1 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider normalising work-from-home arrangements in the post-pandemic period and advocate among companies for more flexibility in work arrangements beyond the current crisis.
The Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Manpower): Work-from-home, or WFH, has become the norm during the COVID-19 period, with many employers implementing WFH arrangements, for the safety of their employees.
We are heartened by the speed at which companies and employees have adapted to the WFH arrangements during this period. Even as more are allowed to return to the workplace, some employers continue to allow their employees to WFH and return to the office only when needed. It is an encouraging sign that more people recognise the benefits of working from home and that it is becoming part of the “new normal”.
At the same time, we recognise that WFH may not be feasible under certain conditions. These include situations where workers have to be physically present at the workplace to operate machinery, or where there are challenges in working from home due to not so conducive home environments.
MOM will continue to advocate for the implementation of flexible work arrangements, or FWAs. In 2019, about 85% of employers offered some form of formal or ad hoc FWAs in the workplace. More than 7,000 companies have also adopted the Tripartite Standard on FWAs. MOM welcomes suggestions to implement FWAs and will continue to share good practices with employers.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
\tDr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. My question is, while working at home, many employees are subjected to really long hours. Will MOM come up with some law to protect employees? We have seen people who have back-to-back meetings on Zoom and the meetings run past their lunch and dinner times.
Mr Speaker: Our sessions run through lunch too.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank the hon Dr Wan Rizal for the comment. Indeed, while there are clear benefits of WFH and of continuing with it, it also has a set of new challenges that we are learning about. We are in the process of consultation with employers and employees to look at how we can moderate and also put in place recommendations to make WFH more sustainable in the steady state.
\t
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Could I ask the Minister of State, out of the 85% of the companies that are offering FWAs, how many percent are actually offering WFH arrangements? Second, can I also ask what was the Ministry's consideration when we so drastically reduced our WFH policy from 100% to 50%? Why do we not just have a set of conditions or criteria where, if an employee is required to go back to work, then, they go back to work; rather than halve it quite immediately?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: For 2019, I do not have the data off-hand on what percentage of the 85% of the employers offered WFH arrangements as well. But we do know that prior to COVID-19, before the circuit breaker, there were fewer companies that were implementing WFH arrangements. During the circuit breaker, because of safety reasons, many companies, employers, have adapted very fast. We see that there is feedback from more employers telling us that they are prepared to continue to implement WFH post-COVID-19. So, this is an encouraging sign.
As to whether 50% is the correct level or not, I think we have to have proper conversations and discussions, hopefully with the tripartite partners to understand better the challenges that come along with WFH – both for the employers as well as for the employees, just as Dr Wan Rizal had mentioned earlier on. I think it is not so much pegging a certain level in the steady state, but rather, trying to find optimal conditions for us to be able to implement WFH in a sustainable manner.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
\tMr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I would like to thank the Minister of State for the clarification. I would also like to enquire, has MOM considered the downstream impact of WFH? With companies intending to downsize their office spaces to benefit from WFH, can we also take a look at how it impacts the downstream workers – those who are supporting office operations, such as the cleaners in the office, the food providers around the office space. Has MOM also considered those impacts?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank the hon Member for that comment. Indeed, implementing WFH affects not just the employers and the employees, but also the eco-system – the businesses and the individuals supporting WFH as well as work from office, work from workplace arrangements. So, these have to be studied carefully. As I have said earlier on, we are looking at having deeper discussions at the tripartite level to make sure that we understand the considerations fully and more holistically before we make further recommendations on implementing WFH further.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Racial Proportions in Current Immigration Policy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the existing immigration policy to keep the existing racial proportions remains unchanged.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, we are keenly aware of the need to maintain the racial balance in Singapore’s population in order to preserve social stability and harmony. I would like to assure the Member that the pace and profile of our immigration intake have been, and will continue to be, calibrated to preserve this racial balance.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Minister of State for the reply. May I know what are the current racial proportions in our country? Also, over all these years, were there any changes to these proportions?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. If you look back, the ethnic proportion of our citizen population has actually remained stable. In the last 10 years, the proportion of citizens of Chinese ethnicity has remained at 76%, Malay ethnicity at 15%, Indian ethnicity at 7.5%, and Others at 1.5%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Fall in Government Revenue on Decisions on Infrastructure Projects and Borrowings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of the current contraction of the global and Singapore's economies leading to an expected fall in Government revenue (a) whether there will be any delay or cancellation of the local major infrastructural investments that the Government has committed to date and, if so, what are the details; and (b) whether the Government anticipates increased borrowings or issuance of bonds to fund the infrastructural investments on projects that it is committed to complete.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, may we have your permission to provide the answer to this in Deputy Prime Minister's round-up speech because he will be addressing the content and substance of this Parliamentary Question in his round-up?
Mr Speaker: Proceed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training Cybersecurity Experts for Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how many Singaporeans have been trained in cybersecurity to protect our security network; and (b) what is the plan to have adequate Singaporean cybersecurity specialists to meet the challenges.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Mr Speaker, cybersecurity is an important growth sector and a key enabler for Singapore’s economy and digital future. It is vital to nurture and grow our cybersecurity workforce to ensure our networks are well protected.
The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore, or CSA, works closely with our industry partners and other Government agencies in order to do so. Based on the Infocomm Media Development Authority's survey, the number of cybersecurity professionals in Singapore in 2019 more than doubled to almost 6,000 compared to 2014.
To meet near-term demand for cybersecurity professionals, we facilitate the training of fresh and mid-career non-cybersecurity professionals for cybersecurity jobs. Since 2016, almost 5,000 Singaporeans have undergone cybersecurity training as part of the Tech Skills Accelerator programme.
Working with industry partners, we have increased opportunities for Singaporeans to take on cybersecurity roles. Companies such as Ensign InfoSecurity, Singtel and DBS offer traineeships under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills package to help fresh graduates gain cybersecurity industry experience. The Government will also hire more cybersecurity professionals. CSA has earmarked 120 places over the next two years for cybersecurity roles in Government agencies.
CSA has also worked with associations, industry and academic partners to introduce programmes under the national SG Cyber Talent initiative to reach out to the young. The SG Cyber Youth and SG Cyber Women programmes have engaged over 7,000 participants to date, to encourage them to pursue a career in cybersecurity. Our Institutes of Higher Learning also offer dedicated courses for students to build up foundational cybersecurity expertise.
These efforts will nurture and strengthen our cybersecurity workforce to meet Singapore’s needs.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. May I know in terms of national security, will the Ministry consider that we need a core Singapore team to protect our national security in terms of cybersecurity? What measures will the Ministry consider?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Indeed, Mr Gan Thiam Poh is correct that we do need to ensure that we have the appropriate security protocols in terms of the hiring practices. While the nationality is taken into consideration, the key thing that we have to achieve is the breadth and depth of talent across our cybersecurity landscape in order to benefit both the public sector as well as the private sector here in Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Just a brief question with regard to attracting Singaporeans to some of these jobs at CSA and more broadly the wider subset of the IT industry in Singapore. We have heard in the debate yesterday about ensuring that Singapore remains cosmopolitan. And so, in brief, the question is, has it been difficult for the Government to attract Singaporeans to some of the jobs that are being offered by CSA in the past and what are the prospects going forward?
\t
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his question. There are two ways to look at this, which is, what are the jobs unfilled and the gaps that are growing or r what is the attractiveness of the job to Singaporeans and local graduates? To answer the question Mr Pritam Singh is asking, this set of cybersecurity jobs, especially those within the public sector and agencies, such as the Home Team, DSTA, Cyber Security Agency, GovTech and various others, are attractive to our local cybersecurity graduates. The competition to get into these jobs is significant and the awareness of the opportunities afforded by these jobs amongst our local graduates is very high. There are a number of surveys, studies and publications both in the private sector as well as coming out of the public sector that validate this.
Nevertheless, globally, there is a dearth of talent for these types of jobs and there is a global competition for the kind of skillsets that we need to deploy in cybersecurity. That applies in Singapore, as it does around the globe.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on MediSave Withdrawal Limits When MediShield Life Premium Payments Rise ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health in view of the proposed increases in premiums and coverage of MediShield Life (MSHL), whether MediSave withdrawal limits for MSHL premium payments will be raised so that MediSave can be used to fully pay for premiums for MediShield Life Basic, Integrated Shield Plans for Class B2/C wards and the Standard Integrated Shield Plan (for public hospital Class B1 coverage), for all age groups.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Health): MediShield Life premiums are fully payable by MediSave. There are no withdrawal limits. Family members can also utilise their MediSave also to help pay the premiums for their loved ones.
The additional private insurance component of the Integrated Plans (or IP) is also payable by MediSave, up to the Additional Withdrawal Limits (AWLs) which range from $300 to $900 per year, with higher limits for older policyholders as their premiums are higher.
The AWLs strike a balance between helping Singaporeans pay for their IP premiums using MediSave and ensuring that they have enough MediSave for basic healthcare needs, especially after their retirement. As MediShield Life already provides universal and basic insurance coverage for all Singaporeans, policyholders will need to consider whether they need the additional IP insurance and the affordability of the IP premiums when choosing these plans.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I have two supplementary questions.
First, with the proposed increased coverage of MediShield Life, does this reduce the burden on the lower tier Integrated Shield Plans and, hence, translate to lower premiums for the IPs?
Second, according a comparison of standard IPs for Class B1 coverage on the MOH website, the benefits of standard IPs are identical across all IP insurers. This being the case, has the Government considered having CPF take over the running of standard IPs for Class B1 coverage so that the costs and premiums can be kept lower? By having CPF take over the standard IP, risks can be further pooled rather than split across different insurers and the premiums can be possibly lowered.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I do not quite understand the Member's first question. So, I will ask the Member to clarify again later. But for the second question on the standard B1 coverage, we must understand that, at this moment, the Basic MediShield Life coverage already covers for nine out of 10 subsidised healthcare bills. So, the additional B1 coverage is really that little bit of icing on the cake and I think it would not be useful for CPF Board to take over all coverage, including up to B1, because there is still a role for the market to play. But by standardising the level of coverage and ensuring that the premium is uniform, it gives Singaporeans the option to choose something beyond the coverage of nine in 10 that are already covered by the current Basic MediShield plans.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, to clarify my first question, what I meant is that, currently, MediShield Life covers a certain amount. Now, the proposal is to increase the coverage or MediShield Life. Would that eat into some of the Integrated Shield Plan coverage such that the premiums of Integrated Shield Plans can be lowered?
With regard to the second question which the Senior Minister of State answered, he mentioned that B1 plans are the icing on the cake. But I understand that the B1 plans are actually quite popular among Singaporeans, to the extent that the Government has gone to the extent of standardising the benefits of all the B1 plans so that there is not so much need for comparison for premium holders. So, the question is: can that, therefore, be brought under the CPF fold so that we can possibly benefit from risk-pooling and, possibly, lower premiums for premium holders?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, we will take the suggestion by the Member on the B1 plans into consideration. This is an on-going process of reviewing the utilisation over time and we may evolve some of this coverage over time as well. But at this moment, we will focus, because MediShield Life is still a very new plan that we had started in the last five years or so. So, we want to let it stabilise and see how the utilisation of the Basic plan, which covers nine in 10 subsidised bills, goes before deciding whether we should broaden the inclusion of B1 into our fold as well. The private insurance market is also evolving. So, this thing will take some time to settle. Nonetheless. we will take the suggestion into consideration
The increased coverage for MediShield Life, the expansion of increased coverage up to about 120,000 claims per year, actually, that refers to total bill size. That does not necessarily mean, therefore, that the need for private plan is negated by the increased coverage, because there is still healthcare inflation and choosing private coverage is actually a matter of personal choice. Some people prefer to go to the private sector where they can have, perhaps, a more personalised type of higher value service. But those who are looking for good value care will still come back to the institution in our restructured hospitals. So, I do not think those two are mutually inclusive and increasing coverage for one would necessarily eat into the other.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Controlled Entry and Exit Points in Buildings for SafeEntry Scanning on Fire Safety ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the current practice of cordoning off most entrances and exits of buildings to facilitate SafeEntry and temperature screenings at a single entrance point presents a fire safety risk.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, the requirements in respect of the cordoning of entrances and exits of buildings as part of the COVID-19 safe management measures aim to also not increase the fire safety risk. Building owners must continue to comply with fire safety requirements and ensure that the exits and entrances that are cordoned off must be readily accessible during emergencies. For example, the physical barriers that are used as cordons must be easily removable to allow evacuation in an emergency. Clear notices or signage must also be prominently placed to inform the public.
The Singapore Civil Defence Force has communicated the fire safety requirements to all building owners and will continue to conduct regular enforcement checks to ensure compliance.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I appreciate the answer. I am sure the Minister would appreciate that, during an emergency, time is of the essence and there is often a great deal of panic and confusion. So, while it may be that the emergency exits remain open, the fact that they are out of bounds in normal circumstances might condition people to rush to the one exit that they know remains open and that could become a choke point. So, has SCDF considered this risk and how does it intend to mitigate that, beyond what the Minister of State mentioned just now about having signage to ensure that people are aware that the exit can actually be opened.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the Supplementary Question. We recognise that it is important for us to let the public know and be socialised about how the exits and entrances work during an emergency. As such, it is important that we work very closely with the malls and building owners. SCDF has been doing that and has been encouraging malls and building owners to inform their customers and those who go to the buildings about some of the safety aspects and, at the same time, place clear signage. In fact, we are heartened that Singaporeans are also very concerned about fire safety. If you follow the media, quite a number have written to the media to share their concerns. As such, we have also been engaging building owners regularly. I would like to urge members of the public, that if they have concerns about fire hazards, they can call us at 1800-280-0000 use SCDF's \"myResponder\" app or email us. This is something that we believe in and want to work with the public on, and while we will continue to manage and enhance our system, as well as engage the public and building owners.
We are very heartened that Singaporeans have come on board and are making sure that Singapore, regardless of the situation that we are in, with the various Safe Management Measures (SMMs) in place, will continue to look at and ensure fire safety.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Singaporeans Provided Childcare, Preschool and After-school Care Subsidies","subTitle":"Proposal for uniform fee for all parents","sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current number of Singaporeans who have been provided with childcare/preschool and after-school care subsidies respectively, broken down by (i) income group (ii) amount of subsidy and (iii) the after-subsidy fee they are paying; (b) whether the Ministry will extend the subsidies to non-working mothers who look after other elder children in the family; and (c) whether the Ministry will review the subsidies given by ECDA centres in providing childcare/preschool and after-school care and also consider eliminating means testing so that all parents pay a uniform fee.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, all families with Singaporean children enrolled in childcare programmes receive a universal Basic Subsidy. In addition, working mothers with a monthly household income of $12,000 or below are eligible for a means-tested Additional Subsidy, with lower income families receiving higher subsidies.
Families with Singaporean children enrolled in kindergartens run by Anchor Operators and MOE and whose monthly household income is $12,000 or below are eligible for a means-tested subsidy under the Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme or KiFAS. Larger families can choose to have their household income assessed on a per capita basis, which may enable them to qualify for a higher tier of the Additional Subsidy or KiFAS.
Today, 103,400 Singaporean children are enrolled in full-day childcare. Of these, all receive a Basic Subsidy each month. Sixty-one thousand five hundred children, or six in 10, receive an Additional Subsidy each month, as their families have monthly household income of $12,000 or below. For this group, the median total subsidy is $560 and the median nett fee after subsidy is $210. Nine thousand nine hundred children, or one in 10, receive the highest tier of the Additional Subsidy, as they are from families with monthly household income of $3,000 and below. For this group, the median total subsidy is $767 and the median nett fee is $3.
For kindergarten, 18,800 Singaporean children are enrolled in Anchor Operator- and MOE-run kindergartens. Of these, 12,000 children, or over six in 10, receive KiFAS each month, as their families have monthly household income of $12,000 or below. For this group, the median subsidy is $156 and the median nett fee after subsidy is $15. Four thousand three hundred children, or two in 10, receive the highest tier of the KiFAS subsidy, as their families have monthly household income of $3,000 or below. For this group, the median subsidy is $170 and the nett fee is $1.
\t
The Member asked if we could extend subsidies to non-working mothers taking care of older children in the family.
Non-working mothers who need childcare due to certain circumstances, such as those who are looking for employment or are caring for a younger child aged 24 months and below, a special needs child or a sick family member, can apply for the same subsidies as working mothers under Special Approval. From August 2020, families under HDB's Public Rental Scheme and MSF’s ComCare schemes automatically qualify for maximum pre-school subsidies, regardless of the mother’s working status.
Non-working mothers may also consider enrolling their children in half-day kindergarten programmes, which are often more affordable than full-day childcare programmes. KiFAS is available at kindergartens run by Anchor Operators and MOE, and does not depend on the mother's working status.
As for student care, student care centres provide care and supervision to school-going children from seven to 14 years old. To ensure that student care remains affordable, MSF provides children from lower income families with monthly subsidies for student care fees under the Student Care Fee Assistance or SCFA scheme. These subsidies are available for all eligible families with monthly household income of $4,500 or below or per capita income of $1,125 or below, including those with non-working parents who are looking for work, on medical leave, or with certified full-time care-giver duties for a dependant and so on.
Around 36,000 children are enrolled in MSF-registered student care centres today, of which 6,600 Singaporean children are SCFA beneficiaries. Of the 6,600 children, the median SCFA subsidy is $243, and the median net fee after subsidy is $30. One thousand and eight hundred children, or three in 10, receive the highest tier of the SCFA subsidy, as their families have monthly household income of $1,500 and below. The median SCFA subsidy is $275 and the median net fee after subsidy is $5. Thirty five percent of these 1,800 children have zero household income.
The Member also asked if we could eliminate means-testing so that families can pay a uniform fee for pre-school and student care. Means-testing allows the Government to use fiscal resources more effectively and to extend more support to families with greater needs. In January 2020, we raised the household income ceiling for the Childcare Additional Subsidy and KiFAS to $12,000 per month, up from $7,500 and $6,000 respectively, to support more families with pre-school expenses. We also increased the subsidy amounts for each eligible tier, by up to $240 per month for the Additional Subsidy.
Similarly, for student care, we recently enhanced the SCFA scheme to strengthen support for lower income families. In July 2020, the monthly household income ceiling was raised from $4,000 to $4,500. The per capita income ceiling was raised from $1,000 to $1,125, allowing more families to qualify for subsidies. The quanta for means-tested SCFA subsidies have also been increased, such that eligible families can receive up to $60 more in subsidies per month.
We will monitor the impact of the enhancements, because these are very recent, and review these schemes when necessary to ensure the affordability of pre-school and student care, especially for lower income families. For pre-school, we aim to lower fee caps for full-day childcare at Government-supported pre-schools over the medium term to make pre-school even more affordable for all families, starting with Partner Operator pre-schools in January 2021.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
\t Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): I thank Minister for the comprehensive reply. In fact, I appreciate all the effort that is given by the Government to the families.
My question is: will the Government also consider incentivising families who have more children? This means, based on the number of children they have, they have more subsidy, higher quantum given to them. This is also to ease the burden, especially faced by the sandwiched class and encouraging them to have more babies.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Encouraging more babies is one reason why we did it, but not the reason to do it. For childcare, for example, we want to make sure that children get access to affordable and quality pre-school education. That is very important, especially during the growing years. For students above seven years old who need care because of the circumstances in their families, they have access to higher subsidies given the special circumstances the families may need.
So if Members know of families who do not qualify because of this income criteria, they can always come forward and appeal for higher subsidies. And we will look at it carefully.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Continual Contact between Natural Parents and Children-In-Care Despite COVID-19 Safe Distancing Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what steps have been taken to ensure continual access of natural parents and children-in-care during the period whereby social distancing between households are enforced.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, during the circuit breaker period, MSF continued to facilitate interaction between children-in-care and their natural parents. This is important to maintain the family ties between the children and their families and to facilitate the children's eventual reunification with their families.
In line with the safe management measures implemented during the circuit breaker period, case workers and foster families continued to facilitate access virtually through video conferencing or phone calls for the children to maintain regular contact with their natural families. Case workers also had more frequent virtual check-ins with the children to ensure their well-being.
In the post-circuit breaker period, children in foster care are granted home leave to visit their natural families in their homes. The natural parents must declare the health situation of the family before any visit. For instance, there must not be any household member feeling unwell, or under a Home Quarantine Order, Leave of Absence, or Stay-Home Notice. Case workers will also request for periodic updates on the natural family's health.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Hawker Centres and Coffeeshops Ready to Implement Gender Ratio Requirement in Public Toilets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the percentage of hawker centres and coffeeshops which currently do not adhere to the ratio of female and male toilet facilities of 5:3 as required by the NEA; (b) what steps can be taken to encourage the relevant owners and operators to make the requisite changes to comply with the ratio requirement; and (c) whether incentives can be provided under NEA's Toilet Improvement Programme launched on 2 October 2020 to effect the desired changes.
The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): The Code of Practice on Environmental Health or COPEH, specifies the minimum number of female and male toilet facilities for different categories of premises, according to their Gross Floor Area or capacity. For small food establishments, such as coffeeshops that are no more than 250 sqm in area, the minimum requirement is to provide one toilet and one wash hand basin. For larger hawker centres and coffeeshops, the required ratio of female to male toilet facilities will vary according to size. The 5:3 ratio of female to male toilet facilities applies to premises such as shopping malls, conference halls and cinemas.
NEA regularly updates the requirements in the COPEH, including those pertaining to the number of female and male toilet facilities. These will apply to premises, including hawker centres and coffeeshops, when they undergo rebuilding or major renovation.
NEA will encourage owners and operators of hawker centres and coffeeshops to provide toilet facilities that meet the latest COPEH through the Toilet Improvement Programme or TIP. The TIP provides co-funding support of up to 90%, capped at $45,000, to incorporate better designs and technologies for more productive and effective cleaning of toilets.
I urge Town Councils and coffeeshop owners to apply for the TIP to upgrade their toilets.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Senior Minister of State for her comprehensive answer. I have a supplementary question. May I please ask if her Ministry could consider extending the NEA's Toilet Improvement Programme to also include, apart from hawker centres and coffeeshops, standalone wet markets – there is one such wet market in Bukit Batok which is owned by a private owner – which would benefit from the incentives to improve the toilets and also incentivise the owners to conduct deep cleaning and daily cleaning of the toilets?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for the supplementary question on wet markets. At the moment for the Toilet Improvement Programme, we have budgeted about $8 million and we are looking at co-funding the programme for up to 40 hawker centres whose common areas and toilets are managed by the Town Councils, and up to 114 coffeeshops. So, this is as a start.
With regard to the request, let us look at it. As I have said, our priority and as a start for this Toilet Improvement Programme, it is really for coffeeshops and hawker centres where there is high traffic and we are looking at improving standards of hygiene and cleanliness, particularly with respect to the spread of infectious diseases and so on. We are looking at toilets that have not been upgraded, for instance, for coffeeshops, for the last three years, with ageing infrastructure and maintenance issues. But these are areas that we could look at.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Fines for Illegal Deployment of Foreign Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider increasing the maximum fine for employers who illegally deploy a foreign domestic worker.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, employers who illegally deploy their foreign domestic workers face financial penalty of up to $10,000. They could also be debarred from hiring foreign domestic workers.
While the current administrative financial penalty is capped at $10,000, the eventual penalty takes into consideration the severity of the infringement and number of counts of the infringement that is committed. Between 2017 and 2019, 16 employers were issued with financial penalties each year, ranging from $3,300 to $24,000.
The number of cases of illegal deployment of foreign domestic workers has remained relatively stable over the past few years. We do not plan to review the maximum penalty at the moment. However, we are reviewing the guidelines to see if the cases currently resolved with a warning, should in future be subject to a financial penalty. This is so that employers will take their responsibility towards their foreign domestic workers seriously.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister of State for saying that the Ministry will be doing a review. Could I ask how long this review will take? And second, whether the NGOs will be consulted during this review process?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Mr Louis Ng for that question. The review is on-going and we are also in the process of consulting various parties and if Mr Louis Ng has strong views or is in touch with organisations that have views on this, we welcome their input as well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alternatives to Stack Ranking Model for Appraisal of Teachers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has conducted any studies on the effect stacked ranking has on teachers collaborating with each other; (b) if so, what do the results of these studies show; and (c) whether the Ministry will conduct such studies if it has not done so.
12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has explored alternative performance appraisal models instead of the current stack ranking model for teachers; and (b) if so, what appraisal models has the Ministry considered.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 11 and 12 together.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, MOE takes guidance from the Civil Service ranking and promotion framework for our staff performance appraisal and ranking processes. So, we adopt a system where a teacher’s performance is not just assessed by his own supervisor, but also cross-ranked with his peers by a ranking panel comprising direct and indirect supervisors. The system allows us to consistently identify and recognise stronger performing officers, while at the same time provide development opportunities to those who need more support to help them improve their performance. In addition, the system also helps to moderate differences in supervisors’ assessments and establish common standards of performance assessment.
We adopt a holistic approach in assessing our teachers. They are expected to be able to deliver effective teaching and pastoral care, support students in their character development, interact well with students and contribute to the learning of fellow teachers. Our teachers are also assessed on their ability to work and collaborate with others.
Apart from feedback from our School Leaders, MOE monitors key staff-related indicators like staff collaboration through our internal staff engagement surveys, and we do not find any particular concerns raised about our teachers not being able to collaborate with one another.
Singapore Secondary school teachers who participated in OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey 2018 said that beyond performance ratings, they receive feedback that has a positive impact on their teaching practices. In fact, they reported that the teaching fraternity here has a strong collaborative and collegial culture, driven by a shared belief in collective improvement of practice. About eight in 10 Singapore teachers reported that their schools have a collaborative school culture characterised by mutual support, shared responsibility, common beliefs about student learning and well-being, and an emphasis on innovation. 92% of our teachers also said that they can rely on one another, which is higher than the OECD average of 89%.
On balance, we find that a system of relative ranking of performance still serves its purpose today. While there are ranking guidelines to adhere to, there is also flexibility for deviations, taking into consideration the performance of individual officers and specific circumstances.
Nevertheless, MOE works with the Public Service Division, or PSD, to review our appraisal system periodically and has made refinements to the system over the years as our operating landscape changes.
We will also continue to work with PSD to study alternative systems of performance management so that we can ensure our system remains relevant and effective. Beyond the ranking guidelines or even the system of performance management that is in place, what is important is for our school leaders to continue motivating and inspiring our teachers to stay true to their calling as educators and help our students reach their full potential.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister for the reply and giving some of the survey results as well. But I want to make two points. One is that we actually have done away with class ranking because we said that learning is not a competition. Why then do we make teaching a competition? Does the Minister agree with me that by ranking teachers against each other, it might make them compete against each other and collaborate less as well. I know there are some survey results that show that a percentage feels that they can collaborate but I am just wondering whether ranking does help to move the needle towards making them compete against each other.
Two, can I ask whether MOE has studied this issue in terms of whether it benefits the students? So, does ranking the teachers actually benefit the students?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, let me start by saying that we appreciate the work that our teachers do. Teaching is a very demanding job; it is a special calling. I know this from first-hand experience because my mother was a teacher for more than 40 years. So, let us make no pretence of it. It is demanding, and I would say it is probably more demanding now than it used to be.
But it is also vitally important in bringing out the best in every child and nurturing the next generation. That is why we spare no effort in building a first-rate teaching force, high quality and dedicated. We also do our very best to support them in their work.
I say this because we have to look at appraisal systems in this context. An appraisal system is meant to enhance teaching quality. Evidence around the world shows that having a good appraisal system can help in enhancing teaching quality. An OECD study said, for example, that \"teacher appraisal can be a key lever for increasing the focus on teaching quality\".
So, that is what we have been trying to do. It is not about competition amongst the teachers, but it is putting in place an appraisal system where there is focus on quality and where the school leadership teams can continually assess their teachers, and identify the excellent teachers amongst them who can be the next generation of school leaders and master teachers. I think that is important for maintaining that quality of our teaching force and also important in being able to nurture our next generation well.
We have been doing this for many years. We have an appraisal system that works reasonably well and we have, as a result of it, a strong high-quality teaching force. We will continue to review and improve the system, as I have said, based on feedback from all stakeholders and looking at experiences in other countries as well as best practices in other jurisdictions. Our fundamental objective is really to ensure a high quality teaching force and do the best for every child in our schools.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for an impassioned defence for the importance of appraisal which I think nobody disputes. Perhaps, the way to square this circle is to understand that maybe the concern is about ranking which potentially by its nature pits one teacher versus another.
I wonder if there could be a move toward more of a measurement system that does not rely on ranking per se but focuses more on teachers actually just having reached absolute standards. This does not penalise those who are very good teachers but may end up being ranked lower just by virtue of their peers being even better teachers.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, as I had mentioned just now, our objective is to have a sound appraisal system that enhances teaching quality. How to go about designing this appraisal system? I think we have a system that works reasonably well, but I would be the first to acknowledge that it is not perfect. I do not think there are perfect solutions anywhere in the world. We constantly have to review and improve.
Even in the system of ranking that we have today, it has evolved over the years. We, for example, do not rigidly apply performance grade quotas anymore today; we allow flexibility and deviations, so we look at different circumstances. Ultimately, when we look at a performance system, the key objective is still, as I said earlier, for the school leadership teams to be able to identify excellent teachers amongst those who are under their charge. So, there is, in that selection, some form of ranking inevitably but the purpose is to be able to identify the high performing ones so that you can nurture them and put them up for advancement, and then they can in turn be the next generation of school leaders and master teachers.
We remain open with regard to new ideas and inputs on how this appraisal system can continue to be enhanced. But our objective, I think all of us here in this House share that same objective, is to have an appraisal system that is fair, enhances teaching quality and helps us to advance the next generation of school leadership so that we can continue to do the best for our students.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir. I just want to reaffirm that I do agree that we should have an appraisal system as well. But could I ask the Minister, he mentioned earlier that MOE is studying alternative appraisal models. So, could the Minister share what some of these models are that MOE is currently studying?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: It is an on-going process, Mr Speaker, because we continue to review this. It is not a specific review that we are doing now. Constantly, we exchange notes with jurisdictions elsewhere. We look at what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had suggested too, on what is the balance between ranking versus having more absolute measures of performance. And then we also see some of the negative experiences in other jurisdictions where sometimes if you put too much weight on one indicator, then the teachers teach to that or perform to that indicator only, and then you end up with inadvertent consequences.
Like I said, there is no perfect appraisal system anywhere in the world. In the end, you have to keep on improving, reviewing, updating and being mindful of the potential downsides. So, the concerns raised by Members, that ranking and the appraisal systems that have elements of ranking can lead to the ill effects of competition, is something we are very mindful of. That is why in the way we appraise, we also look at how teachers collaborate with one another, in order to encourage that sort of behaviour.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Residents Affected by Chemical Odours from Factories in Pioneer Constituency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what is being done to mitigate against the various chemical odours/fumes (besides cocoa) emanating from the factories in Pioneer constituency that adversely impact the households located within their close proximity.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): NEA continuously monitors the ambient air levels of key pollutants as well as Volatile Organic Compounds or VOCs, which are organic vapours of common industrial emissions and precursors of ozone. The ambient VOC levels in the western region are in the parts per billion and parts per trillion range, well within safe levels which are mostly in the parts per million range. The ambient air quality in the western region was also in the normal range from January to September 2020, with the Pollutant Standards Index ranging from 14 to 66 in the Good to Moderate bands. This PSI is comparable to the rest of Singapore during the same period which ranges from 14 to 76.
NEA has in place a suite of measures to manage emissions from industrial premises, including factories in Pioneer Constituency. Emissions of key industrial pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, dioxins and furans are regulated under the Environmental Protection and Management Act. Factories are required to install pollution control equipment to ensure that their emissions are properly treated before discharge. Industries with processes that emit higher levels of air pollutants are required to engage accredited surveyors to conduct source emission testing and submit the test reports to NEA regularly.
\t
NEA also conducts regular factory inspections to verify that their pollution control equipment is well maintained and operating effectively. About 150 inspections are conducted every year at factories in the Jurong area.
Some factories in the Jurong Industrial Estate, such as those specialising in the manufacturing of food flavourings and fragrances, generate certain smells during their operations. Such smells are generally not harmful to human health. NEA has advised these factories on additional mitigation measures, such as the installation of odour control systems and dispersion fans to reduce odours from their premises.
NEA will continue to ensure that industries meet air emission standards and will enforce against companies found to be non-compliant. My Ministry also regularly reviews the industrial emission standards to ensure they are on par with those in other jurisdictions.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\t\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply and also for her assurance and guaranteeing the air quality and standards are within healthy range and not hazardous and noxious.
Just wanted to share because, just last night, in fact, two residents buzzed me through private message to share about chemical smells and odours coming from the nearby factory areas, mainly, Soon Lee as well as further down, near Boon Lay Way.
Essentially, the smells come partly exacerbated by the fact of strong winds and wind directions, so I just wanted to give a few suggestions to Senior Minister of State.
Firstly, beside regular checks, particularly from the HDB blocks that are facing the precincts to do checks in those areas rather than within the industrial area itself.
Second, whether we can do environmental audits in a more regular fashion for those industries which particularly have emissions of smoke, fumes as well as other odours.
Thirdly, whether NEA can work more closely with the community to be a bit more proactive, as and when we detect some of these cases to engage those companies and businesses in the area.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: First, let me thank the Member for his suggestions. Let me say that NEA will continue to monitor the ambient air quality in the area with respect to pollutant indicators as well as VOCs and so on. Indeed, we have continuous, real-time air monitoring sensors, a network of these sensors that will measure Pollutant Standards Index as well as VOCs, to ensure that the ambient air quality is within the range of good to moderate and that the VOC levels are within the safe levels. But I must caveat that we cannot guarantee; we will do our best. Some of these things are not within our control.
But, with regards to the three suggestions, I would say yes, we will take all this on board. Also, allow me to clarify that every time when a smell incident is reported, if it is distinctive and we can trace it to a specific factory, we will engage the factory and advise them to implement smell mitigation measures. Over the years, quite a number of these factories have been implementing or have implemented smell mitigation measures. For instance, scrubbers, odour control systems, dispersion fans and to the extent that some of them will also moderate their operations, in order to mitigate the smells.
And as the Member has rightly pointed out, particularly during the months from April to November, due to the Southwest monsoon as well as the inter-monsoon period, sometimes the wind will carry over these smells or the smells could linger because of lack of variability in the wind speed and so on. But, as I have said, for the smell incidents that have been reported thus far, we have not found elevated levels of ambient air pollutant indicators, which means that they are within safe levels. We will continue to proactively respond to such reports of smell incidents.
With regards to audits of the factories, we do regular checks for factories. So, for the higher risk factories and particularly for the large emitters, we need them to submit accredited reports on an annual basis and we actually check these high-risk factories twice a year. For the lower risk factories, it is once a year. So, there are actually measures that we put in place to mitigate this. And we will continue to see what we can do.
","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 Skillsfuture Courses amidst COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there has been an increased uptake of online SkillsFuture courses in the pandemic period from the start of the year to date current, compared to previous years; and (b) what outreach efforts have been undertaken by the Ministry in encouraging Singaporeans to upskill or re-skill themselves during a crisis.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, in the first half of 2020, there were approximately 100,000 training places for SkillsFuture Singapore, or SSG-funded courses conducted in e-learning mode, compared to 600 in 2019. The number of courses approved to run in e-learning mode has also grown from about 60 in December 2019, to more than 2,800 as at September this year. These include over 2,000 courses that were converted from in-person or blended learning mode to e-learning mode this year.
SSG has significantly stepped up outreach efforts in this extraordinary period. SSG partners agencies such as Workforce Singapore or WSG, NTUC Employment and Employability Institute or e2i, and self-help groups to publicise upskilling and reskilling opportunities in career events and at the SGUnited Jobs and Skills centres. As at end of August this year, about 1,700 individuals have enrolled in the SGUnited Skills and SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways (Company Training) programmes.
SSG has also introduced a new Skills and Training Advisory service in this period. Recognising the need for more personalised support to individuals, this provides one-on-one consultation on skills and training needs, as well as suitable courses to support individuals' career transition and progression need. From January to September this year, over 2,100 individuals have tapped on the Skills and Training Advisory service.
SSG also continues to partner the People's Association and the Community Development Councils or CDCs to run SkillsFuture Advice workshops and webinars. These have been stepped up this year, in particular with the SkillsFuture@CDC initiative. Thus far, we have delivered more than 700 physical and virtual workshops to over 14,000 participants. And I have personally participated in a few myself.
We will continue to enhance outreach efforts to ensure that Singaporeans are aware of the reskilling and upskilling opportunities and support available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Delay in Roll-out of Distance-based Charging in Next-generation ERP System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the reason for the delay in the roll-out of distance-based charging in the next-generation ERP system (ERP2) despite this being a key feature and cost component; (b) what is the timeline for the implementation of distance-based charging; and (c) how much of the $556 million ERP2 contract was spent on this feature.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Transport): The key reason for switching to the next-generation ERP, or nexgen ERP, is that the current system, which has been in place since 1998, is reaching the end of its operational life.
After studying several options, LTA concluded that the Global Navigation Satellite System, or GNSS, was the most suitable technology to use for nexgen ERP. It will remove the need to maintain the current bulky gantries and generate accurate real time traffic data to support transport policy, planning and traffic management.
It can also potentially be used for distance-based charging. There is no specific contract cost attributable to this feature, as it is part of the system design in the contract.
The Member asked about the timeline for implementing distance-based charging. Let me clarify that this distance-based charging is a different approach for congestion charging. The current approach is point-based or cordon pricing – vehicles are charged when they cross a specific point or a cordon. As announced earlier, such distance-based pricing is several years away. Give the nexgen ERP system some time to settle down first. In the meantime, we will study different approaches and options.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answers. I have some supplementary questions. First, will the distance-based charging – when it is rolled out eventually – be revenue neutral for the Government, compared to the current ERP system? And if so, will we expect a reduction in road tax once the distance-based charging is rolled out?
I am also concerned about how distance-based charging may impact individuals who drive or ride to work like taxi drivers or private hire drivers or delivery riders. So, will there be concessionary distance charging rates for these groups?
And lastly, will coupon-less charging for roadside parking, be rolled out in the first phase of this new system?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Let me thank the Member for his supplementary questions. As I have said, the reason why we have rolled out nexgen ERP is because there is a need to replace the current system, which is nearing the end of its operational life. And when we evaluated various technologies, it was found that GNSS was the most appropriate technology given that we will then be able to do away with bulky gantries, which occupy road space and also be able to avoid, for instance, the need for manpower intensive maintenance of these gantries. In addition, this technology based on GNSS will be able to give us accurate, real-time traffic data, which will help us to do even better in terms of transport policy, planning and traffic management.
As I have noted, the system also has the capabilities for, and potentially we can implement, distance-based charging. But, I think our current focus really is on ensuring that the installation process for the million or so motorists in Singapore, will take place as smoothly as possible. As I have said, we are going to roll this out around second half of 2021 and it will take about 18 months. We need to give the nexgen ERP time to settle and also to give us time to collect information on traffic patterns, travel patterns, distance travelled impact on the different types of motoristsand so on. Then, we can study the different options and approaches, and come to a decision.
So, with regard to his questions, about whether it will be revenue neutral and what about the other taxes and so on. I think it is premature, we will have to study all these different approaches first in order to come to a decision. As I have said and I think we have consistently said – any form of distance-based charging is several years away.
With regards to coupon-less car park charging, Parking.SG is already able to do this. And in fact, it is already rolled out to many car parks. This system also has the capability to do that, but it is not a key feature nor a key criterion for us adopting this technology.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proceedings on 15 October 2020","subTitle":"Business motion without notice","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move the Motion that the debate on Deputy Prime Minister’s Ministerial Statement be taken now.
This will allow the House to resume its debate on the Ministerial Statement on Government's strategy to emerge stronger from the COVID-19 Pandemic given on 5 October and conclude on its consideration, before the House proceeds to vote on the sums contained in the Third Supplementary Estimates for FY 20/21 and the Third Supplementary Supply and Budget Adjustments (FY 2020) Bill.
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, that, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the proceedings on item 3 on the Order Paper for today be taken now. – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
","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 Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic has wrought havoc on the economy of the world and Singapore and as the virus mutates and countries react, we must realise that our efforts may resemble the labours of mythological Sisyphus – who kept rolling a boulder up a hill, only to see it roll down again and again – at least until an effective vaccine is widely available and may be even lasting beyond that. However, we do need to look beyond COVID and to do that, we have to look before COVID. There were many deep economic trends already gathering pace before COVID, including rising geo-political tensions, nativism and economic nationalism.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in my speech today I shall focus only one of these trends – industry disruption.
The rise of Industry 4.0 or disruptive industries more broadly has been much talked about around the world, among economists, experts, business persons, unions, activists and politicians. Industry 4.0 refers to the Fourth Industrial Revolution where data from the Internet of Things and other sources revolutionises economic activity.
Industry disruption more broadly refers to the recent wave of new technologies and business models that threaten or, should I say, promise to disrupt existing industries. Simply put, these refer to new industries like drones which may displace conventional last-mile delivery, including food service delivery, artificial intelligence or AI which may displace clerical jobs or functions like para-legal work or even radiology, autonomous vehicles which may displace jobs like taxi and private hire car driving and quantum computing which is possibly the mother of all disruptions and may drive machine learning, pattern recognition and other activities traditionally associated with AI beyond the bounds of what is conventionally recognised as AI today, in turn potentially displacing many skilled white-collar jobs.
What does the advent of all these disruptive industries mean for Singapore?
A Cisco Oxford Economic Study in 2018 projected the following: 85,000 existing roles will disappear from the labour market, pushing workers into other industries and occupations. Singapore is said, according to this report, to confront a gap in average skill levels of 14.3 on a scale of 0 to 100 – higher than Vietnam at 13.4, Malaysia at 12.7 and Thailand at 8.5.
According to this report, the three sectors in line for most displacement in Singapore are: firstly, wholesale and retail with 80,000 jobs displaced; secondly, manufacturing with 55,000 jobs displaced; and thirdly, transport with 50,000 jobs displaced.
Also, the 2017 Global Future of Works Survey by Willis Towers Watson found that companies in Singapore expect automation will account for an average of 29% of all work done the next three years, a big increase in 14% of work being done using automation in 2018 and just 7% in 2015.
Mr Speaker, Sir, these forecasts were made before COVID. Some may argue that these are alarmist projections. But it is possible that COVID-19 has, in fact, delayed the advance of these disruptive industries by delaying timelines for R&D and new business investment. As COVID recedes, the threat and opportunity from these disruptive trends may return to the old trajectory, which means that many jobs in Singapore will be jeopardised not from COVID but from long-term industry disruption.
Sir, I enjoyed reading former US presidential candidate and entrepreneur Andrew Yang's compelling book about industry disruption, aptly entitled \"The War on Ordinary People\". It argues that the threat of industry disruption hollowing out middle market, skilled jobs as chillingly imminent. Among the examples he cited was that of a person who was exchanging emails with another person whom he thought was the secretary of a business associate. He later discovered that the person he was emailing with whom he had exchanged pleasantries and had a fruitful conversation over email was, in fact, an AI-driven bot.
Lest anyone misunderstand my reference to Andrew Yang, let me make clear that I am not arguing for universal basic income or UBI here, as I think the jury is still out on the topic and addressing UBI now would be premature – though it is something we should keep an open mind about.
Sir, the Government has been cognisant of the risk to the jobs from industry disruption. Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat in his COVID-19 Statement in Parliament last week spoke about providing holistic support for vulnerable workers and for ensuring that workers have the skills to stay relevant. He also spoke of the even greater urgency for middle aged and middle income workers to gain new skills and transition into jobs with good long-term prospects.
Schemes such as the PCP, CSP, SGUnited Traineeship, Mid-Career Traineeship and others have been put in place, some for a long time, some recently to address the systemic risk to jobs in certain industries as well as the risk to employability among certain segments such as older PMETs. There are various CETs and SkillsFuture programmes for training. The newly formed National Jobs Council has said that it will work with the Future Economy Council on the overall upgrading of the economy, including addressing the issue of future proofing jobs.
However, there are limitations to these schemes. Firstly, these schemes have not yet made a huge impact on the job market. The tsunami of industry disruption that is likely to emerge in future argues for more scalable schemes which induce more workers to join the industries of the future, including industries that are not big employers right now.
In 2019, close to 4,500 individuals were placed through PCPs which is comparable to the placement achievement in 2018. However, this is a very, very small percentage of the labour force.
Under the Adapt and Grow initiative, including PCP and CSP, more than 31,000 local jobseekers were placed in jobs in 2019, similar to the 2018 number. However, not all of these placements would be in emergent disruptive industries.
Secondly, these schemes address certain types of at-risk segments such as older PMETs or those who are retrenched. There is perhaps insufficient attention at the policy level to industries that are doing okay now, like delivery or driving jobs or certain types of clerical and service jobs which are at risk from industry disruption a few years down the road but for whom there is no urgency on the part of employers and employees to prepare for a more uncertain future right now.
To raise the example of jobs like driving taxis and private hire cars which are I and others have spoken about in the past, many of these jobs could be wiped out by autonomous vehicles in the years to come. Many younger entrants to these industries may find themselves on the wrong side of industry disruption when they hit their late 30s, 40s or 50s, at which time reskilling and transitioning to a new industry will be hard. Should we not give some thought to these challenges and encourage these workers to plan for the same?
Sir, let us now look at the same issue from the perspective not of workers but of the economy as a whole. We do want to attract and root disruptive industries in Singapore so that they can become engines of our economic growth. Why? Because if we anchor the technical skills, employee qualifications, business know-how and entrepreneurial talent behind these industries of the future in Singapore, that will enable us to export these skills to the region and the world, thus facilitating high-quality, inclusive economic growth.
If there is an insufficient supply of workers for these new industries, workers whether through traditional industries including sunset industries, that means these new industry investments may not come to Singapore. Rather, they may go to Hong Kong or Bangkok or Jakarta or Shanghai or Hyderabad. Or it could mean that if and when these new industries land in Singapore there would be too few Singaporeans with the will and skills to take jobs there so workers will have to be imported on Employment Passes and special passes. This may mean that it would hard to establish a strong Singapore Core in such industries going forward. It may also mean that these investments may be less firmly anchored in Singapore in the future.
Mr Speaker, Sir, one response to all of this is to say, \"We don't want disruptive industries, let's legislate to ban them\". But I do not think any serious commentator or stakeholder will really argue this nowadays. Such a move would doom us to economic irrelevance. So, I would not spend any more time addressing that straw man argument.
How then can we attract and anchor disruptive next generation industries in Singapore and, at the same time, and in tandem urge our workers to transition from sunset at-risk industries to these new industries, thus creating a virtual cycle of enhancing employability and protecting jobs on the one hand and attracting and rooting these industries in Singapore, on the other?
There are a few chicken and egg conundrums here. The first conundrum is how do we attract employees to join or to train for riskier, less mature disruptive industries like AVs, AI and so on when they may not feel assured that there will be a job there at the end of their training or that the job will be sustainable.
The second conundrum is how do we nurture the growth of such industries in Singapore when there are few workers with the relevant skills in the short term, without relying on an unsustainable importation of skilled foreign workers?
Sir, to address these questions, I shall conclude my speech with a few suggestions.
Firstly, Sir, I would suggest that our economic agencies study a new model for attracting and supporting investments in next generation industries. Many of these industries rely on highly specialised skills that may not be taught in courses available in Singapore or courses that are widely subscribed to. The lead time to create a critical mass of Singaporeans trained in these skills could be years and the challenge faces the chicken and egg problem discussed above. As in many Singaporeans may not want to invest in such training out of uncertainty about whether it would be worth. However, workers with such skills may be available at short notice in other cities in the world to be recruited for work in Singapore. Silicon Valley, for example, London or Israel or China.
In order to attract and support such investment projects that create jobs, either from foreign investors or from domestic investors and entrepreneurs, can our economic agencies offer limited term foreign work passes for individuals with such specialised skills? The term could be five years, for example.
To attract big investment projects in a competitive investment climate, a mix of fixed term and non-fixed term Employment Passes could be offered. For the fixed term passes, the idea would be that the employer would be expected to hire a Singaporean to fill that position when the term of the pass ends. That fixed term, say, five years could then be used to set up training for Singaporeans to acquire those skills. That could be formal academic training or employer-led training, using one of the many existing schemes that we have. When the term ends, there would be enough Singaporeans with the relevant skills to fill that position; and if they are not and that is proven, the pass can be extended a little longer.
The presence of the employer in Singapore with fixed term foreign work passes will provide some assurance to prospective Singaporean employees that their efforts to train for a role in this new industry would be likely to lead to a good job.
By adopting an approach like fixed term work passes, we can bring in foreigners with rare but future-ready skillsets while buying time for Singaporeans to be trained in those very same skillsets, in a way that gives some assurance to those Singaporeans that the training would have a decent chance of landing him or her a good job in a future-ready industry.
Sir, fixed term work passes will also be attractive to foreign professionals because they would have several years of working experience here. They may also be able to find another employer, perhaps in a different industry before the end of that term. Otherwise, they could be posted to another city by their employer.
Sir, before I leave this point, I would like to make the observation that as the pace of disruption picks up, Singapore would benefit from a redundancy insurance scheme but one in which additional income support can be tied to training and reskilling for growth sectors.
Some economists have argued that the Scandinavian economies succeeded in shifting big sections of their workforce – for example, in Sweden's obsolete shipyards – to more productive skilled occupations, thereby facilitating the upgrading of the Swedish economy at a much faster and more durable pace. In contrast, some states and cities in the US saw de-industrialisation because they did not have concerted state-sponsored retraining and income support policies. This led, in some cases, to entire communities and regions becoming impoverished and facing social decay, in turn fueling populist politics.
Journalist Thomas Gross, in a 2018 article wrote and I quote, \"Most Swedish workers who are replaced by machines fairly quickly land another job as good as their old one, thanks to a network of job security councils jointly run by industries and unions, that retrained laid-off workers in skills that are still in demand and out of reach of robots. Moreover, while unemployed and learning new skills, workers are buoyed by a safety net that includes generous jobless benefits.\"
Sir, going forward, Singapore will need to seriously up its game in both skills upgrading and interim structural income support with the latter tied to the former.
Secondly, I would suggest that the Government look into working with employees and other stakeholders in industries at risk from disruption to get them to anticipate the risks and start planning for what to do if and when their industry gets disrupted and they lose their job.
This is not an idea without precedent.
Denmark's national skills anticipation system, for example, seeks to compile accessible and detailed information on labour market trends and skills demand for 850 occupations in order to: firstly, support the work of job centres in helping individuals find better job opportunities; and secondly, to informed education, employment and skills policies.
Denmark's main skills anticipation activities include: skills forecasting, for example, statistical forecasting of education status and the demand and supply of labour; skills assessments, for example, quantitative sectoral assessments on imbalances in the labour market; skills foresight, for example, sectoral assessments on future needs in the labour market and employer surveys.
Sir, in the past, I have also spoken in this House about the Korean jobs dictionary which aims to compile and disseminate information about the nature and outlook for most types of jobs in Korea. The aims and approach, while not similar to the Denmark example I cited, have some points of commonality.
At this point, let me declare my interest as a CEO of an international research consultancy that undertakes research on such issues among other things.
And lastly, we currently have various mechanisms and platforms for workers of the receiving end of industry disruption to receive help in respect of job matching and career coaching. I have referred some of my constituents in Serangoon onto such services and they are not without value. However, it is less clear if the providers of such services practise an approach where one career coach sticks with a prospective employee from end-to-end, seeing him or her through to a successful placement.
The KPIs for such agencies and data on success versus failure are also not clear. What is the ratio of success? How does it vary, based on industry vocation, gender, age, race, PwD status or other variables?
It would be good for such data to be made public so that success can be measured and debated publicly. In doing so would not mean accepting that the employee has no responsibility for her or his success in finding a new job. It would just mean that some transparency and a proper account management approach may be more effective in enabling us to refine our strategies for finding jobs for displaced workers.
In the UK, for example, around 13,500 work coaches and job centres hired by the department for work and pensions aim to move jobseekers on benefits or income support into employment. A single work coach will follow a claimant throughout their time on benefit, helping to match claimants to jobs that suit their skills and help to fill skill gaps by offering training to claimants who require it. Work coaches are trained to play a complex role, almost like a social worker – in listening, encouraging, advising and ensuring jobseekers have access to support. Work coaches seek to understand the barriers faced by each jobseeker and deliver a personalised approach to support them, sometimes coaching them to develop the requisite skills and confidence.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, the coming wave of industry disruption and job displacement will affect jobs in a way that is hard to underestimate. And thus has it always been when cars replaced horses, when electric power replaced gas lighting and so on and so forth. It behoves us to prepare for that coming wave by considering ideas, like fixed term foreign work passes, jobs anticipation programmes and end-to-end KPI-driven jobs coaching.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, like many expecting parents, the news of the one-off Baby Support Grant is a welcome one for our family as it will go towards defraying the costs of having a new child amidst the global uncertainty brought on by the coronavirus pandemic. It is also good to hear the Government reiterate its commitment towards supporting Singaporeans who aspire to get married and have children.
However, the policy start date of 1 October this year has meant that parents with newborns today do not benefit from the grant. Can we consider extending this grant to parents with children born since the onset of the pandemic?
It is noteworthy that the Baby Bonus Scheme was introduced on 1 April 2001, almost 20 years ago, and has gone through numerous rounds of enhancements, the latest being in 2012. Parenthood tax rebates and other types of tax incentives are also given in an attempt to boost the birth rate. The Marriage and Parenthood Package is also stated to cost the Government approximately $4 billion a year. Yet, in 2019, our Total Fertility Rate was 1.19, and appears to be on course to stubbornly remain far below the replacement rate of 2.1 and still ranks amongst the lowest in the world. To make matters worse, we are now anticipating that couples will put off their parenthood plans, which will in turn have knock-on effects on our population's fertility rate.
Singapore is not alone in trying to boost our birth rate, as fertility rates around the world have also been falling. However, we should ask ourselves, are there any blind spots in the way we have tackled this issue? Have we focused too much on the financial aspects of child-rearing, and forgotten to tackle other significant barriers to having children?
The matter needs to be dealt with in a holistic way. It is notable that studies have shown that in developed economies, greater gender equity is correlated with higher birth rates. That is, better support given to women boosts fertility rates.
To address this, one important area would be the role that fathers play in child-rearing. Just last weekend, while visiting friends for lunch, our two-year-old announced that he needed to go to the toilet. My husband stood up to take him, and was immediately met with a chorus of amazement and praise for being such a hands-on father. Would the same have occurred if a mother had brought her child to the toilet? Should we not also think hard about what it says about the roles of mothers and fathers that we are expected to sing high praises for fathers who change nappies or who bring their children out to \"give their wives a break\"?
To be sure, we should not knock positive changes in fathers becoming more involved in bringing up their children in recent years. Yet, at the same time, it strikes me that we should be making better and more conscious efforts to view parenting as something that both parents have equal stake in, and that domestic and child-rearing work should not be the purview of mothers only.
Looking at this from the other side, I would like my sons to grow up in a world where they have the freedom to decide for what works for their families. If they would like to have children, they should feel completely at ease to choose to stay at home be stay-at-home fathers, and not be seen as a \"failure\" or \"not manly\" enough for choosing this path. Every family should have a right to decide what works best for them and their children's care needs. And our policies must support their choices.
As a first step, the Workers' Party has called for enhanced shared parental leave of a total of 24 weeks that would allow couples to decide how best to split the care of their newborn child, with a minimum of 12 weeks to be given to the mother. Our current policy of a new father being able to share only up to four weeks from the mother's leave only encourages the sense that it is primarily a mother's job to care for her newborn.
However, leave policies are only the tip of the iceberg.
As children grow, they require an incredible amount of care and attention. The emotional, physical and time demands on carers have been made worse by the pandemic. And I am not the first to point out that studies from all over the world have shown that parents, particularly mothers of young children, have found lockdowns especially challenging and have seen their share of caring responsibilities multiplied.
Given that the end of the pandemic and its social and economic effects are probably nowhere in sight, we should pay special attention to the needs of young families to ensure that they are not burning out while trying to cope with what is after all a unique situation. We must encourage employers to support greater flexibility and career options and ensure this recalibration of work is accessible to both mother and father. This will allow families to make childcare arrangements that work for their particular circumstances.
This move away from traditional work structures must not be seen as a cost borne by employers. Instead, it is the key to fully unlocking the human capital in their employees. With a bit of trust on both sides, businesses would benefit from better motivated employees with a resultant increase in productivity. Businesses should seize on recent disruptions caused by the pandemic and turn it into an opportunity to rethink about how we work and understand why it is important that we allow more flexible working arrangements in our businesses.
For parents and family members who chose to stay at home to care for the next generation, I reiterate the call I made last month for better support and recognition for informal carers. We often hear jokes about maternity leave being a four-month long holiday, and stay-at-home mothers are idle \"tai-tais\". But anyone who has had to spend any amount of time being responsible for a young child would quickly debunk these ideas.
However, there have been scant studies and time-use surveys done on parents in Singapore and there is also little research on parental burnout. Now would be a good time to conduct these to enable us to better understand the strains and pressures that these parents face. It is only when we have better identified these problems that we can start looking at the solutions as a whole, and change the narrative to better support and recognise the invaluable work of these unpaid carers.
To add to the mix, our unforgiving and high stakes education system has created significant anxiety around raising children and is cited as a reason why families hold off on having kids or have fewer kids. I hear of parents having to volunteer for many hours to get their child a chance at a top Primary school, of the multitude of tuition or enrichment classes that parents send children to, and the stress that parents undergo whenever a key examination looms.
We must relieve the pressure on parents and build a more forgiving education regime, where children are given fairer opportunities to succeed from kindergarten and up, and where kids and their families are not made to feel like the next examination will determine their life trajectory.
Reducing class sizes, increasing the support and training for teachers to focus on a more inclusive and nurturing system would be a good first step as we start to tackle the stresses caused by our demanding education system.
Having said all of this, one can only imagine how much more difficult this year has been for single parents who often have less access to alternative resources and support structures.
It is only natural that single parents end up more stressed and burnt out than their married counterparts. Regardless of whether we believe such family structures should be encouraged, their children are innocent and better support for their parents only benefit these children. Therefore, I would like to ask for a clarification from the Minister if single parents too will be eligible for the Newborn Support Grant, and if not, whether they can be included.
To close, the $3,000 of additional payment for families is a welcome. However, the effectiveness of this policy is limited by the extent to which the Government is willing to lean in to encourage and foster greater gender equity in the home and drive more flexibility in the workplace.
This one-time payment must not obscure the importance of doing the hard work of changing the culture around care-giving and what we define as work in the context of family, even if these measures do not have an instantaneous effect like a transfer into a bank account. The importance of getting this right cannot be understated.
Fertility is inextricably linked with sustainability and of increasing concerns about the Earth's finite resources. Even as we work to boost our birth rate, we must take action now to soften the impact and address the concerns of a world where an inverted age pyramid will become the norm with all the economic implications that come with it.
We must no longer operate within the parameters or assumptions that we can keep our economic strategies along traditional population and economic growth models and ensure that we are not at the same time tackling increase costs of our ageing population, while maintaining inter-generational fairness.
Our CPF, care systems and even physical spaces must now begin in another shift towards a society where older people will form part of majority. We must also combat ageism, embrace innovation, productivity and entrepreneurship, for a golden age, and the time to do so is now.
Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, before I begin, I would like to declare my interest as an educator in an Institute of Higher Learning.
Mr Speaker, I would like to commend Deputy Prime Minister Heng for his Ministerial Statement last week and express my support.
The Deputy Prime Minister’s Statement was an extensive one. I am heartened by the strong people focus in the Statement, placing front and centre, the interests of our people as the Government pushes forth with its plans for the economy.
Not only were the strategies outlined broad in nature, it is also clear that the Government is paying special attention towards inclusive growth to ensure that vulnerable groups also keep pace, survive and thrive coming out of this crisis.
Three areas resonated strongly with me.
Firstly, the prioritisation of skills. One critical message in Deputy Prime Minister’s speech was a strong focus on jobs and in building our human capital through prioritising skills.
I believe that skills prioritisation must begin early – even before commencement of jobs. Here, I am referring here to the Institutes of Higher Learning. Relevant courses must be identified and prioritised at the Pre-employment Training stage, whereas courses that are more specialised should be pushed towards the Continuing Education Training stage.
In that way, all our graduates are assured of a solid yet flexible foundation that can be applied in other disciplines.
For example, an aviation engineering student may be provided with a strong engineering foundation coupled with modules relevant to Industry 4.0. Similarly, a student doing tourism may be provided with a strong business foundation. This will provide them with the much-needed agility in an ever-changing job landscape.
Second is in linking skills and practice. It is important for us to close the skills and practice gap so that Singaporeans can quickly apply and put into practice what they have learnt. This matching of skills to actual practice also creates a synergy between companies and requires skilled manpower and our workers who are equipped with these skills.
The SGUnited Traineeships programme and SGUnited Jobs and Skills package are good examples of the close relationship between in skilling our workforce to meet the actual needs of the industry. Our graduates pick up relevant skills to a job which then leads to a transitioning to more long-term employment. A number of my students are in this programme and so far, their experience has been very positive.
This gives me confidence to request further that we create more apprenticeship programmes so that this notion of work and relevance becomes a mainstay in our overall education to employment pathway.
Additionally, I hope we also give allowance to our workers and grant them flexibility in pursuing new skills. This can be in the form self-development, to break the monotony of work, or a form of further upskilling to increase their value in the profession. We could, for instance, mandate a protected time of half a day during the work week so that our workers can take on courses and enhance their skill sets.
Finally, digitalisation and digital literacy. Looking to the future, leading the digitalisation bandwagon allows us to unlock the growth that comes with it.
We have experienced how technology has been critical in navigating us through this crisis. It has allowed many of us to work, study and remain connected. But in that aspect, I hope that the Government pull all stops to ensure that all Singaporeans, including the elderly and our children, have access to devices and are digitally literate. To be digitally literate means that our people not only know how to use technology meaningfully, but we have laid foundations for them to explore in this area more confidently.
There have been stories of our children being given laptops by their schools, or community agencies, but not knowing how to effectively use these gadgets towards learning. Our elderly too may need more support in adapting to a digital economy. They may own the right smart-phones, but may still struggle to log in to and out of simple apps.
Therefore, as we move into the digital economy, we must ensure that all people are digitally literate. In the schools and the Institutes of Higher Learning, I hope that our curriculums will continue to emphasise digital and data analytics skills so that our future generations are effective at using technology as a tool to solve complex problems. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tIn his Ministerial Statement last week, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat gave a comprehensive overview of Singapore’s position in dealing with the Covid-19 crisis so far.
The Government is working hard to secure the economy with a focus on manpower skills and further strengthening Singapore's workforce through technology.
I hope that education in Singapore will emphasise the importance of skills, especially those related to the current industries, as the foundation for all courses in Polytechnics and Universities.
In that way, all graduates are assured of a solid yet flexible foundation that will give them the opportunity to try other disciplines.
This will ensure that our children are ready to address the current challenges in the industries and provide them with the much-needed agility in an ever-changing job landscape.
As for technology, it is an enabling tool and can unlock opportunities. For example, companies using digital payment platforms can develop their businesses in cyberspace.
Embracing technology will enable us to continue progressing with the increasingly vibrant wave of digitalisation and I urge that we reap its benefits.
(In English): Being an educator for the past 15 years, having taught from the Primary school to University levels, I have seen how our education system has progressed and evolved over the years.
Our education system is not perfect, but it also has considerable strengths which we should recognise.
Coming from the Normal stream, I am heartened that our education system has shifted to the subject-based banding, concurrently slaying one sacred cow.
However, the elephant in the room remains, and that is your PSLE. Like how different perspectives may see this elephant, we have to be mindful of the many trade-offs that may come with it. If we do do away with PSLE, what is the alternative? It may become a pure through-train system and this may worsen the pressure in Primary 1 registration, as you all have known by now. Regardless, I do believe that this is one area that we should continue to explore.
Being a physical education or PE teacher myself, I am heartened to see the shift of focus from the more academic subjects to PE, to the Arts and even Music. Contrary to what some Members of this House may perceive, I believe that this is one clear indication of how our education system has become much more holistic.
I am confident that having laid such solid foundations in our education system, it has prepared us sufficiently for the future.
This COVID-19 situation has exposed the strengths of our teachers. Their dedication and their ability to adapt is amazing. Our teachers work hard to ensure that we meet the diverse needs of our diverse students. I believe that there should always be a balance between drills and free exploration, formative and summative assessments, group work as well as individual work, and of course, the mingling and teaching, based on the different and diverse abilities of our students.
Our teachers have been amazing in ensuring that. And I hope as we move forward, we continue to provide them with the best support and work-life balance as it is possible. Mr Speaker, I support the Statement.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the Supplementary Budget continues to lend support to hard-hit businesses and workers even as the state of the economy remains precarious. It also begins the important process of repositioning the Budget away from crisis support to crisis recovery.
That said, I have a few additional thoughts. I will share about how I believe the process of de-globalisation is both on-going and persistent, and about how we need to do more to pivot away from our historical focus on being an entrepot for the rest of the world towards fostering internally driven growth focused on raising the productivity of our domestic firms, especially small and medium enterprises or SMEs.
Before I proceed, allow me to declare that I am an educator at a business school and that I have occasionally provided economic and strategic views for an investment advisory firm.
Minister Heng stressed the importance of enhancing connectivity to ensure that our economy is ready for when the pandemic is behind us. He reiterated our commitment to reviving our air hub and transshipment capabilities. As a student of the international system for the past few decades, nothing would make me happier than to see a revival of such a globalised world. That said, I believe that it is imperative for us to have a Plan B if this does not occur.
Mr Speaker, the pandemic is often viewed not so much as a harbinger of new trends, but an accelerant of existing trends Minister Heng himself alluded to this – the possibility of structural shifts.
In this vein, it is worth pointing out that the breakdown in global integration significantly predates COVID-19.
The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 marked the beginning of a dramatic turnaround in global financial flows. Several years ago, the McKinsey Global Institute observed that cross-border capital fell from 12% of global output for the decade until 2010 to a little more than 7% since then. Global banks, especially those in advanced economies, have divested at least $2 trillion in assets. Even in financially open Singapore, capital flows have steadily eroded as a share of our national product and we experienced a surge in outflows in the most recent quarter.
The financial crisis did not just usher in a decline in financial flows. The aftermath saw a massive collapse in international trade and despite fitful starts and stops, global merchandise exchange has pulled back from peaks of more than half of global GDP to about 44% last year. The global trading regime is fraying with the World Trade Organization operating a dysfunctional dispute resolution system and repeated violations of open trading principles by major economic powers, most notably in the Sino-American trade war of 2018 and 2019.
And closer to home, our historical entrepôt model is challenged as never before. Our trade in goods as a share of income, fell by more than 40% over the past decade and these trends are hardly positive, with the growth of non-oil exports dipping into negative territory through most of 2019, way before the pandemic visited our shores.
And now COVID-19 has completely devastated the global movement of people, with the international tourism virtually vanishing overnight, and even typically more resilient work-related migratory flows are under threat, as corporations rethink their need for business and conference travel, and upend historical cross-border relationships in favour of reshoring previously outsourced business operation and shortening international supply chains. The fear, then, is even after a vaccine is discovered and the world is able to return to normal, that new normal and encompasses permanent structural changes in a manner by which the world conducts business and pleasure.
Mr Speaker, these trends are worrying from the perspective of our banking on a return to connectivity as a key source of our economic growth. If anything, major economies are turning inward, with China's stressing \"internal circulation\" – a euphemism for a domestic turn – Europe is preoccupied with ensuring the integrity of its own union, and the United States – once the bastion of globalism – eschewing the multilateral system that it once used to champion.
If this fracturing into a multipolar world persists, our traditional approach of positioning ourselves as a global intermediary could face unprecedented stress.
Thankfully, it is possible for us to prepare more deliberately for a Plan B. Minister Heng also spoke about the importance of Technology, Innovation and Enterprise – a theme that he has mentioned in speeches at least since 2016. Clearly, the Government is aware of this alternative model.
What I am suggesting is a willingness to commit to this shift in a more decisive fashion.
Although many forms of international exchange are in retreat, there is one channel that has been further advanced by the pandemic – the even greater importance of global information and knowledge flows. As borders shut down worldwide and work-from-home arrangements become the norm, the information has become the lifeblood of many organisations and countries trying to stay afloat.
Service-based businesses digitised their back ends and sought to bring their front end operations online. And goods oriented firms were forced to resort to online strategies to keep demand afloat. Many of these digitally transform functions and automation disintermediated jobs will never return to their pre-pandemic states.
It is therefore time for our small and medium enterprises to make the bold transition as well. The Government has rolled out a host of grants such as the Enterprise Development Grant and Productivity Solutions Grant, aimed at this very purpose. This is important because such firms account for 99% of our local companies, but only contribute to half of our national income. However, we have precious little information as to whether these funds have succeeded in raising the productivity and enabling the digital transformation of these firms, as the Government has not released systematic studies of either the coverage nor the efficacy of these programmes. To know whether we are on track, we have to know how far we have come and how far we have to go.
And as much as financial assistance, especially in the recessionary environment, can help our SMEs eke by, financial support will only go part of the way toward helping our companies realise their full potential. Beyond relieving financial constraints, SMEs need to build stronger fundamental business skills and capabilities. Such skills in marketing to a diverse regional market, adopting best practices in bookkeeping and budgeting and inventory management are not sexy skills, but essential ones. Programmes of this nature such as Startup SG Founder, Enterprise Leadership for Transformation and various business tool kits can be made more proactive in identifying and approaching qualifying individuals and firms, especially in industries that have lagged in terms of adoption.
Similarly, we have to ensure that those who have undergone SGUnited jobs and Skills Future re-skilling programmes, continue to closely meet business needs. This can help avoid mismatches that can lead to disappointment and discouragement and experience that one of my residents, Danny, shared regarding the continued difficulty faced by his colleagues in securing work despite having undergone retraining.
More generally, what is the return proposition of such training and how is it evaluated? How much are we expanding per a trainee, and what is the placement rate for programme graduates? It strikes me that a dedicated unit within Enterprise SG, tasked with identifying, supporting, disseminating and evaluating skills development can be an important complement to our primarily financed focus efforts. My colleague, the hon Leon Perera has also offered a host of additional considerations.
Similarly, many public-private venture funds such as Startup SG tends to privilege technologically oriented firms. While such investments are appealing in that they can lead to the next Carousell or Grab, we cannot leave the vast majority of old economy firms behind. Moreover, raising productivity levels in such firms is not limited to deploying the latest technology or adapting AI solutions. They are often derived from much more modest sources such as focusing on improving core management practices. Such practices in performance evaluation, conflict management, team motivation are skills that could be lacking in smaller family run businesses, inhibiting their ability to grow. Our iTalent and iSkills programmes are one such way forward, but the current participation rate, involving a few dozen firms, remain a drop in the ocean.
Moreover, our funding and support policies should look beyond just the infotech or biotech space. Growth can arise from what many may dismiss as pedestrian businesses, such as coffee roasting and brewing, automotive repair or elderly care. What is required is a willingness to disrupt the existing market regime, but rather than promoting winning firms or championing winning sectors, we should strive to create an environment where every firm, especially SMEs, can potentially succeed.
At the aggregate level, what this means is that our regulations could be prepared to be more flexible to ease the wrenching shifts that will accompany structural transformations in our economy. Some sectors may, despite our best efforts, may be destined to shrink and we should ease the teething pains for those poised for expansion. SMEs that have traditionally focused on trade in goods must evolve to add value higher up the ladder. And those who provide services must learn to deliver these across borders.
This may also mean greater regulatory forbearance on the part of Government. For example, finance start-ups often find themselves held to reporting requirements comparable to those of establishing comments, while there have been occasional initiatives toward easing pilot regulatory sandboxes as well as easier ACRA reporting requirements during COVID-19, executives from a number of fintech start-ups I have spoken to, reveal that they still find these standards that regulators hold them to, impossibly stringent.
We should also be more aware of the unintended consequences of our policies, even when enacted in good faith, especially in terms of how they affect small businesses. One owner of a hawker stall in Lucky Plaza, for example, shared with me about how recent policy to only allow either odd or even numbered IC numbers into the mall resulted in the complete decimation of foot traffic, rather than just a halving.
On a positive front – the number of permissible businesses allowed under existing programmes such as the Home-Based Small Scale Business Scheme can be re-examined and expanded if possible. And if the world does eventually carve itself out into multiple regional markets, our firms must be ready to compete within our economic sphere – which is southeast Asia. This means recognising that a Singapore firm is essentially an ASEAN firm.
The Government has understood this for a long time, but we have to make sure that our workforce and our people fully embrace this identity. Doing so has become even more imperative in what is promising to become an increasingly balkanised world. Our workers should be prepared to spend time in our ASEAN neighbours, learning specificities and idiosyncrasies of our neighbouring markets and returning to Singapore to disseminate the knowledge they have gained and their experiences, either with their sending firms or by starting new companies of their own.
Government can play an even greater role in fostering this expansionist mindset, beyond internationalisation grants. It can do so with a wider recognition of ASEAN languages in the schooling system, incorporating exchanges and internships in Southeast Asia as a required component of Secondary and post-Secondary programmes, further enhancing the exposure of local firms in exhibitions at regional trade shows and co-financing early career stints for PMETs in other regional capitals.
After the Allied bombing of Japan in World War II, many major cities there were destroyed. In principle, the architects of post-war Japan could have chosen many other locations to site their new economic hubs. But ultimately rebuilding occurred in those very same cities that experience some of the greatest destruction, a testimony to the incredible resilience of cities.
Our forefathers have already made Singapore into a globally competitive city and we will rise again after the crisis is over. To inherit this destiny, we have to be willing to be even more economically nimble, to recognise the limits of further leveraging our trade and transportation infrastructure alone. The strength of any modern city is his ability to be a gathering place for innovators to exchange debate and improve their ideas. We must ensure that our SMEs fully participate in this knowledge based future economy.
Mr Speaker, please allow me to recap. In the globalising world, we need a Plan B to cater to the possibility that the post-COVID-19 world will be more fractured and insular. We must transition our economy urgently and decisively by increasing the contribution of SMEs to our growth engine. Government can help in this process with more than just financing, which is still our major focus. It can do so with moves to improve the productivity of these businesses via enhance business skills and management training, exercising greater regulatory flexibility to foster a stronger risk-taking mindset and pushing additional educational and experiential initiatives that strengthen our regionalist worldview. Undeniably, the germs of many such programmes already exist. My contention is that we need to accelerate and scale up these efforts.
Notwithstanding these additional suggestions. I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, \"ensuring that the last, the lost and the least are being adequately taken care of\" is my impression of what our Government and the community have endeavoured to do in a decisive and united manner for the past several months when tackling with this COVID-19 Pandemic.
I speak in support of the Supplementary Bill and will be emphasising my speech today on the following two points: one, the efforts to better support our seniors in their transition towards i-banking services as our country steps up on its Smart Nation initiatives digital connectivity; two, the suggestions with regard to building environmental sustainability within our community to fight climate change.
In relation to the first point, pertaining to digital banking for seniors, Mr Speaker, please allow me to speak in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tIn the face of COVID-19, many senior citizens, especially those living alone, feel helpless and are at a loss. Before the outbreak, they often went out with like-minded friends. They will participate in community activities, they will go to a coffee shop or hawker centre and sometimes, they will order a cup of coffee and spend the whole day chatting with old friends.
However, when the circuit breaker came into effect, all of a sudden, they seemed to be at a loss: \"I don't know how to use a smartphone. How can I get online and have a video conversation with my grandson?”, “I am alone at home facing the four walls. I am so bored. When can I go back to the CC with my friends and do our health dance?”, “The queues at the wet market are too long, I am too weak to stand for such a long time.”, “When I go to the supermarket, I am too slow to compete with others. Is there a way to improve the situation?\"
These are the complaints I often hear from them.
Fortunately, the Government has worked together with businesses, community organisations and Singaporeans to overcome these challenges. For example, our digital ambassadors have helped the elderly to take the first step towards digitalisation and help them acquire digital skills at three levels, so that they can keep in touch with their friends and relatives via video link, make e-payments at hawker centres and markets, and use SafeEntry in the SingPass mobile's visitors registration system to log in and out of wet markets.
Our local enterprises such as NTUC FairPrice have also set aside a special time for senior citizens and persons with mobility issues to purchase daily necessities in supermarkets with peace of mind. In addition, their neighbours and Residents' Committees have also demonstrated the kampung spirit by helping them to buy food and essentials items and deliver them to their doorstep.
Yet, one thing that cannot and should not be done by someone else on behalf of the elderly is bank transactions involving money.
In recent years, all the banks have undergone transformation by introducing more artificial intelligence, encouraging customers to use online transactions and making banking more invisible. These moves have reduced banks' operating costs by a lot, for example, in rentals and manpower. This is also in response to the Government's call for technology transformation and further strengthening Singapore's position as a global Asia node of technology, Innovation and enterprise.
But my concern is: have our seniors kept up with this technology advancement?
Recently, in Woodgrove, two local bank branches around Fuchun area were closed; one in mid-August and the other is undergoing renovation. Residents who need counter services have to walk about 30 minutes to go to the branches in the shopping mall. This is very tiresome for the elderly and those who have difficulty moving around.
Many elderly living in the seniors' Studio Apartments told me that they live off their CPF retirement money and government subsidies every month. Because of this, they will personally go to the bank at least once a month to use the counter services to withdraw money. Some of them are illiterate and some have poor eyesight. Hence, they are less inclined to use ATM cards to withdraw money. Most of them do not know how to use Internet banking either; they are fearful that they may transfer their lifetime savings to others if they click wrongly.
Another advantage of counter services for senior citizens is that they form a line of defence against fraud. Frontline bank staff are specially trained to sense suspicious transactions and would verify with the customers repeatedly, so that they do not fall victim to fraud syndicates.
If Singaporeans, especially our senior citizens, are to keep pace with technological changes and accept and use online banking services, the banks should fulfil their social responsibilities by using their resources to work more closely with the Government and the community.
Banks can work with IMDA to set up e-banking training kiosks at bank branches in the neighbourhood centres and digital transformation offices at CCs, to help seniors apply for online banking tokens, and teach them how to use online banking services with peace of mind.
I am confident that with the guidance and help of dedicated people, our seniors will gradually accept and move towards a more diverse digital life.
(In English): Like many First World countries, Singapore has begun taking steps to address the issue of climate change and environmental sustainability. While this is a good first step, it is important to ensure that this movement continues to gain momentum amongst our Singaporeans.
J F Kennedy once said, and I quote, \"Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country.\"
Apart from the Government's efforts in transforming our industries to build a sustainable economy and providing opportunities for the green section to be a growth industry in its own right, every individual in Singapore should also play our part to ensure the preservation of the environment we live in.
Semakau Landfill is our only offshore landfill in Singapore. For the past few decades, we have relied on it for our waste disposal while being fortunate enough to be unaffected by any harmful toxins, awful smell and appearance. However, Semakau Landfill has been filling up faster than expected, with our projections for reaching capacity changing for the worse.
This is attributed by several different factors.
One, being a general increase in consumption by residents without sufficient implementation of the 3Rs. To rectify this, we will need to encourage responsible consumption of resources, such as food, water and energy, while advocating for environmentally-friendly means of disposal for non-perishable items such as electrical appliances.
The second being that many recyclables are being disposed as general refuse, which in turn wastes landfill space and energy to incinerate. A renewed focus on recycling will go a long way towards slowing down the landfill’s rate of usage.
The other being that residents are largely reluctant to repair broken items which typically cause many faulty electrical and electronic appliances to be thrown away as rubbish instead of repairing it and extending its lifespan.
With these factors at present, how should we step up our 3Rs efforts nationally in order to achieve measurable outcomes and a positive impact for our environment?
Mr Speaker, in Woodgrove, we have a G.E.L mission. \"G\" pertains to Green Living initiatives. Through the feedback which I have gathered from our Woodgrove residents and various community partners, I wish to suggest a few ideas for consideration.
Firstly, Education. I believe that education can go a long way towards inculcating values that favour the 3Rs. We should therefore endeavour to educate every student and resident on good 3Rs practices through experiential learning. MOE can also consider incorporating Responsible Resource Consumption Saving Tips as part of the school curriculum.
Over the years, various schools in Woodgrove have participated in North West CDC’s Reduce@Northwest, where students would conduct door-to-door house visits to encourage families to reduce energy and water consumption and food wastage in their homes, while also imparting knowledge on fighting climate change.
The schools also adopted another North West CDC’s initiative called WeCare We Recycle @ Northwest, where students are educated on proper recycling practices to counteract the high contamination rate of existing blue recycling bins. As part of this initiative, active recycling points are set up within the participating schools, enabling our students to put the knowledge that they have learnt into good use by taking the lead in active recycling.
It is important to continue to engage schools as partners and educate our children on these recycling and energy saving tips, so that they will in turn educate their parents and influence the people around them to conserve resources and adopt eco-friendly practices at home and in the community.
Secondly, we can measure and reward the amount of savings on electricity and water by each household.
I believe that we should measure the reduction of resources consumed through the use of monitoring systems powered by digital applications. It can be difficult to understand one’s contribution towards the greater whole while adhering to the 3Rs; if we can show them that tangible change is occurring through their actions, I believe residents will be further encouraged to continue these good habits.
Meanwhile, we can also introduce new initiatives to encourage the use of energy or water saving devices and appliances in every household. If coupled with the aforementioned monitoring systems, we may see increased adoption islandwide.
To jumpstart these schemes, we can first work with grassroots volunteers and schools to engage residents via a pilot project that \"adopts\" a pioneer batch of select blocks, which students will visit and share energy saving tips with every household.
These blocks can thereafter be monitored and their outcomes measured to evaluate the results of these measures. To further incentivise adoption of the energy saving measures, we can grant the block showing the highest drop in energy and water usage with rewards such as grocery shopping vouchers or ActiveSG credits.
Lastly, ground-up initiatives. I believe that the People's Association or PA, as the foundation of the community, can eb a valuable ally in our mission to encourage ground-up initiatives by the community for adopting of the 3Rs wihtin our community.
For a start, our Community Clubs, CCs, especially those that are to be built or scheduled for renovation, should endeavour to achieve the BCA Green Mark \"Platinum\" certification. The BCA Green Mark is the national green building rating system which evaluates a building for its environmental impact and performance. Not only will this raise awareness of the importance of green living, it also ensures that the CCs islandwide will attempt to reduce their own emissions as a result.
Next, the PA can also help to provide platforms for residents to exercise green living, for example with organising events that encourage residents to pick up the 3Rs. Some CCs and RCs in Singapore have already begun doing so, through collaborations with the Northwest CDC, Tzu Chi Foundation and NEA with a monthly \"recycling day\" where residents can bring out their recyclable waste for sorting and processing, fostering good habits and also presenting an opportunity to bond as part of a community.
Another option that we can consider to do is to hold regular flea markets for the exchanging or trading of pre-loved items between residents in the halls of our CCs. On such flea market days, we can take the opportunity to also welcome community partners or residents to share tips on adhering to the 3Rs.
One of my residents in Woodgrove Zone 5, Christy, she shared with me her hobby of \"Turning Trash to Treasure\" – she would often go around the neighbourhood, sometimes to pick up and collect abandoned broken furniture. What she will do is, she will clean it up, she will refurbish it with a new coat of painting and transform it into fashionable new furniture as gifts for the community.
I believe that introducing such concepts can raise awareness and encourage more residents to conserve resources by sharing and reusing pre-loved items to minimise waste generation.
Just like the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change is a very challenging global issue that cannot be resolved overnight. That said, I am confident that together, we will overcome these challenges and emerge stronger as a nation.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I announced the Baby Support Grant or BSG last Friday, a one-time cash payment for all Singaporean children born from 1 October 2020 onwards for two years. Parents of babies born in October and expectant parents are happy and we are happy for them.
At the same time, however, since the announcement, we have received feedback and appeals asking why 1 October 2020, and whether the commencement date can be brought forward to cover children born prior to 1 October 2020. Members, too, have asked about it in this debate. Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Saktiandi, yesterday and Ms He Ting Ru, today. Ms Tin Pei Ling1 and Miss Cheng Li Hui2 have also filed Parliamentary Questions.
I fully understand that parents who are not eligible to receive the Baby Support Grant are disappointed, especially since this has been a challenging year for everybody. The questions asked are fair ones and it is only right that I should address them and explain our considerations when designing the scheme and also our approach to the appeals that have come in.
In a NPTD and MSF Survey in June, three in 10 Singaporean couples said that they were planning to delay having a child due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They expressed worries about the global COVID-19 health situation, as well as job and income insecurity. This is understandable as having a child is a major decision and a long-term commitment.
We know couples consider many factors when deciding on when to have a child – whether care-giving support is available, the impact on their career plans, and most fundamentally, whether they are prepared mentally and financially. The pandemic has affected our lives and livelihoods in a major way. Employment and financial stability have therefore become even bigger considerations for many couples and made them rethink if they should have a child in the next one to two years.
So, the fact that couples are considering delaying having children is a cause for concern. We are also concerned because we recognise that fertility declines with age and chances of conception are much higher when couples start earlier. Hence, we developed the idea of the Baby Support Grant to augment the existing Baby Bonus Cash Gift to provide extra support for parents who wish to have a child, so that they will not postpone their parenthood plans.
When designing this scheme, we explored several options for the start date. Given the policy intent to encourage more couples to proceed with their parenthood plans, we could have taken a very strict approach and if you take a strict approach, it would mean that the start date should be nine months after the date of announcement, which would actually be July 2021. Indeed, one of the residents wrote in to say that \"if the grant was meant to encourage couples to have children, then children born in October 2020 should not qualify, as the child is already conceived prior to the grant announcement\". But this would mean that all babies born between now and July 2021 will be left out.
We then considered providing this additional support only next year, with effect from 1 January 2021, and then drawing on next year's Budget. However, we felt it was important to get the support out as quickly as we can, to help more Singaporeans with their parenthood aspirations. Announcing the plans next year could mean that couples may delay attempts to have a child in the meantime. So, we tried hard to see how we could do this earlier.
While the Government's fiscal situation is tight, due to the support given to Singaporeans and businesses throughout the year, we were able to set aside some Budget this year, to provide additional support to more Singaporean parents starting as soon as we could. Hence, we decided to make it effective from the month of announcement, that is, 1 October 2020.
I know parents of babies who are not eligible to receive the Baby Support Grant are disappointed and I can fully understand why. They would have experienced inconveniences and challenges in caring for newborns this year, especially during the circuit breaker. From coping with new visitation guidelines and restrictions at healthcare facilities, to making quick adaptations when they could not get sufficient help to care for newborns, to juggling care-giving duties while working from home when infant and childcare centres were closed.
However, we would like to seek the public's understanding that specific start dates are required for any new measure or enhancement. Regardless of the effective start date, there will always be some babies who are born before it. The appeals we have received to change the start date of the Baby Support Grant have come with a wide range of suggestions for the start date.
To give you a sense of this, just let me run through some of them. Some have suggested that the Baby Support Grant should cover babies born in September on the basis that it is so close to October. But this would mean that all of those in August upwards would not get it. Others suggested April 2020 as that was the start of the circuit breaker – and obviously, that was when all the hardships really kicked it, but that would mean all those before April do not get it.
Miss Cheng Li Hui, in her Parliamentary Question has suggested 7 February because that was when DORSCON Orange was declared. So, if we go with those, then all those in January will be left out.
Many have suggested that it should be with effect from 1 January 2020 as that was when the pandemic started and indeed there is a petition supporting this date. But, on the other hand, there is another petition asking for the grant to cover all children who are one year and below on 1 October of this year. In other words, that the effective date should be 1 October 2019. We have also received an appeal that the grant should be given to children under the age of seven years.
So, you can see, it is not straightforward. Each group has reasons for the dates proposed and looking at it from their perspective, these reasons are all valid, but we can only choose one date and whichever date we choose, there will be groups who are not covered.
We chose October as the commencement date for the reasons mentioned earlier and we seek your understanding, that is why we are maintaining this date. But we will, however, accede to appeals for the Baby Support Grant from a specific group of parents – those whose babies were born before 1 October 2020, but whose certified Estimated Delivery Date, or EDD, was on or after 1 October 2020. In other words, born prematurely although the EDD was 1 October 2020 onwards. The National Population and Talent Division will provide more information to parents on how they can do so.
That said, it is important to understand where the parents who have asked for an earlier date are coming from. They, too, would appreciate support. So, I would like to reassure them and Members, that even without the Baby Support Grant, there is still substantial Government support for these parents. Some of these new measures commenced in 2019/2020, which young children born since 2014, including the babies born from January 2020, would benefit from.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerk to distribute handouts with information on the Marriage and Parenthood Package available to parents?
Mr Speaker: Please do. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
Ms Indranee Rajah: While the extra Baby Support Grant is for babies born from 1 October 2020, parents whose babies were born before 1 October 2020 will receive, and in some cases, have already received cash and cash-like benefits, which were last enhanced in 2015 and 2016. They would have received, for example: (a) between $8,000 and $10,000 in the Baby Bonus Cash Gift; (b) $3,000 First Step Grant, deposited into the Child Development Account or the CDA, without parents having to first save into the CDA; (c) between $3,000 and $15,000 in Government co-savings for the CDA; and (d) a $4,000 grant which is deposited into the Medisave account that is open for every newborn, that is the Medisave Grant for Newborns.
So, the total cash and cash-like support that parents can receive ranges from $18,000 for their first child to $32,000 for their fifth and subsequent children, even without the Baby Support Grant. This is over and above the other support in the Marriage & Parenthood Package, some of which we also enhanced this year. Let me highlight some of these.
First, more subsidies for infant and childcare. There have been suggestions from the public that more help with affordable childcare will go further than a one-off cash grant. Since 1 January 2020, the household income ceiling for the Additional Subsidy has been raised from $7,500 per month to $12,000 per month. This means that many more households can receive this support. The amount of subsidies provided have also been increased. Today, after the enhanced subsidies, families can receive up to $1,310 each month in infant care subsidies or up to $767 each month in childcare subsidies. A working couple who earns a combined income of $8,000 a month, pays $524 per month per child for full-day infant care at an Anchor Operator pre-school. This is about one third less than what they would have paid previously. When their child turns 18 months, the amount that the couple needs to pay for childcare at an Anchor Operator will further reduce to $280 per month.
Next, free National Childhood Immunisation Schedule or NCIS vaccinations and developmental screenings. From 1 November 2020, that means next month, all Singaporean children – and this applies to all Singaporean children today regardless of when they were born – can also receive free childhood vaccinations on the national schedule and developmental screenings, at all Polyclinics and Community Health Assist Scheme General Practitioners or CHAS GPs. This extension of fully subsidised services at our CHAS GPs will improve affordability and accessibility for parents, who can now enjoy these services islandwide.
Next, support for households, jobs and salary amidst COVID-19. The other source of concern on the part of many parents, like other Singaporeans, are the employment-related challenges and anxieties at this time. Raising children during the COVID-19 pandemic can be more challenging, especially if a member of the family has lost his or her job. We recognised this earlier in the year and provided more support for households, as well as jobs and salary support.
To provide more assurance and support to Singaporeans with their household expenses during this period of economic uncertainty, the Government provided the Solidarity Payment and Care and Support – Cash payout in April and June, to every Singaporean aged 21 years and above. This amounted to $600 to $1,200 per Singaporean, depending on income.
On top of this, we gave each parent with at least one citizen child aged 20 years and below as of 31 December 2020, an additional Care and Support – Cash payout of $300, that is an additional $600 per couple.
Hence, a Singaporean couple with a child, including those with babies born before 1 October, could already receive up to $3,000 in additional cash support this year.
In addition to these, all households with at least one Singaporean citizen member would have received the Solidarity Utilities Credit of $100. Eligible HDB households can also receive up to 2.5 times their regular GST Voucher – U-Save and up to 3.5 months of Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) Rebate. Such a household living in a 4-room flat with five or more can receive $800 in U-Save and 2.5 months of S&CC Rebate this financial year.
On the support for jobs and salary, the Government has also provided significant support to ease concerns about employment. This includes employment and salary support through the SG United Jobs and Skills Package and the Jobs Support Scheme.
I have listed the financial support, but we all do know, of course, that it is not just about the money or the finances because there are other things that are factored in when couples are deciding to have a child. In this regard, we have taken many steps to make sure that we provide additional support, from increasing the number of pre-school spaces to also working on flexible work arrangements.
Ms He Ting Ru earlier spoke about a holistic approach and I am so glad that she agrees with us because these were exactly the recommendations of the Citizens' Panel on Work-Life Harmony. Those included recommendations to further encourage and enable companies to provide flexible work arrangements, such as through recognition schemes as well as the nomination of Work-Life Ambassadors. The Panel also called for the shift of societal norms over time, to one where family time and other life priorities are placed above work and workplace practices become more progressive and family-friendly. So, we can see that the idea here is that it is not just about money but how to make Singapore a place that is conducive for families as a whole.
Ms He had a specific question on singles and whether the Baby Support Grant, or BSG, would be applicable or whether they are eligible for it. The answer is that they would not be eligible for it. The BSG is a one-off grant to help reassure couples and minimise delays in their marriage and parenthood plans. The BSG is an add-on to the Baby Bonus Cash Gift which, in itself, was designed to encourage marriage and parenthood. So, it is not quite consistent to extend it to singles in this context. However, I would like to assure all that Government benefits that support the growth and development of children are given to all Singaporean children, regardless of the marital status of their parents. So, benefits that are available to all parents to support them in their care-giving responsibilities would include childcare and infant care subsidies, the MediSave Grant for newborns, MediShield Life coverage from birth, infant care and childcare leave, the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy concession and, in addition to the above, every Singaporean child will benefit from education and healthcare subsidies and has access to social assistance, regardless of their parents' marital status.
In 2016 and 2017, we further extended support to unwed parents, including the Government-Paid Maternity Leave and the Child Development Account which includes the CDA First Step, that is, the $3,000 I mentioned earlier, and the matched co-savings from the Government. These benefits aim to support the child's developmental and care-giving needs, as well as the parents' efforts to provide for the child. As society continues to evolve, our policies will be updated to keep pace with societal realities.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has made this a difficult year for everyone. Many groups of fellow Singaporeans need our support. Parents who have children, or are planning to have children, are one such group. Hence, I am heartened by the efforts of many corporates and community partners which have joined the Government’s efforts in further supporting Singaporeans on their parenthood journey. I hope that many more will come on board.
We do understand the difficulties that families, especially those with babies and young children, face during this period, and have implemented measures like the one I described earlier. We will continue to support families during these extraordinary times and I seek Members’ and fellow Singaporeans’ understanding about the start date for the Baby Support Grant, which is one additional measure among many. This Government remains committed to supporting the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans and we will continue to review and enhance the strong suite of measures already in place to help Singaporeans form and grow families.
Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. To Minister Indranee Rajah, thank you so much for that response to some of the questions the Workers' Party Members of Parliament had on the Baby Support Grant. I fully recognise the trouble and the issue about settling on a start date for a grant like this which was unexpected by many members of the public. Having said that, would the Government consider extending the Baby Support Grant to Singaporeans who have received some of these COVID-19-related subsidies, such as SIRS and the COVID-19 Support Grant, because they have already exhibited particular difficulty arising out of their circumstances once COVID-19 started? So, they are already pre-qualified in that sense to be in need and, hence, they have received Government subsidies. These are mainly Singaporeans at the lower to lower middle income group. So, the extension is not really about a date that will reach back for all Singaporean parents, but specifically for lower to middle income Singaporeans. Would that be something the Government could consider? Thank you.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his question. I think the approach that we would take is this. This particular scheme has a very specific policy intent, which is to encourage those who are delaying to proceed with their parenthood plans. So, for those who are already low income, proceeding with parenthood plans would add to some of the responsibilities that they have. If they are low income and they have children from 1 October onwards, they will get the Baby Support Grant. No issue.
I think Mr Singh's question is: can we extend the Baby Support Grant to those born before 1 October who are low income. For those, what we will do is we will utilise the existing schemes that we have for the low-income to make sure that they are taken care of and their needs are taken care of, because we do actually have a very strong social support system. The SSOs were set up for this purpose, ComCare was put in place for this purpose and there are many different schemes which are aimed at that. So, the assurance that we can give is that if you are low income and you have had your child before 1 October and you have financial difficulties, we will help you. It does not necessarily have to be in the form of the Baby Support Grant, but we will still help you.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Minister for the reply. I would just want to make further points for the single unwed parents. I think this Government has said that single unwed parents are no less a mother or a father just because the child is born outside of marriage. So, I really hope the Government could reconsider not providing the Baby Support Grant to the single unwed parents. We also have to bear in mind that the median salary of a single unwed parent under 35 years old is about $600 a month. So, the $3,000 is actually about five months of their salary and it could really provide a lifeline for them during this pandemic.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I had addressed the considerations that we had in mind with respect to single unwed parents.What I would reiterate – because I think the learned Member's concern is whether or not they would have adequate support. So, irrespective of whether they have the Baby Support Grant, if they are, indeed, struggling and if they are in need, please do approach the SSO. There are other schemes available and in place and we will look to see how we can support them.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for the very assuring and heartwarming confirmation of all those measures that have so far been implemented by the Government. I believe Singaporeans actually appreciate it.
Speaker, Sir, I support the plans of action, as detailed in the Ministerial Statement. I am confident that this suite of measures will facilitate our progress and ensure that we emerge from this crisis stronger. We will be a competitive yet inclusive economy, a dynamic yet sustainable one.
In order to stay relevant and be an active participant on the world stage, we have to remain open to the world. We need to attract more quality investments and accept investors, entrepreneurs, specialists and professionals who can work with us in order to prosper as an economy and society.
Bringing in investments and attracting organisational set-ups here will create jobs and other opportunities for Singaporeans. We need these regional and international collaborations to stay ahead of the competition, increase our value and usefulness to the world, thereby ensuring our survival and prosperity.
The better approach is not to stay away and shield us from competition in this rapid technologically advancing world. We should rather face the competition and equip Singaporeans with leading skills and tools to make us stay ahead of competition.
Even as we welcome foreigners to share their knowledge and skills with Singaporeans, we need to be mindful of the risk of being over-reliant on a particular country, source or nationality. We should also take note of social costs and other implications that might outweigh the benefits in the longer run. Hence, we should be open but selective, monitor the employment market closely and take proactive steps to maintain the right balance.
I would like to suggest that the Government reconsider imposing a foreign worker levy instead of minimum qualifying salary to regulate the hiring of foreigner workers, such as Employment Pass or EP holders. A levy proportional to the salary of the EP holder is fair and can be justified. It provides another revenue source for the country as the Government continues to invest in Singapore holistically.
While cost is one of the major concerns for investors, Singapore has many other attractive advantages which more than make up for the higher costs. These include a conducive business environment, security, stability, excellent infrastructure and telecommunications, updated facilities and amenities, transparency and efficiency. These are all prime determining factors for businesses and workers too.
While other countries are grappling with COVID-19, we must continue to invest in both our infrastructure and human capital and provide incentives to pull in companies and individuals to place their investments in Singapore. The good cycle of investments, jobs and opportunities will bring many benefits to our island and our people. Hence, we need to continue with our major infrastructure investments that will support our economic growth for the benefit of Singaporeans in the face of the slowdown.
I would like to appeal for further incentives for companies to employ locals, in additional to the Job Growth Incentive or JGI, especially to support those who are middle-aged and above who have been retrenched and finding it difficult to get jobs. This is a group of Singaporeans whom I am especially concerned about. May I suggest that up to half of the 50% or 25% support to be paid to employees as Workfare Income Supplement or WIS to narrow the job and income expectations mismatch?
It would be good to balance these measures with quotas for foreign PMETs to encourage and incentivise companies to employ Singaporeans.
Could the JGI be a long-term policy coupled with support for employers to provide permanent upgrading and upskilling of Singaporean workers?
May we extend the COVID-19 Support Grant or CSG to those who were not eligible for the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme or SIRS?
Can we also enhance the WIS payout for lowest 25% income group with more payment for the lowest tier, with up to 50% more grants to supplement their income?
In addition, would MOM look into a hybrid of WIS, CSG and SIRS to form a new scheme to incentivise employment, reduce the pain from income reduction and narrow the job/income mismatch?
Notwithstanding, I do agree that all these have to be done with proportionally increase in productivity through job redesign, use of technology, automation so on and so forth, so that our workers are better skilled, productive and equipped, as compared with peers in other countries for the same job with better output. This would help mitigate avoidance of cost inflationary. We need to expedite the industry transformation, for example, more use of machinery in town cleaning jobs and higher productive method in construction industry to reduce reliance of foreign workers and higher income for our Singapore workers.
We all need to be very clear that we cannot afford to be complacent in an environment which is advancing rapidly technologically. What is the norm today can easily be disrupted.
To ensure that Singaporeans can remain in a leading position in the fast-changing and competitive world, we must continue to invest and equip all Singaporeans with the best skills, knowledge and tools. Singaporeans must be the assets which attract investors. We can further incentivise the investors and businesses to equip and train Singaporeans with leading and competitive skills.
The Government should continue with the overseas training and study internship initiative for our citizens so that they will gain wider exposure and market knowledge and deepen their problem solving skills. With that, I would like to conclude with my support again.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this COVID pandemic has badly affected our economy, many lives and livelihoods. But if there is something positive, it has reminded us about the important things in our life, the things that we may have taken for granted.
Sir, I learnt a very painful but important lesson over the circuit breaker. I realised that I missed out on so much of my children's childhood over the last couple of years. While working from home, I was able to spend so much time with my little ones. Together – Ella, Katie, Poppy and I cooked, ate, played, enjoyed bedtime stories and even managed to set up a tent in our living room.
Before this pandemic, I was never able to spend so much time with them. I was often out on the ground at work, like most of us, and by the time I got home at night, the kids would be fast asleep. The reality is that work from home is something that us, as Members of Parliament will not be able to completely do as our work is often on the ground. But many fellow Singaporeans can benefit from it. In a survey of 9,000 respondents across night 90 companies conducted this May, 90% of respondents said they wanted to continue working from home. Singaporeans do want such an arrangement.
Sir, we should respond positively and legislate the right to work from home for all employees and require employers who reject the request to provide specific business-related reasons.
Working from home will benefit all employees, whether you're married or single. Employees will have better work-life balance, more freedom, spend less time commuting and it promotes employee well-being. Beyond this, there are four other main reasons why we should give people the right to work from home.
The first reason that it will be better for fathers. A survey conducted by Focus on the Family Singapore this year found that out of nearly 2,500 fathers, 70% became more involved with their families during the circuit breaker. Of this group, more than 80% said they connected better with their kids.
This pandemic has hurt many Singaporean families but it has also provided opportunities for parents, especially fathers to bond with their children like never before. A recent media article spotlighted the stories of several fathers during the circuit breaker and how COVID-19 has given fathers a chance to bond with their kids.
Marketing manager Imran talk about how his wife and him are so glad that he has now more time to play and eat together with his two toddler children. Imran talked lovingly about how his kids now miss him even when he stepped out of the house briefly.
Shahid Nizami, a managing director, spoke about how he had to strike a balance between working from home and supervising his son, Kain's home-based learning and how he jammed with his son for a virtual talent competition, with his son on drums and the dad on a guitar. He said, \"This has been really special for both of us.\"
It is clear that many fathers now want to reconsider their work-life arrangement and we should not waste this opportunity. The right to work from home will give fathers more flexibility and more time to spend with their loved ones.
Second, the reason this working from home would help benefit mothers. One mother, Sheena, wrote to me, expressing her joy at seeing more fathers picking up their kids from schools these days as a result from our work from home policy which she says used to be a rare sight previously. Fathers picking up their children from school is part of a bigger solution.
A study conducted this year by the US National Bureau of Economics found that a pandemic would likely cause fathers to become more interested and experienced in childcare, reducing the childcare responsibilities on mothers and increasing gender equality at the workplace.
This rings true for Singapore too. An IPS study found that fathers who had more time to be with their children at home were able to better develop effective childcare skills. When fathers become more adept with handling childcare responsibilities, their families rely less on the mothers for childcare. This not only improves delegation of home responsibilities more equally between fathers and mothers but allow working mothers to focus better at work. In short, when fathers buck up at home, mothers get to lean in at work. Gender equality happens when everyone chips in.
The third reason is that it would be good for businesses. It does so by increasing productivity.
A 2011 guide by the tripartite committee on work-life strategy says that working from home enhances business performance and competitiveness for employers as employers can optimise manpower and resources deployment. International examples back up this point. A study again by the US National Bureau of Economic Research found that employees of China's largest travel agency, Ctrip, were 13% more productive while working from home.
Having employees work from home also help companies reduce fixed costs, such as office rental and workstation set-up costs and staff turnover related costs. As early as 2001, MOM stated that work from home allows workers to better combine their work and personal responsibilities which helps to reduce absenteeism and attrition. Ctrip, the Chinese travel agency I mentioned previously, halved their attrition rate of their employees, with a work from home policy.
Businesses that allow their employees to work from home do grow stronger. Let us help our businesses recover from this COVID economy in a way that emphasises efficiency and reduce costs. And through the Productivity Solutions Grant, the Government is also helping to make a work from home policy possible for businesses.
The fourth and final reason for legislating the right to work from home is that it will be good for our economy.
I cited research showing that a work from home policy reduces employee attrition. What I have not mentioned is that so often, this attrition employees are women. When you add up the effects on the national level, we see shocking trends. Let us talk about female labour force participation rate. On that, Singapore scored 61.1% in 2019, far below other countries in Southeast Asia, such as Vietnam at 72.5%; Cambodia at 75.2% and Lao PDR at 76.8%.
It is often said that Singapore's only natural resource is our people. Yet, we are not even employing half of our people, our women efficiently. Why is our female labour force participation rate so low? According to the McKinsey Global Institute, the culprit is care-giving and childcare responsibilities. The study estimates that if we close this gap, more than $26 billion could be added to the Singapore's GDP by 2025. We need every dollar of that and we need to close that gap.
The solution is to empower our mothers to work from home. Teresa, a working mother wrote to me, saying that working from home has meant that she did not have to worry about childcare arrangements and could pick up her children from childcare, bring them to appointments and take care of them when they did not have school. The right to work from home will provide parents like Teresa and many other employees with legal grounds to request to work from home when they need to without being penalised. It will enable those who have been discouraged and forced out of the workforce to rejoin their fellow Singaporeans. In these hard times, Singapore's economy needs every leg up we can get. The right to work from home will help.
Finally, let me address potential downsides and how we can solve them.
MOM has previously stated that this legislation can have unintended consequences for the very group it is meant to benefit and protect. For example, it may discourage employers from hiring groups seen as likely to take up the benefits. I am equally concerned about such outcomes. So, I studied the issue.
The UK has done what I am calling for. It provides the right for all workers to request for work from home, which employers can reject only based on certain business reasons. A study conducted in 2018 found that less than 5% of UK workers who worked from home or used staggered hours experience negative consequences due to their working arrangement. It is extremely unlikely that getting to work from home hurt someone's career. By contrast, the study found that work from home has been shown to reduce women's likelihood of working part-time after childbirth, reduces the motherhood penalty and potentially increase wage premium for women, especially in the longer run. In other words, the evidence suggests that legislating the right to work from home would help, not hinder women from succeeding at the workplace.
Sir, in conclusion, I hope we will legislate this right to work from home. Employers can reject the request with specific business-related reasons and employees who want to choose to work from the office can still feel free to do so. I believe this is a good middle ground win-win proposal.
For years, we told everyone that work from home helps with work-life balance, reduces employees absenteeism, leads to higher productivity, saves costs of office space and attracts and retains value employees. It even helped save lives during this pandemic.
For months, we make it law. All I am asking is that we now make this law permanent.
Minister Lawrence has said that working from home must be embraced as a new normal even after circuit breaker ends. We are now at a 50% work from home policy and I urge the Government not to reduce this any further, but instead take a step forward and ensure that work from home truly becomes a new normal.
Let me end by stressing that work from home is not just for fathers and mothers. It is for those are not married as well. At some point in our lives, we will have to care for someone else – be it children parents, grandparents, spouses, partners, friends and other loved ones. We will all need to be care-givers some day and we should have the flexibility to do so.
Working from home also helps with work-life balance and our well-being so it is also about caring for ourselves. Let us emerge stronger, as I have said many times in this House, spend time with those you love. One of these days, you will either say \"I wish I had\" or \"I'm glad I did\". Let us give our people a better chance of saying \"I'm glad I did\".
Mr Speaker: Dr Koh Poh Koon.
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Mr Speaker, Sir, during the Debate on the President’s Address recently, I spoke as Deputy Secretary-General of the NTUC and urged the tripartite partners to come together to conduct an in-depth study on the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model, or PWM, across more sectors, so that we can move faster in this aspect when the economy recovers post-COVID-19.
Various Labour Members of Parliament – from former Secretary-General Lim Swee Say to former Parliamentary colleague Mr Zainal Sapari – have in their Parliamentary speeches over the many years also push for a faster and wider implementation of the PWM. Hence, NTUC welcomes the announcement to form a Tripartite Workgroup for Low-wage Workers to take concrete actions on this very important agenda.
Uplifting lower income Singaporeans have been a core mission of the PAP Government right from the outset. The PAP was born from the unions in the 1950s. Taking care of our workers has been a critical part of our DNA as a party. We have achieved what few have done over the last six decades, but the task is never finished. It is something that we must and will keep working on.
Under the PAP Government and with the support from the Labour Movement, the lives of millions of Singaporeans have been greatly improved: more than 90% of Singaporeans own their homes; our children get much better education; we invested in upgrading skills of our people so that they can stay employed and improve in their careers even as our economy transforms through the decades.
We have made significant progress in the past 10 years. The wages of workers at the lowest 20th percentile have increased by 24% in real terms in the last five years and by 39% over the last 10 years.
This was a big lift and faster than for those higher up on the wage ladder. It has also helped moderate income inequality in Singapore which is now at its narrowest in almost 20 years. The Gini coefficient calculated using the widely used OECD methodology, fell to 0.35 in 2019 after accounting for Government transfers such as Workfare Income Supplement.
All these did not happen just by itself. It is not by chance. It was brought about by sound economic policies, and the tripartite partners working actively to intervene to support workers. We implemented the “Triple Uplift” formula comprising the PWM, Workfare Income Supplement or WIS, and the National Wage Council or NWC recommendations.
The PWM lifted the wages of close to 80,000 cleaners, security officers and landscape workers. Their wages have increased by 30% in real terms in recent years without the loss of jobs. The PWM also enables them to climb the skills-ladder, improving their future employability and their wage progression at the same time.
This has been a significant achievement because the workers in these sectors tend to be older or with limited education and, therefore, are at a higher risk of this employment. It required very involved negotiations and firms, companies have to undertake changes of many of their practices to do so.
Workfare is another significant intervention. It acts like a form of negative income tax. The Government tops up the income of our workers earning less than $2,300 per month. There are many other efforts, all part of the on-going task of uplifting our workers.
Skills upgrading and job placement efforts by the NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute or e2i, working with Government agencies help many workers access better jobs, better pay and better job prospects. Bus drivers’ salaries jumped by more than 20% since 2015 with the new bus financing framework supported by the labour movement and National Transport Workers’ Union or NTWU.
In the last five years or so, we have pushed hard on our ITM efforts as well. This brought together tripartite partners integrating skills upgrading together with business transformation, productivity enhancement and innovation to catalyse change as a whole of eco-system to also create better jobs and better job prospects for our workers.
Raising the income of our less skilled and low-wage workers is, therefore, a holistic and a continuous effort. Through Workfare, the PWM and our efforts involving various stakeholders to boost skills and productivity in every sector, we are demonstrating exactly what Mdm Halimah spoke about in social solidarity. Our low-wage workers get an uplift in incomes through Workfare, supported by our taxes through the PWM and by productivity improvements. The upshot is that we can achieve higher incomes for low-wage workers without putting their employment at risk and minimising cost increases for our consumers.
How about the coverage of PWM?
The Government has committed to working with its tripartite partners to extend the PWM to all sectors in a manner that is appropriate to each and every sector's unique conditions.
I should point out also that the PWM in the existing sectors have also helped lift wages in the other non-PWM sectors as well. If we look at the occupations that are traditionally deemed as comprising workers with lower income – clerical support, service staff, tradesmen, operators, cleaners, labourers – there are, perhaps, about slightly over 850,000 workers doing these jobs in Singapore. The vast majority of them actually earn above $1,300 a month.
According to MOM, the residual number of low-wage workers who earn below $1,300 is about 100,000 workers. About a quarter of them actually are self-employed so they would not have benefited from any minimum wage, to begin with. With Workfare and employer's CPF contribution included, only about 56,000 across a variety of job roles earn less than $1,300. Of these, only about 32,000 are full-time employees.
So, what the Workers' Party wants to achieve with the proposed minimum wage of $1,300 a month, we have already achieved through PWM and many other policy measures, such as Workfare Income Supplement.
With this latest tripartite move, we will further reduce this number. We have, in fact, actually made tremendous strides over the decades. But as I said, it is still unfinished business.
The Workers' Party have called for a Minimum Wage of $1,300 a month to be applied across all sectors, as a quick way to cover everyone else. As I have just highlighted, this is a very small number of 32,000 to over 50,000-over, about 1.7% of our local workforce. Let me state that we are not ideologically against a minimum wage. In fact, the first rung of the wage ladder in the PWM is a form of sectoral minimum wage. Senior Minister Tharman has also called the PWM a “Minimum Wage Plus” – Minimum Wage plus a ladder for wage increase through upskilling. So, the idea of having some form of a minimum wage is not new and we share the same objective to uplift the incomes of low-wage workers. Where we differ though is the approach to getting there.
All programmes and policies have pros and cons and so too a single blanket minimum wage. Its appeal is that it is seemingly a quick way to raise the wages of workers who have to benefit from PWM – and maybe many other initiatives. But there are actually risks to jumping onto this single blanket minimum wage.
First, there is the question of its effectiveness in helping our lowest skilled and most vulnerable workers and not inadvertently putting them at a disadvantage. It is difficult to find the right a single minimum wage for all sectors.
If it is not set too low, then the benefit to workers in many sectors will be limited and defeats the purpose of having a minimum wage in the first place.
For example, the starting salary for a cleaner in Town Councils today under the mandatory PWM is already $1,442. With overtime pay, Workfare Income Supplement and Annual Wage Supplement or bonuses, this would be much higher than the $1,300 a month that the Workers' Party proposes as a minimum wage. Indeed, because of the mandatory PWM, the Workers' Party Town Councils' cleaners are being paid based on the PWM and not based on their Minimum Wage!
But if the Minimum Wage is set too high, then businesses especially the SMEs, cannot afford to pay. They will have to pass the costs on to consumers if they are able to or cut back on employment of workers of lower educational standards or skills, or, in the worse case scenario, go out of business.
In an ideal world, of course, a high Minimum Wage will force industries to invest more in technology, invest in items that can raise the productivity and favour the most efficient firms without lowering overall employment. But in practice there will be winners and losers and it is our SMEs who are the most vulnerable and our most vulnerable workers will also be at risk of losing out.
Sir, we all want to help low-wage workers to earn more. But in practice it is difficult to arbitrarily prescribe a single higher salary for all sectors and all industries. There must be a basis for setting the Minimum Wage that reflects the realities of each sector, including the profile of the low-wage worker sin that that particular sector so that it is sustainable, it benefits them and it avoids any unintended costs.
Veteran union leaders with long experience on the ground understand the importance of working this out and arriving at the tripartite consensus, so that “low wage” does not inadvertently become “no wage”.
If I may share what my good brother in the unions, Brother Toh Hock Poh, will always say when it comes to complex issues, \"Ah nay kan duah, wa nang za teo zoh liow, ko tan li la kong\" in Hokkien. Sir, if you do not mind I have to do this to justify the charisma of Brother Toh Hock Poh and show his charisma – what it means is; \"If it was so simple, we would done it long go.\" So, a single Minimum Wage is no panacea.
The second risk – with a single blanket Minimum Wage is the inevitable politicisation of wage setting. What do I mean? Today, let us say we can all agree to $1,300 Minimum Wage proposed by the Workers' Party, a “moral imperative” as Mr Singh puts it in his recent Facebook post.
But what next? What happens next? How will this number change from this year to the next and on what basis?
In a political contest, a political party will surely come along and say, \"Well, $1,500 will reflect higher 'moral imperatives'\". Yet another will come along and say, \"$1,300 is good; $1,500 is better, but $1,700 must surely be more 'divine' moral imperatives\". It can become a political auction.
When this process, this political auction gathers momentum and becomes detached from market realities, the Minimum Wage escalates beyond what employers are able to pay. And the jobs of our more vulnerable sisters and brothers in these sectors will be threatened with the risk of unemployment.
So, I am not so much concerned by what Mr Singh and the Workers' Party is proposing for now, but what it portends for the future – the possibility of a political auction that will price out our lower skilled workers, our brothers and sisters, and disadvantage our smaller enterprises, our SMEs. This is not an academic issue.
We are seeing this kind of political processes, this political auction, happening in other countries. What is a better way? At NTUC, we believe the PWM is one way of doing so.
Under PWM, we can engage the different stakeholders of each industry, work out how to address their concerns and challenges, and arrive at a consensus with a basis that they can all actively support. With this sectoral tripartite consensus building approach, it is much less likely for a political auction to happen.
We can and should do more to help the lowest paid in our society but we must go about doing it in a way that ensures the upside while minimising the downsides. The cure surely should not be worse than the problem it tries to solve.
A third complication, and this is a major one, is the question of migrant workers. In most developed countries, the legal Minimum Wage applies to all workers including migrant workers. If the Minimum Wage is driven simply by a \"moral imperative\", then the natural question to ask is whether it should include non-Singaporeans such as migrant workers, including our foreign domestic workers.
I do see an online petition going on now in the honour of Mr Singh's name, with all the text he put into his Facebook on the page calling for people to petition to support Minimum Wage for foreign domestic workers as well. So, perhaps, Mr Singh should also take this chance to explain to Singaporeans what the position of the Workers' Party is when you advocate for Minimum Wage.
Now, if businesses cannot bear the resulting cost, is there also a \"moral imperative\" to help our SMEs? This is a particular pertinent consideration at this time, when we are in a deep COVID-19 crisis. Many companies, especially our SMEs, such as those in the construction sector, are suffering and not quite out of the woods. What is Mr Singh's views on this?
I do note that in his Facebook post, the very first line and I quote, \"A universal Minimum Wage for the Singaporean worker is not just a moral imperative, it is an act of national solidarity, one that is even more relevant in today's economic environment\".
I have been listening to some of the speeches of many of the Workers' Party's Members in the House yesterday and today, and I must thank them for sharing the Government's view on improving career coaching, reforming our education, supporting our workers, helping our SMEs. And the Member Jamus Lim's earlier speech talked about supporting SMEs, which I am sure will be welcomed. But if we juxtapose this together with his speech at the last Sitting about raising Minimum Wages, how does it square away? Are we supporting SMEs or are we adding more oil to the fire, so to speak? Perhaps it will be better explained in Chinese, we call it 雪上加霜.
With the companies in a deep economic freeze now or economic recession, is what is being proposed by the Workers' Party – raising wages through a Minimum Wage legislation – going to add more frost to the snow in companies in deep winter right now?
Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek the support of this House for us to continue to push for PWM. NTUC will continue our conversations with our tripartite partners via the newly convened tripartite Workgroup on expanding PWM, to ensure that we take into account the concerns of all our stakeholders for a sustainable implementation of the PWMs, even as we work collectively to help ourselves to get out of this economic recession.
In the interim, the PWM Mark that was recently introduced by Minister Josephine Teo in Parliament as a potential means of recognising firms that voluntarily pay progressive wages, is something that we welcome. We welcome such ideas as it would enable consumers to choose whether to support progressive-minded firms.
While introducing a PWM Mark is a good first step, voluntary schemes on their own may not be attractive enough for companies to come onboard. Government must be prepared to use regulatory levers to help incentivise firms to adopt the PWM Mark, such as requiring companies that access Government schemes or bid for Government contracts to come onboard this voluntary Mark. That way, we can also raise the awareness of consumers and service buyers to price the contracts fairly, and build trust towards eventual mandatory PWM for other sectors.
Beyond the lift and escalator PWM becoming mandatory in 2022, NTUC had also submitted a proposal to the Government to form a Tripartite Cluster for the Waste Management Industry to introduce a PWM focusing on the waste collection sub- sectors. We look forward to the Government’s strong support and will work closely with our tripartite partners to bring about better wages, welfare and work prospects for the low-wage workers in this sector.
In expanding the PWM, we should also consider studying other approaches to complement the existing PWM efforts, such as setting a sectoral wage benchmark as a first step for companies in sectors where there are currently no regulatory levers to mandate a PWM. The benchmarks would be a good way, a good starting point, a first step towards empowering workers with greater awareness of wages in their own occupations and their sectors. This can be done through leveraging various sources of data that we currently have, such as the Occupational Wage Survey Data.
In sectors with a more variegated employment landscape such as Food Services and Retail, sectoral wage benchmarks may help catalyse more companies to embark on uplifting the livelihoods of our lower wage workers. This, of course, in time to come, can evolve into a PWM. The Tripartite Workgroup could also study lower wage occupations that cut across multiple sectors to see how best to help improve their wage prospects. Some job roles, clerical job roles, for example, do not neatly fall into one particular sector and it is horizontal across many sectors. Having employers, Government and union at the same table would enable us to have frank and deep discussions on policy innovations to move the way forward.
Mr Speaker, Sir, there is much work to be done to uplift more lower wage workers, many of whom provide essential services for all of us. We should recognise what the Government and the tripartite partners have achieved in providing a genuine uplift for the workforce, especially our lower wage workers, and be willing to adopt new approaches. Indeed, the PWM and Workfare Income Supplement have major new approaches in recent years and we, of course, remain open to new ideas.
Achieving social equality and enabling lower income families to improve their lives is never a simple task. There is no silver bullet. It is also continuous hard work. NTUC and the tripartite partners will focus on this real hard work of uplifting wages of low-wage workers and seek public support for our workers, while hoping to avoid all the possible downsides. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his extensive comments on this matter. I was not intending to speak in this debate but in view of the questions that he has put to me arising from a Facebook post, which was a response to another Facebook post or two Facebook posts by the Minister for Manpower and the NTUC Secretary-General, I will put the position out. Because when we campaigned in the last election, a Minimum Wage was one of the central pillars of our ambit of the proposals that we had put to Singaporeans.
So, I would like to start with, actually, what I felt was a very powerful line from the Senior Minister of State, which was he is not so much concerned at our proposal of a Minimum Wage. And indeed, there is no reason to be very concerned about it because what we are talking about is those Singaporeans who earn below the $1,300 mark. It is not a number that has come out of the sky. I will explain shortly.
The Senior Minister of State has been helpful in providing some data. I believe a newspaper article, just a few days ago, from a former parliamentarian, someone who I think many of us parliamentarians enjoyed listening to, the economist Walter Theseira, asked some important questions. He asked what are the sectors where Singaporeans are earning less than $1,300? How many workers are impacted? And for those who are significantly below the $1,300 floor, what will happen to them?
And that is precisely my question for the numbers that the Senior Minister of State had shared – about the 100,000, a quarter of them self-employed; 56,000 not full-time workers, if I remember correctly, and 32,000 are full-time. Very important figures. I think this is the first time the Government has shared these figures.
And my question quite simply is, do we need to wait so long to cover these Singaporeans? Can we not consider how we can cover them immediately because it is not a small number. It is a large number. If you think of 60,000 rental units available from HDB and you compare that with this number, it is significant – it is quite a lot of Singaporeans who need some help. So, my Facebook posts really was not to diss or dismiss the PWM. It was to nudge the Government, to tell the Government, \"Hey, wait a minute. Can we move faster on people who are really, really at one end of the spectrum?\"
So, I think the Senior Minister of State understands that context, so that is not so much the issue. So, that was the first question, whether we can reach out more quickly to these individuals.
And I do not believe SMEs would be significantly impacted, with all respect to SMEs, employers and businesses who have also made their views known also in the mainstream media over the last one, one and a half months, perhaps. This number of Singaporeans, we can look after them, we can take care of them, and we can do it quite fast. If there is anybody who can do it for the people who I know as my friends in NTUC, I am pretty sure they are going to work hard with the Government to make that happen. So, I hope the Government takes them up.
My second point is about politicisation, which was what the Minister feared. Are we going to get into an auction when one party says $1,300 and another one says $1,500? This is where we probably have to defer to the experts. The National Wages Council is potentially one forum. And there are also some useful statistics we can use, like the average household expenditure on basic necessities; how much really does it cost for the Singaporean family who is at that end of the spectrum. And the Minimum Wage or the floor can be set at a number which is realistic and correspondent to that.
Actually, the bigger concern I have with the PWM and some of the sectors that the Senior Minister of State has been referring to, is potential profiteering on the back of raising wages for Singaporeans. My question to the Senior Minister of State is what mechanisms are available in NTUC, with MOM, to ensure that companies do not do that.
Now, I say this because earlier this week, I just sat in our usual weekly Town Council meeting and I am aware that certain lift maintenance contracts are coming up for renewal. I have some numbers from the lift companies. For one lift company, costs are going up by 47%. Another lift company, 5%, 10%, 5%, 10%, something of that nature, over a few years. So, because we have different contractors, they have different proposals. Now, if all this increase is going to the Singaporean worker, then I am prepared to take on that burden to persuade our Town Council residents that we need to raise S&CC. I am prepared to take it on because Singaporeans are going to benefit from it.
But my question is, is that a realistic hike in costs? So, I would like the Senior Minister of State to share how can we be sure that as the PWM moves forward and particularly for raising of salaries, those costs will go to our workers and will not be translated into profits.
I think the Senior Minister of State had a question on the ambit of our Minimum Wage proposal. The Minimum Wage we are proposing does not include foreign domestic workers at this point. It does not include foreign manpower at this point because there are other regulatory levers, especially for foreign workers – quotas, levies. I know they serve specific purposes, but I think you will have to implement this and see how best to work the overall manpower situation that SMEs demand and what the economy demands.
Coming back to the important number, it was, I think Senior Minister of State said 1.7% of the population. I am sure Senior Minister of State agrees with me that –
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Workforce.
Mr Pritam Singh: Workforce – I beg your pardon. 1.7% of the workforce. Thank you. I am sure Senior Minister of State agrees with me that we can do and we can move quite fast for this people. I will be prepared to work with Senior Minister of State to ensure that we can actually reach out to these Singaporeans as quickly as the Government can.
Because, I do not think it is acceptable that any one, any Singaporean is earning below this number. It is simply not acceptable. And if we can do something about it in double quick time, let us do it.
Mr Speaker: Dr Koh Poh Koon.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some of his clarifications. I must say it is quite easy to propose a Minimum Wage and then when we ask questions about what it is based on and how they will implement it – does it include foreign workers and all – they say, \"Government go sort it out\". I think if as Brother Hock Poh said, \"If it is so easy to do, we would have done it with any long ago\".
Proposing it for panel of experts to do, do research and studies, that could be one way, but that is actually also what the tripartite partners do. We look at data, but we incorporate the consensus of all the stakeholders including businesses so that they also must be prepared to price this into their business cost and have a way to also socialise it to the consumers. Indeed, as the hon Member said, when there is a wage ladder that goes up or any cost increase for Minimum Wage, this cost will have to be passed to the consumers at some point. So, there has to be a cost implication in the cost impact.
The good news of course is that the PWM, as it stands today, applies only to Singaporean local workforce, Singaporean workers. So, wage increases for PWM only benefits Singapore workers. That is why I asked the question about proposing a blanket single Minimum Wage across all sectors, which has to necessarily cover all workers. Because in many developed countries, the concept of a Minimum Wage, as it is applied, includes migrant workers as well.
So, I think we have to be careful about what we are saying here, because to buck the norm, to be different, there must be a real strong justification.
The data, 1.7% percent of the local workforce, it is not a very clean data because it includes a whole group of people across different job roles. But it also includes people who are technically \"employed\" but they could be employed in jobs like hawker assistant, helping a family member. They are drawing a salary, but they are happy to be just getting $700 a month helping the father or the mother or something like that, manning a store, for example. How do you legislate a Minimum Wage to say that the father who runs the store, employing the son as as a worker, as an employee, has to add a cost on and mandate it?
Those are the challenges when you go down to the bottom. They will be the challenges of implementation.
Research, data, all these are good. If I may use Brother Hock Poh's words again, he said \"Wo jiak yam bi li jiak bee zuay\" or I eat more salt than you eat more rice; \"Tak chek jin ho\", but \"ai zor jin gan kor\" or easier said than done. So, his point is this, reams and reams of data and research is good. But in practice, is always harder to do, because there are practical considerations, there are pushbacks. So, that is why a negotiator approach with stakeholders is the most important.
In the area of working with our stakeholders, I believe that that is why when we work on the negotiated outcome, there is always that balance that can be struck. Where the businesses are prepared to absorb the cost; if not, they have a way to rationalise how to pass the cost on to the consumers.
I am glad to hear that Mr Singh is prepared to also raise the S&CC charges to justify for higher wage cost when we eventually push up the mandatory PWM for the lift and escalator sectors, to make sure that our brothers and sisters in this sector get get paid a fair wage. And I think collectively we ought to socialise Singaporean consumers to the need to up the wages of those at the lower end and demonstrate social solidarity.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his impassioned defence of the PWM model. I would just take the opportunity to just clarify a few points and perhaps obtain some clarifications as well.
One of them is that Senior Minister of State mentioned a few times that a lot of these affect real lives and I have no doubt that they affect real lives because that is precisely what we are fighting for. But, with all due respect, as much as it will be lovely to always rely on folksy wisdom and beliefs by labour union leaders, at the same time, it is important to realise that when when we talk about studies that show that the Minimum Wage does not lead to any appreciable increase in unemployment, this is based on careful consideration and not just beliefs.
It is worth reminding ourselves that there was a time in the 16th century, when people believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. But that belief is not in fact the same as evidence and all evidence from countries all over the world demonstrate that a Minimum Wage has minimal impact on unemployment as long as it is not set too high.
So, that leaves us with discussing why, what is too high? And again, I think we made a clear justification on why we believe that $1,300 is a justifiable number. But why we believe as well that it is important to be open to other possibilities is because we, likewise, do not want this number to be politicised. There are lots of numbers that can be politicised, the interest rate can be politicised. We ensure that the central banks do not politicise the interest rate by making sure that they have independence. Which is why, one way forward is to ensure that we have an independent wage board comprised of academics as well as representatives from both the Labour Movement as well as employers to come up with a number so that is not politicised.
I will just close by pointing out one thing. It is that I do not believe in schadenfreude. We have been throwing out Chinese idioms so I will define that 幸灾乐祸. I do not think that supporting SMEs, as I said in my speech just now, is exclusive from supporting a Minimum Wage, which I mentioned in my maiden speech. In fact, I would just remind everyone that Henry Ford who invented the automobile understood this. He said he has to pay his workers enough so that they can buy his cars. So, when we pay our workers enough, it need not be the case that our small businesses end up suffering as a result.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Speaker. I believe Senior Minister of State has not answered my question with regard to how the tripartite partners assess in a particular sector whether profiteering is taking place on the back of what ought to be wage increases for our Singaporean workers.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I think the simple answer to that is that in a tripartite PWM model, the wages are pegged to a skills ladder, that can be verified by either a participation in a course or verified through an industry accredited programme. So, with the skills increase, the person would then be justified for wage increase, based on the larger job scope or a more productive outcome in the work delivered.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. But I am more referring to a case where like the Labour Annual this year in May, talked about extending the PWM to the lift and escalator sector and I believe there is one more sector, I am not sure whether it was waste management, but one of them.
My point is, this is in the future, but some of these companies are already pricing it in today and is that legitimately correct for them to do so? Apart from that, if there is a reason for a vendor to assert that actually the cost is being overstated here and PWM is being used as an excuse to increase costs, what recourse would the Government consider? Will there be a committee that we can potentially go to to address some of these matters?
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, then the simple process is to make sure that the Town Council when you tender contracts, you have a process of evaluating a competitive tender to assess the points of merit surely, unless you are talking about collusion among various vendors for the same project. Otherwise, there has to be somebody who is prepared to price his service or his product competitively and reasonably.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Just some points of clarification to the Senior Minister of State, Dr Koh Poh Koon, who gave a spirited defence of the PWM model. We have said that we do not think that PWM and Minimum Wage are mutually exclusive.
My first question is really how long does the Senior Minister of State envisage the rolling out of the PWM to all the vulnerable workers who are now earning very low incomes; how long would that take? The number could be 100,000 or 36,000 depending on the definition used, but how long we are going to take to address the needs of that group?
Secondly, Senior Minister of State Koh also talked about how a Minimum Wage inevitably becomes politicised, but the Senior Minister of State presumably does not feel that PWM inevitably becomes politicised. Why does Minimum Wage inevitably become politicised but the PWM model does not also become a political football and become politicised.
Third point of clarification is really on how the Minimum Wage may hurt our SMEs. Senior Minister of State did say that the number of people who will be affected by a minimum wage of $1,300 per month could actually be very small. So, how does such a small number actually effect a very substantial hurt or a disadvantage to SMEs if the number is basically small? In making this point, I would note that some discussions publicly that have happened about Minimum Wage within the business community, that have been reported in The Business Times and so on, have shown that many business owners are in fact open to a Minimum Wage if it is not set too high because they also want to pay their employees with dignity.
The last point is really on the Senior Minister of State who talked about the contrast between Minimum Wage and Progressive Wage Model that with the Progressive Wage Model, you are less likely to lose jobs because that is a negotiated outcome with employers. But would the Senior Minister of State accept that you can have a process to set a Minimum Wage nationally, with reference to research and facts that involves consultation with employers before that Minimum Wage is set, so you do not surrender that advantage as well.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: I think in my speech, I did explain that different sectors have different eco-systems, different kind of skills requirement and therefore different starting pay even for certain lower job roles. And therefore, if at a national level, it is very hard to decide on one number that everyone can agree to as their starting pay. How would that process be to make sure tat there is convergence on one single number – to have the lowest end of a cleaner and a lowest end of a clerical staff – all having the same minimum wage that is acceptable across different industry sectors? So, that is a practical challenge that cannot be overcome so easily with a single Minimum Wage.
How do we help the lower wage workers, maybe the 1.7% that we spoke about? I think when we look at this, wage is only one aspect of helping a lower wage worker. Today, with Workfare, we already top up the wages and that is one way of helping them without having to make employers jump through the hoops, without having to make disadvantaged workers that have to do a lot of heavy lifting to get to the Minimum Wage, for example.
Bear in mind that this segment of workers, some of them could have disabilities that may not be able to embark on the kind of jobs without Government support to begin with. So, by giving some of these Workfare supplements, we actually top up the kind of wages because otherwise, an employer may not be prepared to employ someone with a certain disability that may not be able to fulfil the full function of the job scope. This is where you will end up leading to dis-employment for a particular segment of vulnerable workers. So, it cannot be a one-size-fits-all because there are different segments of people, different industry demands.
How long? I think the process will be something that we want to do now, talk about it, discuss it, work out some schematics. But when can we implement? Obviously, we have to look at the economic situation as well because this will be probably the wrong time to push for increased wage costs onto our SMEs who are already suffering.
Why would the PWM structure be less likely to be politicised? Because it has tripartite negotiations. It is not decided politically by one party. The employers naturally will push back as well if what we are proposing for the sector is not sustainable to them, business-wise. If what is being pushed from just a political base would put them out of business and make them non-competitive, there will be a natural push back. Otherwise, if it is just a single number that is decided based on politics, I think this is where the danger of the slippery slope occurs.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarification.
Just two quick points. One on the issue of heterogeneity, needing each sector to have their own specific Minimum Wage. I would actually put it across even more simply. What I believe that the Workers’ Party would argue is that if you can establish that the Minimum Wage for the lowest paying sector within the PWM is at least $1,300, it is absolutely fine if the other sectors were willing to pay more than that $1,300, for that particular lowest pay sector.
The other point is I think it is actually a bit disconcerting to bring in special cases like disability and the individual that happens to work part-time for his father, or even to talk about earning more than one $1,300 if someone works overtime, because honestly these are, if I may use the term, straw man. We are not comparing these particular special cases. We are talking about individuals without disability that happen to be working just regular full-time work week and are nevertheless struggling to make ends meet.
Even if it is 32,000 people, I do not think that any of these 32,000 people feel that they are being taken care of. And I also do not feel that we should let them, in as rich a society as we are, flounder on their own.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Businesses need to stay competitive and avoid passing all costs to consumers to stay competitive. So, an increased wage has to be coupled with an increase in productivity. If not, it may actually lead to no wage.
So, could I seek clarifications from the Workers’ Party on whether they actually recognise the downside risks of low wage becoming no wage, especially when technology automation is increasingly being adopted?
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: I would like to clarify with the Member. I do not believe any of us made that specific remark. But I would like to ask the Member in return: is he agreeable to pay the 100,000 workers, specifically narrowed down now to 32,000 workers, $1,300 as a business employer? Is he prepared to do that? I hope he is.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his clarification. I think as a business owner, the responsibility is not to a specific sector of employees but to the entire company. Sustaining a business means providing jobs for the whole company.
So, a business owner needs to look at sustainability, and it is the responsibility of a business owner to look at productivity increase because that is what makes businesses profitable, viable and then scalable to be able to provide more jobs for Singaporeans.
So, an arbitrary Minimum Wage may actually be more negative for a business. We need to look at it as a holistic approach, helping businesses upskill their employees, helping businesses to grow their business. So, as the businesses grow, we can provide more to our workers and we can actually hire more workers. I think that is what businesses are looking towards in terms of good effective policy.
Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Speaker. Actually, to be honest, that is a really big debate going on and I think to avoid just discussing this purely on theoretical or rhetorical menace, I would like to ask both sides of the House, including the Senior Minister of State, from the position of someone who is also declaring my interest as strategic advisor to Daughters of Tomorrow where we work actively with employers and businesses to advocate directly to them for what we call livable wages for the employees.
Is there anything that Senior Minister of State Koh might want to share that Members of Parliament, backbenchers, or even community groups can do to help the Government in this effort to encourage more employers in different sectors to think about different ways and using different angles to encourage them to pay the employees more, and in return reap the benefits of a workforce that has higher morale and give higher loyalty to the companies and businesses.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, if we look at what will employer be thinking when he wants to interview and employ somebody. The first thing he is asked is: do you have the skills that I need to do the job, and for the skills that you have, what am I prepared to pay you?
If we stipulate a Minimum Wage or whatever wage there is, but the employer feels that this is not worth paying for, or if you set the wage too high, he will say, “Well, with this money, I might as well buy a machine to do this job. Because I will amortise this machine over one year, two years, and my return is immeasurable, beyond the ROI\". This worker will never get the job if he is priced too high.
On the other hand, if you fix the rate too low, but yet the worker does not have the skills to do the job, no matter how low you price the Minimum Wage, I would not employ the person anyway because there is no skills to it.
So, that is why in the PWM construct, it is not just a wage ladder – rising wages across a spectrum, but actually, there is a skills ladder that is tied to it so that as the employee gets the skills that justify the productivity, the work output and the work delivery, the wages commensurate with their skills will be paid to the employee. Because the employer will then feel that these jobs that he can do with these skills are justifiable for the wage and costs that I am going to bear for which I can actually be competitive as a business and recover it through my my business.
So, it has to go hand-in-hand. It cannot be de-synced from one another. The problem with a Minimum Wage is that it is not connected to any skills ladder. It is a number, and the employer then has to decide if the employee makes the mark or is too costly for him, and that number can fluctuate.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting for a minimum of 20 minutes. Because it is not progressive, so it is a maximum of 20 minutes as well. We will take the Chair at 4.30 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.08 pm until 4.30 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.30 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Members of the House, MOM understands that Singaporeans have been through much hardship over the past few months. Many Members have spoken on the challenges and concerns of our workers across all segments.
Our infection rates have gone down and we have been able to proceed with the slow and steady re-opening of our economy.
Yet, it would be a mistake to think that we are going back to pre-COVID-19 norms. As other speakers in this House have observed, it is unlikely that things will be the same again. Many industries will take time to recover and, when they do, they will look quite different from what it is now.
The way we work has already changed and will continue to change. For instance, companies and workers alike have had to adapt to telecommuting.
Not all these changes are bad. On the contrary, the pandemic has spurred the pace of digitalisation, upskilling and improving the resilience of our workforce and supply chains.
The Government has put in place substantial effort and resources to help our businesses and workers deal with the impact of the pandemic. For example, we have provided extensive support to businesses through the Jobs Support Scheme, with wage subsidies of 75% to help businesses retain workers. Deputy Prime Minister has announced that this support will be extended until next March.
Right now, our focus must be to help our businesses and our workers to emerge stronger from this crisis and to seize new opportunities ahead. We should work on the basis that short-term relief measures will continually and eventually taper off. This is why economic agencies under MTI as well as agencies that lead the ITM sectors, such as MAS and IMDA, are intensifying efforts on job creation. MOM and WSG will work with these agencies to support employment.
Well before the JSS phases out, we have introduced the Jobs Growth Incentive or JGI. The JGI will provide salary support for businesses which bring forward their hiring plans and hire more locals. Eligible employers will receive up to 25% of the first $5,000 of gross monthly wages, or $15,000 for up to 12 months, for new local hires aged below 40. For each new mature local hire aged 40 and above and for all persons with disabilities or PwDs, Government support is doubled to 50%. Thus far, we have committed $1 billion to this initiative, and we encourage more firms to make use of the JGI to expand hiring.
The SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package is our key push to help our workers to enter new jobs. Where this is not yet possible, we are helping jobseekers to acquire the skills that will put them in a stronger position when the economy begins to recover. It pools together jobs and training opportunities for Singaporeans across the public and private sectors.
Under this Package, we have curated 117,500 jobs as at end-August, including jobs, company-hosted traineeships, attachments and training opportunities and training places. With the exception of SGUnited Traineeships which are designed for fresh and recent graduates, these opportunities are all open to mid-career individuals. More than 33,000 jobseekers have been placed into SGUnited Jobs and Skills opportunities.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about how the Government determines the number of job opportunities available under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package and the job roles created by the top hiring sectors.
We have been putting out the total number of committed opportunities available under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package in our weekly Job Situation Report.
The number of committed opportunities is based on approved places under the various SGUnited Jobs and Skills programmes, such as, one, career conversion programmes, traineeships, company attachments and training courses; two, public sector and other Government-funded jobs; and three, private sector jobs that are advertised on the national MyCareersFuture.sg jobs portal.
There are opportunities in almost every sector. Not surprisingly, the key contributors are growth sectors, such as information and communications, healthcare, professional services, finance and insurance and manufacturing.
Examples of jobs in the top five sectors include: software, web and multimedia developers, nursing professionals, management and business consultants, financial analysts and engineering professionals.
But I should also point out that even in sectors badly-hit by COVID-19, there is hiring. In tourism and retail, for example, business models are changing fast. Employers see a need to reskill existing staff as well as to bring in fresh talent. It is, therefore, important not to write them off.
To help our local jobseekers access and get more information on the available jobs and skills opportunities, Workforce Singapore (WSG) has organised various career workshops, seminars and walk-in interviews, reaching about 38,800 individuals between July and September 2020.
We have also brought career matching services closer to the heartlands. So, 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 around 4,200 jobseekers by now. We are heartened to hear Mr Liang Eng Hwa sharing that his constituents have found this to be helpful and that many were able to secure jobs after going to these centres.
That being said, when so many businesses are restructuring, mismatches in jobs and skills must be expected. We recognise the tremendous adjustments needed by both jobseekers and employers to give each other a chance even if they do not look like perfect fits.
Many jobseekers have shown such courage and resilience. Around 39% of workers retrenched in the first quarter of 2020 had re-entered employment by June 2020. Of these, seven in 10 re-entered employment within a month of being retrenched and five in 10 possessed transferrable skills that enabled them to switch to a different industry. For jobseekers who are prepared to take the leap to change vocation or join a new sector, our career conversion programmes and company-hosted traineeships and attachments can help to make this switch easier.
At the same time, we are also seeing businesses changing their mindsets. Instead of looking only for jobseekers who already have the experience and skills, businesses often find that when they widen their search, they find good candidates. The Government has been working closely with such forward-thinking companies in the private sector. And in doing so, these companies have created new opportunities for Singaporeans while placing themselves in a good position for economic recovery.
Mr Yip Hon Weng has highlighted that mature workers aged 40 and above are likely to face greater difficulties in making a career switch. We are aware and recognise the challenges this group of jobseekers face.
I have already mentioned that the JGI will provide higher salary support for new mature local hires – double that, compared to non-mature hires.
Moreover, under the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Support Package introduced in the Unity Budget earlier this year, we have ramped up our career conversion programmes to more than 14,000 places this year. This aims to support mid-career jobseekers in reskilling for new occupations in sectors with good long-term prospects. We have also boosted the salary support for all workers aged 40 and above who are enrolled in career conversion programmes, in particular, for non-PMETs, from 70% to 90%.
This year alone, our career conversion programmes have helped 6,100 mid-career jobseekers to acquire new skills and switch into new occupations. These include close to 100 Professional Conversion Programmes or PCPs, covering across 30 sectors, and specialised career conversion programmes under the Tech Skills Accelerator or TeSA for the ICT sector.
For mid-career jobseekers who may not be able to secure a job straightaway, the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme provides attachment opportunities hosted by companies. These opportunities provide jobseekers with valuable industry-relevant experience and help them to build up their skillsets and networks, while receiving an allowance. The Government will co-fund 80% of the training allowances for trainees under these programmes, while the organisations fund the remaining 20%.
The public sector has also introduced a Work and Skills Immersion Programme in capability areas, such as ICT, food science and technology, social services and healthcare sector. Open to fresh graduates and mid-career switchers, successful applicants are employed full-time, typically on a two-year basis, and will receive structured on-the-job training, preparing them to take up roles in the economy once we recover.
Miss Cheryl Chan has also pointed out that our upskilling and reskilling strategies need to take into account certain vulnerable groups, such as special needs individuals, and we agree fully.
The Open Door Programme helps PwDs enter suitable jobs and integrate them into the workplace by providing support for job placement, training and cost of job redesign.
The Open Door Programme training grant was recently enhanced in July, with more course fee subsidies of up to 95% and training allowance of $6/hr, as well as a new training commitment award of $100 per completed eligible training course. The training courses are curated to ensure that they equip our PwDs with industry-relevant skills. This includes courses in software and technical design skills, and courses that help PwDs work in emerging sectors like logistics, or in new jobs that may involve automation. There are also customised Train and Place Programmes for specialised jobs. And looking ahead, SG Enable is also working to expand courses in sectors with long-term growth opportunities, such as healthcare, education, banking and finance and computing.
On our foreign Work Pass policies, there was already an intense debate last month. So, I will just summarise some of the points that were brought up by Members.
The Government will continue to make adjustments to calibrate the flow, keeping in mind Mr Liang Eng Hwa's reminder not to over rely on foreign manpower. To that end, we update our foreign worker policies on a regular basis.
At the Work Permit and S Pass level, we cut the services quota from 40% to 38% and the S Pass quota from 15% to 13% in 2020, and this will be further reduced to 35% and 10% respectively in 2021, that is, next year.
We will also cut S Pass quotas for the construction, process and marine shipyard sectors from 20% to 15% from 2021 to 2023.
At the Employment Pass or EP level, MOM has also tightened the framework recently.
This is why we raised the salary hurdle – to nudge employers towards better quality. And this also means that applicants who do not meet the higher hurdles must come under the S Pass framework, where there are quota controls.
We have extended the job advertising duration from 14 to 28 days. When assessing EP and S Pass applications, we will place additional emphasis on efforts made by employers to build up and retain a strong Singaporean Core.
We also regularly take employers to task for pre-selecting foreign candidates and disregarding qualified local candidates. This year alone, 90 employers have had their work pass privileges suspended because of infringements under the FCF. We will also be engaging an expanded group of employers to review their hiring practices, including firms whose Singaporean Core has been weakening, or whose EP and S Pass workforce are also overly concentrated from a single foreign nationality source.
Members such as NTUC Deputy Secretary-General Koh Poh Koon earlier have spoken passionately on supporting our lower wage workers. We all share the same aspirations in this House. As various Members have also spoken earlier in clarification of Dr Koh's speech, we do not want any Singaporean to be left behind. We want to uplift and care for our fellow workers as best as we can.
This Government and our tripartite partners stand in solidarity with our low-wage workers. Our approach has worked. It has worked. We are progressively narrowing the gap between the incomes of our low-wage workers, and those in the middle. In the three sectors where the PWM has been implemented, real incomes have increased by around 30% in recent years, outstripping the 21% of real income growth at the median across all sectors.
As for the overall workforce – that means those with PWM and those without PWM collectively – real incomes of our full-time employed resident workers at the 20th percentile have also increased cumulatively more than the median. The incomes of our 10th percentile full-time resident workers today, currently stands at $1,517. One decade ago, the incomes of this percentile of workers was at $1,000. This amounts to a 50% increase over the last decade. There has certainly been progress, if you look at our measures and how the whole eco-system works.
But more importantly, we have done so, while keeping unemployment low for years, up till COVID-19 broke out early this year. The risk of disemployment is a key factor that the Government is very sensitive to. With regard to literature, the fact is that the jury is still out there. Economists have not conclusively found that Minimum Wage will not create disemployment. In fact, I am told it is a very hotly contested area and economists continue to debate this issue.
Recent studies have found that the range of estimates for the disemployment effect of Minimum Wage is wide. Moreover, studies have shown that the disemployment effects could be stronger for certain groups of workers. For example, Harasztosi and Lindner found that the disemployment effects due to increases in Minimum Wage in Hungary were considerably larger in the tradeable and exporting sectors than in the non-tradeable or service sector.
Others, such as economists Meer and West have shown in their research in the United States that Minimum Wage may not cause immediately disemployment effects, but still impact job growth. Some studies, when you look at it, they relate to disemployment from the averages perspective. But I think it is also important when you look at some of this evidence, the preponderance of evidence show that low-skilled workers are actually most at risk when you talk about job loss. So, we need to deal with the specifics. Look at the natures of our profile of low-wage workers in Singapore and the nature of how this would affect them in specifics.
We are not ideologically against Minimum Wage, PWM or what have you, but I think what we want is the best from each of these systems that will benefit Singapore, benefit our low-wage workers; but at the same time, we avoid the downsides and the trade-offs. This is very important for us and that is why we take a very serious view on disemployment.
Our sense of solidarity with our low-wage workers also goes beyond wages. We have taken a careful and practical approach to implement a holistic suite of measures: Workfare that tops up the income of low-wage workers by up to 30% and provides targeted training support that supports better employment outcomes. I think it is important that we support them beyond just the wages, and we also have Special Employment Credit to offset their wages and improve their employability.
Silver Support is also provided to support retirement adequacy. So, on top of the wages that they get, Government supports them with a slew of measures to uplift their income to support their homes. It is also important to inculcate care and respect for our low-wage workers. So, our measures go beyond just wages. With Workcare, we will improve low-wage workers' working environments in appreciation for their work, such as through the provision of proper rest areas for outsourced workers.
I think the question would be this – can we be a nation with a strong social compact but without Minimum Wage? When we think of countries with high standards of living, strong social policies, and with good and advanced economies like us, we often think of Scandinavian countries like Norway, Denmark and Sweden.
Like Singapore, these countries do not have a single Minimum Wage, and yet they still have vibrant, cohesive societies. In place of a single Minimum Wage, these countries have robust dialogues between stakeholders, resulting in collective agreements on wages at the sectoral level.
This is akin to our sectoral tripartite approach in our existing PWMs and future tripartite efforts. The Tripartite Workgroup for our low-wage workers, will be studying this important issue with an open mind. They will work to refresh the consensus on what works best for our low-wage workers, and to ensure that more of our low-wage workers can benefit.
Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Dennis Tan have asked about the criteria for SIRS. In the first two tranches of SIRS, we have disbursed over $1.1 billion. With the third and final tranches, SIRS is expected to cost $2 billion in total, almost double the original $1.2 billion set aside. This is a significant expansion of an already sizeable programme. Altogether, about 195,000 individuals have received support under SIRS.
We have already been exercising flexibility in the qualifying criteria to support more self-employed persons, or SEPs. About two in three unique applications have been approved. And for the remaining one third, applicants may have been earning much higher incomes, they could have resided in higher value properties, or own two or more properties with their spouses. As SIRS was intended to support SEPs, employees who lost their jobs or experienced income loss were redirected to the COVID-19 Support Grant.
Where there were other areas of need, we have referred unsuccessful applicants to the appropriate agencies for follow-up assistance.
On the suggestion by Mr Saktiandi Supaat to allow citizens in need to tap on their CPF balances early, as announced by Deputy Prime Minister Heng in August, the Government is studying appropriate ways to provide support to working Singaporeans, including SEPs, in the event of prolonged loss of income, beyond existing schemes.
Mr Speaker, in this debate, Members have raised a broad range of suggestions to address the needs of almost every worker segment. We take these ideas seriously and will study them closely; rest assured.
MOM will continue to make every effort to ensure that Singapore and Singaporeans are not just able to tide over the immediate challenge ahead of us, but also are set in good stead for the future beyond that. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, one of my favourite sayings is, \"When you are up to your neck in crocodiles, do not ask which way the river is flowing.\" Essentially, what it means is that when you are in a tough tight, difficult situation, solve the situation, focus on getting out of the difficult spot and give that priority over everything else. I believe we have seen our Government do this in the past six or seven months with five Budgets that have been rolled out to deal with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Singaporeans and Singaporean businesses.
JSS, SIRS, CSG, various industry support packages, different industry grants – they have all provided valuable lifelines for Singaporeans and Singaporean companies to pull them out of the river of crocodiles and get them out from a very difficult period, and would be important to continue to be that supportive foundation that Singaporeans can reply on moving forward.
While the Government has done a good job, so far, with regard to immediate crisis management and to meet immediate needs, of our Singaporeans. The fact remains that there are, to paraphrase Deputy Prime Minister Heng, \"profound uncertainties ahead\". So, I am heartened that the key phrase in the Statement is the strategy to emerge stronger. In other words, now that we are out of that immediate danger, what can we do to navigate the river to be mindful of the currents to ensure that our boat sails in that right direction; being mindful, of course, of all the crocodiles that are around us.
I would like to focus on opportunities that our Government can take during this period and in coining the term opportunities, I would like to echo a phrase that PA Deputy Chairman Minister Chan Chun Sing was quoted as saying \"an opportunity of a generation\" – that COVID-19 could be seen as an opportunity of a generation.
So, I would to like to see how opportunities could be explored during this period in the Sports & Fitness and Arts & Cultural industries to make them a more essential part of our community and society.
Mr Speaker, Sir, most of us would agree that sport has the ability to transcend boundaries and bring people together regardless of their race, language or religion. COVID-19 has indeed had a significant dampener on sports. You need to have spectators to have meaningful sporting activities, and just even play together, you need to have people come together, and understandably so we could not do that in the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Besides that, COVID-19 has also had an impact on those who are in the sports and fitness industries, regardless of whether they are hired employees, freelance coaches or instructors or owners of sports and fitness related businesses. It is thus heartening to note that some activities such as the Singapore Premier League or SPL will be resuming soon, this weekend, if I am not mistaken, and the Government has managed to relax the guidelines and constraints around sporting activities.
I would like to ask if the Government has a plan that is dedicated to helping and assisting those who are in the sports and fitness industries, that will not only help them through these immediate challenges, but also reflect a mid-to-long term strategy for how the sports and fitness industries could thrive and flourish in the new normal that we will all undoubtedly find ourselves in.
I would also like to focus now on opportunities for those in the arts and culture industries. I am aware that my Parliamentary colleagues, Members of Parliament, Ms Carrie Tan and Minister of State, Ms Low Yen Ling had a good debate about safeguarding the livelihood of our Arts & Culture professionals in Parliament last week. And it is heartening to know that MCCY is taking steps in this direction, especially in terms of helping to support our Arts & Culture freelance performers and also in terms of creating professional opportunities or projects that our performers can work on.
No doubt, many of the practitioners, professionals and organisations could rely on some of the schemes such as JSS & SIRS for support as well. What I would like the Government to consider is what more can be done, in the mid-to long-term to ensure that we are better to support the Arts & Culture and Sports & Fitness industries.
It would be good, in Arts & Culture for example, if the MCCY could see how they could partner with the MOE to bring arts and culture more into the curriculum and integrate arts and culture into our schools' curriculum – not just in terms of subjects being taught by MOE such as music, art or drama which are sometimes taught in formal context by trained MOE teachers, but by ensuring that all students are exposed to the various arts at all levels of the curriculum.
For example, MCCY and MOE could leverage on the performing expertise of our arts professionals to engage and employ them even as auxiliary educators of sorts for them to come into the schools and bring real-life artistic experience to our students. Using our arts performance like this would, I believe, be a win-win situation because it will allow our arts performers an alternate revenue stream, something else they can do besides their actual performing and it also allow our students to be exposed to and be taught by and be nurtured by as it were, actual, professional arts practitioners coming from the arts industry.
I believe that some schools do engage professionals now on an independent ad hoc basis, but what I proposing is, perhaps, having a dedicated core of arts and culture professionals who are actually considered auxiliary MOE educators and having these educators being deployed in a structured formal manner to every MOE school in the country, and through this way we also educate and bring our young people or young adults into the world of arts and culture through forms such dance, music, singing and so on.
I would like to briefly refer to the article in The Sunday Times, last Sunday, where it was reported that there are many musicians who have decades of experience, but who cannot get teaching jobs due to a lack of a formal music degree.
I believe it was Cultural Medallion recipient Jeremy Monteiro, himself is a world renowned pianist who said, and i quote, “It would be a waste if local musicians, who have years of experience in the industry, but no formal education, are not allowed to formally teach part-time or full time too.” The same, perhaps, could be said of theatre practitioners or dancers as well.
If our concern is that such professionals might not have sufficient teacher training, then I strongly recommend that MCCY, perhaps, work with MOE to see how these professionals could undergo basic teacher training certification in the fundamentals of education, for example, how to impart education, how to work with curriculum and so on while concurrently actually bringing their art and their craft, in working with the students.
I believe that incorporating more of the arts and culture into our school’s curriculum and involving more of our arts professionals in the delivery of this curriculum is a huge step in the right direction.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to end my speech with a quote by Prime Minister Lee from six years ago, at an event marking the 30th Anniversary of the Lasalle College of the Arts. I do not know if Prime Minister remembers this or not. It was in 2015, I believe, Prime Minister or 2014 and I quote, \"Creating jobs, upgrading workers, making Singapore a more attractive place to work – these are all important things in life.\" And I agree. \"You have to put bread on the table. But 'Man does not live by bread alone'. We do wish for the finer things in life, to appreciate beauty and love, and something uplifting for the spirit.\"
Mr Speaker, Sir, sports, arts, culture, these are indeed uplifting for the spirit and I believe that it is about getting that balance right that even as we extend support to these industries, I would hope that the Government can go one step further to take this opportunity to further embed sports, arts and culture not just in the fabric of our community, but in the psyche and the soul of our people as well. With that, I end my speech in support of the Ministerial Statement.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Mr Speaker, I just wish to take the opportunity to clarify a question that Senior Minister of State Zaqy mentioned about the Minimum Wage and the literature. I think it is important to be clear what the literature says and I wonder if he could clarify. He did cite single studies which show that the Minimum Wage, perhaps, may generate occasional instances where unemployment levels may go up but we should be clear.
It is always easy to cite individual studies and that is why in academia we do not rely purely on a single study to support our case. Rather we do something called meta analyses so these aggregate and evaluate the totality of the results. If you look at the totality of the results, I think it is fairly clear that – and I am happy to cite a specific study. So, for the case of the UK you can look at the study by Dube in 2019; for the case of the US, you can look at, in addition to the famous Card and Krueger study in 1995, more recent evidence as well, for Brookman in 2010 for international evidence.
The point is, look, I am not trying to make this a battle of studies. But I think we need to come to some kind of agreement that we do not make proposals about the Minimum Wage on the basis of a single study that favours the outcome that we have approached the issue.
Rather, we have to base it on the totality of the results and I think if you look at the totality of the results, you will see that a very low Minimum Wage – what the Workers' Party is proposing is a minimum wage of $1,300. This would fall far below the minimum wage of every, almost every other developed country and all these studies have been based on Minimum wages that are much higher than the number that we are proposing here. So, I think it is important to keep that in mind.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: First, I thank the Member Jamus Lim for his, I suppose, clarification. The point I made earlier was that this is not about studies and not about particular studies actually. It is about this, the studies being hotly contested and the academia, I think you can throw studies to each other and we can never come to conclusive position. So, I think this is about how we have applied, how we have also shown how wages have grown and I have shared the examples earlier, where our low-wage workers have seen wage growth – 30% in the last five years without Minimum Wage. Or actually, we did have Minimum Wage through our PWM or Minimum Wage Plus to some extent. So, conceptually, ideologically, we have clearly said that we are not against one idea or the other. We can throw studies at each other and, like I said, it is hotly contested, even among academia.
What is important is this: that we want to reap the maximum benefits of what these studies have shown and how others have applied it. I have also shared others, like in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, have also shown strong, social solidarity without implementation of a single Minimum Wage, using the same approach that we have had – using sectoral consensus to make sure that we have uplifted our low-wage workers.
Studies aside, \\what we have to look at is our local context. Has the current system work? So, I have shown that at the 10th percentile, as I said in my speech earlier, we have seen wage growth. At the 10th percentile, it was $1,000 10 years ago; it is now $1,500-plus. We have seen a 50% wage growth in the last 10 years for the lowest income threshold.
I do have to also reiterate the fact once again because the Workers' Party tends to forget this in its deliberations always that our system works in tandem as a holistic system, it is a whole system. It is not just PWM but Workfare that we use to top up. I also said we use Silver Support. I think many of your residents too would have enjoyed Silver Support in their old age. This is exactly the profile that needs the most help and we top up the income so that they are not left behind.
And that is why I think it is important that beyond putting studies, showing analyses, meta analyses and what have you, but really getting down on the ground, working in consensus meet the employers too and making sure that the downsides are managed and do not impact our lowest skilled workers who are likely at risk when it comes to job loss. So, the risk of disemployment is something that we are very sensitive to and that is why we have the Tripartite Workgroup on the Low-wage Workers. We need to study this quite carefully as we chart the path ahead. So, it is not just something simple, you could do it within a short span of time without understanding the impacts, the consequences for our low-wage workers. So, we have to be very careful.
So, it is not about academic and studies but, really, lives of Singaporeans and how we want to uplift our low-wage workers.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, if you have a fresh perspective.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Yes, thank you and I will just note them. I am really happy that Senior Minister of State Zaqy has raised the example of Scandinavia because, in fact, it is true that Scandinavia does not have a Minimum Wage but that is in part because they also have unionisation rates in the order of 70% to 80%. So, there is a very strong collective bargaining representation there. In fact, part of the reason why they do not want the Minimum Wage is because they do not want to get into a situation where a Minimum Wage might push wages down below a certain mark which, as I explained, is not in fact the lived reality of our low-income workers who are struggling with some of the lowest wage rates, even with the $1,300 that we proposed as a Minimum Wage among developed countries.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: So, let me put it to the Member again that, yes, we do have a similar system, the tripartite negotiation but we are a much smaller country and you cannot say that our wages do not increase. It is one thing to say that the system has not worked. On the other hand, I put forth the numbers to show that the system has.
So, if you tell me that the low-wage workers have stagnated in the last 10 years, I say the numbers show otherwise.
I think it is not just about academia or theory out here. It is real practitioners talking here. We have worked the system, we have worked and the unions have worked the ground too, employers have been working with us and our system works too. So, we all have our uniqueness but the issue here is: is our system working? Have the wages of our lowest 10%, for example, if I take it to that level, has it gone up? Yes, there will be some but this is an area we have to look at and that is why the Government is serious. We have put in the Tripartite Workgroup for Low-wage Workers specifically to see how we can do better in uplifting our low-wage workers.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to pose four questions to the Senior Minister of State.
Mr Speaker: We do not have time to pose four questions, I have said that. Perhaps, two clarifications.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, two clarifications. One is that do you not think that the Minimum Wage that Workers' Party is proposing and PSP is also in favour of something similar called Living Wage. Do you not think this is a very bold idea or that —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, we have been discussing this for the past, quite a long bit of time. It has been discussed. Do you have a fresh perspective to add?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. So, I am asking do you not think that this can be a bold idea to implement during this period of very uncertainty and we have to emerge from the crisis. We can always put in new measures to support the implementation of a new Minimum Wage or living wage. This is one question.
Second question is that I think the point about there being a danger of losing competitiveness or losing jobs may be a bit overblown. Because in terms of the level of competitiveness, the level of Minimum Wage or living wage that we are proposing is actually very low level. So, it would not affect the overall wage level immediately.
Secondly, in terms of the loss of jobs —
Mr Speaker: That was the second point.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sorry?
Mr Speaker: Two points. You have made your two points. Mr Zaqy Mohamad.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, thank you.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, these points were all answered earlier on by Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon so I shall not repeat them.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.
The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I can bring a fresh perspective on an entirely different topic.
Mr Speaker: I hope so, too.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I have previously spoken in this House about how the Singapore society is like a tapestry, woven out of diversity, bound by community, forged from a shared sense of destiny. Every part of Singapore, coming together, for a beautiful, tightly knitted, cohesive fabric. These diverse strands of our social fabric include our arts, culture and sports sectors. Mr Darryl David has spoken passionately about these three sectors and I will address his queries. These sectors make the Singapore tapestry even more beautiful, vibrant, and meaningful. These strands coe together, to represent the heart of Singapore.
In recent times, like the many threads which make up the fabric of our society, these strands have come under strain.
The COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally affected the way in which we interact and socialise with one another and has threatened to unravel some of these threads.
But we know that even as we battle the pandemic, it is critical for us to ensure that each of these threads – our arts, culture and sports sectors – remain vibrant, cohesive and remain very much a part of the Singapore Tapestry. We must continue to sustain and develop them. And they, in turn, must continue to be an avenue through which Singaporeans fulfil their aspirations, dreams and desires.
These threads must also continue to connect Singaporeans from all walks of life and be able to inspire and imbue a sense of pride in being Singaporean.
Sir, Members will agree that, in one way or another, our lives have been touched by the many contributions and achievements of our artists and our athletes alike.
Our sportsmen and sportswomen, past and present, have been a source of inspiration to many Singaporeans. We share the joys of their success and we feel the pain of their defeat.
The events and programmes of our arts community reach ever wider and growing audiences. They fill us with pride. They also teach and they inspire us in a way which almost nothing else can.
All of this is possible because we have, over time, nurtured the best talents, helped them along in their journey, developed them, given them a boost in their chosen craft, built a platform from which they can showcase their talents.
So, we owe a lot also to our community of trainers, coaches, instructors and freelancers, all of whom contribute richly to this landscape. As Mr Darryl David says, we must do what we can to rally behind them during this difficult time.
Sir, Deputy Prime Minister has spoken about the unevenness of COVID-19's impact on the different sectors. Whilst some sectors have seen a measure of recovery, the past few months have really not been easy for those in the arts, culture and sports sectors.
Fundamentally, these sectors thrive on large group gatherings. Theatre, performances and competitive sport – they all play to an audience. Yet, this is precisely what we cannot now do, as we continue to fight against COVID-19, to keep Singaporeans safe and to keep the virus at bay.
We have had to suspend large-scale events and limit group sizes to five. These measures are necessary but we must not forget that they have severely impacted the viability of businesses and the livelihoods, particularly of freelancers in these sectors.
In the almost three months that I have been at MCCY, I have met a broad range of people across the various sectors. I have met with many leaders of our National Sports Associations, talked to athletes, coaches and freelance instructors. I have also heard from artists, musicians and arts educators. Many have been so very generous in sharing their views and vision with me, giving me a good grasp of the industry and good ideas for the longer term development of these sectors.
But they also spoke candidly about their here and now, their immediate challenges, and I think all of us in this House understand those difficulties.
Over the past few months, MCCY has rolled out dedicated support measures for our sectors to supplement the assistance they already receive from the broad-based Government measures. We understand what many are going through and we know that we must, where we can, help them further. Let me outline a few of these initiatives.
To help them manage overheads, we have provided rental waivers to tenants in SportSG facilities and arts venues, as well as venue hire subsidies for users of our cultural institutions.
We have also supported practitioners to hone their digital skills and expertise in areas, such as business literacy. And many of them, in turn, support the industry as a whole.
The Arts and Culture Resilience (ACR) package has generated over 10,000 work and training opportunities, of which almost 4,000 alone were for freelancers. It has also supported close to 1,200 digitalisation projects and programmes by local artists and organisations.
For example, the Jazz Association of Singapore – Mr Jeremy Monteiro is their Music Director, someone that Mr David mentioned earlier – they were one of the first recipients of the Digital Presentation Grant. They went online overnight and launched multiple digital programmes, including JASS@Home, a digital concert in celebration of UNESCO's International Jazz Day 2020. This featured performances by many local musicians. I attended many of their presentations – high quality, innovative, entertaining but I think, most of all, comforting, to the many Singaporeans and, especially, in these times. On top of that, in the true spirit of giving back, JASS has also started their own Crisis Fund to assist local jazz musicians affected by the crisis with short-term financial aid. So, JASS receives a grant from the Government but they also pay it forward.
Bhaskar's Arts Academy was also awarded the DPG for DashaTanMatra (10 Subtle Elements), a series of 10 mini digital presentations of new dance, music works, webinars on Bharatanatyam, and re-adaptation of past repertoires. We will continue to support the industry as they seek to go digital.
Another practitioner I met recently was Ms Emmeline Yong. She was an investment banker in New York. She gave it all up, returned to Singapore to pursue her passion in visual arts and she set up Objectifs in 2003. Objectifs is an example of an arts organisation that MCCY is committed to supporting. It has a strong sense of mission to nurture and also provide a platform for other practitioners and freelancers to hone, practise and exhibit their craft. With the support of the ACRP, Objectifs put up free photography and videography courses for arts practitioners and other freelancers to help them create strong social media content to outreach, a campaign to pitch their offerings.
To better support freelancers or smaller set-ups, the Arts Resource Hub (ARH), set up under the National Arts Council (NAC), provides targeted support for all of them, including co-working spaces, talks, clinics on financial planning, probono legal support, digital tools and copyright – a broad spectrum of what is needed, giving them a platform and tools for these artists to pursue their craft and also build on their dream, much like what JASS and Objectifs have done.
In the immediate short-term, the ARH has also provided freelancers with aggregated information and assistance to help them tap on the broader Government programmes like the Self-Employed Persons Income Relief Scheme (SIRS), COVID-19 Support Grant and the SEP Training Support Scheme.
At the same time, MCCY has also worked with people within the community spaces to develop platforms to bring digital experiences and also blended programmes, which are often hybrid in nature, to blend or both in-person and virtual and finding platforms to bring more of these to Singaporeans.
For example, #SGCultureAnywhere by NAC is an integrated campaign that profiles the best of Singapore arts. Our cultural institutions and major arts companies have also made their content available on new digital platforms, such as SISTIC Live. Those of you who have not gone on SISTIC Live, I encourage you to give it a try.
In sports, we developed ActiveSG Circle as a virtual sports centre to encourage and inspire Singaporeans to get active, as well as to provide a marketplace for sports and fitness instructors and their potential students and trainees to get in touch with each other.
Jasmine Wong, a certified KpopX fitness instructor, has conducted 85 virtual classes on the Circle since April. Through the Circle, she has discovered new ways to reach out to both existing and also to new students, with reasonable fees, to make these classes and these interactive sessions a lot more accessible.
SportSG has also introduced Blended, an initiative to encourage sport event companies and organisers to transition to events that blend virtual and physical participation which Singaporeans can look forward to more of in the coming months. This format will certainly be with us for some time and we will continue to study how we can support them better so that instructors, coaches and other freelancers alike can continue to reach out to an audience and, as far as possible, even in these times, to continue with as much as they would have done in normal circumstances as possible.
Sir, let me now touch on what else we will be doing to support these sectors in the immediate term.
MCCY will provide immediate assistance to critical segments with special talents. We know that if we lose these talents, inadvertently or otherwise, in this pandemic, it could take years to recover. It would set us back in our efforts to promote arts, culture and sports in Singapore.
So, for the arts and culture sector, we will be providing an Operating Grant under the ACRP to support arts and culture organisations and also those in closely-related sectors. They hold key talent capabilities in our eco-system and we must not lose them.
Eligible arts and culture organisations will receive a one-off ACRP Operating Grant of either $75,000 or $50,000 which they can use to defray their operating costs, and the amount depends on the size of their organisation. We hope organisations that receive this grant will provide work opportunities for the many employees in this sector, including the freelancers. Pay it forward, like what Objectifs and JASS have done.
This grant is expected to benefit over 300 organisations and more information will be made available by NAC in end-October and we will also reach out directly to eligible organisations to tell them about this and to assist them in their application. With this grant, we expect to fully utilise the $55 million set aside for the ACRP by the end of FY2020.
Sir, for the sports sector, we will add a further $25 million for new and expanded measures. Added to the earlier announced $25 million package, this makes for a total of $50 million available to the sports sector.
Let me say a little more about how this will be administered.
First, some background to our sports eco-system. It is made up of a diverse range of different institutions, from the National Sport Associations (NSAs), to the private academies and clubs. They are private leagues that run the sports facility as well. They are run privately. And, of course, the whole mass of coaches and freelance instructors, they all make up a very rich and vibrant sports eco-system.
They all play an important role in our collective efforts to build a strong pipeline of athletes to mould and shape them and to support them on their quest for competitive success on both the domestic and international front.
Many private academies and clubs, in particular, complement the efforts of our NSAs. They enrich training and talent development, and they also offer a range of different competition opportunities.
Take the Aquatic Performance Swim Club or APSC, or the APS Swim School, for example. It is a private swimming academy which has, over the years, contributed significantly to the identification and talent of Singaporean swimmers.
Since 1996, the APSC has channeled swimming talents spotted from the APS Swim School into specialised competitive swimming training, diving and also synchronised swimming. They have also provided competition opportunities across a range of different levels and through its many myriad of events.
We understand the impact that COVID-19 has had on these private academies, such as APS and others, the leagues and facility operators and we understand the challenges they go through. Many of them need some measure of support, if nothing else, to tide over the period.
Recently, the Cage and other such similar sport facility operators also reached out to me to share their concerns. They spoke about the inevitable loss of revenue because of the safe management measures. They had to close. They were not allowed to open. And they had difficulties affording rent and continuing to sustain the salaries of their staff. And we can well understand how these restrictions have impacted their ability to operate. SportSG has worked with many such businesses to allow them to resume some programmes and activities safely, coming out of the Circuit Breaker.
But I am sure Members in this House will agree that we do not want these operators to be a casualty of the pandemic. Our sporting landscape, with its broad spectrum of different players and options, will be the poorer if that happens.
While the resumption of sports activities since June has alleviated some immediate operational concerns, we recognise that there is still the longer term sustainability and survivability. And I think that is a major area of stress for many of these operators.
With this in mind, the Sports Resilience Package (SRP) will provide eligible businesses with an operating grant to cover up to 25% of their total operating expenses, capped at $15,000 a month. And this will last for six months, beginning from October 2020 right through to March 2021. We hope to be able to support up to 150 sports businesses with this operating grant, helping operators who do not currently receive Government funding.
This grant will also ensure that our critical sports businesses which contribute richly, as I have said, to our athlete pipeline development and training, do not close down due to the pandemic, do not marginalise the programmes that are available for athletes, allowing our athletes to benefit from the best training programmes.
Sir, let me now touch on some of the mid-term measures to partner our arts and sports community to innovate and adapt to the new environment.
The last few months have shown that going digital is paramount, in fact, completely necessary. It allows our businesses and freelancers to reach out to existing audiences, to newer and also wider audiences, allowing higher quality content to be developed and also a degree of interactivity, despite the fact that you are communicating across two screens.
Under the SRP, we will provide $5 million to help expand the existing Blended initiative to include eligible private academies and clubs as well. We recognise the work that they do and we have extended this programme to them, aiming to support 100 projects, which will, in turn, see the participation of about 450,000 Singaporeans in sports programmes over the next six months.
We will also set aside an additional $4 million for sports businesses and freelancers to enhance the quality of their own digital productions to become even more interactive and more engaging and attract a greater following on their platforms.
In addition, we will work with MOE and other partners to ensure that our students continue to have access to high quality arts experiences as part of their holistic education. Let me speak a little bit about this.
The intent, Sir, is to continue to nurture and develop an appreciation, and hopefully, eventually ignite a passion for the arts in our young. The young will make up our audiences, our supporters and our patrons, and of course, the practitioners, in years to come.
I have noted Mr Darryl David’s suggestion to engage our arts practitioners as auxiliary educators in schools. In fact, to ensure that students can benefit from the knowledge and experience of our arts practitioners, which I agree with Mr David it is a critical resource, NAC has worked with NIE International since 2012 to develop a course on the Essentials of Teaching and Learning for arts practitioners, precisely to become arts educators.
NAC has also worked with other partners such as the Social Service Institute and SEED Institute to develop relevant pedagogical skills to complement what they are already do and are able to practice so that they can then seamlessly work with children with special needs and pre-schoolers. One needs to merge or blend what you have in your own experience as an arts practitioner with the relevant pedagogical skills so that pre-schoolers and those with special needs can also benefit from such education.
NAC is working with arts educators to convert their student-facing programmes, such as the NAC Arts Education Programme, into digital or blended forms in the same way as we do for so many other programmes so that they become more accessible and we can reach a wider audience.
NAC has also paired up with NIE to develop an e-learning primer and an e-pedagogy course for the arts, which will be launched in December 2020 and made available to arts educators at no cost.
Let me assure Mr David that we are committed to ensuring that arts and culture remain an integral part of the curriculum, as students continue to develop awareness of our cultural heritage. Today, I am sure Mr David knows, museum-based learning forms a key component of the Primary Arts syllabus, with a recommended learning journey for Primary 4 students to the National Gallery in Singapore or to the Singapore Art Museum.
On top of that, all Primary 6 and Secondary 2 cohorts will also visit the Asian Civilisations Museum and the National Museum of Singapore respectively, to enhance their learning and also to complement what they are taught in school, out of the classroom, as far as possible.
Sir, I would like to next speak on the role which freelancers play in our sectors and address the challenges they face, besides what I mentioned earlier, in the programmes.
There is a certain messiness in the way in which the sports and arts practitioners are organised. That is not only inevitable, but perhaps also useful to keep the sector fresh, and maintain some of that carefree entrepreneurial spirit.
Hence, MCCY and our agencies have taken a light touch towards freelancers in the past, recognising the value of spontaneity and flexibility in their work – one day you can work on your own, another day you can come together and collaborate with another institution, but there is that spontaneous freedom.
But COVID-19 has thrown into sharp focus the importance of having some dedicated organised framework to look after these freelancers to support their efforts, to help them apply for and get into the programmes that the Government has put up.
We, my colleagues and Minister of State Low Yen Ling in particular, have reached out to many freelancers, and we will continue to do so – to help them to level up and to allow them to bring in more diversity to their craft.
The sport freelancers I have met have also expressed their desire to do so. To support them, we have set aside $2.5 million under the SRP for two initiatives.
First, coaches who are registered under the National Registry of Coaches or NROC can receive a training allowance of $10 per hour when they take up courses run by CoachSG, and this is when you take it up beyond the Continuing Coach Education courses that they take.
Second, CoachSG will select 50 to 80 pairs of Level 2 and Level 3 NROC-registered coaches to participate in its structured mentorship programme. To encourage more to sign up for this programme to raise their coaching expertise so that once we are back – closer to what was normal before – these coaches will become more relevant and have more skillsets to impart to their trainees. To encourage this, participants will be provided between $400 and $600 per month to sign up for this mentorship programme.
Likewise, for arts freelancers, MCCY and NAC, through the ARH, will work with them to step up on efforts to help them tap on available resources, to support them, identify and facilitate also work opportunities, skills upgrading, and also help them leverage on digital technology. It might not always be as easy for freelancers to be doing this on their own. We recognise that and we have a team set up to look into their needs, and to see how best to organise this, to organise the efforts to pair them up with available programmes. We encourage our freelance artists in the community to contact the ARH directly should they need assistance.
Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic has undeniably disrupted our sectors. We are facing both short- and longer term challenges.
The Government is committed to helping as many as possible in the sector to pull through, to remain viable, and to continue to play a rich part in the Singapore Tapestry.
In the immediate short term, the financial measures that I have outlined briefly will help.
But we know that the most sustainable way to help our sectors is to allow for the activities to resume not only at scale, but also safely.
We are as eager as our artists, and our athletes, and the wider community for this to happen, and we have been working towards this goal.
Recently, my colleagues and I attended several live performance pilots, including those by the Singapore Dance Theatre, Bhaskar’s Arts Academy, Singapore Symphony Orchestra, to name a few. These were carried out safely and successfully.
We are reviewing now how we can fully resume and scale up live performances for the sector, with the appropriate measures to always prioritise the safety of our audiences, the performers and the crew.
In the coming days, we hope also to progressively reintroduce programmes at museums in a safe manner as more social activities resume.
As Mr David pointed out. Singaporeans can also look forward to the return of the Singapore Premier League this Saturday, after a hiatus of more than six months. The teams have resumed training, initially in small groups of five, subsequently full-squad training. I met a few of them when I visited the Lion City Sailors Football Club at Bishan stadium a few weeks ago. I could see that they were all keenly motivated by the desire to get back onto the field and to compete.
We are also working with health authorities to pilot the resumption of spectator sports and mass participation sport events in the near future. In particular, we will have to find new modalities for mass participation events to avoid large concentrations of people at one place and also to consider the use of blended models in some of these events.
One such example of a blended event pilots is the “Run as One” event, where small groups of runners were given time slots to compete across a fixed route over the course of two weeks. So, you are given the best example of own-time-own target – go at your own time but complete the distance.
Nowadays everyone has a fitness tracker, and you can track your time and the distance covered.
These examples give us some options in how we will introduce or reintroduce mass participation events. These pilots also allow us to test and refine the sports formats, with the goal of making them as safe as possible and also to try to maximise the amount of interactivity and fun that participants and spectators want to enjoy.
Sir, besides arts and sports, we know that, perhaps especially in these times, many turned to religion as s source of solace, spiritual comfort and well-being. Therefore, we have been working closely with religious organisations to resume more activities safely.
My colleagues and I have visited many such religious organisations, or the ROs, over the last couple months. It is encouraging to see they have adapted so very quickly, put safety as the primary consideration, and have been committed to working closely with the Government, placing the well-being of their devotees first.
Following a successful pilot of the increase in worship limits to 100 persons, all ROs have been allowed to conduct congregational and worship activities/services for up to 100 persons – with the necessary safe management measures in place – that has been the case since 3 October 2020.
We continue to be in constant dialogue with our religious leaders. Many have shared that singing and live music are integral to the way they practice their faith.
So, we have commenced two separate pilots, in selected ROs – one to allow up to 250 persons at a time for worship services; and another a pilot to resume live music for worship services across different faith groups. We will see how that goes, study them, take on the lessons to be learnt, and consider whether we can extend the higher worship limits and live music subsequently to all other ROs and religious activities.
Finally, Mr Speaker, coming back to the packages that I have outlined today. Much as these will help many tide over this period, we also know that it will take more than just financial assistance to sustain and to develop these sectors.
People must be able to see and also appreciate, the intrinsic value that arts, culture, and sports can bring to our community. It brings us together. It allows us to rally behind our athletes, our Team, our sporting heroes. It builds and it shapes Singapore, and the kind of Singapore we want to live in, in a way which nothing else can.
Singaporeans have turned to the arts, culture and sports to find respite, inspiration, and even to uplift spirits over the last few months in these times.
Now, our practitioners need you as well. I urge all of us to support them as much as we can. Whether it is for the established artists, or the nascent sporting talent, they all thrive on having an audience. They will perform even more gracefully – I am sure, compete more vigorously when they are cheered on by an appreciative audience. I think we all can see why.
I hope we can also be receptive to the new ways of consuming the arts, culture and sports. Some of the programmes, like Bandon that I mentioned earlier, please get onto them, please experience them for yourselves. Support them as they bring better content, programmes and events to you.
To our practitioners in all these sectors, I encourage you to stay determined, continue to hone your craft, build your skills, train, compete, perform.
Each of you will continue to be a vital part of the Singapore Tapestry, bringing together rich patterns and colours drawn from each of your diverse contributions and special talents, and your own achievements in arts, culture and music, and sports. All of these threads make for a more vibrant, exciting and cohesive Singapore. Be assured that we value the work that you do, and the Government will support you.
Thank you, Sir. With that, I support the Ministerial Statement. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
Ms Carrie Tan: Mr Speaker, I would like to make one point, but please pardon me, I have few lead-ups to that point.
I thank the Minister for all these packages and support the MCCY has shared about for the Arts community and I am truly grateful for all these that we have budgeted for in the immediate short term of the pandemic which I know is difficult and we need to be prudent with our resources. But as with all things, I think we need to begin with a goal in mind.
My question to the Minister is how far are we as a country setting our sights for the future of our Singaporean Arts for the sector? Do we have and what is our ambition for Singaporean Arts internationally if there is even one at this moment? We have given a lot of tribute to how the Arts and the Sports make up the Tapestry of Singapore, provide social cohesiveness, but I would like to encourage and seek the Minister's clarification on whether there is any thinking right now, or there will be any thinking in the near future, about planning for the Singaporean arts scene to become internationally successful and viable.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I thank Ms Tan not only for her question now, but really, also for the Adjournment Motion that she filed some weeks ago. It had given us a lot of food for thought and really, we took on board the points as we looked at what else we could do, how else you could support the immediate short term of the freelancers, the coaches and the performers.
But more importantly, I am very cognisant of the points she makes about the longer term vision. It is precisely because we have to have the ability to have the longer term to be able to prepare our artists today and to protect them.
Ms Tan might know that we have a Culture Academy. The culture Academy is really a set up to look at the short-term needs, the industry and also to chart the longer term goals. In fact, just this morning I had a meeting with many of our Arts Institution heads. We had an interesting dialogue and the same question has come up.
We have come a long way. The fact that we have so many different cultural institutions and we had a room full of people from the different types of arts from visual, to theatre, to performing, to music, says a lot about how we have grown that sector over the past years. But, we are never content with where we are and I share Ms Tan's passion to make Singapore art not just local but also global, to blend what we want to do here with our unique Singaporean heritage and identity, with what we can deliver on the world stage.
And if Ms Tan is looking for recognition, just look at the exhibition today at the National Museum, started on the 8 October 2020, the Venice Biennale exhibition, Music For Everyone, and you will see that actually that exhibition has been on the world stage. Events like that in the past, as well as events in the future, will continue to nurture to grow and will give each of these artists as best a pipeline as possible, as best a development pathway as possible for them to shine on the world stage because ultimately that is what we want.
Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak on three key areas today. First, to offer some perspective on the truly extraordinary measures that the Government has taken in its Budgets to deal with this crisis, such that we are even in a position today to debate about the way ahead.
Second, to highlight the struggles that Singaporeans continue to face in the immediate term and what more we can do to support Singaporeans.
And third, to look ahead and seek clarifications on the Government's strategy to invest in our long-term capabilities and priorities.
First, on what has been truly extraordinary in the Government's four Budgets this year and the latest set of support measures. Sir, the Government now estimates that in this fiscal year, it would spend $27 billion for the Jobs Support Scheme, $1 billion for the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme or SIRS, and more than $1.5 billion each on Workfare Special Bonuses for low-wage workers and rental rebates for businesses. More than $31 billion in total, or almost 7% of GDP, directly injected by the Government into our economy to save jobs, keep viable businesses afloat and put a floor beneath an unprecedented economic contraction.
By any count, this is extraordinary.
The Government also estimates that it would spend more than $4 billion in Care and Support cash payouts, GST vouchers, service and conservancy charges rebates, utilities credits and Passion Card top-ups. More than $4 billion, directly into the hands of households, to boost the Government's support for households in these difficult times.
More extraordinarily, the Government has maintained its initial commitment of $6 billion in the Unity Budget for the GST Voucher Fund. Six billion dollars that it is setting aside, amidst a crisis, for future GST Voucher payouts, because the Government knows that the GST Voucher scheme is a permanent commitment.
And so, I completely disagree with the hon Member Mr Leong Mun Wai, who suggested yesterday that, because the Government is putting $6 billion into the GST Voucher fund, he has raised apprehension about an impending GST hike and in fact, the $6 billion should be spent elsewhere. On the contrary, the Government is doing the responsible thing, by recognising the GST Voucher scheme for what it is, a permanent commitment by the Government to help Singaporeans and keep GST progressive for all Singaporeans. Therefore, we must stay the course.
And staying the course we are, in other areas as well, the Government has maintained its initial commitment in the Unity Budget for all other sums, for various endowment and trust funds: $5 billion to the Coastal and Flood Protection Fund, for our 100-year defence plan against rising sea levels; $2 billion to the National Research Fund, $2 billion to the Skills Development Fund and almost $1 billion to the ElderCare Fund, to save up for our future healthcare needs.
More than $10 billion in total that the Government has set aside again during the crisis for our strategic, long-term needs. More than $10 billion that the Government has remained committed to, despite all the fiscal exigencies of the crisis. By any count, these are extraordinary measures.
I thought these bear mentioning, because it is so easy to underestimate the scale of the Government's response to the crisis, so easy to overlook the Government's fundamental commitment to think long-term and so easy to take for granted the resources that we now have to sustain our response to the crisis while building a better future together. I hope that by highlighting these, we would have a better sense of perspective as we debate the Government's strategy to emerge stronger from the pandemic.
Sir, with this sense of perspective, I would like to highlight the immediate struggles that Singaporeans continue to face, and what more the Government can and should, do. I have two suggestions.
First, on the COVID-19 Support Grant. The COVID-19 Support Grant aims to help Singaporeans cushion the impact of the pandemic on their livelihoods. It is meant to work alongside ComCare assistance, which remains available, and indeed has been enhanced for the lowest income households in Singapore. So, ComCare is designed for one particular segment. The COVID-19 Support Grant, for another segment.
One of the criteria for the COVID-19 Support Grant is income loss of at least 30% for three months. Sir, I have residents who narrowly miss this criterion. One resident in particular lost 30% income for two of three months and 29% in the remaining month. He did not get the grant, despite my appeal for him. I was told there were no extenuating circumstances in his household to justify an exception, as his other family members are working and so the gross household income should continue to be sufficient for their needs.
Sir, I understand where the agency is coming from, but if my resident's income had fallen by just one more percentage point, he would have qualified for the grant and all of these considerations about household income and circumstances would have been moot. And while the responsible policymaker would make sure that the next $1 in income support is given to the household that needs it the most, I urge that we also consider what the next 1% point drop in income would mean for a household in the middle income segment.
The median income in Singapore is about $4,000 a month. Take a 25% drop, that represents $1,000 less each month. A resident in this situation would not qualify for the COVID-19 Support Grant at all. And we can point to the $3,000 that the resident still draws each month and say this is sufficient.
But I urge that we consider from the resident's perspective, his or her lived reality, his or her expectations, burdens and commitments, and what that $1,000 loss might feel for him or her. I therefore suggest that we pro-rate the COVID-19 Support Grant, based on the extent of income loss up to 30% and avoid the all or none cliff effect of the current criterion.
In making this suggestion, I am well aware that wherever we draw the line in a policy, there will always be those on one side of the line who feel like they have missed out. And yet, in many of our policies, we have drawn not one, but multiple lines, such that it is a gradient rather than a cliff.
This is the case with housing grants and this is the case with healthcare subsidies in the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Packages and CHAS. Pro-rating the COVID-19 Support Grant would provide calibrated relief for more middle income households and better cushion the lingering economic pains of the pandemic for Singaporeans.
Sir, my second suggestion to address the immediate struggles of Singaporeans is with regard to job matching. As of end August, almost 120,000 openings have been curated under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package and more than 33,000 jobseekers have been placed into these openings. While this has been encouraging progress, it remains that around 84,000 openings are as yet unfilled.
More importantly, if we cut through the statistics and think about the thousands of Singaporean jobseekers as individuals, with lives to build and families to feed, grappling with the uncertainties of a search that has been going on for months, trying to stay strong amidst the deflating radio silence after that application that was sent out weeks ago, or after that interview last week that seemed to have gone went quite well – then it becomes abundantly clear to us that we not only need to walk alongside each Singaporean each step of the way, but also deliver outcomes for these jobseekers.
In other words, I urge the Government to double down on job matching and get many more openings filled much more quickly.
One of my residents was holding a full-time job. She successfully applied for another role, in a different sector and was told that her first day will be in April. So, she resigned and started serving her notice period. Then, the global economy worsened, the department she was slated to join got shut down and the offer that she had accepted got withdrawn. She ended up with nothing – she could not go back to the company she had resigned from and there was no other opening in the company she was slated to join. It has been seven months since. She has sent out more than 80 applications. In her words, \"anything to get me started, I applied.\" And in her words, from \"using various platforms, cold-emailing, career fairs, I have tried them all.\" She is 25 years old.
Another resident of mine was manufacturing vaccines with a major pharmaceutical company here, but was let go after her contract expired. Her applications for similar positions had been without success, despite relevant experience. In her words, \"it doesn’t make sense.\" She had also applied for other positions in MedTech and healthcare. It has been again months. She tells me she simply hopes to support her ageing parents, who probably cannot for work much longer. She says her \"mind is dropping to almost negative now\". She asks me to put myself in her, quote, \"dusty shoes\". She is 34 years old.
Then there is this other resident, 44 years old, holds a Master's in Chemical Engineering, retrenched three months go – still searching and still interviewing.
Yet another resident, this one, in his 50s, with more than 25 years of managerial experience. He has been searching for 10 months. In his words, \"when recruiters see my age, they just pass me over.\" He told me he does not mind at all a lower pay or position and he told me he wished his career coach would have more time for him, because in his view, time is of the essence in certain openings.
Of course, there are happier stories too. There is the resident who was an air stewardess and is now signing up for a training course with monthly allowance under the SGUnited Skills Programme to become a healthcare assistant.
And there is this resident, who switched from being a bar executive in one of the top bars in Singapore, to being a lift technician with one of the top OEMs in Singapore in the market. I told him I hope he would consider joining our Town Councils some day.
Sir, the anxiety and struggle of Singaporeans and Singaporean jobseekers is palpable. We have to match these jobseekers with available opportunities much more quickly. And we need to do this because we must maintain hope amongst our people and maintain hope in our society.
To this end, I propose that we resource e2i and WSG decisively beyond today's levels to enable decisive outcomes for Singaporeans.
Anecdotally, a big part of the challenge in job matching has been about expectations, concerns and mindsets, on the part of both jobseekers and employers. Therefore, we need an intensive relationship-management approach, focus on building the relationship with each employer and jobseeker, really understand and work the accounts, broker a match with persistence and finesse, and ultimately, convert and secure a placement. I think we are know where we want to go. We are aligned in terms of our objectives. We have the schemes in place. But I am asking that we resource much more decisively because we need the outcomes for Singaporeans a lot more quickly.
Sir, I have spoken about keeping our eyes firmly on helping Singaporeans through their immediate struggles. At the same time, I would like to look ahead and seek clarifications on the Government's strategy to invest in our long-term capabilities and priorities.
Deputy Prime Minister and the Finance Minister has said that the latest set of support measures would not draw further on past reserves but be funded by the reallocation of reduced spending, as well as deferred development expenditure.
The total amount of deferred development expenditure is almost $7 billion. This includes more than $3.5 billion for transport infrastructure, more than $0.5 billion for healthcare infrastructure, more than $0.5 billion for waterworks and land preparation for the AgroTech zone at Neo Tiew and more than $150 million for MCCY.
Given the Government's weak revenue outlook for the next few years, I share hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa's concerns about how we might be able to fund these deferred projects in future.
I appreciate the Government's commitment to minimise its draw on past reserves, but I wonder if current revenues originally budgeted for strategic development should be set aside in a fund for deferred spending while additional, exceptional COVID support measures continue to be funded exceptionally with a further but prudent draw on past reserves, instead of reallocation of deferred development spending.
At the same time, I hope the Government could clarify our overall outlook for these key investments. Certainly, we should not expect a catch-up in deferred capital expenditure in the next few years. And so, I echo the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai's question and ask: are we looking to push out the investment timeline, or are we expecting to cut back on our overall level of investment?
These investments concern our long-term connectivity with the world and within Singapore. They concern our water and food self-sufficiency. They concern our healthcare capacity, and our capacity to stay healthy through community sports. So, we would have very hard and very important choices to make. Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tTo combat COVID-19, the Government has announced four Budgets decisively and introduced additional assistance measures in August. The Government has allocated tens of billions of dollars to tackle the immediate challenges. The scale and decisiveness of these efforts are evident to all.
But the economic impact of the pandemic on Singaporeans will not abate soon.
I urge the Government to continue to address the immediate needs and concerns of Singaporeans while looking into the future planning and implementing the Emerging Stronger strategy.
First, one of the current conditions for the COVID-19 Support Grant is a reduction of at least 30% in income for three consecutive months. I suggest that the Government provide wage subsidies based on the degree of income loss of the applicants so that more Singaporeans can receive appropriate assistance to avoid the current cliff effect.
I would also like to urge the Government to put in more resources to improve the success rate of the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Programme to give more hope to the many workers who are still looking for jobs.
(In English): Sir, in conclusion, I ask that the Government provide more calibrated support for the broad middle, more effective job matching for workers across all age groups and age groups, and more clarity on our long-term investment strategy in key capabilities that will shape our survival and success.
I am confident that we will remain a hopeful and united people, determined to build a better future for ourselves and future generations. Sir, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Government's strategy to emerge stronger from the COVID-19 pandemic outlined in the Ministerial Statement delivered by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat on 5 October 2020.
As the hon Member Mr Xie mentioned just now, the resources committed under the four Budgets are significant. It amounted to about $100 billion and this is on top of the other measures, such as special relief measures for debtors and tenants.
I wish to offer a comparative perspective as to how we fare in relation to Asian countries. With your leave, Sir, may I be allowed to use the LED screen to flash the slide?
Mr Speaker: If it helps, that will be fine. [A slide was shown to hon Members.]
Mr Murali Pillai: Obliged. Sir, you have here an extract of a report from the Asian Intelligence which was issued on 23 September 2020. We see here, Sir, that Singapore is first among 12 Asian countries, in terms of the fiscal commitment to the COVID-19 fight.
The stimulus package that we have endorsed in Parliament here amounted to 21% of the GDP. This compares to Japan, which is second, and comparatively, it comes in at 15.9%; South Korea comes in at 14.4%, and so on.
So, from this perspective, Sir, we can see we compare relatively well.
But it is not just the amount. It is also the positive impact on the lives and livelihoods in Singapore. It is worth restating what Deputy Prime Minister had said in his Statement that \"The four Budgets are estimated to prevent the economy from contracting by 5.6% of GDP this year and 4.8 % next year.\" Furthermore, he said that \"an estimated 155,000 jobs are likely to be saved in these two years too.\"
At the same time, we owe a duty to spend the money well. What do I mean by this? Sometimes, we have to spend more; sometimes, we have to spend less. And the Budget itself is replete with some examples of this.
Just a few hours ago, the hon Minister Ms Indranee Rajah, gave an example of how sometimes we need to spend less when she announced the Baby Support Grant scheme. She took pains to explain that the grant is aimed at couples who were put off by the COVID-19 pandemic and to encourage them to start and raise families. She also explained that for lower income families, there are already a number of grants and programmes to help them. So, from that perspective, it may not make sense to extend the grant and spend more money.
On the other hand, there are programmes where we have to spend more to spend well. What are these programmes? Well, we have the COVID-19 Support Grant which was extended by the hon Deputy Prime Minister Mr Heng Swee Keat. The extension now would cover Singaporeans who suffer a fall in income or lost their jobs after December 2020. This is welcome relief for the affected families. Not only that. He also extended the Workfare special payment to Singaporeans who did not receive Workfare last year, but did so this year. And, in this way, many low-income families, mind you, the WIS is triggered in relation to low-income workers earning $2,300 per month or less, so more low-income families would benefit from this extension. I think although we spend more, we spend it well to help these families.
In my speech, I would like to concentrate on three budgetary measures for individuals.
First, the Special Financial Relief Programme (SFRP) (Unsecured). I filed a Parliamentary Question or PQ on this earlier this month. I had suggested an extension of the programme in my PQ and I am glad to note that MAS has decided to extend this programme which is originally scheduled to finish in December 2020 to 30 June 2021.
Under the SFRP (Unsecured), the savings for an individual can be significant. The average card interest on outstanding sums attracts 26% per annum. Converted loans under SFRP (Unsecured) are imposed 8% per annum over a five-year tenure. So, Singaporeans facing debt pressure are well advised to consider the SFRP (Unsecured) during this extended period.
In my respectful view, the take up rate is low and can be improved.
In his reply to my PQ, the hon Senior Minister, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, informed that under this programme, financial institutions granted more than 8,100 conversions amounting to $200 million of personal unsecured debt. I think the pool of Singaporeans who are heavily in debt is bigger.
I say this because in 2017, MAS introduced measures to tighten unsecured credit limits to those heavily in debt. In that announcement, MAS stated that there were an estimated 60,000 borrowers in this pool or 4% of total unsecured credit users.
I would assume that this pool should have grown during this crisis with the declining economy, falling income and loss of jobs affecting some families.
But if I am right, I would suggest more proactivity on the part of the Association of Banks in Singapore or ABS and the Credit Counselling Singapore to publicise this programme more so that they can reach out to individuals bogged down by this debt.
It can also be made compulsory for financial institutions to consider inviting the debtors to SFRP (Unsecured) before considering legal action as a last resort.
Before leaving this topic, it would be remiss of me if I did not commend the Financial Institutions & ABS for coming together with MAS and the Govt to implement SFRP (Unsecured) to help Singaporeans facing debt pressures. The Financial Institutions could have just insisted on the strict terms of their contract; they would not be wrong but they did not. It is a great example of SGUnited and how banks are helping Singaporeans facing the debt pressure as a result of the pandemic.
Next, I suggest a re-look at the funding model for skills upgrading for Singaporeans.
Skills upgrading for Singaporeans is an important pillar in our Roadmap for the Future as outlined by the hon Deputy Prime Minister. Deputy Prime Minister Heng said \"We will…need extensive upskilling and continual reskilling of our workforce, to equip our workers to continue to get good jobs. We want to do so for every worker at every age.\"
On the point about \"doing so for every worker at every age\", I wish to share an e-mail that I received from Mr John Tan, my resident. He is turning 35 this year. He is married with one bubbly son who is two years old. He applied for a three full-day Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM) course. The total course time is 25 hours. He pointed out that for Singaporeans aged 21 and above, they get 40% subsidy. The original course fee was $1,016.50, with GST, so he had to pay $641.50, with GST. For Singaporeans aged 40 and above, however, they get 90% subsidy. For them, they need only pay $161.50, with GST.
I do appreciate why we need to incentivise our older worker to upskill by providing them with a higher subsidy. Given the current challenging environment, there is an opportunity to up the tempo for upskilling and re-training even amongst our younger Singaporeans, so that they get into better-paying jobs with better prospects.
I therefore suggest that we use a tiered approach that incentivises Singaporeans to re-skill as they get older instead of backloading the extra subsidies only when they reach 40. In this way, we will be able to nurture a reskilling attitude in all Singaporeans.
Finally, I wish to speak on the Government’s additional plans to foster inclusive growth. I welcome these moves. The hon on Deputy Prime Minister said \"In the design of our support schemes, we have been deliberate in channelling additional support to vulnerable groups, to help them access opportunities and stay in good jobs\". This is a laudable objective. In particular, I support the plan to provide a higher tier of wage support of 50% under JGI to all Persons with Disabilities, a point that hon Member Ms Denise Phua made during her Adjournment Motion yesterday. She had delivered a very compelling speech. In that speech, she made a point that how we treat persons with disabilities is shaped by the attitude of society. I fully agree with her and I would say that a similar point can be made in relation to ex-offenders.
In my speech in February 2020 on occasion of the Unity Budget, I applauded the introduction of Enabling Employment Credit or EEC to incentivise employers to employ and retain persons with disabilities. I also said that a similar credit scheme should be provided to incentivise employers to employ ex-offenders. I shared the story of Mr R, an ex-offender who was earning a depressed wage on account of his background. I continue to meet several residents who are ex-offenders who find it difficult to get jobs or are being underpaid during this pandemic.
The hon Minister for Home Affairs shared useful statistics on the plight of ex-offenders just yesterday pursuant to my Parliamentary Question. He informed that the economic downturn brought about by COVID-19 has made the job market more challenging for ex-offenders. The Yellow Ribbon Singapore has stepped up its efforts to help these offenders and I must pay tribute to Yellow Ribbon Singapore and its partners for their stupendous work in getting work for ex-offenders so that they can complete their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
In terms of statistics, the hon Minister for Home Affairs mentioned that over the past years 2017, 2018 and 2019, the percentage of ex-offenders who found employment within three months are 55%, 56% and 53%. This year to date, I do not have a percentage but 1,534 ex-offenders have been employed, thanks to Yellow Ribbon Singapore. These figures are lower-bound estimates as they do not include self-employed persons, such as delivery riders or private hire car drivers.
A lot of hard work has been put into this, so as to achieve these figures, but I think we can do much more. Remember, these are able bodied Singaporeans. Even though we assume that we have another 20% in self-employed jobs, I would suggest that our Government and whole of society can do much more to bring down the roughly 30% unemployment amongst our ex-offenders. This will be in accord with hon. Deputy Prime Minister's objective outlined in his Ministerial Statement about channelling additional support to vulnerable groups. It will be a good signal by our society to ex-offenders that we remain invested in their rehabilitation and reintegration even in these challenging times. I seek the hon Deputy Prime Minister's views on this.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I applaud the Government for taking decisive steps to protect the lives and livelihoods of Singaporeans and transform our economy to be even more ready for the uncertain future that we face. The suggestions I have made are intended to ensure that Singaporeans who join our workforce continually upgrade themselves to grab the opportunities our future brings and to strengthen the inclusivity element of our Government’s strategy to emerge stronger from the COVID-19 pandemic as outlined by Deputy Prime Minister Heng in his Statement. I support the Ministerial Statement.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for the additional help to businesses and workers outlined in his Ministerial Statement. In response, I have some clarifications and recommendations.
We are all aware just how COVID-19 has severely disrupted businesses and livelihoods. Air travel has ceased, borders are closed and our daily average of about 100,000 Malaysian workers commuting from Johor is significantly lower.
Many local factories are extremely short-handed and facing harsh challenges. Some of these factories are located within the Woodlands Industrial Area, which happens to be in the division I look after. My volunteers and I tried to assist by attempting to match some of the residents who were seeking jobs, especially within 2 km of their homes.
We always knew that there is a stark mismatch between the jobs and the expectations of jobseekers. However, this pandemic has forced us all to rethink and recalibrate our approach to address the mismatch between the employers and the job seekers. Ultimately, we need happy workers.
Since the middle of this year, I have been actively planning and organising both online job webinars and physical job fairs with support from NTUC e2i for our Sembawang residents. We partnered several MNCs and home-grown companies in the electronics and manufacturing industries to be part of these job fairs.
Some of the jobs available involve operation of complex machines that are far more automated compared to the older labour-intensive assembly lines.
Singaporeans are not enthusiastic about the opportunities to work in these manufacturing companies. After speaking to the hiring teams, I had a better understanding. To be able to apply for some of these jobs, you need a NITEC certification or even a diploma for more technical job roles. Most operators' roles will require a 12-hour-shift and the average monthly pay is between $1,000 and $1,400 and may require workers to wear the cleanroom jump smocks. Now if you do not have any qualification, you can easily make $1,200 to $1,400 or even more as a cleaner or a food delivery rider. If you have a driving licence, you could also make more than $2,000 per month. It is obvious that many job seekers will shun job opportunities in the manufacturing industry because the entry pay is simply a non-starter.
There is a concern that should the borders remain closed, many of these factories will be unable to fulfil their orders, this is especially so for high growth industries like semi-conductor manufacturing. The labour shortage situation will inevitably threaten the future of these companies and also affect Singapore’s economy.
The manufacturing industry contributes approximately 20% to our GDP and it averages $100 billion in value. It is the biggest contributor to our economy. Foreign workers take up about 60% of the jobs in this sector.
Over the weekend, two pieces of good news were announced. First, MNCs are staying firm on their growth plans in Singapore despite the COVID-19 pandemic and they include companies in the semiconductor sector. Second, a new task force will be formed to study how to raise the wages of low-income workers and to push for productivity growth.
Now, due to the crisis situation, we do not have the foreign workers to help our factories. So, should these companies have to wait for circumstances to improve and while waiting, hope not to have a painful death or should they take this opportunity to rebuild our Singapore Core? The answer ought to be obvious.
We must relook at the unemployment problem. We need proper intervention and improvements. We need to address the criteria for job offers, instill better working conditions, implement job redesign and relook at how workers are remunerated.
I thank the Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon for his comprehensive sharing on the Progressive Wage Model and how low-wage workers in certain sectors have benefited. I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister if it is possible to then allocate part of the Budget to raise the pay of manufacturing industry workers, to a more acceptable level benchmarked against industries which have implemented the Progressive Wage Model.
Another question is: how can Progressive Wage Model be applied directly to these manufacturing companies in order to assist them, to be able to attract local workers instead of always having to rely on daily cross-border commuting foreign workers?
Instead of providing a COVID-19 Support Grant of $800 for three months to Singaporeans and PRs who are still searching for jobs, this $800 could become a contribution of $400 per month for six months as a top-up to the current pay of $1,400. A manufacturing industry worker could easily get $1,800 per month instead of remaining jobless. As Singaporeans, they will still qualify for Workfare Improvement Supplement while the manufacturing companies could attempt to address the short-term labour shortage by hiring available Singaporeans and PRs. Can such a solution be considered?
Similar to the manufacturing industry, you hear the same problems with the nursing homes and community hospitals. Currently, 60% of the community healthcare sector staff are foreigners and 40% are locals. With rapid ageing in Singapore, the demand for healthcare assistants will only increase, and if it continues this way, the supply will be very limited.
I met several housewives who have prior care-giving experience and are keen to join the healthcare sector. However, the entry salary of $1,400 to $1,600 per month is a key deterrent because the net take-home income after deducting their CPF, meals and travel expenses will only be a few hundred dollars. I am certain that if the monthly salary is around $2,000, they will be more likely to consider such job offers.
Workers must feel appreciated and taken care of. Only then will they give their best to be positive and productive. Any employer will benefit from happy workers. We need happy workers.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that Deputy Prime Minister and the relevant Ministries will look into my suggestions. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Ministerial Statement.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support and thank Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat for outlining the Government’s strategy to emerge stronger from the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has led to permanent changes across industries. Even as COVID-19 continues to rage on in many parts of the world with new waves of infection, Singapore is, indeed, in an enviable position to shifting focus to recovery and growth and seizing opportunities in a new world order. Significantly, we announced the Hong Kong and Singapore travel bubble today which, hopefully, represents a pathfinder to revive our air travel.
Much has been done to cushion the impact of COVID-19 on workers and businesses and it is now time to press the reset button and focus our efforts on building new capabilities for the post-COVID-19 world.
With the honour of speaking last, I would like to cover Singapore’s fiscal position, SkillsFuture 2.0 to make training efforts impactful and the need for an enhanced version of COVID-19 Support Grant.
Sir, the allocation of close to $100 billion to support families, workers and businesses effectively means that almost all the accumulated surpluses from the last 20 years have been consumed in dealing with this crisis.
I am comforted that the additional measures announced by the Deputy Prime Minister do not require any further draw on our reserves and will be funded by re-allocating monies. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to be protracted, so it is prudent that we adopt a financially sustainable approach as we settle in for the long haul.
To this end, we must ensure that the COVID-19 response measures are targeted, prudent and implemented cost-effectively. We must also critically review and prioritise future expenditures, in line with tighter fiscal space. We must ensure that the choices we make are prioritised to deliver the best outcomes for our people and businesses.
With sharp deterioration in growth outlooks expected of all major economies, Singapore’s revenue outlook will remain uncertain and challenging for several years to come. I guess we were all worried when the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about the need for higher taxes. Given the gloomy economic environment, residents are understandably concerned about the impending GST hike.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the original sums worked out by the Government still hold – that is, to provide a $6 billion Assurance Package to cushion the impact of the GST increase when it comes for the majority of Singaporean households, whilst counting on foreigners and tourists to contribute to a substantial share of the additional revenue. Travel disruptions will surely impact GST collections from foreigners and tourists.
The assumptions behind the GST hike must be reviewed to take into account the impact of COVID-19 on people and businesses.
COVID-19 has also led to an accelerated growth of e-commerce. It has, therefore, become ever more urgent for Singapore to arrest tax leakage in cross-border online transactions and level the playing field for our retailers. The exponential growth of e-commerce may yield substantial GST contributions if the tax regime is enhanced. We may not be able to avoid raising taxes to fund our rising expenses, but we must continue to find ways to keep taxes and transfers progressive and fair. I have spoken about wealth tax in my earlier speeches.
Sir, I would like to declare my interest as the CEO of an education and research institute serving the finance sector.
COVID-19 has accelerated structural shifts and we must redouble our efforts to equip our people with the necessary skills to thrive in a post-COVID-19 world.
Singapore has the foresight to launch SkillsFuture more than five years ago. The movement was driven by the imperative to have Singaporeans develop new capabilities for the future and embrace a culture of lifelong learning in order to ride the waves of change brought upon by rapid technological disruptions and economic restructuring.\tThis imperative is now more urgent than ever.
Whilst the SkillsFuture movement has galvanised much awareness on the need for lifelong learning and led to greater participation in training programmes, Sir, it is less clear how SkillsFuture training is linked to the attainment of distinct quantifiable skills, career advancement and wage growth.
I often hear the frustrations of residents, particularly those who have been retrenched, that their efforts to attend training courses are not matched by recognition accorded by prospective employers and made very little difference in their job search efforts.
Employers themselves have shared their own frustrations. Many employers, especially the SMEs, are at a loss as to how they may identify the right training programmes best suited for their employees to support the restructuring of their business.
Sir, notwithstanding the Government’s strenuous efforts to tackle unemployment and retrenchments, surveys have found that employers expect a talent crunch this year – this very year, a talent crunch – and 42,400 vacancies remain unfilled as of end-June 2020. With growing acceptance of remote working, businesses are widening their talent search for skillsets and deep knowledge beyond Singapore’s shores, under the Work From Anywhere in the world policy.
It is, therefore, of paramount importance that we support our adult workforce with an education regime capable of equipping them with skills and capabilities that match the labour needs demanded by employers and industry robustly. Starting from a position of strength, SkillsFuture 2.0 must evolve to foster stronger linkages between training programmes, skills acquisition and improved career prospects.
Training that people attend must count. To achieve this, I call for a Government-led effort to introduce a new category of training programme, maybe called Industry Skills Training (IST) Scheme. A key feature of this IST Scheme is the requirement to address labour force demands, with the strong involvement of prospective employers and industry group in training design and delivery, in collaboration with the training providers. The Swiss and Swedish Vocational Training Systems are useful references in designing the IST Scheme.
The Governance framework of IST programmes must facilitate clear identification of training needs and accountability of training effectiveness and quantifiable outcomes, with the industry and employers both playing pivotal roles.
The programmes should be anchored upon a clearly laid out, systematic skills ladder for the respective sectors organised along ITM clusters and include training for new business models and solutions within that sector. Skills certification should be portable and should, if it works, right skills are being charted, correlate with pay levels. IST programmes should provide a clear training pathway for new entrants to the industry as well as for existing employees. Where appropriate, credit-bearing structured internships should be an integral part of the training.
Training providers should be incentivised to achieve positive employment outcomes linked to their training and not just focused on the delivery of these programmes.
Sir, Singapore’s effort to emerge stronger must be accompanied by our ability to successfully help our people retool and reskill.
Mr Speaker, I support the Government’s approach on the Jobs Support Scheme transitioning to a much more differentiated level of support for companies. I would like, nevertheless, to repeat my call that well-intended assistance to companies that may not have a viable future in the post-COVID-19 world may hinder restructuring efforts and slow down re-allocation of labour and resources.
Sir, I have seen the pain and frustration of residents who are stuck with companies with poor prospects, anxiously waiting and hoping for their \"old\" business to recover whilst fearing their eventual closure.
So, I would like to call on the Deputy Prime Minister to review the COVID-19 Support Grant (CSG) to allow workers who voluntarily leave companies in sectors with poor prospects to also qualify for CSG.\tIt is time we pivot our assistance to support our people rather than simply preserving any and all jobs. Remove the involuntary unemployment requirement from CSG for workers in selected sectors and set our people free to pursue more promising careers.
Sir, whilst I understand the need to exercise prudence and care when providing financial assistance, many residents have expressed their frustration with the CSG application process. The biggest hurdle for many is the documentary evidence of income reduction, requiring the co-operation of employers. For example, one of my residents told me that her employer threatened to terminate her services altogether, if she reported her pay reduction in order to qualify for CSG.
Less educated senior residents who work in low-wage jobs struggle the most with the application process. Even though residents find comfort in the extension of CSG support till the end of this year, many are unsure about how they may meet the requirement to prove to the authorities that they had made sufficient effort in job search and training in order to qualify for this support.
Sir, with 46,000 or 35% of applications rejected, I would like to ask the Government to seriously review the CSG scheme to address the challenges faced by residents. The scheme should allow room for unique circumstances and empower approving officers to apply good sense and compassion in hardship cases that may not neatly fit the criteria.
With the impact of COVID-19 likely to be protracted and uncertain, the support level provided under various support schemes will also need to be reviewed and extended beyond the period currently provided by the Deputy Prime Minister in his Ministerial Statement. We need to provide for families a sustained level of basic daily expenses, medical coverage and retirement adequacy should their livelihoods continue to be disrupted. We cannot stop at the time that we have indicated if the situation continues.
With many residents experiencing income reduction, I hope the Government will also review the very strong policy lever they have, the Workfare Income Supplement as a possible means to top-up the income for low-wage workers whose pay has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr Speaker, we are confronted by the greatest crisis of our generation but, just as Sir Winston Churchill said, we should, I quote, “never let a good crisis go to waste”. This may be just the catalyst that reskills, transforms and strengthens Singapore’s greatest resource – our people – and catapults us into the forefront of an international recovery when the tides are with us once more.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development given that the COVID-19 pandemic affected Singapore as early as the first quarter this year, whether the Baby Support Grant be extended to parents of babies born from 1 January 2020.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Prime Minister (a) why is 1 October 2020 prescribed as the cut-off date for babies eligible for the new Baby Support Grant, given that COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic on 11 March 2020; (b) how many babies have been born between 1 January 2020 and 30 September 2020 and how that compares to the same timeframe in 2019; and (c) whether the Government will consider extending the grant to babies born from 7 February 2020 when DORSCON Orange was declared, as such parents have been directly affected by increased costs as a result of restriction measures."],"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move a Motion to take the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today beyond the moment of interruption?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day’s sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2.” – [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":"Time Limit for Deputy Prime Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech. – [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":"Overview of Government's Strategy to Emerge Stronger from the COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me start by thanking Members for the thoughtful debate. Members have raised many useful points over more than 12 hours of the debate. So, if I take 20% of your time, there would be still be 80% of the points that will not be addressed. But my respective Ministry colleagues will review them.
Keeping the pandemic under control remains our top priority. As I shared last week, we are in a stable position. Cases of infection have dropped. We have a plan to further re-open our economy safely. But we must stay vigilant, to stay ahead of this virus.
Our economy is also showing early signs of recovery. GDP in the third quarter of this year picked up after the sharp contraction in the previous quarter. However, compared to the same quarter last year, GDP still contracted by 7%. The International Monetary Fund or IMF's latest projections for global growth in 2020 is -4.4%, a less severe contraction than the June forecast of -5.2%. But the IMF also warned that recovery is prone to setbacks. Although it seems we have turned the corner, we are not out of the woods. Major risks remain.
The virus continues to spread globally. Just last week, the World Health Organization recorded the largest one-day rise in cases, with an increase of more than 338,000 cases globally. Our economic trajectory also hinges on how other countries manage the pandemic and reopen their economies. And even if our GDP growth figures rebound, the jobs situation will remain challenging for some time.
It is, therefore, critical that we support our workers and businesses through this crisis. Several Members shared their views on the COVID-19 support measures. Let me set out the considerations behind our support during this crisis and into the next six months.
At the start of the crisis, no one could predict how severe the virus situation would become and how badly our economy would be affected. COVID-19 is both a health and economic crisis. It has caused both a simultaneous supply and demand shock as trade links were disrupted and consumer demand plunged.
In the face of an unprecedented crisis, our priority was to flow support to as many affected people and businesses, and as quickly as possible.
The Jobs Support Scheme, or JSS, is one example of this support. Let me assure Mr Louis Chua that the current design of the JSS already tilts this support towards SMEs, as wage costs forms a greater share of their business costs. SMEs, on average, receive more than five times as much JSS support per dollar of revenue compared to the average JSS recipient.
Together with other schemes, we have committed about $100 billion, or 20% of our GDP, over five support packages. Our schemes and programmes have dampened the adverse economic impact of COVID-19. As I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement last week, our measures are expected to avert a 5.6% loss in real GDP this year and save an average of 155,000 jobs each year in 2020 and 2021. They have also kept our unemployment rate in check and reduced long-term scarring on our economy.
As the COVID-19 situation in Singapore stabilises, the next pressing task is to help our economy recover. Our support must therefore evolve from \"resuscitate\" to \"rejuvenate\". To do so, we must shift from a focus on job retention to a greater emphasis on creating jobs. This was why I announced the tapering of the JSS and introduced the Jobs Growth Incentive, or JGI.
We are also pivoting from broad-based relief to more targeted support, to better cater to the needs of our sectors and firms. Broadly, the firms fall into three categories.
First, those that will see greater demand in the post-COVID-19 economy. I encourage these firms to make full use of the suite of capability development grants to expand and grow. The JGI will also support them to hire more locals.
The second category are firms in sectors that are suffering a temporary drop in demand now but will eventually recover. We will help them recover faster and emerge stronger.
For the tourism sector, the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers will help encourage domestic consumption. For the aviation sector, the Enhanced Aviation Support Package will help firms retain core capabilities to position for recovery. I share Mr Sharael Taha's view that being an air hub is strategic to our economy. For the arts and sports sectors, Minister Edwin Tong has just shared further details of the Arts and Culture, and Sports Resilience Packages. I hope these will alleviate Mr Darryl David's concerns for the sector.
However, there could also be cases where a firm's potential failure due to this crisis would significantly impact Singapore's competitiveness or national security. In such instances, we cannot preclude the possibility of Government taking some action to ensure these strategic capabilities are preserved.
The exact form of support will depend on the circumstances. But the bar for any Government action will be high. The Government will also exercise prudence and ensure public funds are well used.
The third category are firms where the outlook remains bleak as there are fundamental changes in their operating environments. They will need to reinvent themselves and pivot into new products and sectors. As Minister of State Alvin Tan mentioned yesterday, the Government is finalising a set of measures to support nightlife businesses. These measures will be announced next week.
I agree with Mr Saktiandi Supaat that as firms recover, we need to taper the support carefully to avoid a cliff effect. In addition to the extensions of financing schemes and payment moratoriums, customised restructuring schemes will also be available for those who need more tailored support. We will continue to monitor the situation and adjust where needed. Taken together, these measures will help our firms recover, in a more targeted and efficient manner.
Given the scale of this crisis, we may not be able to save every business and every job, but we will support every worker. We launched the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package earlier this year to create opportunities in jobs, traineeships and skills training. The National Jobs Council has curated 117,500 opportunities as of end-August. We are working on the next bound of tripartite efforts to develop more opportunities. I will share more details tomorrow.
Mr Xie Yao Quan asked if we could accelerate job matching for our displaced workers. Indeed, we have been working to speed this up through multiple channels. There is now an SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centre in every HDB town. We have also held multiple career fairs at locations islandwide.
As a result, we have seen a steady increase in placements. From July to August, more than 9,000 individuals were placed into training or job opportunities, bringing the total number of placements to over 33,000. Of these, close to 30,000 were jobs. In this period of restructuring and recovery, I urge both employers and jobseekers to keep an open mind and be willing to adapt and adjust.
Members have also highlighted concerns over a few groups of workers who are at higher risk of income loss or who face difficulties finding a job during this period. I share these concerns. We are fully committed to supporting them.
The first group is our mid-career professionals. I agree with Mr Yip Hon Weng that we must intensify our efforts to help our retrenched mid-career workers reskill and find new employment. This is why we introduced additional support for them via the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Support Package and the SG United Jobs and Skills package.
I also encourage our mid-career jobseeker to stay resilient and adaptable. As Mr Vikram Nair pointed out, \"creative destruction\" is inevitable. Some jobs may never return. Changing industry and potentially taking a pay cut for now is certainly painful, but will put you on a better footing in the post-COVID-19 economy.
At the same time, I urge companies to be receptive towards hiring mid-career workers. They have much to offer with their wealth of experience. With the JGI, eligible companies will also receive higher Government funding, at up to 50% of the salary of each new local hire aged 40 and above.
Ms Denise Phua will be pleased to know that this same 50% support is also available to employers who hire persons with disabilities, regardless of age. I also agree with Mr Murali Pillai's idea to extend the 50% JGI support to ex-offenders. I have asked MOM to take this up. They will announce more details in due course.
Another group of concern is our self-employed workers, as Mr Dennis Tan and others have highlighted. This was why we introduced the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme, or SIRS, to provide relief to those with less means and family support. By the end of this month, over 195,000 of them would have received three payouts, amounting to $9,000. The three payouts were sized to cover affected self-employed persons till end-December 2020.
The Government is studying how to continue supporting this group of workers beyond 2020. But like other support schemes, we will need to taper towards normalcy. We will provide an update before the end of the year.
Another group we are watching out for is our lower wage workers. I agree with Miss Cheryl Chan that we need to extend holistic support to uplift our low wage workers. Indeed, many of them are in frontline service jobs which have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic and safe management measures.
For those who are retrenched, we will support them under the SG United Jobs and Skills initiative. So far, we have facilitated the placement of 17,000 non-PMET workers into new jobs. This is more than 50% of the 30,000 placements facilitated as at end-August.
As mentioned at my Ministerial Statement last week, we will expand PWM to more sectors over time to benefit our low-wage workers, while making sure that businesses can absorb this change. I agree with Senior Minister of State, Zaqy Mohammed and NTUC Deputy Secretary-General, Dr Koh Poh Koon for their cogent explanation on the strengths of the Progressive Wage Model. Indeed, we should avoid a blunt approach, especially when we are in the midst of battling this crisis. Let us focus on supporting our workers and businesses especially SMEs.
I commend our tripartite partners for agreeing to form a Tripartite Workgroup on Lower Wage Workers to study how to expand the PWM to more sectors and push for greater productivity growth. I fully support this tripartite partnership and look forward to their recommendations.
Besides the Progressive Wage Model, we also have the Workfare Income Supplement, or WIS, which Mr Fahmi Aliman mentioned. This boosts the wages of our workers who earn below $2,300 monthly with an income supplement of up to 30% through cash and CPF payouts.
PWM and WIS must be seen as an integrated package. Take 65 year-old Auntie Geok, for example. She works as a cleaner and earns $1,500 each month, thanks to the PWM. On top of that, she receives Workfare payments at $333 per month. Taken together, she has a monthly income of at least $1,800. Auntie Geok also benefits from the one-off Workfare Special Payment of $3,000 this year, to help tide through this difficult COVID-19 period.
Besides our at-risk and vulnerable workers, we are aware that COVID-19 has affected the livelihoods of many Singaporeans at large. For those who faced job or income loss, we provide relief through the COVID-19 Support Grant, or CSG. I thank Mr Xie Yao Quan and Mr Ang Wei Neng for their suggestions on the CSG. We have designed our schemes to ensure support is targeted towards those who are most in need.
As with any eligibility criteria, there will be exceptions along the margins.
For individuals with extenuating circumstances, we exercise flexibility when we consider their appeals. We have also extended the CSG till 31 December 2020. As suggested by Mr Leon Perera, in our recent extension of CSG, we have required applicants to actively participate in job search or attend training. Given the continuing impact of COVID-19 on jobs, we are studying how best to support our workers in this crisis, and how to link support to job search and reskilling, so as to better protect the welfare of our workers.
In summary, let me reassure Members that we remain determined to support our firms and workers through this period. While we have made a shift to prepare our firms and workers for recovery, we recognise that the COVID-19 situation remains uncertain. We will continue to monitor the situation closely, and provide additional support where necessary.
Mr Speaker, Sir, even as we battle the immediate fallout caused by COVID-19, we must not lose sight of our longer-term nation-building efforts. In my Ministerial Statement last week, I sketched out the broad strokes of our economic strategy. I am glad that many Members have contributed many useful ideas. Mr Liang Eng Hwa puts it well. \"The crisis has hurt us as a country. But we should also capitalise on this crisis to write another exceptional chapter of the Singapore story.\"
Unlike other countries, Singapore is both a city and a nation. Cities are nodes sitting at the cross-roads of many flows – goods, capital, people, and ideas. They are open and outward-looking. Nations are communities with a common identity and destiny. They look out for and care for one another.
Singapore is a global city – open to new and exciting flows. But we are also a nation – we have to make a living for ourselves, stay united and defend our independence. Managing this unique dual identity is critical to our success. We have to stay open to the world while forging our own identity, stay globally connected while remaining independent, and embrace diversity while being socially cohesive.
These seemingly conflicting objectives are not choices, but necessities for us. And they will always define us as a country, and guide how we manage our economy and society. This dual identity has shaped our economic journey. Since Independence, we have adopted outward oriented policies, embraced free trade and welcome foreign multinationals to base themselves here.
Over time, companies like Infineon, Johnson & Johnson, and Rakuten have established regional and global operations in Singapore. They bring their know-how and business networks to Singapore, and create a vibrant ecosystem to nurture our local companies and start-ups. These foreign firms also give our companies opportunities to become part of a global value chain. For example, Zumata, a local start-up, was engaged by Sompo, a global Japanese insurance player, to automate the handling of customer queries. Sompo ended up applying their prototype solution not only in its contact centre in Singapore, but also in its Philippines outfit. Through this process, Zumata was brought into an overseas market as well.
It is these kinds of synergies – between foreign and local firms, between MNCs and start-ups – that will continue to anchor Singapore as a true Global-Asia node of technology, innovation and enterprise. Mr Gan Thiam Poh had correctly reminded us that such collaborations ensure our survival and prosperity. They bring good jobs to Singapore, and ensure that new businesses continue to seed themselves in our soils.
This is why we have always been relentless in encouraging our people and firms to upskill and transform themselves; to ready themselves for such new opportunities. And this is how we make sure jobs and industries are future-proof – exactly what Mr Leon Perera spoke about.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also spoke about activating a Plan B, to get local firms to transform and go regional. The fact of the matter is that this economic transformation has been our plan all along. And in fact all of these years, we have been reinventing our economy over and over again. Assoc Prof Lim mentioned the Government has spoken about technology, innovation and enterprise since 2016. Sir, I thank him for following our plans.
Twenty sixteen was also when we started our Industry Transformation Maps, or ITMs. But we have a broad base of companies, numbering several hundred thousand. Uplifting all of them, along with our workers, is not a straightforward matter. Our agencies like Enterprise Singapore, and in fact, all our economic agencies and our tripartite partners have been working decisively and closely with businesses on their transformation journeys. And we have gained some headway.
For instance, between 2016 to 2019, overall productivity of our economy measured by real value added per actual hour worked rose by 2.4% per year – an improvement over the 2.2% per annum growth in the preceding three years. COVID-19 has accelerated the pace of change. It has given us added impetus to help our businesses find new opportunities and take new strides. And I know businesses are doing what they can. Business owners I spoke to, tell me about how they are working to transform their operations and upskill their workers. We will double down on our efforts to support them in this journey.
And this is what the next iteration of the ITMs seek to achieve.
We are consulting widely across industries and firms as we refresh our ITMs – as part of our preparation for ITM 2.0, as Mr Edward Chia mentioned yesterday, and many Members have given helpful suggestions. Mr Chia raised a very good point about how supply chains are being reimagined, and how this is a good opportunity for our firms to further expand themselves into the region.
To support our firms, we have a range of schemes including, amongst others, the Market Readiness Assistance Grant, the Enterprise Development Grant, and the Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation. Mr Chia's other point on how innovation can be augmented by the \"two-fold engine\" of technology and design, is also useful. This will help our firms differentiate themselves in this age of the online marketplace.
Another way firms can differentiate themselves is to offer innovative products and services born out of cross-cluster synergies. Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Shawn Huang had insightfully observed that we need to recognise and harness adjacencies across industries and across jobs. Indeed, that is what we are doing. The 23 ITMs are now clustered into six clusters and we are seeking to look at the synergy within clusters and across clusters, as well as the impact that digitalisation has across all clusters. So, all of these will bring about the potential for systems-level innovation across our economy.
So, I urge our firms to tap on platforms like the Open Innovation Platform launched by IMDA. It allows companies to crowdsource innovative solutions from over 9000 companies for their challenges. And we have seen very successful partnerships.
Teho Ropes & Supplies is a local firm that provides systems solutions to the marine and offshore industries. Through the platform, it was matched with Ent-Vision, a local AI start-up. Ent-Vision tapped on its experience in supply chain and logistic solutions to build a machine-learning system for Teho that automated the labour-intensive customer quotation process. At the same time, Ent-Vision built on this newly gained domain knowledge to develop a new product and segue into the maritime sector.
The Green Economy also presents opportunities for firms to seize early mover advantages. These opportunities range from clean energy solutions and low-carbon technologies, to innovations in the built environment, and the development of green financial tools and markets. We invested R&D in these areas early, as part of our 2020 Research, Innovation and Enterprise plans.
The next step, as Miss Cheryl Chan rightly identified, is to equip our people with the know-how. Work in under way on this very important area. For example we have set up the Energy Efficiency Technology Centre to offer training programmes, on top of existing SkillsFuture courses that will train Singaporeans in sustainability sectors.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the heart of our economy is our people. The objective of growing our firms is ultimately to create quality, well-paying, and sustainable jobs to benefit Singaporeans. Ms Foo Mee Har highlighted a pertinent point, that the future of work may be very different post-COVID-19. The rise of digitalisation and the gig economy will make the job market more volatile. Job types and work arrangements will also evolve, as Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Louis Ng had pointed out.
At the same time, Singapore is facing an ageing population. Our current old-age support ratio, defined as the number of working-age adults compared to the number of seniors aged 65 and above, is 4.3 to 1; this is the current number. By 2030, this ratio is projected to become 2.7 to 1. Put another way, each adult will need to work twice as hard to support our seniors in 2030. Or, we can work twice as smart. And of course, we will also support seniors to stay active in the workforce if they wish.
That is why we will redouble our efforts to support Singaporeans of all ages to stay well-educated, well-trained and well-skilled. This Government will spare no efforts in providing our people with the avenues to fulfil their fullest potential. We take a life-cycle approach to do this. To give every child a good start in life, we provide affordable, quality pre-school education.
I agree with Mr Don Wee on the importance of uplifting our disadvantaged children. He had put it very well, that \"a stitch in time saves nine\". We will continue to help those who start off with less. We have programmes like KidSTART, UPLIFT and Learning Support Programme to help them.
For our youths, they benefit from a good education system that equips them with the latest knowledge and skills. And just before or just after they enter the workforce, they can tap on schemes like the Global Ready Talent Programme to study and work overseas. They will gain valuable real-world skills and insights from foreign markets, to support their career aspirations.
I thank Ms Hazel Poa for her point on the need to promote diversity in our education. This is in fact, something that MOE has been doing for years. However, even with excellent pre-employment education, our workers will need to be proactive about upskilling and reskilling. The new economy will require workers who are versatile and know how to build on existing skills, embrace lifelong learning, and be able to move between adjacent industry clusters.
But upskilling is not the responsibility of workers alone. Companies too, must play their part. They should actively participate in the development of training programmes, redesign jobs, and encourage employees to upskill. As Ms Jessica Tan rightly pointed out, training should be demand-led to ensure industry relevance. And Ms Foo Mee Har has just proposed an IST, Industry Skills Training. Ms Poh Li San also suggested meeting the needs of the manufacturing sector.
Indeed, there is a very wide range of labour market issues – the demand for labour, the supply of labour, the changing labour profile, the way that we can more effectively match jobs and skills, and how we can develop the right skills profile and the right jobs profile to meet the needs and aspirations of our people. These are issues that we will continue to study but we will provide strong support to our workers and firms.
Finally, for our senior workers, it is never too late to learn new things, or even transition to another industry. The National Silver Academy offers a wide range of subsidised courses, from Starting a Home Business to Taking Care of the Aged. With the Retirement and Re-employment Ages set to be raised by 2022, those who want to continue working can choose to do so.
With these efforts, we hope that Singaporeans, regardless of age, can continue to learn and upskill so that they not only have good jobs, but experience good wage growth.
These efforts to upskill our workforce will help us to stay ahead of the global curve. Coupled with openness to ideas, innovations and innovators, we secure a brighter future.
As a global city, our economic competition and collaboration are with other global cities like New York, London, Frankfurt, Shanghai and Mumbai. These cities have their own hinterlands and can draw talent from millions and billions of their own nationals. In Singapore, we draw from a domestic population of about four million locals. As Ms Joan Pereira has aptly put, \"a Singapore that closes its doors to the outside world is bad for all of us\".
As the global economy undergoes changes driven by technology and innovation, it is even more critical that we assemble the best possible team to stay useful and relevant to the world. We want to make sure that we have the best players in our team, playing to one another’s strengths, working together as a team. This is why we must remain open to the best talents from all over the world, so that we can put forth the best team and step out onto the world stage.
By bringing the best to our shores, we learn from them and synthesise good ideas from around the world. Our scientific community, for example, has gained from the diversity of exceptional minds that have come to call Singapore their home. Leading researchers Prof Sir David Lane and Prof Birgit Lane have provided thought leadership that has spurred our advancements in the biomedical sciences. The late Nobel Laureate Dr Sydney Brenner was also a giant in the global scientific community, who helped us set up the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB) in 1985. Today, IMCB is a world recognised biology institution.
We also send our best minds overseas to learn from others. Mr Philip Yeo, former chairman of A*STAR, started the A*STAR scholarship with the hope of grooming outstanding Singaporeans in science and technology. We have since awarded more than 1,500 scholarships to some of our best students, and many are now back in Singapore with a global network and contributing significantly in our R&D efforts.
Our openness has also allowed our locals to collaborate with the best. The Cooling Singapore 2.0 programme facilitated by the National Research Foundation has brought together an international team of researchers from our local universities and researchers from ETH Zurich. This joint team is working with our public agencies to develop new modelling and simulation models to support our urban planning and policy-making.
A good complement of foreign students and researchers in our universities have also made good nests for innovations that are going global. For example, Pedra Technology is a deep tech medical start-up that came out of NTU’s labs. Its founders are a Korean, two Singaporeans and a UK citizen born in India. This diversity will put them in good stead to expand into these different markets.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I started by speaking about how Singapore is unique in our dual identity as both a global city and a nation. As a global city competing and collaborating with other global cities, it is crucial that we remain open and at the same time, invest in our people. That way, we remain relevant and useful to the world.
Singapore is a nation. We must take care of our people and build a cohesive and resilient society.
Several Members spoke about the need to continue supporting our households, especially the lower income, through this crisis. Indeed, we have moved decisively to support households with an unprecedented $5.9 billion of household transfers this year. This is the largest amount we have ever disbursed in a single year. Over 2.8 million Singapore residents have benefited from some combination of our Care and Support Package, Solidarity Payment and Solidarity Utilities Credits.
All Singaporean households, regardless of property type, have received relief in some form, with lower and middle income households receiving higher levels of support from the Care and Support Package. On average, citizen households received $1,500 of support for each household member, equivalent to about half a month of their income. More support was provided for lower income households. For households in the bottom 50% based on per capita household income, the support received was equivalent to an average of two months of their income.
In addition to household transfers, we have also introduced the Community Development Council or CDC Vouchers Scheme to help households in need with their daily expenses, while supporting local hawkers and heartland merchants. There are now more than 8,000 merchants on board. As of September 2020, more than 300,000 Singaporean households have benefited from the first tranche of the CDC voucher scheme. Mr Ang Wei Neng will be pleased to note that we intend to disburse a second tranche over the next few months.
Ms He Ting Ru spoke passionately about supporting the needs of young families. To ease the financial concerns that couples may have about starting a family in the near-term, we have also announced a one-off Baby Support Grant of $3,000 for each child born from 1 October 2020 to 31 September 2022. Minister Indranee has earlier addressed some of the concerns raised by Members, so I will not dwell further on this.
I hope all this support has gone some way to help our households alleviate the impact brought about by COVID-19.
As part of our efforts to build a cohesive society, we must also ensure that vulnerable groups are not left behind.
I agree with Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Hany Soh on being digitally inclusive, especially for our seniors. To support our seniors, IMDA launched the Seniors Go Digital movement in May 2020 to encourage seniors to equip them with digital skills. Since June, we have deployed 1,000 Digital Ambassadors, to rally the community and volunteers to support our seniors, hawkers and heartland enterprises to acquire digital skills. I am glad that as of end-September, more than 28,000 seniors have participated in at least one training programme.
I also agree with Mr Melvin Yong and Ms Raeesah Khan that mental health is a rising concern, especially during this COVID-19 period. Ensuring access to mental health care is a major priority and requires our collective effort. This ensures we have happy workers.
We have set up a COVID-19 Mental Wellness Taskforce to study ways to strengthen our community (mental) health services, to support new vulnerable groups that may emerge due to the pandemic.
As one of the initiatives under the Singapore Together Action Networks, we have also set up the Youth Mental Well-being (YMWB) Network. This allows anyone who is interested in improving the mental health of young people to contribute, kickstart discussions and take ownership of the projects.
Building a cohesive society requires the effort of not just the Government alone, but of all Singaporeans together. COVID-19 has shown how far we have come as a community, as a society, and how resilient we are as a people. Many of us have contributed and even made personal sacrifices in our fight against COVID-19. I thank all Singaporeans for doing your part. This is why we are in a more stable position today.
I am glad that there continues to be many ground-up community movements to help those in need. For example, KampungKakis, a neighbourhood buddy system to support the elderly, low-income families and vulnerable residents during the COVID-19 crisis. Volunteer kakis were the additional eyes and ears of our grassroot leader, who guided their kakis-in-need to available resources and ensured vulnerable residents received assistance.
Our Social Service Agencies have also been working tirelessly to support those who need a helping hand. To support these efforts, we have the Enhanced Fundraising Programme to provide dollar-for-dollar matching for some charities. This is in addition to enhanced tax deductions for donations to charities with IPC status.
I am also heartened that donations for COVID-19 related causes have remained resilient. Key donations platforms such as Community Chest, the Sayang Sayang Fund, and Giving.sg received a total of $100 million in donations from January to August this year. This is already more than the overall donations received by the Community Chest and Giving.sg throughout 2019.
I encourage those who can to continue donating generously. And as Mr Ang Wei Neng suggested, companies can donate their JSS payouts to worthy causes. For instance, Lockheed Martin has donated their JSS payouts to The Invictus Fund and The Courage Fund. For those who have donated, I thank you for your contributions.
Mr Speaker, Sir, it is heart-warming to see the deep reservoir of social reserves that we have grown as a cohesive and resilient nation-state. This is the spirit of SG Together in action – a community of deeds, where we support one another, combine our various strengths, and make sure no one is left behind.
Let me now turn to the points made by Members on our fiscal situation.
I mentioned earlier that Singapore is both a global city and a nation. As a nation, we have spending priorities that cities do not have. Yet unlike other cities, we do not have a federal government to bail us out. As a nation, our planning horizon cannot be just 10, 20 or even 50 years like a company or an individual. We have to think about the countless generations that come after us. This is why it is critical that we remain fiscally prudent, to make sure that we spend within our means, and also leave something behind for future Singaporeans.
For this latest Fifth Support Package, we are able to fund it entirely from Budget reallocation. As mentioned in my Ministerial Statement earlier, our guiding principle is prudence, not austerity.
The Government did an extensive scan, Ministry by Ministry, to identify deferment or reductions in expenditure. Some expenditures such as those for MRT lines, HDB upgrading, and sewerage and drainage works were deferred arising from delays due to the circuit breaker and the safe re-opening of the construction sector thereafter. Some expenditures were also lower than earlier projected due to COVID-19 and safe distancing measures. However, most of these are not savings but delayed spending which will still be incurred in future years as Mr Liang Eng Hwa has rightly pointed out.
Mr Xie Yao Quan suggested that we should not delay critical projects. Indeed, for projects that are critically important, we will resume these. These projects are needed to raise Singaporeans’ standard of living and our economic development. We will push ahead when the conditions allow.
We are also already reviewing major infrastructure projects to account for the longer term impact of COVID-19. For example, the construction of Changi Airport Terminal 5 has been put on hold for two years amid uncertainties over how COVID-19 will change the aviation sector. There could be further deferments or reductions in scale, if demand takes longer to recover. Conversely, we may also need to build in more resilience and safety features, which could raise project costs.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked how we would balance our Budget. I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for being forward-looking. In fact, looking ahead, our fiscal situation will get tighter.
Our revenues in the medium term are expected to be subdued and uncertain for two reasons.
First, global economic growth will likely remain weakened for several years. Second, we can expect global competition for tax revenue to intensify.
Many advanced economies have accumulated more debt to fund their COVID-19 responses, which they will need to repay. There is added impetus globally to push for \"re-allocation\" of taxing rights under the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project, or BEPS in short.
So, even as we contend with these revenue challenges, we cannot lose sight of our goal to secure the long-term needs of Singapore.
As I have shared on multiple occasions, we expect expenditure to increase in public healthcare and pre-school education. This is vital to ensuring we can take better care of our old and young.
In order for Singapore to continue thriving as a global city tomorrow, we must ensure our financial security as a nation today.
We are therefore making the responsible decision today, to study how we can strengthen our fiscal toolkit.
Even before COVID-19 struck, we have explained that we are looking into borrowing for major long-term infrastructure. This will help to spread out the hefty upfront costs equitably across current and future generations who will benefit from such investments.
Our approach will be a principled and prudent one.
We will borrow only for infrastructure that benefit multiple generations, and ensure that our debt level and future repayments are sustainable.
I am glad that Mr Louis Chua echoed our stance to maintain a disciplined use of borrowing for projects that will benefit multiple generations of Singaporeans
We will not borrow just to make up for revenue shortfalls or be opportunistic in timing the market.
However, for recurrent spending like healthcare and education that benefits the current generations, the responsible way is to pay for them using what we earn, through recurrent revenues like taxes. This discipline ensures that every generation earns and pays its share.
Several Members have asked about the timing of the GST rate increase.
In February this year, I announced that the GST rate will remain at 7% in 2021. However, we cannot defer the GST rate increase indefinitely. The GST rate increase is to support our future needs in healthcare and pre-school education. We will continue to study the timing of increasing the GST rate carefully, taking into account the pace of our economic recovery, our revenue outlook and how much spending we can defer to later years, without jeopardising our long-term needs.
Ms Foo Mee Har asked if our assumptions behind the GST rate increase have been affected by COVID-19. Indeed, GST collections this year are projected to be down by 14% from what we had estimated before the start of the year, mainly due to the travel disruptions and the impact of the circuit breaker. We expect collections to continue to be lower than usual until international travel recovers fully, which we expect to be at least a couple of years away.
However, let me assure Ms Foo that we remain committed to helping our people manage the impact of the GST rate increase.
We have already set aside a $6 billion Assurance Package for GST to cushion the increase for Singaporeans when the GST rate is eventually raised. For most households, this will offset at least five years' worth of additional GST expenses incurred and for those living in 1- to 3- room HDB flats, equivalent to about 10 years' worth of additional GST expenses.
On top of the transitional support, we have the permanent GST Voucher scheme, which will be enhanced to provide more help to lower income households and seniors.
I would also like to point out that over 60% of the GST borne by all individuals and households is from foreigners residing in Singapore, tourists and the top 20% of resident households.
Mr Leong Mun Wai's suggestions to shelf the GST rate increase indefinitely means that we lose the additional revenues from this group which we can use to improve the lives of Singaporeans. I do not know if Mr Leong is aware of this.
Mr Speaker, Sir, over the five support packages this year, we are committing about $100 billion to fight COVID-19. And as what Mr Murali Pillai has just showed us in a chart earlier, our fiscal support is very significant, very significant for Singapore and very significant compared to many other countries. And we did not incur a cent of debt to fund our package. This is unlike many other countries, which had to borrow further to fund their COVID-19 response, despite already being at high levels of debt.
In Singapore, we are fortunate to have a rainy-day fund built up over the generations that has allowed us to mount a quick and strong response. We are drawing up to $52 billion from our past reserves to fund the support packages.
Several Members have asked for clarifications on this $52 billion draw. So, let me address them.
Mr Louis Chua asked how the draw on reserves would impact the Net Investment Returns Contribution or NIRC. Yes, there will be some impact to NIRC but the design of the NIR framework is to provide a stable, sustainable source of income to our Budget, smoothed out over market cycles. This means that when the projected returns and value of the net asset base goes down, we do not see an immediate proportionate decrease in NIRC. In the same way, in periods of sharp spikes in the market and asset values go up, we do not see an immediate increase and overspend.
Mr Gerald Giam asked about the Government's plans to put back the sums drawn from our reserves. To be clear, under our Constitution, there is no legal obligation for the Government to put back the amount drawn from our past reserves. Rather, it is about having the moral obligation and sense of duty to current and future generations and the recognition that we are stewards of our reserves which have not come by easily. So, it is not possible for me to be definitive on how long it will take for us to build up sufficient surpluses to make up the $52 billion.
I would like to remind everyone that the COVID-19 crisis is not over. The scars it will have on our economy and the global economy are still unknown. But I can say that it will not be two years, and I certainly hope it will not take us 50 years. How long it will take also depend on the choices we make as a country and Government – whether we continue to manage our resources prudently. We remain committed to running a broadly balanced Budget over each term of Government and will assess the viability of returning the amount drawn, depending on our fiscal position.
Mr Leong Mun Wai has suggested the amount of reserves drawn is much less than $52 billion and he has cited several figures in his speech. I will not repeat his computation but I will just make two points.
First, the NIR framework is based on expected long-term returns, not actual returns. So, it is incorrect to estimate the actual return by multiplying the NIRC by two.
Second, in considering the amount that we are spending from our reserves, it is wrong to subtract the returns from the $52 billion to derive a net spending figure. In addition to the draw, we continue to spend NIRC which also comes from our reserves.
And furthermore, the amount drawn from the reserves would have generated returns in perpetuity without a draw. So, the draw of $52 billion is unprecedented and no one should downplay its size or significance.
The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us how our reserves allowed us to remain nimble in times of uncertainty.
When I delivered the Unity Budget in February, we did not foresee a need to draw on our Past Reserves. In fact, Mr Pritam Singh said at the debate then that the Government had, and I quote, \"the privilege of far more budgetary elbow room, both political and fiscal, than any previous government in Singapore's history.\"
In the short span of 100 days since the Unity Budget when Mr Singh made these remarks, we have delivered three more Budgets and had to propose a draw of up to $52 billion from our Past Reserves to help save lives and livelihoods.
Therefore, as you can see, we face great uncertainties. It is too early to conclude that we have unlimited space.
So, we need to be more circumspect when it comes to using more reserves, as we are confronted with greater uncertainties ahead.
First, the global economy and financial system will be more volatile. The build-up of debt globally introduces instability in the financial system, which can lead to or exacerbate crises.
Second, we are seeing increasing risk of geopolitical conflicts and deglobalisation.
Third, scientists have warned of the risk of another serious international epidemic caused by a new unknown disease, Disease X. Not if, but when.
Sir, I am sure that we all want Singapore to be here for the long haul. As long as Singapore continues to exist, the question is not whether there will be an externally induced crisis but when.
If we spend more or even all the returns from our reserves annually, future generations will likely have a smaller buffer in a world of greater uncertainty. We must therefore ensure that we continue to spend within our means and hand over to our children more than what we have inherited from our previous generations.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked whether the Government would consider a further draw on reserves, considering the magnitude and severity of this crisis.
Indeed, there is profound uncertainty in this trajectory of this pandemic and its economic impact. We must act early and decisively to support our workers and businesses when needed. So, I am prepared to propose to the President a further draw on our Past Reserves should it be necessary for us to do so.
In the medium to longer term, our approach is to adapt and find new ways to generate growth. We must work hard to get ourselves back in a position where our economy is growing and we can build up reserves for the future again. This is the sustainable and prudent way forward.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. This COVID-19 crisis is a test of how far we have come as a global city and a nation. How we respond will determine how far we will go.
Singapore's dual identity as both a city and a nation has given us agency, nimbleness and unique strengths. But it has also conferred upon us some unique challenges which we have turned into successes. In the face of new threats and opportunities, we must continue to stay open as a global city yet closely-knit as one people and one nation.
Over the next few months, we will continue to study ways to help our businesses and people emerge stronger.
Our consultations for Budget 2021 have already begun. The Emerging Stronger Taskforce is pressing on with the Alliances for Action to seize growth opportunities for Singapore, even as we deal with COVID-19. I have also set up teams to look into how we can better support workers and households in the post-COVID-19 world.
Our battle with COVID-19 is far from over and the road ahead in a post-COVID-19 world will be uncertain. But I am confident that if we stay open and stay united, we will continue thriving as an exciting and vibrant global city and emerge stronger as a more cohesive and resilient nation. And most important of all, we must retain our core values.
Three days ago, one Mr Sim, who was on medical leave wrote to us. He was very concerned about the public discussions that we are having, particularly on the use of reserves. Let me quote. He said, \"Singapore could not afford instability, not like big countries. Once our reserves are used up, Singapore is gone. It will be forever gone. We do not have natural resources to fall back on.\"
So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank all Members for your comments and I leave you with this sobering thought from one of our citizens. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Clarifications? Really nothing? Very good. Pursuant to Standing Order No 44 (2), the Motion to consider the Ministerial Statement on the Overview of Government's Strategy to Emerge Stronger from the COVID-19 Pandemic lapses at the conclusion of debate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021","subTitle":"Paper Cmd 3 of 2020","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day]. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, contained in Paper Cmd 3 of 2020.
I shall deal first with the Head of Expenditure in respect of which an amendment stands on the Order Paper Supplement. Head T, Ministry of National Development.
The Chairman: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head T of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
With the number of COVID-19 infection cases declining, why is there a need to build more COVID-19-related quarantine and Stay Home Notice facilities? Following from that, what is the total expenditure on these facilities since the start of the COVID-19? And how much of that is attributable to the foreign workers?
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Minister of State Tan Kiat How.
The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How): Mr Chairman, facilities, such as Community Care Facilities, Government Quarantine Facilities, Stay Home Notice Dedicated Facilities and temporary accommodation for migrant workers were set up at very short notice at the start of the COVID-19 crisis. These facilities played a critical role in breaking the infection cycle. At its peak, these facilities could house about 100,000 people. It was a tremendous undertaking by all parties involved.
While the number of cases in Singapore has since declined steadily, we are now taking careful steps to allow more social and economic activities to resume, and to re-open our borders. Therefore, in tandem, we have returned various facilities to their pre-COVID uses.
However, as shown by experiences elsewhere in the world, we cannot afford to let our guard down.
We must assess the risk of each step carefully and ensure that we have sufficient options and buffer capacity to meet various contingency scenarios, including a resurgence of cases. This has always been our approach – looking ahead and putting in place robust plans to deal with contingencies.
We have spent about $804 million to-date. The facilities that account for the largest share are hotels for use as GQFs and SDFs, state properties as temporary accommodation for migrant workers, and Singapore Expo for use as CCF. While we do not have the detailed breakdown of the expenditure attributable to migrant workers, we expect that they are likely to form a sizeable proportion, as migrant workers constitute the bulk of the infection cases in Singapore.
To conclude, to Mr Leong's questions, COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented public health crisis that has affected Singapore and the world.
We would like to express our gratitude to the many public officers and private sector partners that had worked tirelessly to set up various COVID-19 facilities at short notice. However, we cannot for a moment believe or assume that we are out of the woods. Therefore, we will continue to remain vigilant to guard against COVID-19 resurgence and ensure that we have the necessary COVID-related facilities in place while regularly adjusting the capacity based on the situation.
The Chairman: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Chairman, I thank Minister of State Tan for the clarification. May I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $600,430,000 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Third Supplementary Main Estimates. (proc text)]
The Chairman: I shall now deal with the remaining heads of expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper Supplement. In respect of the Third Supplementary Main Estimates, they are Heads V, W, X and Z. I propose to take those Heads of Expenditure en bloc.
[(proc text) Question, \"That the sums stated for the Heads V, W, X and Z as shown on page 5 of Paper Cmd 3 of 2020 stand part of the Third Supplementary Main Estimates\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question, \"That the sum of $4,377,469,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Third Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021 contained in Paper Cmd 3 of 2020\", put and agreed to. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Resolutions to be reported.
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Second Minister for Finance.
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has come to certain resolutions.
[(proc text) Resolution reported – (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the sum of $4,377,469,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Third Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021 contained in Paper Cmd 3 of 2020.\" (proc text)]
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution.\"
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolution accordingly agreed to. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Third Supplementary Supply and Budget Adjustments (FY 2020) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The purpose of this Bill is to make additional provision in accordance with Articles 148(2) and 148(c)(ii) of the Constitution for expenditures in access of the sums authorised by the Supply Act 2020. The Revised Supplementary Supply (FY 2020) Act and the Second Supplementary Supply (FY 2020) Act and to reduce certain appropriations for this Financial Year due to exigencies. The additional sums have been approved by the House in the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021 as contained in Paper Cmd No 3 of 2020. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","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 a date to be fixed.\" – [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":"Eradicating Mental Health Stigmatisation","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)]
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as an educator and embark in research in health and wellness at Republic Polytechnic.
Mr Speaker, it seems like for this speech, I have my work cut short. Recently, many Members of this House had participated in the 25 push-ups a day challenge, raising awareness for mental health issues.
Some members of the public had asked what is the point of all these? Well, the point has come to this. When we come together to go beyond the label to lay the foundation to eradicate mental health stigmatisations.
I recall about 20 years ago, as a young Rota commander at a fire station attending to my first suicide incident. When I checked the call sheet, it was on the 13th floor, cliché.
As I went into the unit, I saw the subject standing close to the window and I was told that I had a few minutes before the rescue set-up would be complete. So, I engaged in small talk with the subject in the hope to distract him from our elaborate rescue set-up. Out of respect, I shall not share the outcome but I must say that the episode left a deep impression on me. It made me curious about mental resilience and the importance of a sound support systems that include family, friends and peers.
In my role as an educator, and as a community leader, one persistent issue that I have been confronted time and again is with regards to mental health.
Periodically, I receive news of suicide within the community and every single time, news of an individual taking his or her life hits me hard.
If we picture a pyramid structure of mental health issues, usually suicide is at the peak. What I want to bring forth today is not the peak, but the myriad of ways individuals in our community may be affected with mental health issues and how we may remove the stigmatisation.
So why does the stigmatisation exist?
According to the WHO, it is estimated that one-fifth of the world’s population suffer from mental health issues at some point of their lives. In Singapore, it is one in seven adults. The keyword is “adults”.
That means there is a high chance that someone you know, may know someone else who has suffered a mental health issue.
The fact that we do not know any, may suggest that: (a) we do not know, really; (b) we do not know; or worse; (c) we deny knowing people who know; because of the stigmatisation.
This is the inconvenient truth. It is common for us to label people with mental health issues as highly emotional, mentally weak, crazy, or even naturally violent, and we stay away from them.
Thus, it is clear that having awareness is important. Campaigns are good and platforms to share experience is great. These conversations must continue. However, I believe it is equally important that we go beyond awareness and I offer four strategies: literacy, accessibility, screening and time-outs.
I believe that it is important to make mental health literacy programmes mandatory in our schools and institutes of higher learning or IHLs. In that way, our students are not only able to identify such symptoms in themselves, or their friends, but they now can take an additional step to address such symptoms. These programmes may include self-care and of course, stress management.
Thus, rather than artificially creating a peer support programme in schools and IHLs led by student leaders, or handing the responsibility to teachers, lecturers or even the counsellors, we have an organic one where friends look out for one another because now they know they have the knowledge and they can help. Like how we offer first-aid classes for our students and there is a first-aid kit, we may now need to develop a mental health first-aid kit.
We can also replicate this at our workplaces. And I am sure the MOM got that covered in their upcoming advisory guide, and if not, I hope they will include it in the upcoming advisory.
Over the years, there have been discussions on the relationship between social media and mental health. So, I embarked in a systematic review of this relationship, and I was surprised to find that many studies actually shared that social media has a net neutral effect – that means the positives and the negatives cancel out each other. The reason for this is that it creates a platform for people to share and raise awareness.
In the hands of the knowledgeable and in the hands of the discerning, it is an important social tool.
However, one clear negative effect of social media is cyberbullying and the creation of fake realities. This effect is not only observed in children or youths, but also adults.
There is no quick fix about this. I suppose it would be far-fetched for me to suggest that we legislate against cyberbullying, or the creation of fake realities. However, I do think it is feasible for us to roll out a digital literacy programme for our children. Through this, I hope the future generations of social media users are discerning and are able to uphold an unwritten code of conduct.
Mr Speaker, my next point is with regard to accessibility to help-seeking touchpoints.
In my conversation with mental health patients, many highlighted the need for greater accessibility, both in terms of quantity and in terms of the ease of getting support, especially for those at the early stage.
Imagine, you are feeling depressed, with a heavy head, heavy feet and walking into a psychiatric ward in a hospital and compare that with walking into a GP clinic.
Help-seeking touchpoints must be community based and non-labelling. This will not only encourage those who suspect they have mental health issues to come forward to seek help but it also lowers the stigmatisation. Inadvertently, this will create a new norm whereby it is okay to seek help if you feel unwell, or unmotivated, or are just feeling plain lousy.
Mental health issues are like other illnesses, if treated early, there is high chance of a speedy recovery. Thus, the Community Mental Health Programme by MOH must continue to expand. With 20 polyclinics and over 1,700 GP clinics in Singapore, but only 14 polyclinics and about 200 GPs in the programme right now, the touch-points currently may not be enough.
The third strategy is to provide regular screening just like how we do our physical health screening. Providing regular screening for all would encourage a new norm and a behavioural change that increases acceptance and the importance of mental health.
This involves having screening mechanisms in place in primary care settings like the GP clinics I mentioned earlier, or paediatric clinics, or gynaecological clinics, in schools and in IHLs, and also in the workplace. Anyone screened for being at risk or having symptoms of mental health issues, would be referred promptly to a clinic.
The objective is simple. The objective is to get people engaged early, before the illness has effects on the brain, disrupts their lives and risks them doing something that would harm themselves or others.
Mr Speaker, my final strategy is to introduce time-outs. Like in some sports where time-outs are allowed, it allows the team to re-strategise, to reorganise and recharge as they continue on with the game. Similarly, I hope such time-outs could be introduced in schools and workplaces.
I give you an example. A student or is having a really hard time in school. He or she feels overwhelmed, overworked and is falling behind, and they know, they know they need help. All he or she has to do now is to inform his or her parents, and the parents will call the school to ask for an excuse for the absence. So, it is not really a free pass for these students. Most importantly, the parents are now aware and the school has their absence recorded as a mental day so that they can keep track on how many the student has taken. If the student takes a second one, the student would be referred to the school counsellor for a quick chat.
This is important because we can catch students who are struggling before it is too late. Rather than waiting for the results to dip in mid semester, or worse, at the end of the semester, we can now intervene much earlier. At the same time, we are creating a culture that it is okay. It is okay if you need to take a break because mental health is just as important as physical health. I have had students who struggled midway, took a break, and came back stronger with much improved grades.
Another form of time-out that I strongly believe in but will not elaborate further is the Right to Disconnect legislature as raised by the hon Member, Mr Melvin Yong. He had discussed this at length yesterday and I am in support of this. Just like him, I await the good news from MOM.
Mr Speaker, recently, I met a few individuals who have further inspired me in preparing this speech. Mr Nicholas Patrick. He lived with depression for about 12 years. He even went through the Singapore Armed Forces’ Officer Cadet School with this depression. He experienced suicidal tendencies and thoughts in 2011 but before he could continue with his attempt, he had a simple text on the phone asking how he was doing in school. That led him to seek help and he overcame his depression in 2017. Nicholas has created the Ekho Academy, an online learning portal to provide support, share tips and stories of hope and recovery.
Mdm Sumaiyah Mohamed. She was diagnosed with schizophrenia and depression when she was 19 while in university. Her mother noticed that she was not feeling well, took her to a GP, and subsequently she received treatment at a hospital. She took some time-off, but when she came back, she managed to graduate with a second-class honours in Social Sciences. Sumaiyah is now married and a mother to a beautiful daughter.
Finally, Mr Desmond Ng. He started experiencing hallucinations and feelings of paranoia when he was only 18 years old. But he was lucky because he was able to seek help and was diagnosed with schizophrenia and depression early. Desmond is currently in recovery and is using his personal experience to inspire other youths and those struggling with schizophrenia.
Collectively, they have proven to me the importance of intervention checkpoints and how they are able to move on with their lives and continue to achieve success. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In my speech earlier, I highlighted the issue of mental health in our society.
In every life journey, each individual will certainly face challenges and obstacles and experience stress.
In every phase and area of life, be it in schools, workplaces or homes and in domestic affairs, all of us will face pressure from time to time.
Sadly, there are many within our community who belittle mental health issues.
It is easy for us to label someone with mental health issues as being too emotional, weak in their faith or that they are crazy and so on.
We must build an open-minded society and provide support to individuals facing mental challenges.
We should consider mental illness just like physical illness and provide the same professional treatment.
If one needs further help, I suggest that they seek professional mental treatment, such as therapy and so on.
Let us together become a society that is more caring and ready to help those who are facing mental health challenges.
(In English): Mr Speaker, we live in a highly dynamic world, a complex and interconnected world, a world where cuts and bruises may be inflicted covertly and hidden from our family and friends to see, a world where non linearity exists – small changes may lead to large implications and big changes may sometimes lead to small implications.
A clear example would be the COVID-19 situation. It has shown how interconnected we are and how dynamic the situation can change. And many, many of us are affected. I look forward to the New Joint Task Force and would like to put forth my name to be included in the task force in the future.
Mr Speaker, like every good teacher, I would like to end my speech by giving away an acronym – L.A.S.T.
L for Literacy – as we push forward for mental health and social media literacy in schools and workplaces.
A for Accessibility – as we increase the number of community touch-points and make it easier for them to come forward to seek help.
S for Screening – to provide regular mental health screening for all Singaporeans.
Finally, T for Time-outs – to allow individuals to recharge, reorganise, re-strategise and come back stronger, and it also becomes and acts as another screening mechanism.
There is a relevant quote summarising my speech today by Alexander Den Heijer who said, \"When a flower does not bloom, you fix the environment in which it grows, not the flower\". [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: We have about three minutes if anyone wants to chime in before the response. If not, Parliamentary Secretary, please.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for putting a spotlight on mental well-being and mental health. And I thank Members of the House for your patience for the next 10 minutes. Rest assured I have your mental well-being at heart.
Our work ahead of us can be categorised into two broad categories: first, fighting stigma; second, to lend better support for mental wellness in general and for individuals with mental health conditions.
Before we look ahead let us first take stock of what already has been done.
Since 2018, NCSS has passionately powered Beyond the Label movement, a campaign that aims at amplifying the anti-stigma message. NCSS has worked with partners to develop resources, organise outreach activities and the annual Beyond the Label Festival, which allows the general public to have a better understanding of the stigma faced by persons with mental health conditions.
Beyond broad-based campaigns, work has also been done in a more targeted fashion. For instance, MOE has incorporated the learning of socio-emotional skills and resilience building into school curriculum, CCAs and other programmes. We recognise the importance of equipping our children with the socio-emotional skills to handle challenges and better bounce back from difficult situations. This is all the more important in a world that is currently struggling with COVID-19 and its aftermath.
Next year, MOE will introduce the enhanced Character and Citizenship Education or CCE featuring mental health education. It will include topics such as \"understanding common mental health issues and symptoms\" and \"developing empathy towards people struggling with mental health conditions\".
On the other hand, HPB has also been conducting mental well-being roadshows and workshops at our workplaces. From next month, HPB will be rolling out the Peer Support @ Work series to help employees better understand how and what it means to be a peer supporter at work.
We have also invited persons living with mental health conditions to serve as ambassadors in our anti-stigma movement. Since 2016, the Peer Support Specialist programme led by NCSS has been equipping persons with mental health conditions to leverage their lived experiences to inspire, empower and support others in their recovery journey.
Second, lending better support for mental well-being generally, as well as for persons with mental health conditions.
Within our communities, MOH and AIC has established community outreach and intervention teams, started mental health and dementia services in polyclinics, and trained GP partners to diagnose and support persons with mental health conditions. As of end 2019, AIC has set up 43 community outreach teams which reached out to more than 300,000 persons and assisted over 23,000 people at risk of developing mental health conditions or dementia.
To cushion the impact of COVID-19 on mental well-being in our communities, MSF – with MOH's support – set up the National CARE Hotline in April this year to provide emotional and psychological support to those in distress. Cases needing specialised support beyond what the helpline could offer are referred to service providers such as the IMH, the Samaritans of Singapore or SOS and other social service agencies. The hotline has since managed over 30,000 calls.
To help someone who needs to navigate through available resources on mental health, the MOH Office for Healthcare Transformation, MSF, NCSS and IMH launched mindline.sg in July this year. Mindline.sg is a portal offering resources on mental health, including a standardised tool for users to assess their own emotional well-being. Not forgetting Belle, the Beyond the Label chatbot that connects users to a comprehensive list of mental health services and resources based on keywords.
In essence, we have covered some ground in eradicating stigma, channelling resource to the mental wellness landscape and supporting individuals with mental health conditions. But, make no mistake: we remain a \"work in progress\" and our approach needs to evolve.
To that end, I am heartened to share that since February this year, the open call to recruit those keen to contribute to the Youth Mental Well-being Network saw over 1,000 youths, parents, care-givers, mental health practitioners and professionals pitching in. The Network takes a ground-up approach, with members surfacing ideas and identifying the areas they want to work on. It takes the view that Government does not have a monopoly of ideas, but we want to journey with the community in co-creating solutions in the spirit of SG Together.
Since work in the Network started, members have stepped forward to lead discussions, developed ideas and initiatives to strengthen support for our youth's mental well-being. Their diverse views and insights have enhanced our collective understanding and the Network has since identified 15 preliminary initiatives, within eight broad areas of interest, and these include enhancing mental health literacy, reducing stigma, and building emotional resilience.
Alongside the Network, the COVID-19 Mental Wellness Taskforce has been more recently convened to provide a coordinated national response to the mental health needs of Singaporeans arising from the pandemic. The Taskforce is co-led by MOH and the Institute of Mental Health, with members from MOM, MOE, MSF, MCCY, HPB, AIC, NCSS and PA. Why so many agencies, you might ask? Because we recognise that the issue of mental wellness and mental health has many facades.
Members of the multi-disciplinary Taskforce can leverage their colleagues' areas of expertise in staging a holistic response to address mental health issues arising from COVID-19 and beyond. In fact, the Taskforce will be better placed to identify issues such as those raised by the hon Member, Dr Wan Rizal, and conduct deep dives so that our people's collective mental health needs could be better addressed.
Mr Speaker, Senior Minister of State, Janil Puthucheary, Minister of State, Sun Xueling as well as myself have been recently appointed to support both the COVID-19 Mental Wellness Taskforce and the Youth Mental Well-being Network. We look forward to journeying with both the Taskforce and the Network to evolve the mental health and well-being landscape in Singapore.
Once again, I thank the hon Member for spotlighting mental wellness and mental health. It is an issue that we, as a society need to continually work on. I would like to conclude by assuring Members of this House that the Government is firmly committed to work with partners from the private and people sectors not only in eradicating stigma associated with mental health conditions, but in ensuring that mental health issues remain front and centre in our collective social consciousness.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 8.21 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Detention Orders and Police Supervision Orders Issued under Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past three years, how many Detention Orders and Police Supervision Orders have been issued under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act; (b) what is the age profile of the persons subject to these orders; and (c) in addition to the Act, what further steps will be taken to make it more difficult for secret societies operating in Singapore to recruit young people.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 2017 to 2019, 64 Detention Orders and 39 Police Supervision Orders were issued under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap. 67) (the Act). The age of the persons who were subjected to these orders ranged from 17 to 47. The median age was 22.
To curb the recruitment of young people into secret societies, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) works closely with various stakeholders, such as the Ministry of Social and Family Development, Ministry of Education and Singapore Prison Service, to develop and implement preventive and rehabilitative initiatives.
The Streetwise and Enhanced Streetwise Programmes are two examples. They provide assistance and counselling to youths associated with secret societies. While the Streetwise Programme is voluntary, the Enhanced Streetwise Programme is a compulsory pre-court diversionary programme that imposes additional conditions on youth offenders, such as regular reporting to the Secret Societies Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department, close monitoring of attendance at school or work, and prohibition on going to places where secret society members tend to congregate. Youth offenders who successfully complete the Enhanced Streetwise Programme will receive a stern warning in lieu of prosecution.
In addition, SPF regularly conducts community outreach projects, such as Camp ACE, to educate youths on the perils of joining a secret society, and educational talks for parents on tell-tale signs. The SPF also participates in other youth-related platforms to engage stakeholders on the steps they may take to guide youths away from secret society activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Permanent Residents Granted Citizenship Status Each Year in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many permanent residents have been granted citizenship status each year in the last three years.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of Permanent Residents (PRs) granted Singapore citizenship (SC) was 18,269, 18,840, and 19,049 in 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively. The total number of SCs granted in that period was 22,076, 22,550 and 22,714 respectively. The differences are due to the number of SCs granted to non-resident minors who were either (i) children of Singaporeans or (ii) children of PRs who were granted SC as a family unit.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Annual Disbursements in Provision of Government Funds for Legal Aid to Defendants in Criminal Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law (a) since 2013 to date, how much has been disbursed annually by the Government in the provision of direct legal aid to defendants in criminal cases through the Law Society of Singapore's Pro Bono Services Office that runs its Criminal Legal Aid Scheme; (b) for defendants who are foreigners, whether there is any difference in the provision of Government funds for legal aid as compared to Singaporean and PR defendants; and (c) if there is a difference, why such difference exists.
Mr K Shanmugam: I will deal with matters arising from the Parti Liyani case, in November, by way of a Ministerial Statement in Parliament. I will also deal with this question, at that time.
4 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health in each of the last five years, what has been the loss ratio of MediShield Life (Basic).
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MediShield Life is a not-for-profit, universal scheme, that provides Singaporeans with basic lifelong protection against large healthcare bills. All premiums are placed in the MediShield Life Fund and are used solely for the benefit of policyholders and in the administration of the scheme.
The MediShield Life Fund is designed to be self-sustaining and should therefore be based on sound actuarial principles. Therefore, premiums collected have to cover potential current and future claims, including amounts set aside to support future payout commitments such as continuing claims for long-term treatments, as well as provide a buffer against unforeseen contingencies such as unexpected spikes in hospitalizations. In addition, part of the premiums paid by policyholders during their working ages are set aside to provide for future premium rebates. This will help to moderate premium increases in their older ages, and helps to distribute premiums more evenly throughout the policyholders’ lifetimes.
The Incurred Loss Ratio (ILR) compares the total premiums collected to the total monies required to ensure that the Fund is able to meet current claims and future commitments. This is a more accurate representation of the adequacy of premium collection compared to the Loss Ratio, which compares the total premiums collected with only the total claims paid in the same year, but omits a large part of what premiums are committed to support, such as future premium rebates and continuing claims for long-term treatments. For example, dialysis patients are expected to require treatment over a prolonged period or for life, and the Fund needs to support these future claims.
Table 1 below shows the premiums collected, claims paid, change in required reserves and the ILR of the MediShield Life Fund since the launch of scheme in November 2015.
5 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health over the last five years, what has been (i) the amounts of MediShield Life payouts (ii) the number of claimants (iii) the average cost per claim and (iv) the proportion of private hospital claims annually.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MediShield Life was launched in November 2015. Table 1 shows the key statistics from 2016 to 2019.
Among seniors above 65 years old, the number of claims and amount of payout has increased by almost 50%, from 229,000 and $363 million in 2016 to 333,000 and $541 million in 2019 respectively. This growth is about 30% higher compared to the overall population. The average payout per claim has also increased from $1,580 to $1,620 over the same period.
","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 in Anchor Operator Pre-schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what percentage of anchor operator pre-schools currently have the Development Support and Learning Support (DS and LS) programmes; and (b) what are the Early Childhood Development Agency's (EDCA) plans to introduce the DS and LS programmes to more anchor operators.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The number of preschools offering the Development Support (DS) and Learning Support (LS) programme has increased by 60% from 350 preschools in 2017 to about 550 preschools today. Of these preschools offering the DS-LS programme, about 400 are Anchor Operator (AOP) preschools.
Today, all of the AOPs are DS-LS providers who have or will have their own team of in-house Learning Support Educators. This enables the AOPs to better expand the delivery of the DS-LS programmes in their centres.
The Early Childhood Development Agency (EDCA) is working closely with the AOPs and other preschool operators to make the DS-LS programme available at more preschools. ECDA provides funding to preschools which are DS-LS providers, to train their Learning Support Educators and procure therapy services. These preschools are also supported with a Place-and-Train programme to facilitate the training of more in-house Learning Support Educators.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Links between Money Laundering, Corruption and Fraud and Illegal Wildlife Trade Occurring in or Connected to Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has found links between money laundering, corruption and fraud, and the illegal wildlife trade occurring in or connected to Singapore; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry will consider implementing an independent framework or task force to further study these links.
Mr Desmond Lee: We have not found links between money laundering, corruption and fraud in Singapore, and the illegal wildlife trade occurring in or connected to Singapore.
Agencies will continue to maintain Singapore's vigilance against the illegal wildlife trade, including against money laundering, corruption and fraud related to this trade.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":1682,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201015/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4062,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Wan Rizal","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201015/vernacular-15 Oct 2020 - Dr Wan Rizal - Debate on DPM Ministerial Statement.pdf","fileName":"15 Oct 2020 - Dr Wan Rizal - Debate on DPM Ministerial Statement.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4063,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hany Soh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201015/vernacular-Hany Soh MS 15Oct2020 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hany Soh MS 15Oct2020 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4064,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Xie Yao Quan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201015/vernacular-Xie Yao Quan MS 15Oct2020-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Xie Yao Quan MS 15Oct2020-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4065,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Wan Rizal","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20201015/vernacular-15 Oct 2020 - Dr Wan Rizal - Adjournment Motion.pdf","fileName":"15 Oct 2020 - Dr Wan Rizal - Adjournment Motion.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}