these technologically disruptive and pandemic-prone times. Now, we want each resilient Singaporean to become an independent decision-making unit which, collectively, will make Singapore a stronger economy and society.
The first step to grooming the resilient Singaporean is to re-examine our overall safety net policies, like the CPF, MediShield Life, CareShield, HDB lease and so on which will go a long way to increase the confidence of Singaporeans and re-boost their energy to rise to the challenge to build our economy and society.
The crucial economic inputs in this new era are creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship, and not land, capital and cheap labour anymore. We also have to understand that civil servants are not the best persons to decide which entrepreneur to help or which industry to promote. We need the resilient Singaporeans to make those crucial decisions on their own.
The Government's role should be restricted to being a facilitator and custodian of our funds but the actual work of building our future economy should be left to entrepreneurs and experts in different fields from the private sector. Intrinsic motivation with a buy-in by our citizens will go much further and last longer than extrinsic instruction from the Government.
Recently, both the Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition have commented on inter-generational equity. My humble opinion is that before we talk about equity, we must not forget that the next generation can do well only if this generation continues to do well. If we do badly, the next generation will not be able to hold on to whatever financial assets we leave behind for them.
And now, there is a grave danger that this generation may not do as well as the previous one, if we leave things the way they are. We have to move away from the \"one-size-fits-all\" attitude and adopt a more dynamic mindset that moves with the times.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that going forward, no strategy will be effective if Singaporeans are not convinced by the facts and figures. It is my belief that they will not be ready to participate in any governmental endeavours wholeheartedly. We have to strengthen our social safety net before we can convince and attract Singaporeans to take up the entrepreneurial challenge. This is an opportune time to rethink and to re-calibrate as we move forward post-COVID-19.
I hope the information and ideas I have shared can help Singaporeans understand our current situation better and in turn help the Government to achieve a better outcome from the strategies announced by the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Progress Singapore Party intends to continually bring up ideas for discussion in this Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Ministerial Statement.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, when COVID-19 hit, the first priority was to ensure that those who needed help received it swiftly and generously. We have unprecedented four Budgets. The Government has tapped into our precious reserves, to give out billions of dollars to help businesses, workers and individuals.
We are nearly a year into the COVID-19 pandemic. Many Singaporeans are appreciative of the various COVID-19 support measures. However, it may be timely for us to calibrate the manner in which funding is given out.
Before I proceed further, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare my interest as part of the management team in ComfortDelGro and my interest as an Advisor to the Singapore Port Workers Union or SPWU.
I would like to focus in particular on the Jobs Support Scheme or JSS, where the Government is helping businesses to co-fund up to 75% of the first $4,600 of monthly wages for Singaporean employees. It has kept many businesses afloat. It is reported that 75,000 jobs were saved due to the JSS. The benefits are good. The cost is also high. The total amount disbursed under JSS will likely exceed $15 billion.
It is apparent that COVID-19 has a very different impact on different industries. Some, like aviation, tourism and the events industries, are badly hit. Some, like supermarket chains, IT companies, logistics companies and medical companies are doing better than previous years. However, all companies receive JSS, including companies that thrive due to COVID-19.
In the written reply to my Parliamentary Question last week, we understand from Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance that as at 24 September 2020, more than 700 firms have declined and/or returned JSS payouts. It is very noble of these companies. In June 2020, more than 130 companies have already returned $97 million of JSS payouts. I suppose the accumulated returned JSS payouts by now would be worth a few hundred million dollars. I hope Deputy Prime Minister Heng can provide us an update and give recognition to these companies.
MOF has stated they \"do not intend to instruct firms that report profits to return their JSS payouts, whether in whole or in part\". Rather, firms are encouraged to use the JSS payouts to hire more Singaporean workers or to accelerate their transformation efforts.
To this note, one good example of a business that has utilised its JSS funds in a meaningful way is Shell. Taking its own initiative, it is providing $10 million it received from JSS, to run courses for its staff in demand areas like data analytics and data mining. PSA International has also informed the union that it will use the JSS payouts to not only accelerate the digital transformation in PSA, but the entire marine logistics industry as well as financing some of Singapore's COVID-19 activities. We hope more firms will follow the lead of these companies.
Meanwhile, I would like to offer another avenue for firms that are profitable to put JSS payouts for good use.
From my interactions with many Social Service Agencies or SSAs, I understand that most SSAs are struggling to raise fund especially this year when the economic recession is very bad. For example, Singapore Hospice Council has only been able to meet 10% of its fundraising goals. It does not help that some may have even more beneficiaries to care for during these difficult times.
Thus, I would like to urge profitable companies that receive JSS payouts to donate part of the payouts to charities. When these charitable organisations receive the donations, the Government will also match dollar-for-dollar and the companies that donate will enjoy 2.5 times tax deductions. This is a win-win situation. The donation would greatly benefit the vulnerable, the disadvantaged and the disabled.
In contrast, almost 2,200 employers were under review for suspected abuse of JSS. Of these, 444 were denied payouts either partially or in full to the tune of almost $10 million. I would like to urge MOF to name these companies, to make it public the culprits behind this such fraud so as to serve as a strong deterrent to other companies.
In addition, we understand some of these cases came to light due to whistleblowers. I would like to ask MOF how we can facilitate the public to furnish information of such abuses. At the same time, would MOF consider charging some of the more blatant culprits in Court?
JSS funds are our money, our reserve and our lifeline. We want JSS to save jobs. We do not want JSS to be abused or enriched greedy individual shareholders. I would like to urge every Singaporean to be vigilant on the use of JSS, to report abuses and to encourage profitable companies to donate part of the JSS payouts to charities.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we want to make sure that Singaporeans and businesses who need help would not need to jump through hoops or wade through red tape to qualify for funding. For example, many staying in property with an annual value of more than $21,000 but do not own a property and yet need some help, could not qualify for many of the COVID-19 support grants. Could MOF consider relaxing the criteria?
Meanwhile, some of the support schemes pertaining to individuals will expire soon. For instance, the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme or SIRS, will disburse its last payout in October, this month.
What will happen after that? Going forward, I would like to ask if the Government would consider continuing the SIRS schemes as many Singaporeans still need help, but calibrating it so that it is more targeted.
For instance, SIRS could be fine-tuned if MOF were to extend for another six months. Rather than a binary approval of yes or no to a fixed payout of $3,000 for three months, the SIRS amount disbursed could differ according to the criteria like past income or type of housing. This might allow those who are currently not eligible for SIRS, like those who stay in private property with an annual value of more than $21,000, to receive a smaller SIRS payout. In addition, part of the payout could be in the form of vouchers so that the recipients will have to spend them rather than save for some of them. And this will help to further pump prime the economy.
To reiterate, I would like to appeal to Deputy Prime Minister Heng to extend the SIRS and widen the criteria to benefit more Singaporeans. But the quantum could taper off gradually, to allow the self-employed persons who may have grown dependent on the payouts to wean themselves off. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I urge the Government to give out another round of Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers to low-income families to buy food and necessities from neighbourhood shops and hawker stalls. Many residents and neighbourhood shops in Nanyang and West Coast feel that the vouchers are timely and useful.
CDC vouchers are unlike the $150 vouchers recently given out by the Government to families living in 1-room and 2-room flats. The latter can only be used in large supermarket chains and CDC vouchers can only be used in neighbourhood shops.
During the outbreak, the business of big supermarket chains was booming while that of neighbourhood shops was very poor. Hence, I hope the Government will take more care of the neighbourhood shops.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is clear that COVID-19 will be a part of our lives for some time. It is thus not practical or feasible for the funding schemes that have helped Singaporeans and businesses to continue in the same form. But it is imperative that help still needs to be given because people and businesses are still suffering. I hope these schemes will be fine-tuned and tweaked to better suit Singapore's needs, especially now as we have a clearer picture of the impact of COVID-19 on different segments of the society. I support the Ministerial Statement.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Mr Speaker, over the past months, the concerted effort put in by the Multi-Ministry Task force, the various agencies and fellow Singaporeans have contributed to flattening the curve and bringing down the number of COVID-19 cases. The importance of the $100 billion financial support cannot be underestimated as it has helped cushion the economic impact of COVID-19 for many individuals and families.
Of late, in my weekly house visits, I hear more residents who have been displaced from jobs, unable to restart their work as freelancers in different industries and more company are undergoing restructuring. This impact fallout is hard and real. It will lead to social and economic problems if not addressed for the short to the mid term.
This is only the beginning for us as a country and people in gingerly threading the path as we look towards emerging from COVID-19. We must now put extra focus in our efforts on re-opening our borders safely, rebuilding our economy and prepare for the future unpredictability.
There are three areas I would like to touch on, with respect to soldiering on for our future, specifically the future of our industries and our workforce. The key areas are: one, creating key verticals eco-system under Singapore Inc.; two, nurturing the green economy; and three, creating an inclusive growth workforce
On the first area, during the initial stage of COVID-19 when cases were exploding in some countries and borders begin to shut, the fault-lines in the supply chains globally were apparent. This was not simply a sign of how securing necessities like masks, food products, and so on was critical. It strongly reiterates the pressing importance for Singapore to invest in economic resilience and sustainability as a source of competitive advantage. There is a need to relook at the overall business continuity planning of supply chains, both in the public and private sectors.
As Deputy Prime Minister Heng mentioned about the need to transform our economy and be ready for a post-COVID-19 world, it is thus timely that we look at strengthening our local start-ups, our SMEs and even the large enterprises to boost our foundation and economic resilience as the world becomes increasingly volatile and uncertain.
During the height of the pandemic where A*Star was able to produce the Fortitude test kit and many countries were keen on having the “made in Singapore” label for items, it demonstrated that Singapore, despite being a small nation, we do have the talent pool and resources to build our line of defence and increase our resilience to the best extent possible that can weather this current health crisis and other challenges ahead.
So, contrary to what Member Mr Leong Mun Wai has said that he thinks our economic strategy has been a failure, I would like to put it this way. While Singapore’s economy has been diversified with a strong focus towards the tertiary industry of services, take for example financial, intellectual property or healthcare and biotechnology hubs, I think we need to move beyond this as we cope with all the global changes. How can we foster greater resilience in our economy by looking further and developing some things around our primary and secondary industries. for example, our energy or agri-food supply chains?
To spur our economic growth, we need more than just innovative business ideas and funding. We must create business niche as well as aggregate our capabilities in some core parts of the market segments, in order to have an eco-system that well supports the design, production and associated services of different verticals. Some exist today, but others are areas we have to begin building in our future economy.
Let me take an example about agri-food. There is a goal of 30 by 30 local produce to supplement Singapore’s nutritional needs. Some initiatives have been earmarked to support this goal like the NParks Community in Bloom gardens where planting edibles and urban farming are being allowed at rooftops of HDB multi-storey car parks. Additionally, with the mix of efficient use of technology, agriculture in Singapore has also evolved to agri-tech with areas such as aquaculture and stacked farming.
I would like to ask what are the other milestones set out for us to assess and track how the industry has successfully transformed in order to make sure that we do really meet this goal? As the UNDP Global Centre for Technology, Innovation and Sustainable Development noted, gaps in the scalability and feasibility could impact the sustainability of agri-tech. How does the Ministry have oversight on greater integration of technology throughout the entire value chain, from production to consumption; and sufficiency of players within the value chain itself?
For such industries of strategic importance, it is worthy that we can further develop existing companies to grow to the point where substantial economies of scale can be enjoyed and thereby having the financial muscles to weather the volatile changes – similar to what has been done previously in the financial sector with our domestic banks like DBS, OCBC and their peers, and thus becoming a very key pillar in the local economy.
So, I would like to say I disagree with what Member Mr Leong Mun Wai has said. He thinks the Government should not be picking the players or the winners, and leave it purely to the private sector. Well, I think the Government has really not quite been doing this and did not pick any of the players. But I would like to say if we want to move forward and have an active participation, I would think the Government needs to play the role of being an active business catalyst, a facilitator and a binder.
And why is it important as we move forward to do this? Because without this sort of role in the Government being that player, I think it is probably very difficult for us to create a more comprehensive eco-system, an eco-system where you have a multitude of different players, not only from the private sector, the smaller businesses. It is difficult for them among themselves to decide how exactly to participate within the value chain.
So, I would like to say, in contrary, I hope the Government can take a more active role on this aspect.
On the next thing about nurturing the green economy, I think the topic of green economy is no longer one about carrying buzzwords or even a feel-good factor to be a part of. It is one of existential needs and one which has both social and political implications.
Over the past few years, there has been growing focus on building a sustainable economy for Singapore. The capitalisation on the creation of a green economy for our next generation was also identified. While the vision has been explained on the National Roadmap and some high level plans have been outlined on how to achieve this vision, there remains a need for greater clarity and communication between the Ministry and its citizens to better understand what this green blueprint means, in terms of implication on the economy and the country. By so doing, it would better allow citizens to identify the opportunities, the role each can play and how we can move towards the same goals that is set for the green economy.
One of the immediate questions we have would be how do we equip our citizens with the relevant skills in order to capitalise on and that are required for this future green economy? I believe this begins in building the knowledge and pipeline for the future.
Looking at the education front, Institutes of Higher Learning have identified that the future economy would be one that requires inter-disciplinary thinking. One example is that of National University of Singapore making a step in that direction with its preliminary consultation on the proposed College of Humanities and Sciences. This is a step in the right direction as we review issues of the likes of climate change. Tackling climate change cannot be addressed by just having a narrow understanding of environmental sciences, but rather an appreciation of economics, anthropology and public policy. As individual and society, we have to better understand the balance and trade-offs involved on how the economics work for public and private sectors, how do societies evolve across time and space and the impact of different aspects of public policies.
This would ultimately bring about a different rhythm in our conversations of where and how to spend public funds, understanding the complexity of issues that require addressing at phases or using multi-prong resolutions and recognising interdependencies across many areas of society. This will facilitate more participation and result in more active and balanced discussions that are helpful to tackling increasing multi-faceted issues.
Meanwhile, for those currently in the workforce, how can we better prepare them for this green economy? Take for example in the construction industry, there are some bright spots such as green specialists, green building architects and designers, green energy project management, and others that individuals can be trained and certified in.
Similarly in agriculture, urban farming would be an avenue for those whose interests lies in food and research. New jobs will be created and even new work scopes that do not exist today can be ready and be available in future markets. Thus, to capture this future growth and ensure we have local talents to meet the job requirements, we have to begin now to adjust and adapt mindsets to changing times. Jobs should not be judged by today’s lenses and how glamorous it may be. With a heavy reliance on technology and science, even mundane roles in traditional farming will excite those that are keen to move beyond laborious work.
Moving towards a green economy may take many dimensions. While we may find that we could see a lack of gumption and probably open attitude to try new things, not so much the lack of opportunities nor the imposition of relevance of tomorrow.
And, lastly, Sir, I would like to highlight fostering of inclusive growth in our workforce. In my past speeches, I have spoken on the need to extend holistic aid and uplift the low-wage workers, seniors and special needs community. This pandemic has once again showed us that they are indeed the most vulnerable groups as many of them hold jobs as essential and front-line workers in our economy.
Much has been mentioned on seizing opportunities in this challenging time through upskilling to upkeep one’s competitiveness in the workforce. However, the fundamental question is how successful has the upskilling profile been in ensuring Singapore’s workforce remains competitive? Will the Government be tracking statistics of people skills upgrading in relation to job enhancement opportunities or its corresponding ability to remain in the workforce?
While “what skills” has been an often-talked subject, “who gets access to training” is another pertinent question. The $500 to $1,000 top-up in SkillsFuture credit is useful to better enable Singaporeans to take up new courses and for them to pick up new skills. However, there always remains groups of individuals like the low-wage workers and special needs community who even before COVID-19, have been unable to take up courses for personal upgrades.
Their reasons for not doing so are varied, some because they have to balance multiple jobs, others care-giving duties, lack of funds or lack of suitable courses that is catered to them in language or academic qualifications. They are left out from being able to upgrade not due to lack of will, but more a lack of time and the need to first survive.
For these groups, the stipend may not be adequate as the opportunity cost of forgoing a job to attend these programs are indeed high. So, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister what can we do to bring different skills and development to them with very specific curriculum that is embedded through funding their employers for in-house upskilling?
With that said, I must mention that wages for the worker in some sectors at the 20th percentile in the last five years have, indeed, grown faster than the median worker as it was supported by the Progressive Wage Model or PWM. The Workfare schemes including the Special Employment Credit will also be further enhanced in January 2021 to improve their retirement adequacy through cash as well as CPF top-ups. Further, through incorporating the skills upgrading element into justification of increasing their wages for those in the cleaning, security and landscaping industries, I think beyond this support, I look forward to the expansion of the PWM to other service sectors for more inclusion and coverage on a wider group of individuals.
At the same time, I would ask that we rethink about the need and the impact of these workers in service industries when the economy at any point of time has to shut for a period, for example, like our recent circuit breaker. Low-wage workers and even those in the special needs community struggle to find alternative jobs and may end up being displaced from the marketplace for even a longer period after the economy restarts. The larger impact they face goes beyond income, as a daily routine has already become disrupted and this sort of abrupt disruption has a huge impact on their mental state, especially for those with special needs – they can be inevitably scarred.
With the new and future economy, can we find avenues for more micro jobs to create for not only the seniors but also the special needs adults? With wider acceptance of remote working, this model seems to be the work for the future that we are shifting to. Can we better adapt to support the special needs community?
Sir, in conclusion, I stand in support of the Third Supplementary Estimates. There is no better time than now for us to work together and create the future workspace and economy that will put Singapore on a better footing as we charge forward.
Ms Raeesah Khan (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the stress fractures of many societies in the world today that are traditionally not discussed as much. The area that I am keen to speak on today is mental health. I would first like to disclose my involvement as a founder of an organisation that works on social issues including mental health.
Mental health is increasingly an issue that Singaporeans face. The Singapore Mental Health study in 2016 noted that millennials between ages 18 and 34 were more likely to report experiencing a mental health issue compared to other age groups.
However, mental health issues continue to be stigmatised, as respondents in this survey cited. The study found that 11 years is a median time between when they first experience symptoms and when they sought help for obsessive compulsive disorder; four years for bipolar disorder and alcohol abuse; two years for generalised anxiety disorder and one year for major depressive disorder.
Many residents have approached me to seek advice for how they can receive help to improve their mental health. They have also shared their experiences accessing mental health services. One resident shared on the long waiting times to access psychotherapy at IMH. The earliest appointment she could get was in February of next year.
As Minister for Health Gan Kim Yong noted, stigma and the lack of mental health literacy may be contributory factors to the delay. Even as we are more aware, there are some misconceptions of mental health. This stigmatisation might only have hurt us as we deal with the mental damage that the COVID-19 pandemic has wrought. I remember reading the concerns of mental health practitioners during the initial circuit breaker measures which categorise them as non-essential.
An IPSO online survey done during the circuit breaker indicated that one in four respondents were not in good mental health. The vulnerability to stress exists across a population regardless of their work situation.
To be clear, this is not unique to Singapore. A recent WHO survey has noted that COVID-19 is disrupting mental health services in most countries. As this pandemic continues, we must guard against the long tail effect on mental health, as experts are predicting.
An editorial on the Lancet Infectious Diseases publication noted that \"to minimise the impact of the pandemic, we must also address the substantial unmet mental health needs of whole societies with a focus on the most vulnerable\".
A High Court judge in a recent sentencing also drew attention to mental health access. She said, and I quote, \"As a society, it is critical to continue with efforts to improve and enhance access to mental health services\". I could no agree more with the sentiments expressed.
But there has been innovation in this time of crisis. Singapore saw the establishment of a National Care Hotline in April, now manned by 900 odd volunteers, which also has served over 28,000 calls by this August.
On World Mental Health Day, Prime Minister Lee has announced the establishment of an inter-agency taskforce to look at the psycho-social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the population. I welcome these developments but I believe we can go further to make a huge step in destigmatising mental health issues, and improving and expanding on current services.
In fact, this period may be a good launching pad for Singapore to make a society-wide effort to destigmatise mental health issues.
Mr Speaker, I would now like to make some suggestions.
Firstly, I propose forming a Mental Health Committee with various stakeholders involved, stakeholders such as Government reps, mental health practitioners, VWOs and social workers, and also people who have experienced issues pertaining to mental health. It is important that we bank on the expertise and experiences of our fellow citizens who can help shape and lead the change that we need.
Secondly, improve the quantity and quality of information on mental health resources. Finding suitable treatment requires time and effort from an individual. Therefore, improving the quantity and quality of information about mental health resources may encourage more people to seek help. Cognitively, many may be unable to find the appropriate mental health service as it can seem like an overwhelming experience. Having helpful guides for people to navigate the many options may be more helpful to those who wish to take that first step.
Thirdly, ensuring that mental health remains affordable especially for youths, especially as mental health prevalence has been largely on young people. However, they may hesitate to resolve their issues as mental health treatments are long term in nature and the cost of treatments can stack up quickly, especially for those who need weekly treatments. Can there be reviews on treatments and coverage? For instance, MediSave withdrawal limits for inpatient psychiatric treatment is subject to a withdrawal limit of $150 per day but physical treatment is subject to the to the withdrawal limit of $450 per day. If we truly want to take mental health in this country seriously, we should not draw distinctions between psychiatric and physical treatment.
Lastly, consider adding social, emotional learning to our education curriculum and mental health campaigns. Preventive work needs to be done alongside destigmatisation efforts. And that includes learning the appropriate language to use when speaking to a family member or a friend who has a mental health condition and what actions to take when they are in severe distress.
An effort to improve mental health is not only good for the self but good for our country. Psychological defence is an underlying key pillar of our Total Defence and it will serve Singapore well when any Singaporean, even at their most mentally vulnerable, can trust that society at large will also have their back. I hope the authorities will take this opportunity to reset the conversations on mental health for the betterment of society.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to declare that I own an education company as I will be talking about education in the rest of my speech.
The Deputy Prime Minister spoke extensively about the economic plans to address the post-COVID-19 situation in Singapore, but not enough on how to prepare our people for the future. Upskilling and re-skilling our workforce is part of the solution but it is a reactive approach. If upskilling and re-skilling were our only recourse, Singaporeans will always find ourselves one step behind.
Instead of focusing only on giving working adults new skills to survive the new economy, we should also look into preparing our youths to thrive in the future. Instead of preparing for jobs that we cannot foresee, we need to focus on building resilient growth mindsets in our young people today.
Why are Singaporeans losing out in the job market in our own country? Employers repeatedly cite the lack of creativity and risk-taking, not to mention poor communication skills as reasons for this. Our grade-centric education system was also cited as a contributory factor.
In addition to facing competition for jobs from foreigners, we are increasingly facing competition from machines as well. Currently, standardised written examinations often reward behaviours like memorising and regurgitating facts and standard answers but encouraging such behaviours make our people most vulnerable to being replaced by machines. What is not easily replaced by a machine, however, is the ability to think creatively, take risk and communicating and social skills. These are the same skills that employers find Singaporeans lack.
Now, with digitalisation accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, there is even greater urgency to hasten the pace of education reform as old methods of teaching and learning become obsolete.
We had been facing growing uncertainty even before the pandemic struck. The key to thriving in uncertain environments is adaptability. To help build the ability to adapt to different or changing circumstances, we need to provide a learning environment that is non-standardised and non-prescriptive, one that constantly contains elements of unfamiliarity. In other words, diversity.
Diversity is also an important factor in the fostering of creativity and innovation. The modern innovations of today have always required inter-disciplinary approaches to reach fruition, a point also brought up by the hon Member Cheryl Chan earlier. So, similarly, I believe that our educational system not only needs to be diverse in terms of curriculum, but in student mix as well.
First, diversity in curriculum. We need to offer a wider range of subjects to students and greater flexibility in choices and combinations. In other words, an a la carte approach rather than set menus. Here, I would like to quote the American psychologist Abraham Harold Maslow, who said, \"It is no more necessary to study animals before one can study men than it is to study mathematics before one can study geology or psychology or biology.\"
Take the range of Primary school subjects, for example. In UK, their primary schools have 11 core subjects including design and technology, history, geography and computing, plus three optionals. In Finland, they have 13 core subjects including environmental studies, religion, history, social studies and guidance counselling, plus optionals in art and skill subjects.
In Singapore, although we have nine core subjects, only four of them are assessed in the PSLE. This unequal treatment skews time and effort towards the four subjects, effectively further narrowing the range.
Secondly, diversity in student mix. The practice of streaming students with similar abilities and aptitudes into groups reduces opportunities for our students to interact with others who are different. This has already been highlighted in a CNA documentary \"Regardless of Race\".
While MOE is moving away from streaming towards subject-based banding which removes the labelling, it does not change the fact that students are still grouped based on similar results in each subject. Students with different skill sets and interest will have few opportunities to share and discuss diverse thoughts and ideas. It also stymies broader social interaction and the development of people management skills.
Thirdly, diversity in pathways. Over the years, additional pathways have been created for older students. At the Primary school level, children are still on a single track with all Primary students taking the PSLE route. But as any parent knows, the PSLE is a stressful exam for students and parents alike because the outcome has very important implications on a child's future education and development. While some feel the PSLE is necessary for Secondary school posting, there are others, like myself, who believe it is premature to assess students at the age of 12 to determine their educational paths. I therefore urge MOE to consider a pilot project of through-train schools from Primary to Secondary levels without going through the PSLE, to give parents the option to choose an education path that may be better suited for their children's future.
With so much depending on the results of examinations like the PSLE, it is not surprising that Singapore students have a high fear of failure compared to students in other countries. In an OECD survey, it was found that three in four Singapore students fear failure as compared to a global average of 55%. I believe high-stakes examinations contribute to the building of such fears by making the price of failing too high to pay. Such fears can inhibit risk-taking entrepreneurship and the willingness to venture into the unfamiliar. Assessments should take into account the learning value of failing by giving them multiple opportunities to try again. A single failure should not mark you for life. For example, in the UK, national examinations like GCSE are conducted twice in May and November. I hope MOE can give our students similar chances.
To introduce greater diversity and differentiated learning into our education system, we need smaller class sizes. With Singapore's total fertility rate dropping, the number of school-going children is decreasing. This would have been a good opportunity to decrease class sizes, but MOE has instead closed schools and reduced teacher recruitment. The number of education officers dropped from 36,400 in 2016 to 33,700 in 2018. The NIE intake dropped from 1,256 in 2016 to 556 in 2018. Not only is this a missed opportunity to reduce class sizes, it also reduces meaningful job opportunities for Singaporeans. I urged MOE to reconsider its approach.
In our local Universities, the tuition grants given to foreign students are already a recurring bugbear for many Singaporeans, and is a popular theme in media reports. Many Singaporeans are perplexed at why foreigners are given Government subsidies and question this use of taxpayers' money. In Australia and UK, full fee-paying foreign students are an important source of revenue. In UK, these students contributed 11.9 billion pounds to the UK economy in 2016. In Australia, they contributed $37.6 billion to the Australian economy in 2019.
With good global rankings, our Universities should similarly be able to attract full fee-paying foreign students. We can adopt a similar model, develop this industry and use the revenues to further subsidise the education of local students. Foreign student enrolment, however, should not be at the expense of the enrolment of local students.
In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that we are not embracing customised learning to the detriment of our children. When we personalise education, we will be able to look at everything we do in life as an education in itself. No longer bound to a classroom, children will be free to learn from life, learning to think creatively, take risk and adapt quickly in youth. Children will become more resilient in adulthood and better able to handle any crisis that comes their way. Sir, I support the Ministerial Statement.
Mr Speaker: Minister Tan.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Manpower and Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to issue a clarification to Mr Leong Mun Wai's earlier suggestion that SP Services was being opportunistic when it raised the electricity tariffs in Q4 of 2020.
I would like to clarify that SP buys electricity at the full cost of producing it and delivering it to all consumers. These are generating companies or gencos – whatever that is procured is passed on to the gencos. And then, the gencos charge consumers at the same price. That is known as the entire regulated tariff. SP does not benefit from the increase in tariffs directly.
The increase in Q4 2020 tariffs are primarily due to fuel cost increases. Perhaps to share a little bit more, between July and September, in this same quarter, the crude oil price, Brent crude oil price, went up by a whooping 47%. This fuel cost increases are incurred by many of these power gencos. The additional amount of electricity tariffs that SP can collect or collected from the consumers in Q4 of 2020 will then be passed on to these power gencos to offset their fuel cost increases.
I have also alluded to earlier on that we have provided Singaporean households very targeted support – very, very targeted support – for their utilities bills. I would like to reiterate, each household with at least one Singapore citizen, has received a one-off $100 Solidarity Utilities Credit in their July or August SP Group utilities bill. On top of that, the GST Voucher - U-Save has also been doubled this year through a one-off a one-off GST Voucher - U-Save special payment.
Eligible HDB households with five or more members also received a first tranche of further GST Voucher - U-Save rebates of between $60 and $100 per household in October. A second tranche will be sent out and dispersed in January 2021.
If I break it down, the 1 to 2-room HDB flats get up to six to eight months of support. The 3- to 4-room HDB flats get four to six months of support for their utility bills. On top of that, in my reply to the question that hon Member Liang Eng Hwa had asked, I have also said that close to 50% – about 48%, to be exact – of all of our households have already switched over to the Open Electricity market retailer. So, quite a vast majority of this 48% is on fixed price plans. So, they are not affected by the change in electricity tariffs. So, we are talking about the balance and of this balance, the Government has stepped out in a huge way to support them.
Now, I guess I am a bit disappointed in a sense that I am past my 50-year mark and in all my 50-odd years, this is the first time I have seen the Government spending so much to support all of us here in this country. We understand the concerns that many of our fellow Singaporeans have in terms of tariff pricing increase. Perhaps for the hon Member Leong's consumption, fuel costs actually do constitute a huge part of the tariff. In fact, in terms of the entire continuum of the gencos, the fuel costs actually come up to anything from a third to up to 50%.
We have had a period of time when we have benefited from low costs of importing of this fuel from overseas but we are seeing some upswing in terms of pricing coming back up.
The Government is also doing everything it can to move into some other forward thinking measures to ensure that we can manage the volatility and also the price fluctuations.
I hope that I am able to clear this point of clarification with everyone.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, thank you. I thank the Minister for his clarification of some of the points. In fact, just now, the Minister had already touched on the electricity tariffs, so, there is some understanding on that.
My point in the speech is that we are generally advocating that we should be paying more attention to grooming Singaporeans to be more resilient. As a result, the pricing of all these public services is a part of it. I am just expressing an opinion that perhaps the SP Group could have waited a little bit longer.
The whole pricing mechanism of the electricity market and all that – that is another topic we can deal with. For example, we know that SP has made a lot of profit when the electricity wholesale market collapsed from 2012 to 2018. They did not actually pass on the benefits to the consumer at that time because the retail market was still in the process of being liberalised. So, they had made some profits – in fact, a lot of profits – during those years. Why can they not just wait a little bit longer?
This is just a general policy attitude and things that we are trying to express here – that we hope, going forward, if we want to develop a different model, we need the Singaporean to be more resilient. Of course, there are many facets to that and we can discuss more and more of that going forward.
Mr Speaker: Minister Tan.
Dr Tan See Leng: I think that how we have worked together as a nation, Mr Speaker, Sir, in terms of making sure that our support is very surgical, very precise, very targeted to the group of people who needs it most, perhaps not because of the fact that they lack resilience – I think, in fact, many of them are very resilient. In fact, from many of my Meet-the-People Sessions – people from the 1-room, 2-room flats, the 3-room, 4-room flats. I hope Mr Leong is not saying that they are not resilient because we want to support them. In fact, I think that many of them are in circumstances are beyond their control.
Where we think that support is needed and where it is targeted, we will not hesitate to make sure that we are able to not just care for them but to also carry for them. I think that has already spoken volumes.
To the point about fluctuations and volatility in energy markets – we are a very small country and 95% of our power supply comes from fossil fuels, which we are also trying to see how we can move out to reduce our carbon footprint, so that we can go on to more renewable energies.
If you talk about this 95%, we are subject to fluctuations. I have said it many a time that the gencos do need to have some form of returns because they have also invested significantly in the infrastructure here in our country.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, I understand that the prices of electricity need to fluctuate with crude oil prices or natural gas prices. However, in terms of pricing the electricity tariff, one question I want to ask is: did SP make a lot of profit from 2012 to 2018 when the electricity prices market collapsed but they have not passed on the benefits to the consumer?
Mr Speaker: Would anyone want to respond? Senior Minister of State Chee.
The Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. I cannot help but notice that Mr Leong Mun Wai has made a wrong attribution to the SP Group – their commercial model and their business model.
He mentioned the wholesale price has gone down and why is it that the SP Group did not pass on the savings? Let me clarify. SP Group is the grid operator. They provide the infrastructure to transmit and distribute the electrons that are being produced by the generation companies – as Minister Tan See Leng mentioned, the gencos. After the electricity is produced, the SP Group's transmission and distribution system, the grid, then transmits the electrons from the power generation companies to the users.
SP Group's returns, how that is determined – the Energy Market Authority or EMA, as the regulator, will then look at the assets that the SP Group has put in place and calculate what is the fair rate of return for those assets. It is actually separate from the price of electricity in the wholesale market. That is not what the SP Group earns. As Minister Tan was saying earlier, that is what the gencos are charging for producing the electricity. SP Group is the entity that transmits the electrons. They earn a return for the infrastructure that they have put in place, the grid infrastructure that they have put in place.
I think it is important for us to be clear on what is the business model of the various entities before we make comments like: why are they making so much money and they are not passing it on? Why are they making so much profit and they are not passing through some of these to consumers?
Mr Leong needs to understand what the facts are so that we can have a meaningful discussion based on accurate facts.
Mr Speaker: Thank you. My electrons need to be somewhere else. Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.05 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.42 pm until 4.05 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Ministerial Statement by Deputy Prime Minister on the Government's strategy to emerge stronger from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sir, while the Government must continue to support households, workers and businesses to manage during this difficult period as many had been impacted, it is imperative that we now look forward and prepare for the post-COVID-19 new normal. While we must protect lives, we must also continue to grow in order to secure livelihoods. I will speak on three areas.
First, re-making Singapore as a global-Asia node of technology, innovation and enterprise with digital as a game-changer, while building up our domestic eco-system as a home base for innovation.
Second, preparing Singaporeans for the digital world and doing this at scale. This is critical if we want inclusive growth and Singaporeans to be ready and able to seize the opportunities.
Third, the important role of the Government needs to continue to play in building and strengthening Singapore as a Smart Nation through the right investments in infrastructure and, more importantly, policies.
Let me now touch on the first point.
The strategy to be a magnet to attract leading companies, including technology companies and building strong local companies, is an important one. Singapore's success in attracting top technology companies and start-ups to locate their operations in Singapore and providing an eco-system to nurture local companies and start-ups is strategic for growth. In this new normal, we have seen that digital is, indeed, a game-changer. COVID-19 has disrupted many aspects of life and forced people to think about new ways of doing business. Digital technology has accelerated the disruptions and has played a crucial role in enabling connectivity and operations to continue when physical borders and interactions are restricted.
But ultimately, technology is about addressing needs and solving problems. Digital technologies enable agility and new business models to respond to these needs and to capture new opportunities. Deputy Prime Minister Heng, in his speech, spoke about the progress made with the implementation of our industry transformation maps (ITMs) to restructure our economy, sector by sector, firm by firm. This transformation is important as it affects 23 sectors and our businesses within these sectors. The shifts driven by the digital transformation and, now COVID, have taught us, however, that the disruptions businesses are facing are not coming from traditional players but non-traditional competitors.
For example, a non-banking player like WeChat handles an array of payment transactions for more than a billion users in China without the need for a bank account. So, the new opportunities that are being created from the adjacencies between industries and partnerships across sectors are also equally important. As we drive the ITMs, how are such disruptions being addressed with the work that we doing with the ITMs and the opportunities that present themselves? How are they also being leveraged?
Having global technology giants, like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, LinkedIn, Facebook and, more recently, the best Chinese tech companies, Alibaba, BtyeDance and Tencent, making Singapore their Asian headquarters and base for their operations in the region, coupled with Singapore becoming a regional and global hub for technology and start-ups not only creates quality jobs – and this is very important because we need quality jobs for Singaporeans – but it brings with it talent and, more importantly, know-how that creates a vibrancy and a buzz to drive innovations and investments.
But to that point, as these opportunities present themselves, I would like to touch on the second point that Singaporeans must also be ready for them. And today, as we have discussed quite a bit in this House, many Singaporeans have had their jobs impacted or at risk of having their jobs impacted. At the same time, companies are hiring. But we are saying is, many times, that match is not quite there.
So, I want to touch on this point that we must also look at how we ready Singaporeans. And this is not something that we can leave to chance. We must be deliberate in preparing Singaporeans for these new opportunities and we must be able to do it at scale. If there are too few people with the appropriate skills for the jobs created, this not only has a gap but increases the cost of talent and will drive business cost up and, therefore, again, create other disamenities. So, more importantly, while there are good jobs available, Singaporeans must be ready for them.
Training at scale – I spent a lot of time thinking about this point about training at scale because it is not easy. How do we do it? This is done in schools today. It is done in tertiary institutions. However, with technological disruptions, many in the workforce are finding that they need new skills to stay relevant and to take on new opportunities. So, the training actually needs to happen for those who are in the workforce and not just for those who are entering the workforce. And COVID-19 has just accelerated this even more. So, what we need to do is to have platforms for training large groups of experienced people in the workforce to build new skills, especially digital skills, and this process needs to be iterative because technology and changes in the workforce will continue to keep moving and it is not static.
So, training must be demand-led and, therefore, a very key competent of this must be the companies. They must be key participants in the development process and the programmes to provide context. Understanding what industry and employers need will allow us to appreciate the skills and competencies needed to do these new jobs and the appropriate training and development programmes. Precisely because we are preparing people for the digital world which is fast moving and dynamic, agility is an important criterion embedded in these programmes.
In today's context, to achieve relevant training at scale and to do it in a timely manner are difficult. Why? Because while training and development are available and we have lots of it, it is disparate. Many different institutions provide development programmes but they are in silos. What do I mean by that? We must get educational institutions to come together for training programmes and endorsements of each other's training programmes to support a mutual recognition of prior learning so that we can accelerate the learning because what we need is speed but not speed in just getting it done, but quality. So, we have got to recognise the adjacencies.
What does not happen enough today is the understanding of competencies that individuals already have in the workforce, because what individuals have is knowledge of businesses and that is a very, very precious knowledge. What we need to then equip them is today's skills to accentuate that knowledge. And that part, I think, we also have not done very much in profiling what we have in the workforce today. And being able to then say to individuals, \"What is the experiences, competencies that we must preserve, and then accentuate?\"
We talk about data analytics, for example. Data analytics only make sense if you understand the business. Otherwise, you do not see no pattern. You do not see the pattern at all, unless you know the business. And then, suddenly, illumination happens, but how do you marry the two? You have got to preserve what is in the workforce; where is the experience? And many of our mid-career people have these. But they are at a loss because they lack that little piece to join the puzzle. And we need to do this and scale that – I repeat that.
This will then allow us to leverage all the adjacencies – the adjacencies of what educational institutions themselves are doing, but also the competencies we have in the workforce and the experiences as well as what the companies need; and bringing that knowledge together.
So, how do we create these right platforms to get people in the workforce and those whose jobs have been impacted to participate? That is the other thing. Because until your job is impacted, you tend to just keep working. You forget about upgrading yourself and picking up the skills when you do not need them. Because it is too late sometimes when you need it.
And that is the point. How do get people to go for the appropriate training. It is a very bad analogy but I just could not find another example. I asked myself, \"What have we done in Singapore that we brought people altogether really fast and really quickly?\" And actually, the mask distribution was amazing, because there was a need! And because there was a need, we pulled people together, we brought the resources together, and people came together. But this is not a one off. You got to keep doing it. So, same thing – we then use the same mechanism to do the next round and the next round. And so I think we need to think about training in that aspect; not training for a skill but really to equip people with the pieces that they need to then function effectively and be able to take the opportunities.
To make this happen at scale will require the policy framework – most importantly to bring stakeholders together, meaning companies, training institutions and people in the workforce to address demand, accelerate training and encourage experienced people to want to learn – what I call a culture of continuous curiousity in learning.
The last point I want to talk about is the Government's role in Smart Nation. To foster a culture of innovation to support growth and quality of life for Singaporeans, I firmly believe that as much as we want society and businesses to participate, the Government now has a very important role to play in making the Smart Nation's efforts really scale and be really forward-thinking. And no one else will be able to do that. Not businesses because businesses have a PNL to run. They are never going to be that much ahead, unless they are doing R&D. Otherwise, you need the Government to play that role.
In today's context where digital is critical for resilience and agility, it is even more important that the Government continues to drive and strengthen Singapore's Smart Nation efforts. I must say the Government has been doing a good job in this, and I am glad that we started this early because otherwise, we would not have been able to respond the way we did so far.
Investing in state-of-the-art open and connected infrastructure, business friendly environment, policies, intellectual property, data and cybersecurity laws will provide the eco-system for people and businesses to thencome together to create value. It is not about digitalising the economy as much as I have talked about digital, let me be very clear. It is not about digitalising the economy, but it is about connecting Singapore to the world and in understanding the opportunities such that Singapore can be relevant, so that our people and our businesses continue to have opportunities and better lives.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, as we adapt to the COVID situation and keep our people safe, we must move forward and grow our economy and most importantly, the eco-system to provide quality jobs for Singaporeans. To do so, Singapore must continue to invest in the eco-system to develop the digital capability of our workforce to be ready for the opportunities that do exist in the post-COVID-19 world. While the journey will not be easy, I am confident that if we do it together, truly together, we will emerge stronger.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has been unprecedented in scale and depth. This crisis also marked the second and third times in history that the Government drew on its past reserves to fund a recovery package. At $52 billion, these were the largest ever draws on past reserves – 13 times what was drawn in 2009 during the Global Financial Crisis.
During the debate on his Ministerial Statement in June, the Deputy Prime Minister clarified that there is no legal or constitutional obligation for the Government to restore the draw from past reserves. Nevertheless, he said that the Government is committed to rebuilding the reserves, although he said that the Government cannot be definitive about how long that would take.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister now clarify if the Government intends to return all of the $52 billion drawn and if it will include interest? I am concerned that a commitment to restore $52 billion within a short time frame may subject our people to unnecessarily high levels of austerity and constrain the Government's fiscal space. Austerity can have a contractionary effect on the economy. It could slow economic growth and cause some painful cuts to public services, which might impact the poor.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure Singaporeans that they will not have to go through a period of austerity after the economic crisis is over, in order to restore the reserves? If the Government's commitment remains to restore the full amount of the reserves, then will the Deputy Prime Minister share the broad timelines for this restoration?
I am aware that he responded to similar questions from Members back in June, but he did not give any indication as to how long it will take. He only said that it would depend on Singapore's economy emerging stronger so that we would be in a better position to build our resources.
Sir, a timeline of two years, 20 years or 30 years will make a huge difference in the provision required in the Budgets of current and future governments. This will translate to vastly different levels of tax hikes and spending cuts required to meet these provisions.
For example, a restoration timeline of two years will require the provision of $26 billion a year. This is clearly impossible even in the best of times, as the Government's highest ever Budget surplus was $10.9 billion in FY2017, which was an exceptional year. Even a timeline of 30 years will still require a provision of $1.7 billion a year on average. This is more than the combined FY2020 Budget for the Prime Minister's Office and MFA.
During this 30-year period, we could also face multiple economic crises where more deficit funding may be necessary. There might be even a need for a further drawn past reserves in order to battle another crisis, which would set the timeline back even further.
Given the Budget impact of potential provisions to restore this extraordinarily large amount to the reserves, I feel it is important for the Government to provide more clarity about its broad timelines to do so.
The $52 billion draw on past reserves during this crisis was necessary to prevent excessive job losses, make up for a decline in investments, boost consumer spending and stabilise aggregate demand. The reserves have served their purpose in this crisis. As we plan beyond this current crisis, let us consider carefully how much we want to burden the next generation of Singaporeans with the committed repayment of this draw on past reserves. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Tahar.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I rise in support of the Ministerial Statement made by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat. I would like to declare my interest as an employee in the aerospace industry, one of the 22,000 workers in the industry, many of whom whose employment or income have been affected by the pandemic.
I would like to touch on three key areas. Firstly, as we rebuild and grow our physical connectivity, we – people, Government and businesses are responsible to do so while protecting our lives and livelihood. Secondly, we need to incorporate the lessons learnt from this pandemic and build on the Industry Transformation Map to create an inclusive and resilient society with a dynamic and growing economy. Thirdly, though the pandemic has brought challenges for us to overcome, we must also leverage on the opportunities it brings while preparing for the upcoming challenges facing our workforce to remain competitive in the global market.
As Deputy Prime Minister Heng has shared in his Ministerial Statement, compared with last year, passenger traffic has fallen by more than 98% in August. This has had a huge impact on the livelihoods of many Singaporeans. I am in support to rebuild and grow our physical and digital connectivity.
Our position as an airhub is not only important to those working in airlines such as SIA. Our position as an airhub is a strategic economic asset as it serves as a conduit for other industries and it is the source of livelihoods for many of our fellow Singaporeans in dependent industries.
Take for example, the following residents in Pasir Ris. Mr Faizal Sains, father of seven, a licensed aircraft engineer who works in the maintenance, repair and overhaul industry. Mr Ahmad Khalili, father of two, who works for a major airframer and ensures aircrafts for airlines from across the world, not just SIA, are dispatched safely and reliably. The Tan family – Mr Tan drives a taxi and Mrs Tan is a tour agent whose family has to deal with more than 50% drop in their income. Mr Foo, who sells prepaid telephone card supporting his 80-year-old mother and his income has since significantly dropped because there is no demand for prepaid cards by local Singaporeans. And many similar Singaporeans families whose livelihoods are dependent on Singapore's status as an airhub.
While Minister Ong, shared the plans for us to safely, and in a controlled way, open up our borders to protect our livelihoods, it is also important that as a community, we come to the realisation that it is our collective social responsibility to ensure that the safe management measures are adhered to, in order to protect each other.
As we look beyond our shores, we see countries such as Australia, South Korea and Japan hit by the second wave of infections. As we open up, we must work together in order to minimise the risk of that happening in Singapore. We must not let our guard down and slip into complacency. We must be psychologically prepared to overcome the challenges that still loom ahead.
Businesses such as restaurants, cafés, shops and workplaces must ensure that safe management measures such as sufficiently-distanced tables and chairs, are adhered to. We must continuously remind each other, to keep a social distance, wear a mask, practice SafeEntry and Tracetogether, because together, we can minimise the risk of infection and we can swiftly contain the episode in the event a transmission occurs.
As we work towards rebuilding our physical connectivity, we need to remain vigilant and protect both our lives and livelihood.
As we aspire towards an inclusive and resilient society with a dynamic and growing economy, we need to incorporate the lessons learnt from this pandemic and integrate these lessons into the Industry Transformation Map. We must take actions now that will allow us to not just get through COVID-19, but more crucially, transform and prepare us for our next lap of inclusive economic growth.
With six of 10 of us Singaporeans working as PMETs, the past six months have been the biggest exercise in redesigning jobs and reassessing the way we define work. Many of us have not been back to office, yet we remain productive. To cite an example, one of the Pasir Ris residents, Mr Ismail, is in his late 30s, smart and gets around in a wheelchair as he lost his foot to diabetes. Working from home, behind a computer, he is equally, if not more capable of performing an office-based job just like everyone else.
The past six months have taught us that for some jobs, it also did not matter that you start working remotely at 8 am at home or work every single minute including extended hours. We found a way to remain equally productive in this new flexible environment.
Can this provide an opportunity for care-givers, who need to have more flexible work schedule to take care of their young and the seniors? Could this also be the solution for mothers or fathers, who gave up their career and now want to rejoin the workforce while still taking care of their loved ones?
We must incorporate these lessons learnt, to provide more equal employment opportunities for the seniors, less-abled as well as care-givers seeking employment such that Singaporeans will benefit from the inclusiveness of employment opportunities and there is a place for these each and every Singaporeans in our industry transformation. This is an opportunity to relook at how we work closer with help-groups such as SGEnable and Agency of Integrated Care or AIC to ensure that there is a place for all Singaporeans in our inclusive growth.
COVID-19, new technology and digitalisation will also bring about structural changes that will give rise to unemployment and place greater pressure on the vulnerable lower wage workers.
Hence, it is important that the Tripartite Working Group, comprising of MOM, NTUC and SNEF, work together to expedite the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model across other sectors. Through the Industry Transformation Map, the Tripartite Working Group can chart out opportunities and create stepping stones for the vulnerable groups to upskill and go up the ladder so that they have a lower risk of being redundant in the future.
One example could be for the pump attendants who tend to comprise our senior workers. I had a very interesting conversation with my 12-year-old daughter earlier this week. My daughter asked, “Dad, what will happen to the Uncle at the pump station when all cars are electric?” That got me thinking. As we move from hybrid to electric cars with our goal of phasing out vehicles with internal combustion engines, what will happen to these pump attendants, petrol station clerks and similar lower wage workers in industries that are undergoing transformation even as I speak?
This is where the Progressive Wage Model complemented by the Workfare Skills Support Scheme and other needs-based social safety nets such as ComCare and KiFAS will be able to help lower wage workers with needs-based support. More importantly, these initiatives help to provide the stepping stones to train and increase the skillset of these lower wage workers to prepare for the changes to their respective industries that lay just beyond the horizon.
When the majority of us are working from home, we took a while, but we managed to reach the a new norm. Many found that the savings from commuting time can be productively used as exercising time or time for the family. A study by EngageRocket, in partnership with Singapore Human Resource Institute and Human Resource Professionals showed that nine of 10 employees shared that they would like to continue with some form of remote working as a new way of working. This new norm on the way of working could improve our worklife balance and quality of life as we are able to use the time more productively.
Remote working has brought many opportunities. However, it brings additional challenges. In the past six months, while we have enjoyed working from our our homes in Pasir Ris, Punggol or Jurong, it also means that our jobs can be done anywhere else in the world. Whether it is in Pasir Ris or a cafe in India, for example, PMET job competition is no longer confined within Singapore. The challenges our PMETs face is no longer a question of quota to protect our jobs but rather how do we ensure the Singaporean workforce is competitive in the global market. Global companies will be looking at how the Singaporean workforce create additional value. This is no longer a question of lowest cost but one of creating best value to maintain the competitive edge and remain relevant in the global workforce market.
The pandemic has shown that digital capabilities represent the game changer to open markets and opportunities for businesses which then creates jobs and ensures that jobs are preserved. Companies that leverage on these digital capabilities and evolve their business model have been able to survive and unlock growth during this downturn. Take for example, the company cited by Deputy Prime Minister Heng, Decks Pte Ltd which increased its sales tenfold after it revamped its e-commerce platform.
As much as it is about increasing the workers digital skillset, it is also important for us to look at the mindset, and the ability to leverage on these opportunities that are available. We need to equip our workforce with the softer skills of change management in driving changes to the workplace. To quote Charles Darwin, “It is not the strongest or most intelligent who will survive, but those who can best manage change.”
This is especially true in at this juncture, as we, in Singapore, will have to transform to not only just get through COVID-19, but more crucially, gain strategic advantages that prepare us for the next stage of economic growth.
With the right skillset and mindset, we need to leverage on these opportunities to drive the change. We have invested heavily in SkillsFuture courses. As we look at assessing the training providers and courses, the effectiveness of SkillsFuture courses should not only be based on attendance or the number of courses taught but rather it should also be assessed on its ability to drive real changes.
We must structure and integrate training with business solutioning to support business performance and industry transformation. One example is a course I attended on Lean Six Sigma Blackbelt. It is an operational excellence course and in order to receive the course subsidy and certification, the attendee will have to prove that he has brought improvements to drive a $1 million cost saving for the organisation.
This same concept can be applied for digital courses. An example would be for a company to receive full subsidy if the attendee to the course can show proof that they have led the change and contributed in some form to the digital transformation for the company
These are just some examples of how we can integrate training with business solutioning so that our investment in resource, both time and money, is able to generate change.
I would like to thank our fellow Parliamentarian Mr Yip Hon Weng for the question he asked earlier, how can Singapore workforce remain competitive with remote working. With the right skillset, the right mindset and working together to leverage on the opportunity the Singapore eco-system brings, we need to drive this change, this game changing transformation to develop the competitive edge for economy and our workforce. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As we rebuild and re-establish our physical connectivity, we need to be cognisant of the importance of doing so in a safe and controlled manner. Businesses and the general public must continue to maintain our psychological resilience and not be complacent about the safe management measures that should be implemented. Among others, businesses such as restaurants, cafes and shops, as well as workplaces must ensure safe management measures are adhered to.
In our efforts to rebuild physical connectivity, we need to protect both our lives and our livelihoods. We need to use the lessons learnt from this pandemic and apply it to the Industry Transformation Maps. For example, working from home has changed the employment structure
We have to learn from this experience and re-design jobs to provide inclusive growth opportunities for older and less able workers. We need to provide equal job opportunities for the elderly, the disabled as well as caregivers who are seeking employment. This is to ensure that there is a place for these Singaporeans in our Industry planning and they can also reap the benefits of this inclusive job opportunity.
Structural changes will cause workers to lose their jobs and exert greater pressure on workers who are more vulnerable to these changes
We should support the Tripartite Working Group. We need to accelerate the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model for certain industries and provide opportunities for more vulnerable groups of workers to upgrade their skills.
While working from home has created many opportunities, it is also accompanied by several additional challenges. Competition for PMET jobs is no longer limited to Singapore alone. This means that the question of foreign worker quotas becomes less relevant when compared to the need to ensure that Singaporeans remain competitive in the global job market.
To ensure that we remain competitive in the global market, we need to have the right skills, the right way of thinking and the ability to seize the opportunities available
We need to equip our workforce with soft skills, such as change management, to implement changes at work. To quote Charles Darwin: \"The one who survives is not the strongest or the most intelligent, but it is the one who can best manage change\".
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, in summary, as we rebuild and grow our physical connectivity, it is our collective social responsibility to ensure that we protect our lives and our livelihood. As we aspire towards an inclusive and resilient society with a dynamic and growing economy, we need to incorporate the lessons learnt from this pandemic towards creating inclusive growth.
This pandemic is often called the crisis-of-a-generation. However, many have also called this, an opportunity-of-a-generation. With the right skillset, right mindset and leveraging on opportunities that are available, we can transform, our future, and together, we will emerge from this stronger.
On that note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion by Deputy Prime Minister Heng.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, Sir, in my Unity Budget debate speech in March this year, I spoke on the theme of environmental resiliency and the need to set a bold green agenda to guide Singapore's trajectory development.
Deputy Prime Minister Heng said in his Unity Budget speech in February this year that we must address climate change. He said that we will be updating our commitment to the Paris Agreement and take a further step to chart our vision for low carbon sustainable future Singapore.
Even as the Government tackle the effects of COVID on our economy and attempt to mitigate its effect and work on the recovery of our economy, we must concurrently work on our efforts to address the climate emergency. We cannot afford to do less. This is not merely because we have timelines and obligations under the Paris Agreement, we also have to keep playing our part to address the climate emergency in the meantime. We cannot afford to let COVID crisis distract, delay or derail us from our pledge to the 36% cut on emissions intensity by 2030.
Our COVID recovery efforts and policies must also be sustainable and be planned with sustainability in mind. The importance of sustainability at the forefront of economic recovery should not be underestimated. The World Economic Forum has, in fact, called on all countries to pursue and I quote, \"a great reset, a commitment to build a fairer, more sustainable and more resilient future following the COVID crisis\". I cannot agree more.
May I take the opportunity to ask the Government for an update on our efforts in the past seven to eight months since the Unity Budget and for an assurance that Singapore is on track to meet our goals and timelines for the Paris Agreement.
I next move on to certain issues relating to helping those affected by COVID. Last month, I had asked in a Parliamentary Question whether there will be further assistance for the self-employed beyond the Self-employed Relief Scheme or SIRS. Minister Josephine Teo said that MOM would study the possibility of extending SIRS. Last Monday Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat said in his Ministerial Statement that the Government is studying the support for the self-employed workers who are most vulnerable and will provide an update before the end of the year.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome these announcements and I am sure self-employed Singaporeans who still require assistance will be eyeing the outcome of the Government's deliberations.
Meanwhile, I would like to urge the Government to some more of the self-employed Singaporeans who still need help and who have hitherto not receive any assistance at all.
Firstly, I like the Government to consider granting limited assistance to at least some of the self-employed Singaporeans who have hitherto been ineligible for SIRS. In some of the SIRS cases I did for my residents, I noticed that cases have, for example, been rejected if in the previous year the applicants have been earning salary of more than $2,300 dollars a month or who have not been earning trade income.
Applicants may not have declared trade income in 2019 primarily because they have just started business in that year and have sunk start-up costs into their venture. Income may not become immediately upon starting up a business. It may take time. In some of these cases, they were hoping for business to take off and trade income to come this year. Unfortunately, the COVID crisis took place this year instead and had serious effects on their business. That is why they need help from the Government.
Others were turned away because their spouse recorded income of more than $70,000 last year or the annual value of their condo has exceeded the annual value limit. For many of these people, they have endured much of this year and face the year-end closing with dwindled savings, and worst, and mounting business and household debts or expenses and worse still, little prospect of their bleak business outlook coming to an end soon.
I urge the Government to provide some support to some of these Singaporeans who may have narrowly fallen short the current criteria under SIRS but who may still need help. This is especially if they can show that despite their best efforts in sustaining or restoring the fortunes of their businesses, they are still not out of the woods, or if they can show that they are also actively looking for a job or are undergoing courses to retrain or upgrade themselves.
The Government can consider giving them a lower level of grant as compared to the full payout under the scheme to give allowance to the fact that they had originally not complied with the original criteria of the scheme.
Unless the Government explicitly expects some of these affected to sell their properties to raise funds, the challenges that many such Singaporeans face cannot be underestimated nor disregarded. How long can they last? Moreover, many in this category have shared that in better times, they have been contributing by paying a higher level of taxes. In their hour of need, surely, some consideration must be given to that.
Separately, a resident of mine who owns a discotheque expresses deep concerns about the continuing closure or restrictions on businesses like his. Businesses like his, including clubs and bars, see no end in sight in the restrictions imposed on them. At the same time, they have to continue to pay rent and salaries. I would like to ask whether the Government has any update for these businesses and whether they will be getting any additional assistance.
This crisis has also exposed some shortfalls of how our current eco-system may not assist some who have got into trouble because of COVID-19. For example, a constituent of mine is trying to come back from abroad with her two children due to the COVID-19 situation. Job prospects here for her are not good, to say the least, and she does not expect to find a job immediately. She cannot afford to rent commercially. She did not have a relatively high income in the past years but her earnings rendered her ineligible for subsidised HDB rental. She was told to buy a BTO but we all know from present BTO waiting times that she is not likely to get a new BTO at once. Buying a resale flat may pose a difficult financial hurdle. What should a person in her position do?
Next, the Government has announced last week that parents with Singaporean children born from 1 October this year to 30 September 2022 can get a one-off $3,000 grant to help them defray the costs of raising a child amid the pandemic. A resident wrote to me over the weekend. He and his wife just had their first baby in August this year. They are baffled that the grant will only apply to parents with children born from 1 October. They had thought that the grant was meant to provide support to new parents during the pandemic period.
My resident told me that if the purpose of this grant is to encourage new births amidst the crisis, then the grants should apply to births in nine or 10 months from this month. He emphasised by that having the start date from 1 October, it has \"selectively ignored parents who were impacted the most as we do face the same problems or even more than those parents who have their babies from 1 October\". He asked, \"why were they included for the support and us, who had our babies months earlier, were neglected?\" He felt disheartened that \"the Government has chosen to ignore us who are directly impacted by the pandemic.\"
I hope that the Government will extend the grant to all children born from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, from February 2020 onwards. Parents who gave birth to children in this period had to bare the brunt of the difficult challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my concerns, I support the Supplementary Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I register my appreciation for the Government's many efforts to protect Singaporeans' livelihoods. This is important as we face rising unemployment now. But I wish to raise some concerns related to helping Singaporeans to get new jobs, especially for our seniors.
I was struck by Prof David Chan's comments at a recent forum by the National Library Board on \"Living with the Pandemic\" and in his recent book \"Combating a Crisis\". I am sure they resonate with Members as you meet many Singaporeans at your Meet-the-People Sessions and during your house visits. Prof Chan described how the pandemic has uncovered new vulnerable groups. He also discussed how we need to better understand the reality from these groups' perspectives. This is so that we can work effectively with them to navigate post-pandemic challenges.
Mr Speaker, Sir, one of these groups is Singaporeans above 40 years old at the middle to upper income levels. This group was earning a comfortable salary for many years. But they are now retrenched or had to close down their businesses. As such, they are often left on their own to deal with their unemployment and its many associated adverse effects. This is unlike those in lower paying jobs who have benefited from the many Government schemes.
Specifically, many in this age group have high mortgages to pay, schooling children and elderly to look after. The challenge for them is not just to get any job but one that gives them a minimal sustenance income. The common advice given is to adjust expectations, be less choosy. However, it is not so straightforward. Yes, luxuries can be cut out to reduce the financial burden. But if they are forced to take up a new job just to meet their basic needs, the individual ends up not having the time and capacity to retrain or to seek out a more relevant job. This is not optimal for him nor for the economy.
Take for example, Mr Tan, a 50-year-old father who stays in a terrace house in Yio Chu Kang. He came to see me at the Meet-the-People Session. He was recently retrenched from his five-figure monthly salary sales job. He told me he has gone for numerous job fairs and sent out many resumes. However, he still cannot land a job. He was hoping to find one with a salary of a few thousand dollars for his family to survive. He is now a Grab driver and he does not qualify for the SIRS scheme because of his housing type. I still remember his parting words to me at the Meet-the-People Session: \"I have been paying taxes all my life before this. Why is the Government not helping me now?\"
Some may continue to hold out for as long as they can. This is not because they are choosy with unreasonable expectations but because they need a job that can pay their minimum bills. For seniors, especially those supporting dependents who are in schools or universities, the stakes are even higher. It is well and good to say, \"Go for training, upgrade your skills\", but realistically, when you are in your 50s, 60s, with mounting bills and financial commitments, you do not have the luxury of time and resources to pursue a new career. To them, such exhortations are meaningless slogans. They may even be mistaken for a disconnection with ground realities.
To create real job opportunities that result in appropriate placements, we must do more to match the job nature with the jobseeker's knowledge, skills and other work-related characteristics. Yes, we now have many job vacancies in cybersecurity, data analytics, AI and so on. However, these are usually jobs that require deep technical skills. These skills cannot be acquired in a short time. This is especially so for those in their 40s and above, lacking the prerequisite technical skills.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the core of the problem: how do we quickly connect with employers who are prepared to offer jobs that come with training? I agree that employers have to be patient as their new employees get up to speed with the necessary knowledge and skill set. We can say it is short-term pain and long-term gain for the companies to embrace IT and to move on to the new post-COVID-19 era. But the reality is companies have practical finances and many other post-pandemic realities to deal with too. How can Government provide more targeted financial help to companies? What other effective drivers can we employ to change the situation quickly?
One way is for the Government to dedicate more resources to the job redesign initiatives. In this way, we can take a more proactive and structured approach to speed up transformation of growth sectors. How can jobs be redesigned to allocate wider scope, higher responsibilities, so that it can better fit someone who has some seniority in his previous career? In this regard, we need more tailored support as an extension from the Seniors Go Digital movement to help jobseekers improve their digital skills. It can even be something basic like enhancing their online job search and communication skills. This can be done, for example, via community classes to learn Excel skills or how to use Zoom effectively for team meetings.
In the same vein of using a targeted approach, it is heartening to learn that a new tripartite work group is being formed to look into improving the salaries and well-being of low-income workers. We need more focused and specific solutions to better address the challenges of workers in different sectors. In this way, we work towards increasing their wages and accessibility to training opportunities without risking the loss of jobs. This is especially important for older workers, many of whom may not be as educated but willing to work.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let us all learn to see things from another's perspective, discover more quickly what needs to be addressed and work towards having specific solutions to specific challenges. Sir, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, my speech today will focus on three interconnected areas of our economy where I believe further refinements can enhance our global competitiveness.
Firstly, I would like to touch on the interconnection between retaining local jobs with enterprises. The Jobs Support Scheme or JSS has clearly helped to save good jobs and kept many Singaporeans employed through this year. It does that by providing wage support to the employers, giving them the resources to retain their local employees when revenue has taken a severe beating this year.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
The extension of the JSS to March 2021 is a strategic necessity and I support the tapering of the JSS to ensure fiscal prudence as we look towards the long-term growth of the Singapore economy.
The next JSS payouts will be made in October 2020 and March 2021, with a six-month gap in between. I would like to suggest that an interim payout in December 2020, as it is necessary to enforce the interconnected value of the JSS to the enterprise's cash flow. Many companies are only beginning to see sustainable revenue returning. For other companies, they may need the cash flow support for their industry's uneven recovery. Such an intermediate payment will not increase any cost to the Government. It spreads out the payouts and instead increase the relevancy of the JSS in this next phase. Otherwise, the risk to these jobs will increase, which runs contrary to the goal of the JSS. I hope MOF will consider my suggestion to help enterprises during such economic uncertainty while focusing on the long-term growth of Singapore.
Secondly, I would like to focus on how we can build future industry roadmaps such that they take into consideration our connection with the region. The Industry Transformation Maps or ITMs were first launched as part of a $4.5 billion industry transformation package in Budget 2016. They were industry-specific roadmaps which aimed to take an integrated approach where trade associations and chambers, companies and the Government worked together to help each sector prepare for the future.
These ITMs are currently being reviewed to ensure relevance and effectiveness. I would like to propose that we frame ITMs 2.0 in the context of the region because this would be the right time for our industries to start building new capabilities that can immediately include broader opportunities beyond our shores.
Asia as a region will continue to grow even as COVID-19 has thrown a massive curveball. From North Asia to Southeast Asia and the Oceania region, the entire region is in the midst of a global re-orientation as it takes its cue from uncertainties from the US-China tensions. New supply chains are being reimagined as fast as new markets are emerging following the rapid uptake in digital transactions from the variety of circuit breakers or movement control orders employed by governments to contain the spread of COVID-19.
This is the time to prepare our industries to include the region in our bid for continued competitiveness. Singapore is already inking digital agreements, and new travel bubbles are on the cards.
ITMs 2.0 should include components where the region is integral. One obvious area would be to ensure that the Continuing Education and Training or CET as well as SkillsFuture components for each ITM include understanding the industry models of our neighbours, the supply chains in these countries, the ways of doing business and the cultural context of how things are done. Even language courses could be included as we need to be more connected at the people-to-people level for economic and social win-win outcomes.
Another area would be for the new ITMs to focus on our regional opportunities even more within the internationalisation component of the blueprints. Encouraging more cross-country business chamber collaborations or joint ventures in the co-creation of new products and services that can serve two or more cities could provide a larger market, even at the prototyping stage.
Making the region a core context of our ITMs rather than the \"next step\" would accelerate how our companies are thinking in this new decade. This crisis is the right moment to pivot our local enterprises away from a local mindset.
An added area under ITMs would be the welfare of our low-wage workers. Minister Josephine Teo mentioned about the formation of a new taskforce that will explore ways to raise the wages of our low-wage workers. While the ITMs are being reviewed to ensure its relevancy in the ever-changing environment, each ITM should also focus on the low-wage workers in their own industries. They should dovetail upskilling of these workers, thereby leading to higher wages with higher productivity.
Moreover, higher productivity should also lead to business sustainability. Businesses need to remain competitive and avoid passing on the cost to consumers. We must ensure both upskilling of our workers and business sustainability to avoid a case where a low-wage job becomes no job. This is especially so with the growing trends of automation. For example, the role of cashiers at supermarkets is needed lesser with auto check-out machines and cashless payments. These cashiers need to be upskilled and their jobs redesigned to take on higher value-added jobs so that they can continue to be employed, enjoying good wages with better skills and productivity. Hence, ITM 2.0 needs to ensure that as we push industries towards innovation, it has to be coupled with upskilling and job re-design to ensure our workers are not displaced.
My final area of focus would be to draw the all-important interconnection of technologies with design. While we encourage innovation driven by technology, we should also encourage innovation driven by design. We only have to look at countries, such as South Korea, Japan and Denmark, to appreciate how they have embraced both technological advancements with deep design capabilities resulting in innovation that has provided economic and societal returns for their citizens.
Design is the economic equivalent of creation with the user and customer at the core. It is about designing for specific needs of markets and segments so that real value can be unlocked. Design is also the skill to bring about integration and synthesis – how different technologies or platforms could be organised into appropriate economic units that are scale-able. Design capabilities are even more essential today when we look at how technologies have evolved. For example, we are now seeing how social and live commerce has cut into omni-channel sales because buyers are now showing signs that they prefer to purchase through existing well-designed social messaging platforms rather than another app.
I believe that we need to match our investments in technology with a renewed focus on design – a 21st century duet of design and technology where we draw the value out of these interconnected twin engines of growth. Just like how we do not isolate one specific technology from another, we must go beyond looking at design simply as vertical industries, such as publishing or furniture, but, rather, cross-sectional skillsets, such as interaction design and experience design. We must also go past buzzwords like \"design thinking\" to better appreciate the deeper substance of design, which is a serious academic discipline of creation that focuses on divergent and convergent problem-solving with the user and customer at the core.
Many of our Autonomous Universities and Polytechnics have already included design as a core curriculum. Even the recently announced proposed integration of the Faculty of Science with the Faculty of the Arts and Social Sciences at NUS will see design as one of the compulsory core modules. We need to deepen this capability inside companies and across industries so that new technologies can be even more successful. Design leaders and design departments need to be created to work with the strategy and digital functions of the business.
A good example of a local company that has brought design into its core business is DBS. DBS strives to be the \"Apple in banking\". DBS uses design methods and approaches to focus on serving customers better both in their digital services as well as in their branches. I am sure all of us have heard of ATMs. But I recently found and learned about BTMs – the Branch Teller Machine! DBS discovered that many senior residents were still queuing in their branches to withdraw cash because they value the traditional passbook over card-based ATMs. Hence, DBS created the BTMs where seniors can simply scan their passbooks to withdraw cash and still have their passbooks updated without having to wait for a physical counter to be available. This has shortened waiting times for seniors while continuing to provide the all-important psychological and emotional comfort for this segment of seniors who still want to use their passbooks. This BTM example shows the user-empathy element in interaction design when adopting technology. This is possible when technology solutions are designed and implemented with the customer at the core. Thus, DBS is able to be socially inclusive while still using technology to enable productivity of their business. I believe design is a critical partner for technology and this will further enhance our country's competitiveness in the economic sphere.
Our public service needs to embrace design in significant ways, too. I would like to urge IMDA, which is the lead agency for technology adoption, to build its own design capabilities so that all future roll-outs of new plans will have an even stronger design-empathy component in them. This could also be the right time for Design Singapore Council to undertake a strategic update of the Singapore Design Masterplan that was launched in 2016, considering how much has changed in just the last two years. Design 2025 would require new thinking, especially in the spheres of economic inter-connections and societal value creation.
I would like to conclude my speech by echoing Deputy Prime Minister Heng’s economic strategy for Singapore. We need a dynamic and growing economy to deliver our priorities as a society.
In a nutshell, we need to, one, ensure that our enterprises survive and grow to save jobs and livelihoods of Singaporeans. Enhancing the next phase of JSS with an interim payout in December will aid in this endeavour. Two, we must ensure that our next phase of ITMs is focused on cross-industry and border collaborations with a deeper cultural understanding of the growing Asia region. In addition, the new ITMs should also ensure the upskilling and job re-design of our low-wage workers while ensuring business sustainability. Three, we must augment innovation driven by two-fold engines – technology and design.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in this way, I am confident that Singapore can continue to retain and grow our competitive edge in today's fast-changing world and emerge stronger. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Ministerial Statement.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Fahmi Aliman.
Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, today, I would like to affirm my support for the Supplementary Supply Bill while speaking on how we can and must continue to support and uplift our low-wage workers.
During Budget 2020, it was announced that Singaporeans who had been receiving the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) payments for work done in 2019 will receive a Workfare Special Payment (WSP) of $3,000 in 2020, with the second tranche being paid out this month. This has been much welcomed by the WIS recipients.
Since the implementation of WIS in 2007, Singaporeans aged 35 and above in the bottom 20th-30th percentile of the workforce has received over $5.5 billion in support. This is an effort to be applauded, but we must continue to see how the scheme can better benefit our citizens and uplift the workers who need it the most.
I previously called for the Government to consider providing a higher WIS payout to workers in the essential services to acknowledge their actual social value and the hardship faced in their line of work. This has been even more prevalent in the last few months, where many of our essential service workers have stepped up to become our \"everyday heroes\", continuing to keep Singapore clean, green and safe. Perhaps, the Government can reconsider this suggestion with a view of giving these workers greater recognition.
Under the current structure, the WIS payout is dependent on the age and income of the worker. In general, this means that older workers and those with lower incomes will receive higher payouts.
This differentiation assumes that younger workers have greater potential to move up the career ladder and, with that, move up the wage ladder. The Government must study if this assumption still holds and consider lowering the age eligibility to 30 years old for workers to qualify for WIS.
While I do not discount that we should support our older workers, it does stand to reason that our younger workers may have dependants, such as elderly parents or young children, which can be a strain not only financially but also mentally. Any extra income that these workers receive from the WIS can make a difference to many families and workers with young children.
Another improvement to WIS is for the Government to consider having the payout to be the same across different age groups, based on the worker’s income, meaning that a 35- or 65-year-old worker earning the same salary, will receive the same payout quantum.
Mr Deputy Speaker, last month, Manpower Minister Josephine Teo had announced the PWM Mark to recognise companies which voluntarily pay their workers progressive and fair wages with good job advancement pathways. This is a step in the right direction in recognising that all of us, be it workers, employers, the Government and the greater community, have a part to play in creating an environment conducive to improve their work prospects.
The creation and implementation of the PWM Mark should involve unions, employers and the Government to ensure that the PWM Mark will take into consideration the specific circumstances of each occupation and industry. More importantly, each stakeholder should lead by example to be the first movers. Only then can we see PWM Mark gaining traction on the ground.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Another way to keep supporting our workers is for the Government to consider extending the Jobs Support Scheme or JSS.
The JSS has helped businesses and companies to retain local workers during this economic downturn and its impact should not be underestimated. As mentioned previously, more than half of the jobs that were saved are due to the JSS alone.
While this should be commended, the Government should consider extending the JSS beyond March 2021 especially in industries where the impact of COVID-19 is more keenly felt. A large number of these industries are industries with a large proportion of low-wage workers such as the retail sector, or the food and beverage sector.
This measure can help us save jobs for our local workers, while we are slowly and cautiously rebuilding the economy.
As I mentioned earlier, the WIS has supported many low-wage workers by providing additional income to them. I urge the Government to continue looking at how the scheme can benefit more workers, such as through higher WIS payouts to workers in essential services, as an acknowledgement of the hardship faced in their line of work, especially during this COVID-19 period. The Government may also wish to reconsider the assumption that younger workers should get lower WIS payouts as they are more likely to get wage increments.
In addition, I am very much encouraged by the PWM Mark so that companies that pay progressive and fair wages to their workers will be recognised. Workers, employers, Government and the community are all playing a part in creating a better environment for our vulnerable workers. I would like to encourage more companies to participate once the scheme is ready.
(In English): In conclusion, as Deputy Prime Minister Heng mentioned, we are currently in the “test of a generation”. I echo his sentiments that there is light at the end of the tunnel for us as a country to emerge not only stronger and more united, but also emerge as a society with more empathy who believe in creating a fair society for future generations.
But we are not out of the woods as yet and we must remember not to leave behind those who are most vulnerable in our society.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Ministerial Statement.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Mr Alvin Tan.
The Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth and Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan): Mr Deputy Speaker, COVID-19 has disrupted the lives and livelihoods of Singaporeans and has also brought us together.
I would like to thank everyone for cooperating with the safety guidelines and regulations and taking the necessary precautions to curb the spread of COVID-19.
This has been a difficult journey for all of us and, because of all of our collective sacrifices and effort, we have managed to flatten the COVID-19 infections curve and have kept the number of community infections low.
Based on MTI’s advance estimates released today, the Singapore economy contracted by 7% on a year-on-year basis in the third quarter of 2020. This was an improvement from the 13.3% contraction in the second quarter and came on the back of the phased re-opening of our economy following the circuit breaker. But we are coming from a low base. Notwithstanding the improved performance in the third quarter, the recovery path ahead is expected to be slow and uneven across sectors.
As the COVID-19 situation here in Singapore stabilises, we have the opportunity to reopen our economy safely, in a careful and calibrated manner. And the importance of reopening in a careful and calibrated manner cannot be overly emphasised, as the hon Members Mr Louis Chua and Mr Sharael Taha had mentioned earlier.
But since we exited the Circuit Breaker on 2 June, we have been resuming more activities in a safe and progressive manner. We are currently in Phase Two and have reopened most of our economy, subject to safe management measures in place.
About 95% of businesses are now allowed to resume operations and more people are returning to office. About two weeks ago, we took another significant step towards restoring economic activity. We allowed more employees who have been working from home to return to their workplaces for up to half their working time. We have also allowed work-related events at the workplace to resume.
But as we strive to maintain Singapore’s position as a business and transport hub, we are progressively reopening our borders. We are establishing reciprocal green lanes to conduct essential travel with other countries and regions and with the necessary safeguards in place to ensure the safety of Singaporeans and our international visitors.
We are piloting new concepts to support our businesses in this new operating environment. These efforts will allow us to play a role in setting the global standards required to resume activities safely. A couple of examples.
The first is cruise. Some cruise lines will soon start to operate cruises, under stringent hygiene and safety measures, for safe cruising. To ensure the highest hygiene and safety standards, Singapore is one of the first countries in the world to develop and implement a mandatory audit and certification programme for cruise lines. A CruiseSafe certification is required before a cruise can commence sailing, and cruise lines which have been allowed to operate have since reported an overwhelming number of bookings received.
We have also begun pilots of events and activities with a larger number of attendees. For instance, we are piloting the resumption of MICE events of up to 250 attendees. Under STB’s Safe Business Events Framework, event organisers are required to demonstrate their ability to meet specified health and safety outcomes before they are allowed to pilot events. We will continue to adapt and adjust our protocols and assess how we can allow more large-scale events to proceed.
Critically, we have also ramped up our testing capability and capacity and we are evaluating alternative tests and sampling methods as they become available, to ensure they can be deployed safely and effectively.
In the immediate term, countries that manage the COVID-19 situation best can reap economic dividends, as they will be able to minimise any further disruptions to lives and livelihoods. To do so, our business and community must continue to stay vigilant and exercise social responsibility as we resume more activities.
Sir, in the past few months, many businesses have benefited from the schemes and programmes that we rolled out earlier this year to help them tide over the immediate challenges.
For instance, our loan schemes have helped firms to address immediate cash flow issues. I want to update the House that as of September 2020, more than 18,000 enterprises have taken up loans under the ESG’s loan scheme, such as the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme. As announced earlier this week, we are further extending and calibrating the loan schemes to ensure enterprises can continue to access financing for their cash flow, trade activities and project needs.
At the same time, there is a pressing need to help businesses build new capabilities, as Members have shared earlier, and adapt to new realities because there is no going back to a pre-COVID world. So, we are encouraged that many businesses have taken the opportunity to strengthen their capabilities and capture growth opportunities. For those that need it, they can get support available through grants, such as Productivity Solutions Grant, Enterprise Development Grant and Market Readiness Assistance.
Since the start of this year, ESG has supported over 28,000 projects under these schemes to help our companies increase productivity, build new capabilities and expand overseas. We have also announced enhancements to these schemes, as we continue to support companies to tap new sources of growth and adjust to the new operating environment.
For instance, we are expanding the scope of the Market Readiness Assistance grant to include support for participation in virtual trade fairs, so that companies can find new business opportunities overseas without any physical travel.
But as I have said earlier, our economic recovery will be uneven. So, some sectors will progressively recover, while others will have to pivot or restructure. That is the reality. We must, therefore, also ensure, as Members have suggested, that our assistance is more nuanced and targeted.
MTI looks at the firms in three broad areas. First, for the firms in sectors with good growth prospects, such as biomedical manufacturing, we will help them scale faster and create more jobs for our workers. For firms the second bucket where they are in sectors that are facing a temporary drop in demand due to COVID-19 but will eventually recover, such as F&B and aerospace manufacturing, we will help them to preserve capabilities, consolidate capacity and tide them through this period. Third, for firms in sectors which have changed permanently, such as social entertainment, we will help them to pivot into new markets and businesses.
Earlier on, the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan had mentioned about discotheques. I just wanted to say that since March 2020, pubs, bars, nightclubs, discotheques and karaoke lounges have not been allowed to operate as their operations pose higher risks of transmission arising from prolonged contact over a period of time. But I wanted to assure the House that the Government has been in consultation with the night life industry and we are finalising the support measures to assist them with the affected firms and employees and we will announce more details shortly.
But moving forward, we need to reposition our economy to capture these new opportunities and support our enterprises as they transform and restructure. We must also set our sights on capturing new growth trends brought to the fore by COVID-19 and by positioning Singapore as a global-Asia node for technology, innovation and enterprise – the points raised by Members Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Jessica Tan.
But in an increasingly complex global economy, we will not compromise on our hard-won reputation as a safe, trusted and well-connected business hub for companies and workers to pursue growth. We have a good foundation; we have worked hard to create the right macro-conditions for cross-border trade and investments and innovation – even at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. What is critical is that we have kept our supply chains going, our businesses open and ensured that goods and services continued to flow freely and efficiently through Singapore and we will continue to do so. In MTI's discussions with foreign chambers and businesses, they have recognised these efforts and deeply appreciate our commitment to a free and open trading system.
Earlier, Member Ms Jessica Tan had mentioned about the new economic space in an increasingly digital world. This is very important as our interactions with the global marketplace of digital ideas are critical for new opportunities. I will share about how we will help businesses tap onto these new growth opportunities beyond our region.
First, we have been working on the Digital Economy Agreement which complements our network of Free Trade Agreements by establishing international rules, setting benchmarks and aligning standards in areas of digital trade. Singapore signed its first two Digital Economy Agreements this year with Chile, New Zealand and also with Australia. As we will do so with more partners. This supports the interoperability of Singapore’s digital platforms and systems, such as e-payments or e-invoicing on digital identities, with those in other countries. It is very important that we smooth this out with different countries and we have mutual recognition and standards of interoperability. Why? This will allow our companies, especially SMEs, to internationalise and do business overseas.
We will continue to encourage innovation and support companies in the journey to develop new products and solutions. This will enable us to capture new opportunities, especially those led by changing preferences and needs, for example, consumer needs. I think somebody mentioned earlier about purchasing online. For instance, the growing concerns about supply chain disruptions and climate change have led, for example, to the demand for sustainability-related products.
The hon Member Ms Cheryl Chan spoke of the agri-food industry earlier on. I would like to assure her that MTI is focused on developing this sector and playing the role, as she mentioned, of the catalyst, and we are taking on an active role.
Last week, I had an overseas trip to St John's Island where I visited the Singapore Food Agency’s Marine Aquaculture Centre. The Marine Aquaculture Centre houses a cluster of companies set up to innovate sustainable aquaculture solutions. So, they are feeding shrimps, sea bass and others. It is a sustainable recirculating aquaculture system or RAS, as they call it. One of the companies was Adisseo, which announced the set-up of its first-in-the-world Global Aquaculture Research station in Singapore. This research station will focus on innovative nutrition, health and technologies to develop optimised aquaculture feed solutions for the region and beyond.
Another example is homegrown start-up TurtleTree Labs, which uses biotech to recreate the full composition, functionality and taste of milk in a lab environment. This method of producing milk is 95% less resource consumptive, as compared to regular milk production practices. It is an example of a novel solution towards sustainable dairy production globally and could potentially strengthen Singapore's long-term food diversification efforts.
So, we will continue to build on our public investment in research and innovation through the Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2025 plan. We will take into account shifts in the COVID-19 situation, as we guide public sector R&D to identify critical technologies for Singapore and drive solutions that will meet the changing needs of Singapore and our global partners. That is on the business side.
For workers, as we restructure our economy and seek new growth opportunities, some jobs and livelihoods will be affected but the Government will continue to work closely with our workers, businesses and industry partners to help them seize the new opportunities available.
On their end, our workers must also keep an open mind and be nimble to capture opportunities, including entering sectors which are new to them. And as a Government, we will support our workers as they pick up new skills and prepare for new opportunities. We have been doing so through the SkillsFuture Credit programmes under SGUnited Jobs and Skills package and WSG's Professional Conversion Programmes or PCPs.
But at the same time, our businesses must also do all they can to retrain workers, retain and treat them fairly. And we will support them as we do so. For instance, businesses can use the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit to cover their expenses on workforce transformation initiatives, including job redesigning and training for workers. The Jobs Growth Incentive also provides salary support to encourage businesses especially those which are expanding, to hire more local employees, which the Minister for Manpower had mentioned earlier.
We have been working industry partners, including Trade Associations and Chambers or TACs, and unions, to provide valuable support in this journey. So, you are not alone. I will give you an example. For instance, the extensive network and industry knowledge enable these TACs to reach out to companies and workers to facilitate job matching and training.
An example is the Singapore Semiconductor Industry Association or SSIA, who I spoke to a couple of weeks ago. SSIA has been working with WSG on a Professional Conversion Programme to attract jobseekers who are new to the electronics industry, and this is a growing industry. SSIA also partnered training institutes like Singapore Polytechnic and the NUS School of Continuing and Lifelong Education to train and re-skill the workers as they make a career switch. Since 2016, SSIA has facilitated the placement of over 1,200 workers into the electronics industry through the programme. And we will continue to help our businesses and workers to adjust and transform.
Our journey is fraught with challenges, as businesses and workers will need to make painful but necessary adjustments to adapt and to transform. But as I mentioned in my maiden speech, Singaporeans are no strangers to difficulties and challenges since our nation's founding. We have been through many ups and downs over the years, but we have always risen above the challenges and bounced back from adversity. We will continue to press on with resilience and will overcome this challenge together.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we face immense challenges. COVID continues to cause massive disruptions to many industries. As we hope for normalcy and eventual recovery, we must expect that recovery will not be uniform. For some, the impact of COVID will have permanence. Some countries will recover faster and with less disruptions. A few will face more permanent dislocation. We can already observe shifts that will affect us with permanence: the changes in the nature of retail, the realignment of supply chains with reshoring of capabilities, how educational services are being delivered, and the rise of teleworking – just to name a few.
What does it mean for us? There are a few things to think about.
The world has become more global, more digitally connected, sophisticated and culturally attuned to global competition. And at the same time, the world has also become more localised where circumstances have forced corporations and governments to rethink their strategies to build local economic resilience. With such a backdrop, how do we build up our local SMEs to become regional and global champions? For us to do well, we must be able to stack the competencies of different industries to build services and products. We have much unrealised potential in Singapore that has the legs for expansion.
One of these local SME is BH Global. When it first started in 1963, it was a small hardware company selling electrical products. It has evolved. The mass fever screening equipment that you see at Changi Airport is locally produced by them. Today, it is being deployed worldwide in major airports in Europe, US, UK, India, Kuwait and many more. I wanted to suggest to them that they should start printing the Singapore flag on their product. BH is continuing with this strategy of stacking different competencies, for example, cybersecurity for ships, advanced materials for marine sustainability.
The true productivity gains of our Singapore companies must be their ability to develop cross industry solutions, to be able to stack different competencies and develop high value products and services to compete regionally and globally.
In Singapore, we have strong and diverse competencies within a small geographical area. We are better poised to collaborate and leverage on one another's strength. As the African proverb states: \"If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.\" We must move away from focusing on being faster, cheaper and better. We must develop an eco-system to enable Singapore companies to move into high value, differentiated markets.
Closely related to our survival is sustainable infrastructure. We are now increasingly aware of the dire impact of climate change. This includes food shortages, large-scale human migration, threat to our coral reefs and extreme weather events.
An area of growing interest is the concept of a circular economy: resources are being recycled in a loop to maximise their value. One such example is the collaboration between Sports Singapore and Dow to upcycle 300,000 pairs of used shoes into sports infrastructure, such as jogging tracks, fitness areas and playgrounds.
According to the World Green Building Council, building and construction account for 39% of all carbon emissions in the world and with buildings' operational emission accounting for 28%. We must be strive to look into more sustainable methods of construction, such as the use of steel structures. They are usually stronger, lighter and easier to recycle.
Steel buildings can almost be entirely recycled. The rails, frames and cladding can be melted to make new steel, and this takes three times less energy than making new ones. The concrete floors for steel structures can be much thinner than regular concrete floors, and the salvage rate for such buildings is around 94%. It enables manpower savings of up to 20%, allows flexibility in design with less columns and load-bearing walls, less dust and smoke at construction sites and is environmentally sustainable.
Another sustainable action is to be deliberate in building new infrastructure. This means not demolishing existing structures unless we really need to. We should look into the conservation or to design future buildings to enable modular upgrades, lifespan extension and to be retrofitted for other purposes. South Beach Tower and our National Gallery Singapore are noteworthy projects.
Repurposing and integrating conservation buildings can be environmentally sustainable and modern. For example, in London, one of the world's most prestigious art galleries, the Tate Modern, is located at a former power station on the banks of the River Thames. By deploying modern technology, it uses 54% less energy and generate 44% less carbon today with natural air circulation and advanced temperature controls.
The recent proposal to conserve Golden Mile is also noteworthy. Another consideration is conserving and repurposing the “zhap tze yit lau” Diamond Blocks located in Jurong. Both Golden Mile and the Diamond Blocks have the potential to become the hallmark of conservation and sustainability.
I recall vividly a number of Singaporeans had expressed a sense of loss over the demolition of existing structures over the years. Demolition for progress and development is crucial to land-scare Singapore. But as we grapple with ways to feel connected with our heritage and in our aspiration to protect the environment, we should explore with increasing urgency the alternatives.
Like recycled steel, we constantly recast ourselves for the future but deeply aware of our history that made us who we are. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Ministerial Statement.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Motion. It is hard to imagine that when this year started, COVID-19 was still a little known virus in China and it seemed to be largely contained at that time. I looked back at my Facebook page and still saw happy gatherings and get-togethers at the beginning of the year. Barely 10 months later, the world is a different place. Many have lost and continue to lose loved ones to the virus. Globally, the number stands at 38 million infected people and 1.09 million people have died. Global travel has frozen and all across the world, economic contraction is the reality. For those who have not been directly impacted by the virus, livelihoods remain a key concern.
Much has been mentioned in this debate about the uneven impact of the virus. And one of the most stark example of this is perhaps the US. The US is the country with the largest number of cases and the largest number of deaths from the virus. Yet, at the same time, US stock market indices continue to make new highs. What this really shows is that there are many companies that continue to thrive even as others in this virus. This is what the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter would have called creative destruction. There are new businesses coming up, they innovate and break the mould even as old ones suffered and get destroyed. The gains in the US markets are largely driven by tech stocks that were not only unaffected by COVID-19, but in fact have thrived in that environment.
Against this backdrop, Singapore has done remarkably well in its fight against COVID-19. From early on, a Ministerial Committee was formed which met regularly and coordinated decision making with a focus to contain the virus. Coordinated efforts were taken as the need arose. And if we look back, the developments in this was really quite significant. It started with guidance, eventually, restrictions became more serious as the spread of the virus grew in Singapore, culminating in a two-months circuit breaker where many of us remained at home.
As a result of all these efforts, although we had a spike in cases, largely from a combination of Singaporeans returning from abroad as well as a spread in the dormitories, fatality rates were kept low and are amongst the lowest in the world. Our testing rates are now amongst the highest as a percentage of the population and we had expanded our medical capacity so that everyone who needed medical attention would be able to get it.
At the same time, the economic impact of COVID-19 has been significantly cushioned by the Government. The wide range of measures provided – from jobs support packages for employers, rental reliefs for businesses and supplementary income for both employees and the self-employed – has provided many Singaporean businesses the ability to stay afloat and provided many Singaporeans with money to spend even if their income has dropped. This is important because if businesses shutter, then when the economy recovers, there may be significant gaps and recovery may be stalled.
Life is slowly becoming more normal, and while wearing masks has now become part of our lives, most Singaporeans are otherwise returning to work and more and more businesses are opening doors and resuming. Some sectors remain under significant pressure, including travel and tourism, as well as those related to oil and gas. Singaporean businesses also continue to be under pressure and as Government support is taken away, things may get more difficult, which is why it is important to continue to provide some buffer for them to stay in business.
Against this backdrop, I believe these latest Budget measures provide a well-thought through suite of measures focused on economic continuity. I think it rightly recognises that performance across sectors is uneven and provides tailored support as needed. So, in sectors such as aviation, retail and tourism, support packages, which include the Enhanced Aviation Support Package, which is a temporary redeployment scheme for affected employees so that they can still get jobs at the moment while at the same time, they get to return to the industry if it recovers.
The wage support packages for hiring new employees are helpful, particularly for companies in the start-up sector, as it helps share the risk of hiring new workers. That greater support is given for hiring workers above 40 or workers with disabilities is also a good incentive to help groups that may otherwise have a harder time finding jobs.
The lifeline of businesses is of course credit and the bridging loan programme supported by MAS continues to provide businesses with credit lines even as the outlook remains uncertain. The low interest rate environment is also helpful as this keeps the cost of borrowing lower for businesses.
I would also like to congratulate the National Jobs Council for curating 117,500 opportunities as at end of August. Given that we do not know when hard hit sectors will recover and given the current warnings that the economic scarring is likely to take full effect in the coming months om the MAS, I think it is important for us to continue to create new opportunities so that displaced workers can find new jobs.
While “creative destruction” is a necessary component of development and progress, as a Government, I think we can help our people to continue with their lives even if the businesses they are working in get disrupted and they are forced to change.
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will deliver the first half of my speech in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to express my support for the Supplementary Supply Bill and thank Deputy Prime Minister Heng for his Ministerial Statement. Deputy Prime Minister's statement emphasised developing Singapore into a Global-Asia node of technology, innovation and enterprise which will be supported by a strong, skilled and yet inclusive workforce. I am very much encouraged by the plans to prepare our nation for the next phase as we emerge from the uncertainty of the past few months. We are not out of the woods yet but we must stay positive, do our best, and work hard for our future.
I am inspired and moved by the many Singaporeans who are taking brave steps to learn new skills, take on new jobs, and adapt to a very different world.
I am grateful for the unity and cooperation of Singaporeans and residents during this difficult time. Unlike some parts of the world which are polarised over measures to contain the virus, we are working together to overcome this pandemic based on scientific advice, logic and common sense. People from all walks of life are putting up with inconveniences and making sacrifices for the greater good.
All these qualities put us in good stead for the future. I am confident that we can achieve the goal of remaking Singapore as a Global-Asia node of technology, innovation and enterprise. In view of the difficulties we face, this is an ambitious, perhaps even audacious, vision. This vision requires a huge investment in our human capital, especially as we want to achieve it together with the objective of inclusive growth.
We are deep in the midst of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. We must seize the opportunities presented by new technologies, particularly in the digital domains of the Internet of Things, robotics, artificial intelligence and cloud computing, just to name a few. If we fail to do so, we will become irrelevant. Being a small nation state with no natural resources, our survival will be at stake.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I appreciate that SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres in the HDB estates will reach out to the disadvantaged ones to help with job matching. The extension of the COVID-19 Support Grant and the continued support for households, such as the GST Voucher, Grocery Vouchers, Service and Conservancy Charges or S&CC rebates, and Workfare Special Payment, are also helpful.
However, there is room for us to do more. I appeal to the Government and its agencies to make an additional effort to provide a better living and learning environment for the underprivileged children. In a knowledge-intensive future, these children will not stand a chance if they live in overcrowded flats with access to borrowed equipment, limited or slow connectivity and minimal adult supervision and guidance. We may need to tighten our collaboration with the volunteer groups and private companies which are willing to sponsor and mentor these children as well. This will be a worthwhile investment to help them break out of a vicious poverty cycle.
Allow me to quote from the 28 September article, \"The Equality Issue” of the Bloomberg Businessweek. Harvard economist Raj Chetty's research suggested that, and I quote, \"Improving education for poor kids wouldn't just help them personally...it should also boost the economy overall. An analysis of the patents filed by 1.2 million Americans found that children of the top 1% are 10 times more likely to be inventors than equally smart kids from other backgrounds...if...children from low-income families could invent at the same rate... these 'lost Einsteins' could quadruple innovation in the US.”
I would venture that we can expect a similar situation in Singapore with regard to our future in innovation.
Children grow up quickly. Within 10 to 20 years, we will be able to see the fruits of our efforts in these children. In less than a generation’s time, we can boost literacy and education levels, reduce crime and recidivism rates, and improve health outcomes. But we must be prepared to intervene more, and the earlier the better. As the saying goes, \"A stitch in time saves nine\". Early intervention is important and necessary.
Under our laws, children already have rights for living necessities, education and healthcare. What we need is effective oversight for children in low-income families to ensure that they are receiving these essentials.
For example, if the adults in the families pass away or are imprisoned, the state must step in to protect and provide for these kids. Children unaccounted for must be traced. Schools should alert relevant agencies when children do not seem to cope well. Protecting them, helping them, lifting them up will prevent a future group of potential permanent underclass. We should watch over our children as zealously as we would over our reserves.
I would like to suggest that for the underprivileged children, a “Children and Youth” equivalent of the Agency for Integrated Care to be set up in order to enable coordinated and holistic oversight. The children must have guaranteed access to basics, regardless of their families’ situation – accommodation, food, water, electricity, mentoring, healthcare, transportation and so on. The agency should also provide and manage the eco-system of support, such as supervision, mentoring and fostering, so that these vulnerable kids will have better chances of growing up healthy and well-adjusted, enjoying school and be capable of learning well.
Increasingly, underprivileged kids who will find it harder to catch up with their peers in a knowledge- and skills-intensive economy. Can the kids from these underprivileged families fulfill the specialised roles required by the Foreign Direct Investments brought in painstakingly by the Economic Development Board? I am not too sure.
Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that the best way to protect the welfare of our workers is a good job. Thus, we need to ensure that these underprivileged kids can level up and have a good education now so that they can take on the specialised roles and uplift their families in 10 to 20 years’ time.
For workers in the lower income brackets, Government will help them by expanding the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model or PWM to more sectors. I am heartened by recent announcement about the Government’s commitment to this. The cleaning, landscaping and security sectors have already seen the fulfilment of the four objectives of PWM, namely, career progression, skills upgrading, higher productivity and wage increases.
Hopefully, more sectors will follow, such as for the waste management, construction, retail, food and beverage, accommodation and hospitality sectors. With the PWM, we can look forward to attracting more Singaporeans to work in these essential jobs and becoming less dependent on foreigners.
During the transition period, we may face some difficulties recruiting Singaporeans. However, I am optimistic that the pressure from the demand for the services will drive productivity and result in better work conditions for these jobs. Workers will be paid higher wages and be respected as professionals in their own right. Building a strong Singaporean Core in these various sectors will boost our resilience. On this note, allow me to conclude with my support for the Statement.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Sir, it is my understanding that I am due to speak tomorrow.
Mr Deputy Speaker: You would like to speak tomorrow? Is that your intention?
Mr Leon Perera: Yes, please, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: All right then. Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today, I would like to speak on helping those who have fallen through the cracks and the issue of a harmonious society.
During this difficult time, I would like to appeal for more help for the sandwiched class, especially our young families. The young parents are just starting out in their new careers and new family lives when this crisis struck. I have spoken to many young families in my constituency and I share their worries. I hope the Government will consider providing higher subsidies for their children’s medical and insurance expenses, including some support for expenditure for the third child onwards.
Next, I welcome the one-off $3,000 Baby Support Grant or BSG, for newborns. This will be in addition to the current Baby Bonus cash gift of up to $10,000. The BSG is intended to help parents of Singaporean children born between 1 October 2020 and 30 September 2022 to defray the cost of raising a child amid the pandemic, and hopefully, to also encourage couples not to delay parenthood.
However, I have received a lot of feedback from parents whose babies were born after the onset of the pandemic this year but before 1 October 2020. I understand that all policies have to have a specific start date. But I also understand how difficult it has been for parents who were expecting or who just gave birth during or after the circuit breaker period. They shared with me how they had trouble getting a confinement nanny, grappled with the challenge of obtaining supplies when shops were closed and how they fretted over getting necessities for their newborns. Many couples also could not have their parents visit and help out due to safety measures during the circuit breaker period.
I appeal to the Government to consider extending the $3,000 Baby Support Grant to all Singaporean babies born in 2020 so that we can better support our young families in these very trying times. I hope babies born to single mothers can also be included to help reduce stress for the mother in an already very challenging situation. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have received a lot of feedback from parents whose babies were born after the onset of the pandemic this year, but before 1 October 2020. I understand that all policies must have a specific start date. But I also understand how difficult it has been for parents who were expecting or who just gave birth during or after the circuit breaker period. They shared with me how they had trouble getting a confinement nanny, grappled with the challenge of obtaining supplies when shops were closed and how they fretted over getting necessities for their newborns. Many couples also could not have their parents visit and help out due to safety measures during the circuit breaker period.
I appeal to the Government to consider extending the $3,000 Baby Support Grant to all Singaporean babies born in 2020 so that we can better support our young families in these trying times. I hope babies born to single mothers can be included too to help reduce stress for the mother in an already challenging situation.
(In English): For vulnerable families, they need more support and guidance during this very difficult time. Will the Government be channeling more resources into counselling services for them? How about setting up mutual support networks, supported by experienced professionals and other community partners, where they can learn helpful tips from one another and provide mutual encouragement? It is important for them to know that they are not alone and to realise that they do not need to walk this journey alone.
Next, I would like to express my concern and slight alarm over the increasing discomfort in some parts of our society towards the idea of a cosmopolitan Singapore. We have to be very vigilant and take proactive steps to ensure that this will not worsen as it may lead to fault lines widening in our society. I am worried that part of this problem may be along racial lines, which may cause discomfort among members of our minority groups. I think that the acknowledgement of this problem is important in order for us to start the process in managing this issue.
National education for our young and public education for the rest of us will continue to be essential. All of us must understand that a Singapore that closes its doors to the outside world is bad for all of us. I am keenly aware that some of these questions and comments arose because there is an impression that foreigners are here competing with Singaporeans for jobs. We need to strike a balance between meeting our economic needs and maintaining our social fabric. If we were to keep our goal of being an open, global and regional hub, we need to accept the presence of international firms and foreigners living and working with us in our society.
But I wish to call upon the Government to be more selective and ensure that only foreigners with specialised skills or experience that are less commonly found in our local workforce are brought into Singapore so that our citizens will feel more secure and can be convinced that the foreigners are here to add value and not compete for their jobs and other resources. We have to keep a careful balance so that we do not feel overwhelmed while trying to maintain our economic competitiveness.
Sir, I would like to conclude with my support for the Ministerial Statement.
","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":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it. Leader.
","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 at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to 12 noon tomorrow.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Towards Full Participation of Persons with Disabilities in Singapore Society","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the advancement and full participation of persons with disabilities or PwDs is a matter close to my heart.
I am the parent of an adult with moderate autism. I actively volunteer at and head a couple of disability organisations. I am also a Member of Parliament and Mayor involved in disability support initiatives as one of my duties. I therefore view past, current and future developments in this sector from many perspectives. My feelings are mixed – a mix of joy, a mix of concern and a mix of cautious optimism.
Today, I want to propose five changes that need to happen before persons with disabilities can fully participate in the life of Singapore society. But first, let me touch on the positive developments, thanks to the Singapore Government, in the last 15 years.
The National Council of Social Service or NCSS estimated in 2018 about 11,000 PwDs aged seven to 18 years, another 61,000 PwDs aged 19 to 49 years, and almost 200,000 PwDs aged 50 years and above. This is about a quarter million people with disabilities in Singapore in 2018. Add an average of three immediate family members to each PWD, and there are more than a million persons and families directly impacted by disability in Singapore.
The calls for the inclusion of PwDs in Singapore society are as old as time, especially in 2004, after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's inauguration, that the disability sector became a lot more visible at the national level.
In the last 15 years, much has been achieved. There is much to celebrate.
Singapore became a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which it ratified in 2013. These are big steps toward ensuring the rights for PwDs. What were most significant to me personally were the following milestones: the commissioning of three five-year Enabling Masterplans for the disabled – a blueprint to chart the sector's vision and plans; substantial increase in Government funding of Early Intervention Centres and special schools; the setting up of SG Enable, an agency for the disability community and an Enabling Village, a physical hub to assemble services; the introduction of universal coverage for MediShield Life, a basic health insurance plan which now includes persons with pre-existing conditions; and schemes to incentivise employers to hire PwDs; and, to me, very importantly, the waiver for headcount quota to encourage the hiring of PwDs in the public service.
I am optimistic that positive changes will continue and 4G advocates like Rahayu Mahzam, Cheryl Chan, Ang Wei Neng, Sun Xueling, Darryl David and many others will rise to the occasion and continue to seek the inclusion of PwDs in our society.
Even as we have good reasons to pat ourselves on our backs, we know something is still amiss. One has only to listen to the feedback of one focus group after another of PwDs and their family care-givers and also observe the outcomes in living, learning and working of the PwDs to know that we are not quite there yet.
In community awareness and support, both the Lien Foundation and the NCSS have reported the state of social inclusion and stigma. Sixty-four percent of the public polled were willing to share but not interact with PwDs in public spaces. Many social service offices, family service centres or FSCs, grassroots organisations and community centres are not yet part of the support network of PwDs. This seems to be a general disconnect. Many people still not heard about the Enabling Village or the many awareness programmes and campaigns, that are being conducted over these years.
On care-giver worries, families continue to fret over what will happen to their children upon the demise of the parents – a classic concern. The feelings of helplessness are even more prevalent in families where children have multiple or more severe disabilities.
The needs of family care-givers change over the life cycle, same as for those with disabilities. There appears to be lacking a robust care-giver support model that is more empowering, more family-based and more community-based.
In living, there are challenges in daily living matters. I will name just a few.
Many PwDs are not prepared for independent living as adults. Not many are trained from young to adopt a healthy lifestyle, leading quite a bit to premature chronic illnesses that add to their disabilities.
In health insurance coverage, accounting graduate Wesley Loh recently highlighted the challenges of getting himself covered for life insurance. Wesley was either turned down or offered coverage with a whole load of exclusions because he had declared his diagnosis of autism. He is not alone in being turned down by insurers for insurance applications.
In residential living, adults with disabilities have very few options. The choices that other Singaporeans enjoy are not theirs to have and supported living options are not always available.
In learning, for many special school or SPED students, graduation is not an occasion for joy. Most SPED students stop learning, whether in daily living or at work. The cliff effect phenomenon for SPED students is well known and describes the fall to little or no services for these students after they complete their formal years of school at usually age 18. This could be a syndrome that is due to the way services and budgets are planned and resourced in silos, based on Government Ministries.
Lifelong learning, the holy grail of Singapore's SkillsFuture movement, is a pipe dream for many adults with disabilities, primarily because most SkillsFuture offerings are inaccessible without the needed disability support.
In the world of work, unemployment and under-employment are two big concerns. The employment rate of PwDs is not only substantially lower than their typical peers, they face a limited range of work options. Under-employment continues to be an issue for those who are cognitively able on the spectrum.
Many PwDs are still not ready for work when they leave school and there are still not enough employers who are confident enough to employ and to develop them.
Five recommended changes. Now, the gaps and challenges I highlighted just now are not limited to Singapore and arise basically due to a combination of factors which include perspectives, structures and provisions. I would like to propose five changes to ensure that our PwDs can more fully participate in our society and not be left at its fringe.
One, society's view of persons with disabilities needs to change. One of the young people I serve with in my volunteer work is 31-year-old Dr Sim Zi Lin, a millennial. Zi Lin completed her PhD in a renowned American university before returning to Singapore to work in a special school. Zi Lin used to share how in her overseas study stint, she was often struck by the expectation that it is the duty of the university to provide for the removal of any barriers to participation to learning for undergrads who are disabled. No questions asked. Just do it – expected; even if things were not always perfect.
Zi Lin also shared with me in our work in enabling PwDs how she notices PwDs, her peers, have far fewer choices and pathways in life compared to their typical peers.
I reflected on why this is so. And I believe a lot of it has to do with how society views PwDs.
For many years, the most common views of society towards PwDs are based on two traditional models – the medical model and the charity model. The medical model sees disabled persons primarily as persons who need to be \"cured\", who need to be made \"normal\". And the charity model sees disabled people as victims of life, deserving of pity and need charity so that they can survive.
But there is another thinking model that many progressive countries adopt in viewing PwDs – that disability is the consequence of attitudinal, environmental and social barriers and hence, the removal of these barriers would enable PwDs to participate fully in the life of the community.
Sir, how we view PwDs will determine the place and future of PwDs in Singapore society.
The good news is that something is already happening for yet another population – the elderly people of Singapore.
We see fantastic work by MOH and partners in many policies and programmes related to the seniors – active ageing and eldercare. For instance, a growing school of thought that seniors with dementia should be treated respectfully as equal members of society and supported by a surrounding dementia-friendly community.
I watched with marvel the way a home nursing staff apologised and explained to my mother – she is no more around. I marvelled at the steps that this nurse would take, even when my mother, who had full-blown Alzheimer's, could not respond to her at all. Mom was treated with such respect and gentleness.
So, the perspective that even if one were old and ailing, one should still be treated respectfully and not lose the opportunity to make choices, to be developed or to contribute. This new attitude towards ageing Singaporeans is progressive, it is liberating and reflected in corresponding responses in Singapore's community, policy, services and Budget planning – a very good learning example for the younger disabled community.
Sir, when we recognise that PwDs too are equal members in Singapore, then removing barriers so that they can fully participate in society becomes second nature, and not an act of charity or magnanimity. It becomes natural that we adopt universal design or design for all, in policies and practices at the start, whether in designing physical facilities or services. Meaning, independence and dignity for all, abled or disabled.
Two, gaps in provisions for PwDs need to be addressed. Stemming from a perspective that PwDs are part and parcel of our Singapore society, then we need to get down to work and scan through carefully areas where the basics fall short – in healthcare, accessibility, education and especially lifelong learning, public communications, security and safety, housing, transport, jobs and economic security. The gap analysis ought to be undertaken, hopefully before the next Enabling Masterplan.
I will list just a few newer suggestions for consideration to improve living, learning and working outcomes for the PwDs.
In living, let us strengthen public communications through a total strategic plan to ensure that PwDs will receive the same level of information on matters that impact them. We should ensure that there are provisions to make sure that they have security, safety and access to criminal justice. Develop a plan to bring a continuum of sustainable, integrated residential living options with all levels of needed support. Empower them and their care-givers with a more comprehensive support plan. Someone taught me, what we call, \"life after death\" – planning, developing a \"playbook\" of planning for life after death of the care-givers to ensure that the PwDs have continuity in life.
In learning, co-develop a bolder lifelong learning solution with PwDs, disability organisations, key industry captains, complete with vision, strategies, outcomes, tracking and reporting mechanism. Set up partnerships so that there is a fully array of accessible SkillsFuture offerings. Resource SG Enable and their service providers, or partners better, to include a newer definition of work in the new economy, continuum of employment models and upskilling PwDs, employers, training providers and job coaches.
Number three, performance and progress need to be reported and readily available. Many people are not aware of the progress of the Enabling Masterplan even if good work is being driven, being done. There ought to be a commitment to public reporting of key agreed deliverables, progress, outcomes, challenges and even calls for participation and for help. There ought to be a study of the most effective ways to ensure that this information reaches out, on an on-going basis, to the people who are affected by this news, progress or updates. People must know what is going on before they know where to get help. Volunteers and help agencies too, they need to know what is going on before they start their pet projects which if they do not know, will lead to an overlaps in services, so that gaps which are critical will not be overlooked.
Four, structure for policy-making and services, the need to drive collaboration and the spirit of SG Together which Deputy Prime Minister Heng spoke so much about. Structure drives behaviours; structure drives outcomes.
The \"Many-Helping-Hands\" approach has long been adopted for disability services in Singapore. It, of course, has its proponents and detractors. There are some who believe that Government does everything best, must take over everything. Others feel that the users of services, the PwDs themselves or the disability service providers, know what is best. They are on the ground and they believe they should be the ones who lead and implement changes.
I believe the answer is neither here nor there. The answer lies in a blend.
Government alone cannot drive and deliver all the changes we need to reach the vision of full participation of PwDs in our society. Mind you, I have worked with very amazing, very visionary civil servants before. But the role and natural DNA of Government tends to be to \"govern\" and dare I say, \"control\", depending on who is in charge at the moment, at that time. And that is how sometimes terms like \"bureaucrats\" are used, either by civil servants themselves or by their detractors.
In a vision that needs the support of the whole of society, Government's engagement and collaboration with PwDs, their families, disability organisations must be central.
So, I propose a more formal and on-going alliance of sorts where co-visioning, key decisions, future planning are made; so that decisions are not made in silos, depending on which Government agency or Ministry gets the most budget, so that we can avoid the damaging \"cliff effects\" when one Ministry's work passes on to the next, so that resources can be allocated from a \"life-cycle\" perspective, knowing that each move made will impact the rest of the whole eco-system.
The truth of the matter is that such visioning amongst such different partners, this kind of alliance, will not be an easy alliance at the start. PwDs, families, political leaders, Government leaders, civil servants, social service agencies, they are all at different levels of awareness, maturity, motivation and competence. But alliance it has to be for this sector especially, for positive change and long-term impact.
Clarification of roles and responsibilities of the \"Many-Helping-Hands\" has to be made, updated, based on a common desired end in mind and the strengths and attributes of each helping hand. Each one has to take our place, doing our part with both courage and consideration. A structure has to be put right.
And finally, the voice of people disabilities need to be included. People with disabilities are not all the same. They come in a spectrum. They fall on a continuum. Some will have higher support needs, more severe and their family care-givers sometimes become their proxies. Others like the vice-chairmen and members of this year's Purple Parade Committee – it is an inclusive movement: Yip Pin Xiu , Alistair Ong and Eric Chen – they have their own views and they do not need another to represent them.
Eric Chen, in a recent letter to the Forum, urged Singapore to empower PwDs to stand as equals. He cited, \"Many of us understand inclusion as a dependent relationship where abled people are responsible for supporting people who are disabled and to integrate them into mainstream.\" Eric then said that, \"PwDs are seen as being unable to contribute meaningfully to determine their own future; and plans are undertaken by abled people on their behalf\". He asked for Government to form – and these are his words – to form an \"alliance with service providers, including employers, care-givers and disabled people\" so that disabled people too can form part of the inclusion blueprint.
Not every PwD will make a good leader. But that goes for the rest of us. We should therefore develop as many leaders as we can identify in the disability community. And we must listen and include the voice of PwDs and their proxies in policy-making and implementation.
In conclusion, Sir, I urge this House to treat PwDs as equal members of our society and to help work towards their full participation in the life of Singapore society.
To do this, I summarise five changes need to happen.
One, society's view of PwDs has to change. Two, gaps in provisions need to be addressed. Three, performance and progress must be no secret – they need to be reported and readily available. Four, the structure for policy-making and services need to drive collaboration and spirit of SG Together. And five, the voice of PwDs need to be included.
Sir, Singapore has embarked on an amazing journey in the last 15 years to uplift the disability community. Some of us are born with disabilities and some of us will become disabled with age. I urge this House and the rest of Singapore to support this call to ensure that all PwDs can fully participate in our society and they can all lead dignified and meaningful lives in our society. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: That was a very structured and inspirational speech. And may I call on Minister of State Sun Xueling to respond, please.
The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member Ms Denise Phua for her impassioned speech and for sharing her thoughts on how to further improve the lives of persons with disabilities, PwDs.
I agree with Ms Phua that we should take a life-cycle approach. Since the first five-year Enabling Masterplans, in 2007, we have progressively put in place more support for PwDs at every stage of life and have strived to smoothen the transition between life stages.
I will share some progress made over the years in areas raised by Ms Phua. I know that more needs to be done and we hope to continue our journey with our partners to make further improvements.
First, in the area of education and transitioning to post-school life. As mentioned by Ms Phua, there has been progress in the area of early intervention, with more development and learning support in pre-schools and intervening earlier through EIPIC. Another milestone was the amendment of the Compulsory Education Act to include students with moderate to severe special educational needs, which sends a strong signal that our education system is for all students.
To prepare Special Education or SPED school students for life, MOE works closely with the Social Service Agencies or SSAs that run the schools. MOE has strengthened vocational education for SPED, and is also working with SPED schools to further customise curriculums in seven learning domains, including social emotional skills and digital literacy.
We agree that the transition from the structured school environment to post-school options can be challenging.
To help students and families navigate post-school pathways, there are now Transition Planning Coordinators in all SPED schools serving Secondary-aged students. MOE will be releasing an Individual Planning Guide to help develop person-centred plans for each student's schooling journey, and their transition to adult life. All SPED schools serving students up to 18 years old also offer the School-to-Work transition programme, which offers customised training pathways and work options to eligible students.
Second, strengthening support for PwDs in the post schooling years. In the area of lifelong learning, SkillsFuture Singapore, or SSG, has been working with training providers to offer courses, like customised Digital Workplaces courses, for PwDs. SSG and SG Enable are also expanding the range of industry-relevant SkillsFuture credit-eligible courses for PwDs, and have also introduced SkillsFuture Study Awards for PwDs and disability employment professionals.
In the area of healthcare, MINDS received Government funding to open a clinic offering primary care and preventative health services to persons with intellectual disabilities. Over 60 dental clinics across Singapore have general dental practitioners trained in special needs dentistry.
Active living is also an important part of health promotion. We have made sports facilities and programming more accessible under the Disability Sports Masterplan. Surveys show that sports participation rates among PwDs have almost doubled from 28% in 2015 to 51% in 2018.
In the area of insurance coverage, MediShield Life covers all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents for life, including congenital conditions. As Ms Phua mentioned, MSF and MAS are looking to issue guidelines for insurers to treat PwDs the same as those without disabilities, unless such differences can be justified.
Through MAS' ongoing engagement, the insurance industry is conscious of its role to treat customers with disabilities fairly. Insurers have provided coverage without additional premiums or exclusions where autism is assessed not to pose health risks and other health conditions are not present.
For those who require care services in the community, we have places available in our 31 Day Activity Centres, eight Sheltered Workshops, four Drop-in Disability Centres, and home-based intervention services. For those who require residential services, we have 10 Adult Disability Homes and three Adult Disability Hostels.
To improve access to justice, the Appropriate Adult Scheme provides trained volunteers to facilitate communication and provide emotional support during interviews between investigation officers and persons with autism, intellectual disability and/or mental health conditions.
Third, facilitating PwD employment. We have rolled out measures that support PwDs seeking employment, and employers who hire PwDs. The new Enabling Employment Credit will replace existing wage offsets that expire in December 2020, for employers of Singaporeans with disabilities. The EEC will provide such employers with a wage offset of up to 20% of the employee's monthly income. Additional wage offsets of up to 10% for six months will apply for long-term unemployed PwDs.
The Open Door Programme or ODP, helps PwDs enter suitable jobs and integrate into the workplaces by providing support for job placement, training and cost of job redesign. The ODP Training Grant was enhanced in July to encourage more employers to send their employees with disabilities for training. Employers can also receive funding to send co-workers of PwDs for training to build up their confidence in working with colleagues with disabilities.
Job losses due to COVID-19 have impacted all Singaporeans, and we are concerned about its impact on PwDs. Deputy Prime Minister Heng announced last week that the Government will provide the higher tier of wage support of 50% under the Jobs Growth Incentive to all new local PwDs hired by firms that increase their local headcount. We are finalising plans through the National Jobs Council to further support the employability and employment of PwDs during this downturn, and we will announce more details shortly.
Fourth, strengthening support for care-givers. SG Enable is growing ground-up support networks that connect care-givers to exchange best practices with one another and with professionals from SSAs and hospitals. To make it easier for PwDs and care-givers to find support and resources, SG Enable launched the Enabling Guide in 2019, a first stop portal with information on disability schemes, services and resources.
To better support families caring for persons with moderate to severe disability, we recently introduced CareShield Life for those with severe disability. The Home Care-giving Grant also provides monthly cash pay-outs to offset care-giving costs for eligible individuals with permanent moderate disability. We also plan to improve case management support for persons with moderate to severe disabilities and their families, to help them navigate the eco-system of support.
Ms Phua has also touched on a very poignant point, about the concerns families have in ensuring care for PwDs when they are no longer around. The Special Needs Trust Company or SNTC, was set up to help families with care planning and to provide affordable trust services. The number of SNTC trust accounts has grown by almost 10 times over the last decade, to over 795 accounts.
Much has been done to improve support for PwDs and care-givers, but definitely more can be done. As Ms Phua has noted, PwDs in the post schooling years need more learning opportunities, customised services, and supportive work environments, closer to their homes. We will work with partners to co-create and pilot solutions.
In conclusion, we agree that building an inclusive culture is a whole-of-society effort. I agree with Ms Phua that every citizen in Singapore, regardless his/her abilities should be treated respecfully and not lose the opportunity to make choices, develop and contribute. We aim to nurture mindsets from a young age, by improving support to children with developmental needs within preschools and promoting interaction with their peers.
We will continue to involve PwDs and their families in this journey. Last year, over 200 PwDs, care-givers and sector partners contributed ideas to three thematic cross-sectoral workgroups launched under the Third Enabling Masterplan, on the topics of inclusion within preschools, employment and independent living respectively.
Over the next two months, as part of Singapore's Emerging Stronger Conversations, we will hold more engagement sessions with PwDs and care-givers to seek views on challenges and opportunities arising from COVID-19. We invite the community to co-create solutions with us.
We are grateful for the numerous ground-up efforts to raise awareness for inclusion of PwDs, such as the Purple Parade. We are glad to see 141 employers pledging to build a more inclusive workforce in response to the President's Challenge this year. We will put in place support for employers to employ PwDs meaningfully.
Indeed, only with the continued partnership of the people, private and public sectors, we can build a more inclusive Singapore, together.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The time allowed for the proceedings has expired. I adjourn the House pursuant to the Standing Order.
[(proc text) The Question having been proposed at 6.07 pm and the time allowed having expired, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 6.37 pm.
19 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport whether he can provide an update on the Government's infrastructural plan to provide 28,000 electric vehicle charging points by 2030 and, in particular, how these points will be distributed across the carparks at HDB estates.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As part of our effort to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles by 2040, we plan to increase the number of Electric Vehicle (EV) charging points from 1,700 now to 28,000 by 2030.
The 28,000 charging points are all in government-related locations. About two-thirds will be located in HDB estates spread throughout Singapore. LTA is conducting a study with HDB, and found that out of 1,200 HDB carparks checked so far, 400 can readily support overnight EV charging, while the other 800 will need some upgrading of the switch room or substation. The other charging points will be installed in government-owned carparks, such as at offices or by the roadside.
28,000 therefore does not include privately installed charging points by residents in private estates, commercial developments like shopping centres, or new commercial initiatives, such as smart charging solutions that Sunseap announced recently. If we assume EVs are one-third of all private cars by 2030, that works out to about eight cars per charging point, which is not ideal.
LTA is therefore reviewing the current plan with other agencies, including incorporating the significant effort of commercial entities to build up the EV charging infrastructure, with a view to bring down the EV per charging point ratio. That way, we can better support the growth of EVs in Singapore. We will announce details when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regular Cyclical Maintenance for HDB Rental Flats beyond Typical Repair Works","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider providing regular cyclical maintenance for HDB rental flats beyond the typical repair works.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB inspects all rental flats annually to proactively detect defects. HDB will repair or replace any defective finishes and fittings reported by existing tenants, and before flats are let out to new tenants.
Apart from regular maintenance, rental blocks are also upgraded, similar to sold blocks, as part of the Home Improvement and Lift Upgrading Programmes. In addition to these, there are specific programmes for rental blocks, such as the Rental Flat Upgrading Project, and Project LIFE1.
HDB will continue to keep rental flats in good condition through regular maintenance and upgrading. For example, rental flats will be upgraded in tandem with sold flats when HIP II is implemented. As the flats age, HDB will also study the need for further programmes to maintain and refresh its stock of rental flats.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Project LIFE stands for Lift Improvement and Facilities Enhancement for the elderly."],"footNoteQuestions":["21"],"questionNo":"21"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Bed Bug Infestations and Excessive Hoarding Problems at HDB Rental Blocks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will provide a more effective solution for HDB rental flats that are affected by bed bug infestations and excessive hoarding.
Mr Desmond Lee: When HDB receives feedback on the cleanliness of a rental flat, HDB officers will carry out an inspection. Should there be a bed bug infestation, HDB will provide pest control treatment on a goodwill basis. For cases where the infestation is serious, HDB will also assist to transfer the tenant to another rental flat, and clean up the affected flat.
Hoarding cases tend to be more complex, involving multiple issues and affecting multiple parties, such as the resident, their family, as well as their neighbours and community. The Municipal Services Office has worked with relevant agencies to develop a Hoarding Management Framework, to guide officers across agencies in providing coordinated support to resolve the hoarding issue.
The resident will first be advised to remove excess items and keep their flat tidy. For severe cases which pose a risk or dis-amenities to neighbours, HDB will also work with regulatory agencies, such as SCDF for fire hazards and NEA for public health, to declutter the flat for the safety of the resident and the community.
As cases of excessive hoarding and serious bedbug infestation could be an indication of other underlying issues, HDB works with relevant Social Service Agencies and AIC to provide counselling and appropriate support to the resident.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Pilot Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) what have been the results of the review of the pilot Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening programme; and (b) whether the programme can be made a routine clinical service.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MOH started a three-year pilot on Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening (PGS) in 2017, to test for chromosomal abnormalities in pre-implanted embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF).
The pilot study compares the embryo implantation success rates, pregnancy rates and live birth rates between women who had received PGS, with those who had not received PGS. Thus far, over 350 patients have been enrolled under the study, but only 104 have been tested for PGS, as some of the patients changed their minds after enrolment and proceeded with embryo transfer directly without performing PGS, or decided to freeze their embryos instead. There has also been delayed recruitment due to the ongoing COVID-19 situation.
Of the 104 patients who underwent PGS so far, 60 completed their embryo transfers. This has led to 31 pregnancies with 15 live births, and 8 pregnancies is still ongoing. There is a need to recruit further number of patients into the PGS pilot programme to enable a robust evaluation of the clinical efficacy of PGS.
The review will also take into consideration available international evidence concerning PGS testing, the ethical issues associated with PGS and the regulatory framework that needs to be established for governing PGS, before it can be made a routine clinical service. PGS will remain accessible to eligible patients until the full evaluation is complete.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prevention of Scam Cases Since Inter-Ministry Committee on Scams was Formed","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there has been a drop in scam cases in the past six months since the Inter-Ministry Committee on Scams was formed; (b) whether the committee has explored how telecommunication companies (telcos) can play a bigger role to combat online scams; and (c) whether it is possible to work with telcos to set up a system where customers can report a scammer and telcos collectively block the scammers' phone number or IP addresses across our local telco networks.
Mr K Shanmugam: There were 10,402 cases of scam reported in the first eight months of this year, which is a 100% increase over the 5,229 cases reported during the same period last year.
The sharp increase could be partly because more people are staying at home and carrying out more online transactions during this COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, we saw a spike in e-commerce scams involving face masks, hand sanitisers, and other COVID-related products, as well as scams where scammers impersonated officials from the Ministry of Health to obtain victims' personal data and information. There were also significant increases in social media impersonation scams, banking-related phishing scams, loan scams, investment scams and tech support scams.
The Inter-Ministry Committee on Scams (IMCS) was set up in April 2020 to develop additional measures to combat scams. The IMCS is looking at four broad areas: (i) improving scam detection and disruption capabilities; (ii) developing measures to secure the digital space; (iii) enhancing loss recovery for scam victims; and (iv) improving public education and outreach.
We have also been working with the telcos on measures to counter scams that are perpetrated using telecommunication services.
First, efforts have been made to identify and block potentially fraudulent calls for the public. Most scammers are based overseas and often use number spoofing technology to mask their real phone number. Since December 2019, telcos have started blocking international incoming calls that resemble Government agency or emergency numbers. Telcos have also implemented the '+' prefix for all overseas calls since April 2020 to get consumers to exercise greater care when answering overseas calls.
Second, when a Police report is lodged about a scam and investigations have established that a local phone number was used in the scam, the phone number is sent to the telcos for remedial action to be taken, including termination of the number. Similarly, whenever Police investigations reveal that a website was used in the perpetration of scams, the website will be forwarded to the Internet Access Service Providers to be blocked.
MCI, IMDA and the Police will continue to work with our telcos to put in place measures to better protect Singaporeans from scams. The Member has suggested setting up a system where the public can report scam calls and for these calls to be blocked. We will look into this suggestion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Current Estimated Potential (CEP) of Public Officers within Five Years of Joining Public Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the 25th, 50th and 75th percentile change in a public officer's Current Estimated Potential (CEP) within five years of joining the public service; and (b) whether the Ministry will start collecting this data if it is not available.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Currently Estimated Potential (CEP) is expressed as the largest job size an officer is assessed to be capable of handling in future. This assessment is expected to change from time to time as officers develop in their job roles and display more of their competencies and capabilities. We understand that the Member is asking for the number of CEP grade changes that officers with CEPs at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles in the initial year will have, over the first five years of their careers.
The large majority of officers, including those at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles, will see potential fluctuations upwards and downwards in their CEP of between 1 and 5 grades during the first five years, as they adapt to the public service work and have opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Ex-offenders Finding Employment within Three Months after Serving Sentences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in each of the past three years, what is the average percentage of ex-offenders who find employment within a three-month period after serving their sentences; and (b) what steps have been identified to improve the ex-offenders' employability in the current circumstances when Singapore's economy is affected by COVID-19.
Mr K Shanmugam: The ability to secure employment is very important for an ex-offender's rehabilitation and reintegration. The percentage of ex-offenders who found employment within three months of release was 55%, 56% and 53% for the cohorts released in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively. These figures are lower-bound estimates as our data does not include ex-offenders who took on non-CPF contributing jobs such as delivery riders and private hire car drivers.
To enhance ex-offenders' employability, Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) provides inmates and ex-offenders with skills upgrading, job matching and job coaching services.
The economic downturn brought about by COVID-19 has made the job market more challenging for ex-offenders. YRSG has stepped up efforts to help them secure employment. For example, YRSG has tapped on WSG's SGUnited Job Portal and NTUC's Job Security Council initiatives to target industry sectors with available jobs, such as in the logistics and manufacturing sectors, while stepping up engagements with existing employers. Through these efforts, ex-offenders have successfully secured jobs such as technicians, drivers, warehouse assistants and production operators. YRSG has also implemented virtual job interviews to ensure that ex-offenders and potential employers can continue to interact. From January to August 2020, YRSG secured employment for 1,534 ex-offenders, with the majority of them remaining employed during this period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Availability of Future-ready Counsellors and Psychologists to Help Cope with Potential Increase in Mental Illness Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are sufficient future-ready counsellors and psychologists to help cope with the potential increase in mental illness; and (b) what is being done to promote these occupations.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As of September 2020, there are 5041 psychologists registered with the Singapore Psychological Society. This translates to 8.9 psychologists per 100k population. Within the public healthcare sector, the number of psychologists increased by 7% in the last three years from 2017 to 2019. Although the Ministry of Health (MOH) does not have the specific numbers of counsellors practising in Singapore as many healthcare professionals and social workers provide counselling as part of their work, there were 9402 registered counsellors with the Singapore Association for Counselling in April 2020.
The care of persons with mental health conditions would benefit from management by a multidisciplinary team (which includes psychiatrists, nurses, social workers, psychologists and occupational therapists etc). MOH will continue to work with public hospitals and community service providers, including schools, social service agencies and family service centres, to ensure timely access and support for persons with mental healthcare needs.
At the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), each patient's psychiatric condition and psycho-social needs are assessed holistically by the attending doctor, whereupon medications, psychotherapy and counselling support by psychologists or counsellors might be prescribed. In the community, individuals with mental health needs could tap on community mental health supports such as mental health services in polyclinics where psychologists play a key role in mental health assessments and psycho-social therapeutic interventions. In addition, allied health-led community intervention teams provide an array of allied health services such as counselling and psycho-education for individuals with mental health conditions.
To raise awareness of the psychology profession, we have profiled their work through the Care to Go Beyond branding campaign. Sponsorships are available through the Healthcare Graduate Studies Award for eligible fresh graduates or mid-career professionals to pursue their interest in Clinical Psychology, with 11 awards offered in the last five years from 2016 to 2020.
The National Council of Social Service (NCSS) also offers a range of training and development support for psychologists in the social service sector. These include scholarships, awards, and training grants to support their training, and facilitate the entry of registered psychologists into the sector. NCSS also manages the Sun Ray scheme, a leadership scheme aimed at attracting, developing and retaining leaders, including psychologists, in the social service sector. Between FY2015 and FY2019, there are 20 psychologists on the Sun Ray scheme, and 26 scholarships and awards were given out to psychologists. Other efforts, such as the Social Service SkillsFuture Tripartite Taskforce formed by the Ministry of Social and Family Development, have been instrumental in driving, coordinating and implementing tripartite collaborations for manpower and professional development initiatives, including that for psychologists.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Source: Singapore Register of Psychologists, maintained by the Singapore Psychological Society. As registration for practice is not compulsory for psychologists, actual numbers may be higher.","2 : Source: Singapore Association for Counselling Annual Report 2019. "],"footNoteQuestions":["3"],"questionNo":"3"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress on Development and Clinical Trial of COVID-19 Vaccine and Plans for Mass Vaccination for Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Health (a) how does the Government intend to vaccinate Singaporeans once the COVID-19 vaccine is available; (b) whether the Government will consider providing free vaccination for all Singaporeans; (c) what is the progress on the joint development with all established overseas vaccine producers and makers; (d) whether the Government is prepared to have the vaccine produced in Singapore; and (e) whether Singaporeans have participated in the clinical trial of the vaccines in development and, if so, what is the progress so far.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government is developing a vaccination strategy based on several factors, including the suitability of different vaccines for different population subgroups and the quantity of vaccines available at any point in time. Our approach aims to protect individuals who are more vulnerable or at higher risk from the disease, as well as those who may be more likely to be exposed to infection, while progressively expanding the coverage of vaccination to the rest of our population. The financing framework for the vaccinations would take into consideration the overall vaccination strategy and the cost of the vaccines. We will adapt our strategy accordingly as more information from the various vaccine candidates become available.
We are also involved in different vaccine development initiatives in Singapore. Singapore's Duke-NUS Medical School is collaborating with a United States biotechnology company, Arcturus Therapeutics, to develop an mRNA vaccine. The combined Phase 1 and 2 human clinical trial for this vaccine candidate started in early August at the SingHealth Investigational Medicine Unit (IMU) and about 70 participants have since been recruited. The study is expected to be completed later in the year. Separately, we are also building up vaccine manufacturing capacity, which can provide fill-and-finish contract manufacturing services to vaccine developers and ramp up production of vaccines when they are available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria Used in Selection of Disease for Inclusion under Chronic Disease Management Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the full list of selection criteria used in determining whether to include a disease under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP); and (b) what studies and public consultations does the Ministry conduct to determine if a disease fulfils the selection criteria for inclusion under the CDMP.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: CDMP was introduced to help patients manage their chronic conditions well to avoid complications in the future and reduce out-of-pocket costs through the use of MediSave. MOH regularly reviews the list of conditions covered under CDMP to meet the needs of Singaporeans, while ensuring that MediSave balances are not prematurely depleted. For example, ischaemic heart disease and pre-diabetes were most recently identified for inclusion from June 2018.
In selecting conditions for inclusion in the CDMP, the Clinical Advisory Committee (CAC) consults clinical experts from public healthcare institutions as well as the private sector and take into consideration factors such as disease prevalence, potential benefits to patients' outcomes (effectiveness of early intervention that improves quality of life and reduces complications) and the availability of evidence-based clinical guidelines for appropriate care of the condition. The review process will also consider findings and information from studies such as the Singapore Burden of Disease and medical literature. Feedback and requests from the public, medical professionals, and members of Parliament are also collated and taken into account.
The CDMP CAC will continue to review regularly the conditions to be covered under CDMP. Meanwhile, Singaporeans with difficulties managing their medical bills including those relating to conditions not covered by CDMP can approach the Medical Social Workers at public institutions for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Littering Cases Reported in Past Three Years and Measures to Address Problem","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how many cases of littering have been reported to NEA for each of the past three years; (b) how many persons have NEA taken action against for littering in each of the past three years; (c) what are the main difficulties that NEA faces in addressing the littering problem; and (d) whether NEA is considering any step to instil a stronger ethos of keeping Singapore's environment clean.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: In 2017, 2018 and 2019, the National Environment Agency (NEA) received about 8,800, 8,100 and 11,200 instances of littering feedback from the public. Over the same periods, it took enforcement action against some 31,000, 37,000 and 26,900 offenders respectively. Since 2019, NEA has adopted various approaches with a focus on deterring potential offenders by increasing enforcement presence in hotspots and deploying more uniformed enforcement officers to increase visibility.
NEA takes a firm stance against litterbugs and will continue to step up enforcement action against littering, with the help of technology. The use of predictive data analytics, and the adoption of camera surveillance and video analytics, have augmented NEA's enforcement efforts. In addition to more visible presence of enforcement officers, NEA is also working to enhance deterrence through the display of posters and banners which highlight the penalties for littering.
Notwithstanding these enforcement efforts, the bigger challenge is to foster a culture of collective action and social responsibility in keeping Singapore clean. NEA engages various stakeholders in the community, including residents, community leaders, Town Councils, schools and other organisations to promote community ownership in keeping public spaces clean. Our community partners conduct activities such as litter-picking brisk walks, beach and park clean-up exercises, and cleaner appreciation days.
For example, the Public Hygiene Council (PHC) introduced the Sustainable Bright Spot programme in 2019 at 11 Residents' Committee zones and one constituency. Through this, residents take ownership of the cleanliness of community spaces and are involved in regular awareness programmes, litter-picking and other outreach activities. PHC plans to bring on board another 10 constituencies into the Sustainable Bright Spot programme in 2020.
All of us must play our part to keep Singapore a clean, green, and sustainable home. This includes demonstrating greater social responsibility by not littering. We will then achieve our aim of building Singapore into a gracious society.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Students to Learn Alongside Differently Abled or Special Needs Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider introducing ways whereby students can learn alongside students who are differently abled or who have special needs, and vice versa.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Today, about 80% of students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Dyslexia and Physical or Sensory Impairments are in mainstream schools. In every school, students have opportunities to learn alongside and make friends with peers who are differently abled.
Students learn about inclusivity through the formal curriculum and beyond. For those who need some help, Allied Educators for Learning and Behaviour Support implement strategies to enable students to turn to their peers for friendship and emotional support.
Around 20% of students with SEN, who have higher support needs, or 1.5% of all students, attend our 19 Special Education (SPED) schools. These schools are not necessarily separated from mainstream schools as they can enjoy, through the Satellite Partnership, a long-term sustained relationship with a mainstream school where there are opportunities for purposeful social interaction between the students through platforms such as joint CCA activities, recess, workshops and camps. For example, through their Satellite Partnership, students from Dunman High School and MINDS Towner Gardens School have opportunities to relate with each other through activities such as joint community service projects, arts and craft, and science activities. Students attending Canossian School or Pathlight School also join their mainstream peers for academic learning, where appropriate.
Over the years, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and schools, with help from partner organisations, have sought to build inclusivity into the arts and sports calendar. At the National School Games, the Singapore Youth Festival Arts Presentation and the National Day Parade, students with and without a SEN rehearse, practice and perform together. The Play Inclusive campaign, organised by SportCares and Special Olympics Singapore in partnership with MOE since 2018, also brings together student-athletes from several SPED and mainstream schools to share sporting experiences as members of the same team. In 2019, MOE partnered Outward Bound Singapore (OBS) to pilot a 5D4N Inclusive Sailing programme around the waters of OBS Pulau Ubin campus.
MOE is committed to nurturing the existing Satellite Partnerships and growing new ones, so that the students can continue to learn and grow together in a more inclusive environment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Rejected Applications for COVID-19 Support Grant due to Income Criterion","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how many applications for the COVID-19 Support Grant have been rejected due to applicants' prior gross monthly household income exceeding $10,000 per month or $3,100 per capita income despite the fall in their income significantly, exceeding more than 30%, and all other criteria being met.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The COVID-19 Support Grant (CSG) supports lower- to middle-income resident employees who, as a result of the economic impact of COVID-19, are presently:
(i) Involuntarily unemployed due to retrenchment or contract termination;
(ii) Placed on involuntary no-pay leave for at least three consecutive months; or
(iii) Experiencing reduced monthly salary of at least 30% for at least three consecutive months.
As of 27 September 2020, around 133,000 individuals had applied for the CSG. Of these, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) approved the CSG for more than 83,000 applicants. About 46,000 applicants were unsuccessful, and around 4,000 applications were being processed.
Of the 46,000 applicants who were unsuccessful, about 2,500 applicants were rejected due to their prior gross monthly household income exceeding $10,000 and monthly per capita income exceeding $3,100 (some of them might have also failed to meet other eligibility criteria). We do not have further breakdown of this 2,500 figure. Applicants who wish to appeal can either call the ComCare Call Hotline or approach MSF's Social Service Offices (SSOs). MSF's SSOs will assess these applications on a case-by-case basis, and can exercise some flexibility to support households in extenuating circumstances even if they exceed the prior household income criterion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of COE Renewal in Light of COVID-19 Crisis","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider allowing car owners to renew their COE for a subsequent five years at the 15-year mark even if they had previously opted for a five-year renewal at the 10-year mark, given the unprecedented nature of the COVID-19 crisis.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: All Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) are meant to be valid for 10 years. Hence, for a 10-year old vehicle, its COE can be renewed for 10 years based on the Prevailing Quota Premium (PQP).
However, some owners feel that their vehicles may not last for another 10 years. As an exception, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) therefore provides a five-year renewal option for such owners, on the condition that their vehicles must be deregistered at the end of five years. This is made known at the point of COE renewal.
Most owners have deregistered their vehicles as required but understandably, some owners feel differently after five years, but it will not be fair for LTA to grant an exception for this group of owners.
As an additional piece of information, owners can also renew the vehicle for another 10 years upfront, for which he can receive a rebate on the PQP paid if the vehicle is deregistered early.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Merging Workforce Singapore (WSG) and Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) to Optimise Efficiency of Resources","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Manpower whether there are advantages to merging Workforce Singapore (WSG) and the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) so as to eliminate the overlap between the two organisations and further optimise the efficiency of the resources in both organisations.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The mission of Workforce Singapore (WSG) is to provide job facilitation services and support the transformation of the local workforce and industry for the future economy.
As part of its role, WSG's efforts range from providing digital job matching platforms (such as MyCareersFuture), the implementation of employment facilitation schemes (such as SGUnited Jobs and Traineeships, and Professional Conversion Programmes), and the direct provision of career coaching to clients.
For direct client-facing functions, WSG has overall responsibility for designing the framework for service delivery, and the allocation of roles to strategic partners such as the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i), private career matching providers (Ingeus and MAXIMUS), SGEnable (for Persons with Disabilities), and Yellow Ribbon Singapore (for ex-offenders).
e2i brings certain strengths to the job facilitation ecosystem. e2i's strong connections with the labour movement allows it to leverage the unions' networks to provide support to workers, as well as to partner employers to recruit and train local jobseekers for their manpower needs. Of the five national career centres, three are operated directly by WSG, while another two are operated by e2i. The five centres serve different geographical areas, but clients are free to request for their cases to be served by another centre, or by the private career matching providers. For ground activities such as career fairs, WSG and e2i coordinate closely such that their activities complement each other's.
WSG, e2i, Ingeus and MAXIMUS share the same jobseeker case management system. This allows all service providers to use the same common system, reaping economies of scale and providing a more seamless experience for the jobseeker. WSG and e2i also meet regularly at the senior leadership level to coordinate their strategy and operations.
There are merits to having more than one provider in the employment facilitation ecosystem. It helps to spur innovation and improvements, and service models that can meet the varied needs of our local jobseekers. For example, Ingeus introduced a new way for companies to identify talent for senior executive-level roles. Ingeus asked these companies to provide problem statements. Selected jobseekers were then invited to address these problem statements, and in doing so, pitch and showcase their skills and expertise to the companies. This novel approach was well received by the companies and enhanced job matching. At the same time, it is important for WSG to retain operational knowledge of the business of job facilitation, so that it is able to oversee the ecosystem of providers and innovate new schemes effectively.
WSG will continue to work closely with all its partners, to ensure that the needs of every local jobseeker are the foremost priority of each partner, and that they are collectively served to the best of each partner’s ability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Harness Technology in Built Environment Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development what plans are being made to harness technology in the built environment industry.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Construction Industry Transformation Map (ITM), launched in October 2017, sets out our plans to transform the built environment industry by adopting productive construction methods, embracing digitalisation, and growing a strong local core.
Technology is the foundation of the key transformation areas under the Construction ITM. First, we are increasing adoption of advanced building technologies such as Design for Manufacturing and Assembly, which facilitates greater automation and higher quality construction by shifting onsite construction work into a factory environment. Second, we are promoting digitalisation through Integrated Digital Delivery, which reduces abortive work by resolving design conflicts upstream and improves collaboration across the built environment value chain. Third, we are pushing for higher Green Buildings standards by encouraging the use of technology to increase building energy performance in a cost-effective manner. We have also been advocating Smart Facilities Management, which includes solutions such as predictive maintenance and cleaning robots to help the Facilities Management industry become more manpower lean.
More recently, technological solutions such as the BuildSG-COVIDSafe platform have been deployed at worksites to prevent COVID-19 resurgence. These solutions help agencies and firms to ensure compliance with safe management measures and facilitate contract tracing when a COVID-positive case is found.
The COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced the importance of technology in the built environment industry. To accelerate digitalisation efforts across the built environment value chain, the Digitalising Built Environment Alliance for Action (AfA), a private sector-led team, was set up under the Emerging Stronger Taskforce in June 2020. This AfA seeks to accelerate our digitalisation efforts by establishing industry-wide common data standards and driving the adoption of digital platforms. These collective efforts will enable the built environment industry to emerge stronger and more resilient from COVID-19.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requests for Deferment of Loan Payment Received by HDB since Start of Circuit Breaker Period and Proportion Approved","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for National Development given the increasing retrenchment and unemployment figures due to the COVID-19 pandemic, how many requests for deferment of HDB loan payment have been received by the HDB from the start of the circuit breaker period and what is the proportion that has been approved.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB provides one-to-one financial counselling to homeowners seeking help with their HDB mortgage payments to understand their needs, and identify suitable measures to assist them. These assistance measures include allowing owners to reduce or defer loan payments, and extending their loan tenure subject to certain age limits. As the financial counselling is holistic, we do not have data on the number of households who requested specifically to defer their loan payments.
From April to August 2020, HDB assisted around 2,500 households with their HDB mortgage payments. Of these, 864 households deferred their loan payments, and another 277 reduced their loan payments.
We are monitoring the situation closely, and will review the adequacy of our assistance measures as the situation evolves.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Wife Retaining Matrimonial Flat or Allocated Rental Flat by HDB Following Divorce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for National Development in the past five years, of the divorces filed where the couples co-own HDB flats, what is the proportion of (i) the wife retaining the matrimonial flat (ii) the wife allocated a rental flat by HDB and (iii) the wife being unable to retain the matrimonial flat nor be allocated a rental flat.
Mr Desmond Lee: Following divorce, one party may retain the matrimonial flat via a transfer of flat ownership or resale of part-share, subject to meeting HDB's eligibility conditions. From 2015 to 2019, HDB received about 7,200 transfer applications due to divorce, of which 70% (or 5,100) of the flats were retained by the ex-wife. There were also about 580 resale of part-share applications, of which 43% (or 250) were cases where the ex-wife purchased the share of the flat from the ex-husband and retained the flat.
In addition, there were about 6,400 cases where the divorced couple sold the matrimonial flat on the open market and about 300 cases where the couple returned the flat to HDB as they have not met the minimum occupation period to sell the flat. Out of these cases, around 2,500 (or 37%) were cases where the ex-wife went on to purchase another new or resale flat or became listed as an occupier in the flat purchase.
We have also allocated about 1,600 rental flats to female divorcees with care and control of children in the past five years.
There are also cases where the ex-wife may have moved back to stay with family, bought a private property to stay in, or rented a property to stay in. HDB does not track the specific numbers for these groups.
HDB will continue to assist all divorcees who approach HDB for assistance on their housing needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ratio of Total Number of Dwelling Units to Pavilions and Total Number of Void Decks to Blocks in Current and New HDB Developments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the ratio of the current number of HDB blocks designed with void decks usable for common spaces, as compared respectively to (i) total blocks and (ii) total dwelling units in new HDB developments; (b) what is the ratio of pavilions to (i) total blocks and (ii) total dwelling units in new HDB developments; and (c) how these compare with traditional precinct designs.
Mr Desmond Lee: In the design of HDB towns and estates, HDB actively plans for common spaces where the community can gather. The approach has evolved over the years, along with the changes in design of HDB blocks and precincts. Compared with older slab blocks with many units per floor, newer blocks are generally taller and more compact, with fewer units per floor. These changes optimise land use and provide residents with greater privacy and better views, but the trade-off is smaller void deck space under each block.
With this shift in block design, HDB has been providing a variety of purpose-built facilities and amenities in newer precincts to serve as common spaces, and create opportunities for community interaction and bonding. For example, since the 1990s, precinct pavilions have been built in new developments to provide space for community functions, such as weddings and funeral wakes. HDB regularly reviews its planning norms to ensure that the number of precinct pavilions are adequate to meet the needs of residents.
The roofs of all newer Multi-Storey Car Parks are also landscaped for community use. For some very tall HDB blocks, HDB has introduced high-rise gardens and decks, to serve as spaces for residents to meet and interact. Precinct spaces are also carefully designed to facilitate community interaction, such as through the provision of 3-Gen playgrounds and fitness corners that cater to residents of different age groups.
In addition, HDB also maximises the smaller void deck space available in newer developments. In 2014, HDB introduced Community Living Rooms at the void deck of every block. These are located near lift lobbies and letter boxes, and furnished with seats and tables to provide cosy gathering spaces for residents. Where possible, in designing new HDB blocks, HDB also pushes the supporting columns to the edges of the blocks, so as to create more unobstructed void deck space.
Lastly, in older HDB estates, Social Communal Facilities such as childcare centres or elder-care centres are usually built in void decks. To free up the smaller void deck spaces in newer developments, HDB may integrate larger Social Communal Facilities in multi-storey carparks or in standalone community facilities buildings.
In general, surveys of HDB residents have shown that community spaces provided in precincts are sufficient, and that residents are satisfied with the facilities. Nonetheless, HDB will continue to review norms to ensure they are sufficient and support a variety of community events, in accordance with the changing demographics and needs of HDB residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":1501,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201014/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"OA","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4066,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Ang Wei Neng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201014/vernacular-Ang Wei Neng MS 14Oct2020-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Ang Wei Neng MS 14Oct2020-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4067,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sharael Taha","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201014/vernacular-14 Oct 2020 - Mr Sharael Taha - Debate on DPM Ministerial Statement.pdf","fileName":"14 Oct 2020 - Mr Sharael Taha - Debate on DPM Ministerial Statement.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4068,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201014/vernacular-14 Oct 2020 - Mr Fahmi Aliman - Debate on DPM Ministerial Statement.pdf","fileName":"14 Oct 2020 - Mr Fahmi Aliman - Debate on DPM Ministerial Statement.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4069,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Don Wee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201014/vernacular-Don Wee MS 14Oct2020-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Don Wee MS 14Oct2020-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4070,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201014/vernacular-Joan Pereira MS 14Oct2020 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira MS 14Oct2020 -Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}