Mdm Speaker:\tOrder. I wish to inform Members that pursuant to Standing Order No 102, I have on 18 March 2016 nominated Mr Christopher de Souza to be a Member of the Estimates Committee, to fill a vacancy that has arisen in that Committee.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Nominated Members of Parliament","subTitle":"Announcement by Speaker","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mdm Speaker: Pursuant to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Special Select Committee nominated the following nine persons to the President for appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament:
Mr Azmoon Ahmad;
Ms Chia Yong Yong;
Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng;
Mr Ganesh Rajaram;
Mr Kok Heng Leun;
Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin;
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan;
Assoc Prof Randolph Tan;
Ms K Thanaletchimi.
On 22 March 2016, President Tony Tan, by Instruments of Appointment dated on the same day, appointed the nine Members as Nominated Members of Parliament for a term of two and a half years, with effect from 22 March 2016.
The Nominated Members are present today to take their seats. They will now take their oath or affirmation of allegiance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Administration of Oaths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The following Members took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance, or made Affirmation of Allegiance, in the order below:
Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member of Parliament);
Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member of Parliament);
Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member of Parliament);
Mr Ganesh Rajaram (Nominated Member of Parliament);
Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member of Parliament);
Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member of Parliament);
Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member of Parliament);
Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member of Parliament);
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member of Parliament).
Mdm Speaker:\tI welcome the Nominated Members of Parliament and look forward to their participation in the proceedings of this Parliament. Order. Questions for Oral Answer.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Single Parents who Have Successfully Applied for HDB Flats under ASSIST","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked\tthe Minister for National Development (a) to date, how many single parents have successfully applied for a home under the Assistance Scheme for Second-Timers (Divorced/Widowed Parents) (ASSIST); (b) for cases where applicants had financial difficulties, how many were reviewed by HDB and what were the outcomes of the review; and (c) are there sufficient flats and temporary housing to meet the demand by single parents.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for National Development): The Assistance Scheme for Second-Timers (Divorced/Widowed Parents), or ASSIST, was introduced in May 2013. Up to May 2015, there were 230 applications from divorced or widowed parents under ASSIST. There are sufficient flats set aside for them each year, with 97%, or 223 of the 230 applicants, being successfully shortlisted to select a flat.
Eighty-five applicants under ASSIST had approached the Housing and Development Board (HDB) for financial assistance to purchase their flats. HDB helped over half of these applicants. Most needed help with paying the resale levy. HDB assesses the circumstances of each case and provides assistance wherever possible, for example, by incorporating the resale levy into the purchase price of the Build-To-Order (BTO) flat, so that the payments can be spread over a longer period of time. Of the remaining applicants, some wanted to buy a flat beyond their means. In such circumstances, HDB will advise them to buy a flat within their budget instead, while others were advised to defer the flat purchase until they were financially ready.
Low-income divorced or widowed parents who have no housing options or family support may be allocated public rental flats or interim rental housing. Those who have booked BTO or uncompleted SBF flats may also apply to rent a flat under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme.
HDB reviews its policies and rental flat supply regularly to ensure that there are sufficient rental flats for such families. In 2015, about 800 divorced/widowed parents were assisted with various forms of rental housing, the majority being public rental.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for the answer. I just have one follow-up question. With regard to the resale levy, I have been seeing a substantial number of residents persistently asking for help with the resale levy incorporated into their loans. There is an increasing risk of them being unable to pay the resale levy in full before purchasing the flat. What other plans does HDB have to help because these requests for resale levy increase over time?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mdm Speaker, in terms of HDB's priority, it is to ensure that people who want to purchase a flat are buying it within their means and not add a further financial burden. For such cases, wherever possible, we will try to incorporate the resale levy just to spread it over a longer period, so that they will find the payment of the instalments much more bearable on a monthly basis. For those cases where, clearly, even with incorporation of the resale levy, they will find it unaffordable, then I think the right thing to do would be to give them financial counselling and advise them to defer the purchase to a later date.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Less Stringent Criteria for Rental and Purchase of HDB Flats for Families Affected by Divorce or With School-going Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Zainal Sapari asked\tthe Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB can review the eligible income criteria for HDB rental flats, especially for families with children affected by divorce settlements; and (b) whether HDB can give special priority to families with school-going children in applications for HDB rental flats or units under the Sale of Balance Flats scheme.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for National Development): Mdm Speaker, the income ceiling and other eligibility criteria for rental flats are reviewed from time to time. At $1,500 per month of income, the current income ceiling enables us to prioritise our rental flat supply for low-income households.
Nevertheless, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) exercises flexibility to allow some families with higher income to get a public rental flat, if they have no family support and no other viable housing options. These include divorced parents with children.
HDB also grants priority allocation of rental flats on a case-by-case basis to families with school-going children, for example, to accommodate arrangements for the care of these children. Even without priority allocation, the waiting time for a rental flat has been reduced substantially from 21 months in 2008 to four months in 2015.
For Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercises, HDB already gives priority to families with children through the Third Child Priority Scheme (TCPS) as well as the Parenthood Priority Scheme (PPS).
\tMr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol):\tMdm Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for the answer. My follow-up question is: can HDB give priority to families who are not purchasing from the SBF scheme as a first purchase? Basically, they are second-timers.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon:\tMdm Speaker, can I clarify with the Member again what is his follow-up question?
\tMr Zainal Sapari: Madam, I have come across cases of many families where they would like to buy from the SBF scheme, but it is not their first purchase – it could be their second or third purchase. Would priority be given to these families as well?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Mdm Speaker, in HDB's planning norms, what we want to do is to allow first-timers to have a greater priority in home ownership. Second-timers have already owned an HDB flat before and so, in that instance, they will not be given priority above first-timers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Long-Term Visit Pass Plus Granted after Introduction of Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked\tthe Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of Long-Term Visit Pass Plus (LTVP+) granted after 30 September 2014; and (b) what are the annual number and percentage of unsuccessful LTVP+ applications since LTVP+ was introduced.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): The Long-Term Visit Pass Plus (LTVP+) was introduced on 1 April 2012 as an enhancement to the Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) scheme. The LTVP+ grants long-term stay to foreign spouses of Singaporeans whose marriages have been stable over time.
During the period 1 October 2014 to 31 December 2015, a total of 12,743 foreign spouses were granted LTVP and another 5,879 foreign spouses were granted LTVP+.
There is no separate application process for LTVP+. Singaporeans can apply for LTVP or LTVP+ for their foreign spouses through the same process. Foreign spouses who meet the criteria will be granted LTVP+. Those who do not meet the LTVP+ criteria but meet the LTVP criteria would be granted LTVP.
Since the introduction of LTVP+ on 1 April 2012, an average of 16,738 LTVP/LTVP+ applications have been received annually, of which about 88% were successful. There may be a number of reasons why an application is unsuccessful. These include the ability of the Singaporean spouse to support the family financially, or the length of marriage.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio):\tMdm Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Are there plans to increase any benefit for LTVP+? I understand that they are also not counted as part of the foreign worker quota for employers.
\tMr Amrin Amin:\tThey are not currently counted as part of the foreign worker quota requirement if they successfully apply for the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) Letter of Consent. There are no immediate plans to increase the benefits of the LTVP+ holders. LTVP+ holders currently enjoy a greater certainty of stay here, with longer periods of residency compared to LTVP holders. Each LTVP+ allows its holder to stay for three to five years and LTVP+ holders already enjoy healthcare subsidies at a level similar to Permanent Residents (PRs). They also enjoy employment concessions, with Letters of Consent from MOM, and, like PRs, they will not be counted in the foreign worker quota. The employers are also not required to pay the foreign worker levy for them.
\tMs Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether both the LTVP and LTVP+ holders are eligible to get a Letter of Consent from MOM and can look for jobs with any employer in Singapore. That is the first matter. The second question is: should they encounter rejections from employers who say that they cannot employ them, even with a Letter of Consent, notwithstanding other possible reasons, what should they do?
Because one of the feedback has been that employers still consider them as foreign workers and say that it is really troublesome to hire them. That is not very helpful when they are also trying to work to supplement their household income and working towards gaining PR status so that their citizen families – generally, the majority are citizen families – can stay intact and remain stable in Singapore.
\tMr Amrin Amin: I thank the hon Member for the feedback. From the policy point of view, it is very clear that once the person is given the Letter of Consent, he or she is not counted as part of the foreign worker quota and there is no levy imposed on the foreign workers with LTVP or LTVP+. As to why they are not employed, there could be plenty of reasons. It is important to highlight specific cases to MOM for further investigation.
\tMr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I have a question regarding the application process for LTVP and LTVP+. For applicants, for example, who have Singaporean children – one or two children or even more – are they regarded any differently in terms of the application process? Is the process, perhaps, expedited for such situations?
I ask because I have seen quite a few families, where the father is a citizen and the child is a citizen, and the mother had been trying but had not been able to get an LTVP. Could the Parliamentary Secretary shed some light on this, please?
\tMr Amrin Amin: I thank the Member for the question. Applications for LTVP+ are considered holistically based on a range of factors. These include the duration of the marriage and whether the couple have children from the marriage and the ability of the Singaporean sponsor to support the family.
So, it is a range of factors. It is difficult to give the Member an assurance that once you have children, you will automatically get an LTVP. The point is that it is a whole basket of factors that needs to be considered.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh: Coming back to the question of the \"unsuccessful rate\", the Parliamentary Secretary just mentioned about the financial capability of the spouse. Besides that, are there any other major reasons for the rejection?
\tMr Amrin Amin:\tThere are many factors and they include also whether there are any adverse records of the person applying for an LTVP and, as I have mentioned, it includes the ability to support as well as the stability of the marriage. So, there are various factors.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Just a couple of supplementary questions for the Parliamentary Secretary. I understand that one of the criteria for granting an LTVP+ is whether the marriage is stable. That is a sound criterion. I would like to ask whether we can be more transparent and more definitive in terms of what is considered \"stable marriage\". Is it three years or two years? If that could be spelt out, it would provide a lot of certainty to the entire family.
My other question is a suggestion for the Parliamentary Secretary to consider: if there is such a criterion, whether attempts could be made so that for those who have met that criterion are automatically upgraded from LTVP to LTVP+, without the need to apply. So, I hope to get the Parliamentary Secretary's clarification.
\tMr Amrin Amin: I thank the Member for the question. There are no plans at this stage to define what a stable marriage is. It is not a very easy thing to define how stable the marriage is. One of the factors we look at is the length of years of the marriage. But there are also various factors including the record of the applicant who is applying, in terms of how many times he or she had been married. It is not easy to put out a set of criteria and say \"This is the set of the criteria and this is it\". But the suggestion is taken; the need for transparency is something we will take very seriously.
As for the second question, it is currently in the same process. It is considered in the same way. When you apply for an LTVP, as I mentioned during my reply just now, that is the same process for LTVP and LTVP+. So, if they qualify for LTVP+, they will be given LTVP+.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Louis Ng. Last question.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon):\tI thank the Parliamentary Secretary for clarifying the factors for consideration when people submit their applications. I just wonder if the Ministry could share this with the applicants as well because I have seen the rejection letter and it just says, \"The application is rejected.\" For example, if it is a financial consideration, then maybe that is something that the applicant's spouse can do to increase the salary. When we just say, \"It is rejected\", it is hard for us to write the appeal letter and hard for the applicants as well.
\tMr Amrin Amin:\tI thank the Member for the suggestion. I will take it up with the Ministry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Environmental Audits on Firms that Attract GIC or Temasek Holdings' Interest","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider requiring environmental audits according to international best practices to be done on firms in which GIC and Temasek Holdings have a financial interest and which firms can potentially be contributing to the haze problem.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Finance): The Minister has previously responded to the Member on the same topic. As stated earlier, the governance arrangement between the Government and our investment entities is that the individual investments are the responsibility of their respective management teams, while the Government monitors the performance of their overall portfolio. The investment activities of GIC and Temasek Holdings are oriented towards generating long-term returns on a sustainable basis. Investing in companies with environmentally unsustainable practices could negatively impact the commercial value of the investments over the long term.
GIC and Temasek have informed us that they do not have investments in such companies causing the haze.
Temasek has stated that it fully supports zero-burning policies for land clearance and would urge companies and plantation owners to support and implement responsible and sustainable practices in their operations and supply chains.
GIC has also informed the Government that the palm oil companies in Indonesia that GIC invests in have confirmed that they observe zero-burning policies for their plantations. Some of these companies are working towards certifications that require adherence to zero-burn practices. GIC's investment teams engage actively with the companies' management and highlight to them that such responsible actions are important to maintain the long-term value of the companies.
The Government will continue to monitor the haze issue and take further steps if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Worker Representation in Tech and IT Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Desmond Choo asked\t the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current breakdown of Employment Pass, S Pass and Work Permit holders and the resident workforce in the tech and IT sector; and (b) what are the efforts to ensure that foreign manpower is not over-represented in this sector and the efforts to promote more locals to join the sector.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mdm Speaker, the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector employed 125,300 workers in 2015, comprising about two-thirds resident workers and one-third work pass holders who are mostly Employment Pass holders.
The Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) estimated that in 2014, there was a shortage of about 15,000 ICT professionals. With the rapid advancement and widespread adoption of technology in Singapore's push to become a Smart Nation, further demand for ICT manpower will continue to be strong both in terms of numbers and the range of skills and expertise needed. IDA estimates that by 2017, another 15,000 specialists may be required, especially in growth areas such as software and application development, network and infrastructure, cyber security and data analytics.
To help more Singaporeans benefit from the growth of career opportunities in ICT, IDA and the industry are working together to formulate the Sectoral Manpower Plan. Our objectives are to (a) sustain the global competitiveness of the sector; (b) achieve manpower-lean growth; (c) develop a strong Singaporean Core; and lastly (d) to foster a highly-skilled and complementary foreign workforce. More details will be released during the Ministry of Communication and Information (MCI)'s Committee of Supply (COS).
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Minister for his reply. I am also very encouraged that the Ministry for Manpower (MOM) has consistently gone after the \"double weak\" companies. So, I would like to ask the Minister if he has observed any \"double weak\" companies in the ICT sector and what are the actions against these \"double weak\" companies?
\tMr Lim Swee Say:\tMdm Speaker, the answer is yes. More details will be disclosed during MOM's COS.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): I thank the Minister for the reply. For the IT sector, the Labour Movement has been receiving a lot of feedback from the ground, about concerns in terms of visuals and the proportion. And I am glad that the Minister shared that there is a two-third/one-third kind of proportion in the sector. But of course, there are specific companies, as what the hon Member Desmond Choo has shared, that they are \"double weak\"; sometimes even \"triple weak\".
So, I suggest that MOM take this seriously and be more rigorous as well as more resolute in measures against those companies which really demonstrate themselves to be \"double weak\" and are still recalcitrant.
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, in this House, I spoke on what we call the \"double weak\" companies. \"Double weak\" refers to those companies who have a very weak Singaporean Core and a weak commitment to nurture a future Singapore Core. So, I agree with the Member that we ought to take this seriously. In fact, MOM has already initiated action against the \"double weak\" companies.
As I had mentioned, this will be an on-going process to ensure that Singaporeans – whether it is ICT sector or all other sectors, whether rank-and-file workers or professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) – will be given fair consideration in recruitment, development and career enhancement. As I have mentioned earlier, during MOM's Committee of Supply (COS), I will share more information on our action plan forward.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade):\tMinister, I filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) sometime ago which also talks about this. I suggested that beyond the stick approach, we should also have the carrot approach. Perhaps, your answer may be that \"this will be addressed at the COS\". I certainly hope so, so that we consider recognising companies which are good role models through the COS with some good announcements for them.
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, the answer is yes again. On one hand, there are \"double weak\" companies; on the other, there are also \"double strong\" companies. So, please wait for my reply at the COS. [Laughter]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Offered Lower Grade Jobs to Free Up Quota for Foreign Workers for Higher Level Jobs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked\tthe Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry is aware of companies circumventing the employment ratio of local to foreign workers by offering lower grade jobs to locals and using the quota to recruit foreigners for supervisory jobs; (b) how many companies have been found indulging in such practices in the past five years; and (c) what action has been taken against them.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mdm Speaker, the number of Work Permit and S Pass holders that a company may employ is capped based on the number of locals it employs. In a tight labour market, companies will have to compete for local workers to be eligible for foreign workers. To help locals upgrade to better jobs and careers, the Government has put in place various initiatives to improve their skills and help them progress in their job ladders.
Employers who do not treat their local workers fairly will not only be less able to attract and retain them, but also risk violating the Employment of Foreign Manpower Regulations which stipulate that employers are required to provide fair employment opportunities to Singaporeans.
We wish to remind all employers that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) takes a serious view of all forms of employment discrimination. We partner with the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) to look into complaints where Singaporeans are not considered fairly for jobs or promotion, at both the rank-and-file and professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMET) levels. If the complaints are substantiated, their work pass applications will be subjected to greater scrutiny and their work pass privileges may even be suspended.
Members of the public who are aware of such unfair practices should report them to MOM or TAFEP for investigation.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): I thank the Minister for the reply. TAFEP has been doing important work in ensuring that we address the problem of workplace discrimination, especially when it comes to hiring of foreign workers. Will the Ministry consider enhancing the capabilities of TAFEP to go beyond promotional work?
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, the answer is yes. Please wait for my reply at the Committee of Supply (COS).
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Saktiandi, do you want to wait for the COS? You still want to ask a question? Yes, please.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh):\tI thank the Minister for the answer. I just have a specific question. In the Minister's experience in dealing with the incidents over the past decade or years, could he share specific industries, for example, that have been flouting some of these rules?
\tMr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, TAFEP, over the last three years, has received about 1,400 complaints. Among the list of complaints, the majority, about 70%, are nationality-related. Whenever we come across employers who may adopt some practices which treat the local workers unfairly as against the foreign workers, TAFEP would take action. For example, some of them would receive a letter of warning from MOM. Some would have their application for work pass come under closer scrutiny. In some cases, we would actually curtail their rights to employ foreign workers, including suspension. I would say, on the whole, we do our best as and when we are aware of such unfair practices.
Having said so, I also want to share with the House that we should not jump to the conclusion that simply because the local workers are made to report to foreign workers, the company has done something wrong. We have to be mindful that in our workforce today, we have two-thirds local and one-third foreign workforce. There are industries where the higher level positions are held mainly by locals. For example, if you come to our manufacturing plant, most of the PMET jobs, 70% to 80%, some cases 90%, are all held by local workers. And yet, at the production level, a vast majority, 70% to 80% are held by foreign workers.
In other words, there will be cases where we need the foreign workers to enable us to sustain operations at a higher level, and vice versa. There will be areas whereby we do need to create jobs for our rank-and-file workers as well.
Therefore, at MOM, we do not jump to the conclusion whether it is right or wrong when foreign workers are asked to report to local workers, or local workers are asked to report to foreign workers. We do not look at it as a problem. But it will become a problem if this happens not because of anything else but discrimination. That is where MOM and TAFEP will come in, take it very seriously and take firm action against them.
As I mentioned earlier, if Members of this House come across any unfair practices based on discrimination, please do not hesitate to alert TAFEP and we will take firm action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Punishment for SAF Officers Involved in Exercises that Lead to Deaths or Injuries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked\tthe Minister for Defence what are the punishments that have been given to the two SAF officers for their roles during a training exercise in 2012 in which a National Serviceman died as a result of an allergic reaction to smoke grenades after their conviction under military law.
\tThe Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mdm Speaker, let me first describe the general approach and then answer the specifics that the Member has asked for, in relation to injuries or deaths that occur during training in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).
Every injury or death to one of our Servicemen is an occasion marked by sadness and regret for the whole SAF family. Our SAF commanders know that the sons of families entrusted to them during National Service (NS) are precious. Even as they are responsible to train them to raise and maintain a credible and decisive SAF to defend Singapore, our commanders are clear that they need to do this as safely as possible.
Our safety standards are among the highest for militaries globally and I am not talking just subjective assessments. If you look at training injuries, training deaths and you compare them with similar militaries in a peacetime posture, our safety standards are credible. SAF will endeavour to do its utmost to train safely but, realistically speaking, all of us recognise that in military organisations, injuries and deaths can happen despite the best efforts. Each time an injury or death occurs, we must ensure that independent and impartial investigative processes are instituted to determine the key facts, arrive at appropriate conclusions, take the corrective measures to ensure that mistakes, if any, are not repeated. This includes punishing those held responsible for reckless and negligent acts that have led to the death or injury.
Like civilians, SAF Servicemen can be charged and punished in the civilian criminal Courts even if the acts were committed in the course of duties but amount to criminal offences under general law. So, they are not protected.
Let me cite two recent cases as examples. The names are on public record for these two cases but I shall not repeat them today, so as not to resurrect painful memories for the families involved. In 2011, a Lance Corporal was killed when a truck reversed into him. He was unloading stores from that truck. The driver of the truck was charged in the criminal Courts for an offence of causing death by a negligent act under section 304 of the Penal Code. He was tried in Court and the Court fined him $3,000 – no detention. The Company Sergeant Major involved in that accident was not prosecuted by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). The Attorney-General decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him in the criminal Courts. SAF charged him under military law for failing to ensure that the Servicemen kept a safe distance away from the vehicle as the supervising officer. He was fined.
A second example: in 2012, an SAF vehicle overturned during an exercise, causing the death of a passenger. The Conducting Officer who appointed a Serviceman to drive the military vehicle even when he knew that the Serviceman did not have a driving licence, was convicted in the criminal Courts and sentenced to six months' imprisonment as he was found to have committed a rash act and attempted to pervert the course of justice.
Let me reiterate that in these two cases, in all cases, prosecutions of SAF Servicemen in criminal Courts are based on findings and conclusions as determined by judicial processes outside SAF, namely, the Coroner's findings of the factual cause of death, and AGC which decides if there are sufficient grounds to prosecute Servicemen. It is then up to the criminal Courts to determine the level of culpability and commensurate punishments. SAF fully accepts these judicial processes and, indeed, deems them necessary so that our SAF Servicemen are held accountable for their actions. All these processes were applied in the tragic death of the late Private (PTE) Lee Rui Feng Dominique Sarron.
In the case of PTE Lee, which the Member has asked about, Mdm Speaker, a Coroner's Inquiry was held in August 2013. The death occurred in 2012. The Coroner's Inquiry is an open hearing, accessible to the public and the media. The family of the late PTE Lee and their legal counsel were also present and were given opportunities to address any questions that they might have relating to PTE Lee's death to the Court. They were also allowed to pose questions to the two SAF officers involved during the hearing.
The Coroner's full findings and conclusions are open for public viewing upon application and approval by the Court. The family has a copy of the Coroner's full findings and conclusions. Let me provide some details. The Coroner concluded that PTE Lee's death was due to \"an acute allergic reaction to zinc chloride due to inhalation of zinc chloride fumes.\" It \"could not be definitive whether in the deceased's case the reaction was due to the inhalation of excessive fumes or the mere inhalation of fumes\" at paragraph 77 of the Coroner's findings. In his findings, the Coroner also opined that it was clear that the deceased's allergic reaction was \"unlikely to have been predicted\", at paragraph 66 of the Coroner's findings. Because of these findings and conclusions, AGC decided not to prosecute anyone as the cause of death was an unforeseen allergic reaction that was unlikely to have been predicted.
AGC informed the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) to consider taking disciplinary action against the Servicemen who had breached Training Safety Regulations (TSR). If there were sufficient grounds to deem the Servicemen criminally liable for PTE Lee's death, they would have been prosecuted in the criminal Courts, as the AGC had done in previous cases cited above.
Following the AGC's decision not to prosecute, the two SAF officers were charged under military law in November 2013 for breaching safety regulations. They were also punished with penalties consistent with other Servicemen who have committed similar offences, through fines and delay in promotion. Both officers have suffered a setback in their careers. The monetary cost of the promotion delays is significant, amounting to about half of their total annual salaries.
For MINDEF and SAF, when training incidents occur, we have to rely on our judicial system to determine the facts and mete out the appropriate punishment where required. It would be wrong and unfair to punish SAF Servicemen beyond the level of offence committed which has been determined by independent and impartial judicial processes. The level of punishment has to take into account the Coroner's findings that PTE Lee's fatal allergic reaction was unlikely to have been predicted.
Let me give Members some details about allergy to zinc chloride – the cause of death for PTE Lee. Allergy to zinc chloride from smoke grenades is known but rare, which is why till today, many militaries still use this type of smoke grenade, including the US military and the Republic of Korea. In the SAF's own history, we have been using this type of smoke grenades. Members of the House here who had done NS would have tested it. We have been using this type of smoke grenade for over 30 years and hundreds of thousands of soldiers have been exposed to it and this is our first and only case.
Unfortunately, there is no reliable test recommended by health experts to diagnose allergy to zinc chloride. After the safety review following this case, SAF switched to alternatives which do not release zinc chloride fumes. We did that in March 2014. While SAF has decided to do so, let me point out that there is no safety requirement internationally that precludes the use of such smoke grenades. Indeed, other militaries, as I have said, continue to use it and this underscores the fact that allergy to zinc chloride is rare so that the militaries have chosen to continue their use and accept that risk.
Mdm Speaker, this is a tragic loss of life, unexpected and unintended. The two SAF officers involved will carry with them the pain of this incident for the rest of their lives. But I do not believe that they started that fateful day intending at all to harm the soldiers under their charge. These are not the values of our SAF commanders. But regardless of their intent, over the course of an open inquiry where the family was present, all the findings presented, the Coroner's Inquiry (CI) did not find that their actions were reckless and negligent, but that the allergic reaction was \"unlikely to have been predicted\". Therefore, AGC decided that the officers would not be prosecuted in criminal Courts.
As sad and tragic as this incident has been, we must do right for all involved. I feel very sad for the family members of PTE Lee and I know that all Members here feel that. Some of us have experienced losing a loved one and we can feel and empathise with the pain losing someone so young in his life. We feel very sad for them for their great loss. My personal prayers go to the family for peace and comfort, even as they continue to deal with this difficult and tragic loss of a loved one.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answers. I have a few supplementary questions.
First, the Minister mentioned about delayed promotion. Can the Minister explain to the House, normally, after an officer has been convicted under military law, what would be the time period that he would be held back for promotion?
Secondly, will the Government consider amending section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act to allow certain situations of liability instead of the current absolute waiver from liability for all claims attributable to service? I can give a few examples for consideration: the waiver can be limited to actual operations and should not apply to training, or when a death or personal injury occurred as a result of omission from observing Training Safety Regulations (TSRs), or when negligence of an officer has some causal connection with the death or personal injury. Would MINDEF amend this law at least to reduce the possible moral hazard of any officers not taking sufficient care and caution in abiding by established TSRs during training exercises?
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: Mdm Speaker, the Member has asked about the punishment in terms of delays in promotions. I do not have the full slate of details, but the general rule is the punishment must match the offence. The Member is a lawyer. So, it is quite self-evident that there are equivalents to determine the level of culpability, the severity of the offence and the delays in promotions and fines are commensurate. I presume that in law, in the Courts, they have to stack it against a whole range of offences that makes sense as an overall system. I have tried to give one measure in which the delay in promotion amounted to half the annual salary.
The Member has asked about the Proceedings Act. That is something which, if the Member feels strongly about, he can put up a Motion to amend the Act.
The nub of the issue is this: how much protection should we give to our security forces when they are doing their job? The Member gave examples. Members can think of their own. A policeman chasing a potential suspect whom he thinks is going to commit harm, discharges a firearm, hits someone else. If our military officer or military Servicemen who now make patrols in Changi Airport and Jurong Island, and if they see a significant threat, and they are tasked to protect that place or island, do they discharge the firearm? Do they stop the person? Or will they hold back, thinking, \"If I make a wrong decision, then, I am on my own.\" And there is a civil suit; not trivial. Think about what happened at the Shangri-La Dialogue.
Twenty-eight defence ministers in that hotel; either defence ministers or deputy defence ministers. I went to Shangri-La Dialogue that year, early in the morning, 7.00 am, my car was diverted. They said, \"Possible incident\". They were not sure of the facts, possible bomb explosion because despite all the concrete barricades, a car had attempted to rush through the concrete barricade. What do you do if you were in charge; if you are meant to secure the place? You think, \"Well, I am not protected if I make a mistake.\" Our Home Team did the right thing. And I said so in my Facebook post after that; I commended them. Think of the consequences.
In this case, the facts came out subsequently. It was a drug offence-related incident. For whatever reasons, they were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. How do the guards know? Suppose it was an explosive in the trunk of the car, gone through the barricades, crashed into the hotel. The loss of lives, the loss of reputation, the loss of confidence in our ability. You want to give our security forces the confidence that when they do their job and when they do it without recklessness or negligence, that the Government Proceedings Act protects them.
This is not the place to fully discuss this. As I have said, if the Member feels strongly, he can put up a Motion. Central to the question is what the Member talked about – moral hazard. There is less of a moral hazard because the SAF Servicemen know that if they act in a rash and negligent way, they are not protected. I have shown you the examples. The AGC can prosecute them in the criminal Courts. If you look at the cases that have been prosecuted, they have gone to jail. I have cited two; there are others. It does not give us joy when there is a fatality and our Servicemen go to jail. Because we know that they were trying to do the job, yet, somewhat enthusiastic. We send a signal that this is wrong and they get on with their lives after that. They are discharged from service.
There is always a balance to maintain. The Member says, \"Why not lift it from training?\" You can train at one place and expect your security forces to ramp up their capabilities when in real operations. There is a saying, \"If you don't sweat in training, you will spill blood in real operations.\" You have to make your training realistic so that when they meet those circumstances – like the guard who fired at the car and stopped the car in time. Do you think you can get that level of proficiency if they think they are not protected during training?
This is something for the House to debate and for Singaporeans to decide. To be fair, other countries have done away with it and many of them have regretted it. There is always a balance. For this case, it is tragic, it is unexpected, it is unintended, full processes were complied with. If the Member feels that other aspects can be looked at, he can raise it. I have looked at the facts very carefully. I think we have done right by everyone. We are, of course, sad, but we need still to do what is right for the entire system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Compensation for National Servicemen Injured During Service Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"
8 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked\tthe Minister for Defence (a) what are the forms of assistance schemes available to National Servicemen who suffer a recurrence of injuries sustained during his service period; and (b) whether there is a limit set in terms of the amounts and tenures.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Defence (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for Defence): Madam, the safety and well-being of our National Servicemen are of utmost importance to the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). We make every effort to minimise the risk of injury during service. If a serviceman is injured in the course of service, we will ensure that he receives the necessary assistance and support.
We will pay for all medical expenses incurred for the treatment of the service-related injury at Government and restructured hospitals or clinics, including the cost of medical supplies and equipment. This applies as long as treatment is required, even after the Serviceman has left service or if the injury recurs.
We will also provide compensation if the service-related injury results in permanent disability. This will be equivalent to the lump-sum compensation prescribed under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA). The amount is doubled for disabilities that result from military training or operations. Additional amounts are also provided for total permanent disability.
Other forms of assistance schemes available to National Servicemen include the SAF Benevolent Fund and the SAF Care Fund, which provide welfare support to injured Servicemen and their families. The amounts disbursed are based on the financial circumstances and needs of these Servicemen.
Two grants are provided under the SAF Benevolent Fund. They are the Benevolent Grant and the Welfare Benevolent Grant. The Benevolent Grant is a one-off $12,000 financial grant provided to meet the immediate needs of the families of Servicemen who have sustained permanent disability. The Welfare Benevolent Grant provides mid-to-long term assistance for injured Servicemen. This grant provides financial support of up to $42,000 per annum to defray the family's cost of living. Depending on the Servicemen's circumstances, additional assistance for education and medical needs may also be provided. Eligibility for the Welfare Benevolent Grant is re-assessed every two years and we do not set a limit on the number of renewals.
Two other grants are also provided under the SAF Care Fund. They are the Helping Hand Grant and the Care Support Grant. Injured Servicemen may apply for a one-off Helping Hand Grant of up to $5,000 and a monthly $300 Care Support Grant. Eligibility for the Care Support Grant is re-assessed every three years and we do not set a limit on the number of renewals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Quality of Upcoming New Jobs in Tech and IT Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked\tthe Minister for Communications and Information in view of IDA's announcement of 15,000 vacancies in the tech and IT sector (a) what kind of jobs are these; (b) which companies/industries will these jobs be found; (c) at what level of the organisation hierarchy are these jobs set; and (d) what are the skills required for these jobs.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Madam, the 15,000 vacancies were based on the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA)'s latest annual survey on infocomm manpower for 2014, which is conducted with companies to track the state of infocomm jobs in Singapore. The 15,000 vacancies in 2014 were unchanged from 2013 and translate to an average vacancy rate of 9%. These vacancies were not just from the tech and information technology (IT) sector, but also from companies in other sectors, such as banking and finance, that employ infocomm professionals.
More than two-thirds of these vacancies were for professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) or technical specialists in areas, such as development, network and infrastructure, cybersecurity and data analytics. The rest of the vacancies were mainly in sales and marketing and infocomm operation job roles.
The requirements of each job type differ. Development jobs require skills in various programming languages, as well as in emerging areas like agile method and user experience. Cybersecurity, network and infrastructure jobs require relevant industry certifications. Data analytics professionals require skills, such as statistics and machine learning.
Demand for technical specialists has been growing by 6.3% annually from 2011 to 2014. We expect this growth to continue, given Singapore's push towards becoming a Smart Nation.
Madam, I will share more about the new infocomm manpower programmes at the Committee of Supply 2016 debate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monies Disbursed from Malay/Muslim Community Development Fund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked\tthe Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs for each year between 2013 and 2015 (a) what is the total amount of monies that have been disbursed from the Malay/Muslim Community Development Fund (MMCDF); (b) how many organisations or agencies have benefited from this Fund; and (c) to what purposes have the monies been utilised.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Madam, MENDAKI's Malay/Muslim Community Development Fund, or MMCDF, was set up to support community initiatives by Malay/Muslim organisations (MMOs) in areas such as education, youth, social assistance and employability.
Nearly $10 million was disbursed through MMCDF between 2013 and 2015. Fifty-three MMOs benefited from the Fund in 2013, 51 in 2014, and 62 in 2015.
\tMr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for the reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, can the Minister provide the number of funding applications received by the MMCDF Committee for 2013, 2014 and 2015? Secondly, I just want to clarify whether mosques are allowed to tap on MMCDF for their social programmes.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Madam, I do not have the figures for the three years, but I would be happy to provide the Member with the figures when I have them. Mosques do not qualify because they are not considered to be MMOs, but there have been instances where MMOs work in partnership with mosques and apply for funding from MMCDF.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Homes for Adults with Intellectual Disabilities","subTitle":"Capacity and waiting time","sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked\tthe Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many homes are there currently that cater for adults with intellectual disabilities and what are their respective capacities; and (b) in the past three years, what has been the average waiting time to get into such homes.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Madam, Adult Disability Homes cater to adults with disabilities requiring long-term residential care. They also provide short-term respite care for caregivers. There are six Adult Disability Homes providing 650 places for adults with intellectual disability.
Over the past three years, the average waiting time between referral to enrolment into Homes ranged between six and 12 months. The waiting time is dependent on a number of factors, including availability of a space in the home, urgency of need, caregivers' specific preferences and readiness for assimilation into a residential care environment. For those requiring urgent admission, the typical waiting time is less than a month.
Besides Adult Disability Homes, there are other residential services for adults with intellectual disabilities. These include the Adult Disability Hostel and the Community Group Home for those who are higher functioning. For adults with intellectual disabilities who, with some support, are able to live with their caregivers, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) also funds home-based and community-based care services.
MSF will continue expanding the range of home, community and institutional-based care options to meet varying needs of adults with disabilities. For example, by end-2017 there will be a new Adult Disability Home located at Sembawang Walk with a provision of 180 places.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I think all will agree with me that taking care of those with intellectual disabilities is very challenging, and to wait for six to 12 months is a very long wait. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary where there is any possibility to further shorten the waiting time for such cases?
Recently, I met with a resident whose caregiver had just passed away. The family had been hunting around and could not find a home for their brother who is intellectually disabled.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the question. We recognise the growing demand for adult care services due to the ageing population, shrinking family size and increased life expectancy of persons with disabilities.
Overall, we are planning to increase the number of places to 1,600 by 2018. We are also reviewing the continuum of services to our clients and caregivers so that we can care for these people with better facilities and services. So, if the Member is interested to locate one in Nee Soon South, we can explore such an avenue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Approach in Tackling Homeless Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked\tthe Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many homeless cases have been identified by the Ministry every year between 2005 and 2015; (a) whether there have been studies conducted to devise solutions to mitigate this issue; and (c) what is the Ministry's strategy and approach in tackling this problem.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Madam, from 2005 to 2015, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) provided assistance and support to an average of 300 cases each year. Some of these families and individuals were able to return to their own homes or families. They may be provided with financial or other forms of assistance. For those who were destitute and lacking in family support and means to fend for themselves, MSF would typically extend housing support through the Welfare Homes and Transitional Shelters which we fund.
In 2014, MSF conducted a study on families in transitional housing to better understand the challenges and needs of homeless families. The study found that these families often experienced occurrences, such as divorce and financial difficulties. Many had sold their flats and spent their monies to clear debts or for other purposes prior to becoming homeless.
To help them regain housing stability, it is important for us to help them address their underlying issues, such as providing employment assistance and counselling to address marital and family issues. Linking the families with services, such as childcare and healthcare, can also strengthen their ability to cope and improve their employment and financial prospects. Social workers will also work with them to identify long-term housing options that they can work towards.
Homelessness is a complex issue and there are often no straightforward or quick solutions. MSF is committed to working with the Ministry of National Development, the Housing and Development Board and community organisations to identify and provide support to homeless families and individuals.
\tMr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied):\tI thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Madam, I would just like to refer to part (a) of my question where I asked for the number of homeless cases per year. I would just like to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can provide the numbers because I want to look at the pattern; whether there is an increase throughout the years or it has stabilised.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim:\t Madam, I have mentioned earlier that it is an average of 300. In fact, over the last three years or so, we have seen the numbers falling slightly from about 321 cases in 2013 to 296 cases last year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Grant for Families to Hire Foreign Domestic Workers for Care of Disabled Elderly","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked\tthe Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will review the grant to help families hire foreign domestic workers to care for elderly persons with disabilities; (b) how many households are currently receiving this grant; and (c) what is the Government's annual expenditure on this grant since it was introduced in 2012.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health): The Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) Grant was introduced in 2012. It provides a monthly grant of $120 to support households who need to hire FDWs to care for seniors and persons with moderate disabilities. We do not have plans to increase the grant quantum at the moment, as the current grant quantum is generally adequate.
Besides the FDW Grant, these households are also eligible for FDW concessionary levy. The concessionary levy was lowered from $120 to $60 per month from May 2015, compared to the normal levy of $265 per month. Pioneers can get additional cash payouts to help with their expenses through the Pioneer Generation-Disability Assistance Scheme.
We also have other financial schemes to help defray the cost of caring for the elderly with more severe disabilities. Examples include the Interim Disability Assistance Programme for the Elderly (IDAPE) and ElderShield, which is a disability insurance scheme.
As of December 2015, about 6,200 households are receiving the grant, with the Government providing a total grant amount of $8.4 million in 2015. Since 2012, at least 10,400 households have benefited from this grant, with the Government grant totalling $20.6 million.
We will continue to monitor the utilisation and adequacy of the FDW Grant.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I am asking the question in the context of my constituency where there is an increasing number of elderly and elderly residents with disabilities as well.
My supplementary question is: will the Ministry consider waiving the concessionary levy altogether for the elderly who are aged above 80 or 85, for example?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: The FDW concessionary levy for those with caregiving needs was just reduced from $120 a month to $60 a month in May 2015, which was less than a year ago. And as I said earlier in my reply, this is significantly lower than the regular FDW levy of $265. This will benefit families with children aged below 16, elderly aged 65 and above or disabled family members.
With the lowered concessionary levy of $60, families who need to hire FDWs to care for their frail elderly or persons with moderate disabilities will receive a net subsidy of $60, taking into account the monthly FDW Grant of $120.
In addition, if these frail elderly are aged 80 or above, the likelihood would be that they would belong to the Pioneer Generation, so they will also be able to receive cash payouts of $1,200 a year under the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme.
In view of that, we currently do not have plans to further reduce the FDW concessionary levy or to tier it based on an age criterion. Having said that, we will continue to review the schemes to better support families with care-giving needs, including those with elderly dependants.
\tMr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol):\tOne supplementary question, Madam. Would a Singaporean be eligible for the grant if the elderly parent is a non-citizen?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan:\tIf the elderly parent is aged 65 and above and is a Permanent Resident, they can still get the grant as long as the caregiver is a Singaporean.
\tMr Zainal Sapari:\tThe non-citizen I am referring to is a foreigner.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan:\tThe grant is given if the frail elderly is a Permanent Resident and aged above 65. Having said that, this is one of the many available schemes we have to support elderly with caregiving needs.
Mdm Speaker: The foreigner has to be a Permanent Resident, Mr Zainal Sapari.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Disbursement of Opportunity Fund Grant to Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked\tthe Acting Minister for Education (Schools) (a) what are the criteria for the disbursement of the Opportunity Fund Grant to schools, including the polytechnics; (b) what type of co-curricular activities are covered by this Fund; and (c) to date, what is the number of students who have benefited from this Fund.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Acting Ministers for Education (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Acting Minister for Education (Schools)): Mdm Speaker, the Opportunity Fund Scheme was introduced in 2006 to increase enrichment opportunities for Singapore Citizen students from lower-income households. The Scheme seeks to create opportunities for such students to access learning opportunities which they would otherwise miss out on due to their family circumstances.
Initially, the Opportunity Fund was disbursed to Government and Government-aided schools, junior colleges and centralised institutes, independent schools, Ministry of Education (MOE)-supported special education schools, and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE). It was subsequently extended to the polytechnics in 2013.
The amount of Opportunity Fund disbursed to the schools is based on the total number of students and the percentage of MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) recipients in the respective schools. This top-up rate ensures that schools with larger numbers of needy students are provided with more funds to help these students.
On average, a primary school receives about $30,000, whilst a secondary school receives about $44,000. As explained earlier, the grant will be higher if the school has a relatively higher proportion of FAS recipients. The total amount of Opportunity Fund disbursed to the schools is about $16 million a year.
Similarly, the grant to ITE and polytechnics is determined by the number of students and FAS profiles. The total amount disbursed is about $2 million for ITE and about $5.5 million for the five polytechnics.
The three broad areas of usage for the Opportunity Fund are:
(a) overseas trips, such as visits and exchange programmes with schools overseas;
(b) enrichment programmes, such as leadership camps and creative arts workshops; and
(c) access to Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), such as helping needy students to own personal computers under the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA)'s NEU PC PLUS Programme.
Beyond these three broad areas, MOE does not specify the programmes for which the Opportunity Fund can be used. Schools and institutions have the flexibility to identify these programmes and decide on which students can benefit, taking into account the profile of their students.
The Opportunity Fund has been welcomed and well-used by schools and institutions. Students, particularly those on FAS, are able to benefit from the enrichment programmes and other areas supported by Opportunity Fund. On average, about 67,000 students benefit from the scheme each year.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. In light of the fact that Opportunity Fund is meant to assist students from needy families, the intent is really just to increase social mobility.
Can I just check how these funds are disbursed in the schools? Do the students apply or the schools assign the amounts that are given to the students? What is the utilisation rate by the schools of this Fund?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim:\tI thank the Member for the question. Madam, the Opportunity Fund is disbursed to the schools and the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) on a three-year cycle. It is usually disbursed to them upfront and adjusted annually to take into consideration the changes in Singapore Citizen enrolment numbers and their FAS profile for each year, if applicable. The current three-year cycle is from 2016-2018. So, with regard to the utilisation rate for the past cycle, which was from 2013-2015, it was about 80% of the amount disbursed to all institutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Allied Educators in Primary and Secondary Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Acting Minister for Education (Schools) (a) how many allied educators are currently employed in primary and secondary schools; (b) what is the average, highest and lowest number employed respectively; and (c) how many of these educators are trained in handling students with special needs.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (for the Acting Minister for Education (Schools)): Madam, the Ministry of Education (MOE) currently employs more than 2,200 allied educators (AEDs) in our mainstream schools. These AEDs, comprising the School Counsellors, AEDs in Teaching and Learning or AED(T&L), and AEDs in Learning and Behavioural Support or AED(LBS), complement the work of our teachers in schools. In particular, the AED(LBS) support students with mild learning disabilities, so that they can benefit from a more inclusive education in mainstream schools.
There are currently over 400 AED(LBS) deployed to our primary and secondary schools.
All AED(LBS) are trained on a one-year customised Diploma in Special Education (DISE) training offered by the National Institute of Education (NIE). Subsequently, they undergo continuing professional development training provided by MOE to enhance their skills and competencies to support a wide range of special educational needs. Depending on the needs of each student, the support provided by the AED(LBS) can range from either individual or small group interventions, given in the form of either in-class differentiated learning support or special pull-out programmes. The AED(LBS) are part of the school team, together with a core group of teachers who receive a Certificate-level training in Special Needs conducted by NIE, with deeper knowledge and specialised skills to support the diverse needs of students with special educational needs.
AED(LBS) also work with parents and collaborate with relevant professional agencies, such as MOE psychologists and professionals from hospitals and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), in supporting these students to cope with mainstream education.
MOE will continue to recruit and train AED(LBS) to cater to special needs students in both mainstream primary and secondary schools.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his detailed answer. I just have one supplementary question which is more pertaining to the distribution of the AED(LBS), which are the allied educators coaching children with special needs. What process is in place right now to deploy more of such allied educators to schools, if more special needs children actually manifest themselves in the schools, which may happen as the cohorts change? The reason I ask this question is because I have encountered residents with children with special needs who have felt that there are insufficient allied educators who are trained in those skills in their particular school.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, our approach is to continue to enhance the mainstream schools' capacity to support students with special needs. This is in the form of also the numbers of AED(LBS) we have. Beyond that, we have a system whereby we not only work with the AED(LBS) within the school, within the schools, there are, one, a core group of teachers who are trained – at the secondary level about 20% of each school would have these trained core group of teachers. They are trained on special needs where they will go for training. At the same time, they are also expected to share with their colleagues in the school.
Within that, there is also the Student Development Team and these are led by School Leaders, Year Heads and Heads of Department where they work together with the AED(LBS), together with the core group, to see how they can take care of those with special needs. So, in essence, it is not just about the number of AED(LBS). The whole school − the teachers, even their peers − you will be very touched to see how fellow students take care of one another; how fellow students make life better for one another in ensuring that the learning journey of each and every one of them is not affected.
Beyond that, we work very closely with MOE psychologists who go to these schools very often. We are also in touch with the Institute of Mental Health team, the Response, Early intervention and Assessment in Community mental Health (REACH) team, where they will provide assessments, take in referrals from the school. We also work with the relevant VWOs to make sure that we have a targeted approach in caring for these people.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio):\tI thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answers. Can I just find out, on average, how many AED(LBS) are there in each primary school for a start? Are there plans for AED(LBS) to be present in every primary and secondary school? I know that it is probably not easy to recruit AEDs at the moment, but could MOE look into recruiting and training, for example, through the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP), the parent volunteers to become AEDs in the schools?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, I thank Dr Intan for the question. Currently, all primary schools have AED(LBS) and about 80 of the secondary schools have AED(LBS). So, we are continually looking at this area to see how we can facilitate the whole process. However, like what I said earlier, it is not only about having AED(LBS). We have a system in place to make sure we care for one another. And I will take back to MOE the suggestion in the Member's second question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lift Replacement by Town Councils","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked\tthe Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will investigate if there are sufficient funds in each Town Council to replace their lifts when their recommended life cycle comes to an end; (b) under what conditions do Town Councils need to bring forward lift replacements; and (c) whether these warrant an increase in service and conservancy charges or a higher allocation percentage to the sinking fund.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Madam, Town Councils have the statutory responsibility to carry out proper maintenance and cyclical replacement of lifts in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, to ensure that lifts are well-functioning.
Under the Town Councils Act and Rules, every Town Council is required to set aside a minimum of 30% for 1- to 3-room flats, or 35% for 4-room or larger flats. This is 30% or 35% of the service and conservancy charges (S&CC) collected and grants-in-aid received in a separate Sinking Fund. This fund will be used to fund the cyclical works, which include the replacement of lifts and lift parts.
The recommended replacement cycle of 28 years for lifts serves as a guide to Town Councils in planning and budgeting for the cyclical work. Town Councils should, in consultation with their appointed lift maintenance contractors and their Authorised Examiner, assess whether their lifts should be replaced, taking into consideration their working condition and state of repair, as well as their performance at the regular servicing and annual lift inspections.
Town Councils are ultimately responsible for managing their finances and should take the appropriate measures to ensure that they have sufficient funds to carry out their statutory responsibilities. They can choose to contribute a higher percentage of their S&CC collections and grants-in-aid beyond the stipulated minimum to their Sinking Funds, or increase S&CC rates where necessary.
The Ministry of National Development (MND) is currently reviewing ways to help Town Councils plan ahead and better monitor their long-term financial sufficiency. For example, we are looking at having Town Councils do their own projections and put in place plans for financial sustainability. Given that lift replacement is a major Sinking Fund expenditure, we are also considering ring-fencing part of the Town Councils' Sinking Funds to cater for such expenditures.
\tMr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): I would like to enquire, whilst the Town Councils are responsible for lift replacements, whether MND will work on establishing a skills framework for lift technicians so that the industry is professionalised and the technicians managing and servicing the lifts will be of a higher level and calibre so that the maintenance will be up to standard.
Similarly, would MND consider implementing a quality mark that stipulates that lifts that are installed in HDB blocks are of a higher standard and quality that the breakdowns and the need for maintenance will be of a shorter cycle and the lifts can last longer and are more reliable?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Madam, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) is, indeed, looking at the whole lift industry − the technicians, the people who are in charge, the authorised examiners − to see how we can strengthen the capacity of the technicians, the authorised examiners with regard to the Member's first question. So, BCA is, indeed, looking at this area to see how capabilities can be increased and strengthened.
The second point on the procurement and installation of lifts, HDB already does that. Whenever it procures a lift for installation in new HDB blocks, HDB already looks at quality in terms of the procurement process. Beyond installation, the rest of it really depends on maintenance − regular good checks and a proper inspection regime. That is beyond HDB because, as I said earlier, it is the responsibility of every Town Council. So, we hope that the Town Councils will have that in place, pay attention to this area, make sure that there are quality checks and regular maintenance done once the lifts are installed.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied):\tMdm Speaker, just one supplementary question for the Minister. I understand that there are some lifts for which certain parts have become obsolete. This obsolescence takes place well before the recommended 28-year guideline for lift upgrading or replacement. Would the Ministry consider introducing a lift upgrading programme or considering a subsidy for this sort of lifts?
\tMr Lawrence Wong:\tMadam, HDB is aware of some particular lift models where, perhaps, the manufacturers may no longer be operating in Singapore. Parts may not be so easy to procure. So, HDB will work with the Town Councils to assist them in looking at appropriate replacement for these lift parts, in particular.
\tMs Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Madam, I would like to ask the Minister whether there could be at least an internal appraisal system to rank lift companies in terms of their performance, the quality of the installations. For example, for certain companies that have a very high frequency of reported defects or repairs needed even after a new installation, that when considering which company to award the tender to, that could also be factored in as well.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Madam, as I mentioned just now, HDB already does that in its procurement and selection of lift manufacturers. So, it will and already looks at breakdown rates of different lift models, as a quality measure in selecting the new lift model for installation in new HDB blocks.
I want to emphasise what I said earlier, that the maintenance part is equally important, and what I said earlier was that BCA is looking at enhancing its regulations as well as enhancing and strengthening capabilities in this area. So, BCA will also be looking at performance-based maintenance because, today, I think many Town Councils get a lift contractor to maintain the lifts, but you have not a lot of oversight over the performance regime that is in place for the lift contractor. How exactly does the lift contractor go about doing his job? So, BCA is also looking at a performance-based regime for lift contractors to maintain the lifts well.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the chair again at 3.30 pm.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.00 pm until 3.30 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Budget Statement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017.\"
Last year, we celebrated all that we achieved together in our first 50 years. This year, we start our journey for the next 50 years. Our first 50 years tell an extraordinary story of diverse people overcoming great odds together.
Our Pioneers had no textbook for success. Every move – whether it was a Government policy, a company's investment or a household's family decision – was uncharted. Through sheer grit, our Pioneers braved the odds, brought up families and built a home and a nation.
On 13 December 1965, Mr Lim Kim San presented the first Budget of the independent Republic of Singapore. This was the world on that day. The major concerns then were: Konfrontasi, the Communist threat and the Vietnam War.
Few in the world paid attention to little Singapore. Against this backdrop, our Pioneers debated how to make a living, by making our place in this region and in the world.
In that first Budget, Mr Lim said: \"Whilst Independence has… given us greater freedom of action… we also acquire new responsibilities and new dimensions are added to our problems.\"
Our Pioneers took on these new responsibilities and new dimensions seriously. Our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, made the rousing call that we must never fear; one day, we would be a modern metropolis. Singaporeans rallied to that call. Year by year, we made progress and successive generations built on what was achieved. So, we had much to celebrate in SG50.
Today, we are in a much better position than our Pioneers. But we also face new responsibilities, new challenges.
In 1965, we raced to teach \"123s\" and \"ABCs\" to our young, and to create factory jobs to soak up unemployment for a young population. Today, over 95% of our students progress beyond secondary school. Our challenge now is to take education beyond schools, to lifelong learning, and to grow the economy to create quality jobs.
In 1965, we were fighting childhood mortality with mass immunisation and distributing milk to under-nourished children. Today, the problem has flipped. Our challenge is to find new ways to care for our elderly, to manage chronic diseases and to tackle childhood obesity.
In 1965, we were faced with Konfrontasi and the Vietnam War, and were at risk of social discord stemming from a legacy of racial conflict and pro-communism. Today, we have to guard ourselves against a more complex and diverse array of threats, from conventional threats to terrorism and cyber warfare.
Mr Lim Kim San's words 50 years ago resonate to this day. We face a new world that brings its own freedoms and responsibilities, its own challenges. Our mission remains unchanged – it is to find the ways to create opportunities for Singaporeans to grow and defend our home and our people. Taking inspiration from our Pioneers, we must plan ahead, stay united, be creative and build our future together.
This is the context in which President Tony Tan set out five key aims for this term of Government: (a) renewing our economy; (b) fostering a more caring society; (c) transforming our urban landscape; (d) keeping Singapore safe and secure; (e) engaging and partnering Singaporeans in nation-building.
To achieve these goals, we must grow our economy and invest collectively for the long term – in our people, our home, our security.
To grow our economy, we will invest in building stronger enterprises and nurturing innovative industries.
For our people, we will invest in education and health. Our spending on education in FY2016 is expected to be $12.8 billion, almost double what it was 10 years ago1. We must continue investing in our people through education and SkillsFuture. Compared to a decade ago, our healthcare spending has increased almost six-fold to $11 billion2. This will rise further. One in eight Singaporeans is aged 65 and above currently. This will rise to one in six by 2020, and one in four by 2030.
For our home, we must invest for better liveability and connectivity. This year, our transport spending is expected to hit $10.1 billion – more than five times what we spent a decade ago3. At the same time, we are embarking on new infrastructure of unprecedented scale, such as Changi Airport Terminal 5.
For our security, we will also have to invest more in intelligence, operational capabilities, technology and systems to keep our home safe and secure.
All these translate into higher spending needs. Our expenditures have grown to almost two-and-a-half times what they were 10 years ago. We were able to fund these increased investments because we had planned ahead and remained prudent. Growth had also been fairly strong, as our gross domestic product (GDP) almost doubled over the last decade.
In this term, we are starting from a position of strength. We have anticipated our needs and made provisions in the last term. We have no natural resources, no oil wells, but we benefit significantly from the returns of the Reserves accumulated by our forefathers through hard work and thrift. We must continue to strike a careful balance between what we spend today and what we save for future generations.
In the longer term, to meet Singapore's many needs, especially in healthcare, our expenditures will grow. But GDP growth will slow as our economy and workforce mature. We will find ourselves in a tighter fiscal position.
We must plan ahead. We must grow our capabilities in order to grow our economy and create good jobs for our people. We must remain prudent in our expenditures and ensure every additional dollar spent is spent responsibly. We must encourage every Singaporean to contribute towards caring for our fellow citizens and building for the future.
Much work lies ahead. I am confident that if we have the will, we will find the way.
Core for us to succeed is the spirit of partnership, where Singaporeans work together in new ways to transform our economy and strengthen our society.
We have inherited a strong spirit of togetherness from our kampung days. Over the years, it has taken on new forms and new vitality, from the shared values of Our Singapore Conversation, to the ground-up active citizenry of SG50, to the collective commitment in \"The Future of Us and SGfuture\".
Going forward, this partnership that is at the heart of the Singapore spirit will become even more critical for tackling big challenges together. Everyone has a role and, together, we are weaving a rich tapestry – each thread a different colour and texture, but woven together to give strength and resilience to our economy and our society.
We must come together as partners to transform our economy through enterprise and deeper innovation. The global economy is becoming more interconnected, more diverse and complex. Change is accelerating, with rapid advances in knowledge and technology. Yet, the potential for collaboration has never been greater. We must work together to muster our resources, to innovate, scale up and internationalise. Our economic transformation will draw on the strengths of individual schemes, businesses, unions and trade associations, but bring everyone together in a more tightly-woven tapestry to meet the specific needs of our industries.
Likewise, we must deepen partnerships to build a caring and resilient society. Over the last decade, the Government has stepped up social support significantly. But we must continue to build both individual and collective responsibility, for it is together that they make for a stronger society. In our next phase, we will strengthen partnerships with community groups to build a rich tapestry of caring communities in all our neighbourhoods, with multiple layers of support, drawing on different threads of care and kindness, but integrated coherently.
Leading up to this Budget, we received thousands of suggestions and feedback. So, let me thank all who have contributed.
Budget 2016 is the beginning of a journey towards SG100. With the spirit of partnership, we will transform our economy through enterprise and innovation and build a caring and resilient society.
Let me first speak about the economy. Over the past five years, our economic restructuring journey has focused on raising productivity to achieve quality growth: (a) we tightened the inflow of foreign workers; (b) we invested significantly in broad-based measures, such as the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC); and (c) we introduced the Transition Support Package4 to help firms adjust to economic restructuring and rising business costs.
Progress has been promising. More firms are engaging in productivity efforts. For instance, a survey has shown that around nine in 10 of our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) embarked on productivity initiatives5 in 2015. The net inflow of foreign workers has slowed significantly from nearly 80,000 in 2011 to less than 23,000 in 20156. With a tighter labour market, we managed to sustain real median income growth for Singaporeans at an average of 2.9%7 per year over 2009 to 2015.
Productivity growth has not been as strong as we would like. While productivity has grown by an average of 2.7% per year over 2009 to 20158, most of this increase was due to a cyclical rebound in 2010 and 2011. Productivity growth has remained relatively flat over the past three years9. We must keep working on this.
In 2015, the economy grew by 2%. The performance across sectors was varied: wholesale and retail trade, and finance and insurance did well, while manufacturing – in particular, the marine and offshore segment – declined, as can be seen in the chart above.
I am aware that current business conditions are difficult and uncertain. Many of our firms are facing weaker top-line growth, rising manpower costs and tighter financing. Workers are anxious as retrenchment has increased, including among professionals.
In the coming year, given our economy's heavy dependence on external demand, the weaknesses in the global economy will pose strong headwinds.
The pace of global economic recovery is uneven, with the United States (US) being the most advanced, while Europe and Japan will only see modest growth aided by monetary stimulus. Closer to home, China is going through a transition towards a more sustainable growth path. It is a complex transition and any short-term setbacks may create volatility in the financial markets.
We, therefore, expect externally-oriented sectors such as manufacturing to continue to face subdued demand. The extended downturn in oil and other commodity prices is affecting commodity-related activities, particularly the marine and offshore sector. Weak global demand in electronics will spill over to related sectors, such as precision engineering.
But while overall growth is subdued, our business landscape is varied. There are pockets of growth and resilience. Even within manufacturing, the medtech and chemicals segments are growing. Exports of services, including tourism, financial services, information and communications technology (ICT) and consultancy, are benefiting from regional demand. Domestic-oriented sectors, such as retail, healthcare and education, have been, and should remain, stable. Construction, too, will be supported by a large expansion in public infrastructure and housing projects, even as private residential demand has ebbed.
Within sectors, prospects vary across firms. Some are becoming more competitive and gaining market share, while others are seeking to relocate to cheaper locations.
Similarly, prospects in the labour market are mixed. Overall, redundancies increased in 2015 as global demand slowed and restructuring continued. Some of those made redundant took longer to find jobs. At the same time, however, unemployment remained low at 1.9%. While some sectors, such as the offshore and marine and manufacturing, are retrenching staff, others, such as healthcare, education and ICT, are hiring.
In summary, while we face weaker prospects overall, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) expects GDP to grow at 1% to 3% for the year, not very different from the 2% in 201510. So, while conditions are difficult, we should not be overly pessimistic.
Even as we tackle immediate cyclical weaknesses, we must be alert to major structural changes abroad and at home.
Major economies are continuing to restructure and will alter the global competitive landscape in the process. China is rebalancing towards consumption and services-led growth and developing innovation-intensive industries. India is building on its strengths in ICT and seeking to attract manufacturing investments. These ongoing changes are rapidly changing the patterns of trade and specialisation in Asia.
Technological changes, especially in robotics, automation, artificial intelligence and ICT, are disrupting business models across all sectors. Some call the coming changes \"Industrial Revolution 4.0.\"
At home, manpower growth is slowing and our population is ageing. Real wage increases over the past few years have benefited workers and households. But unless productivity improves in tandem, we will be less competitive and both businesses and workers will be worse off.
All these changes pose intense challenges for our businesses, which will have to succeed in a more competitive environment while contending with tighter labour constraints. The need to restructure is both urgent and critical.
While there are challenges, there are also growing opportunities. We are in the centre of the Asian growth story: China, India and ASEAN are expected to grow at 6.3%11 per year over the next five years, accounting for more than half of global growth12. The ASEAN Economic Community, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and China's One Belt One Road initiative will open up new opportunities.
We are well-placed to benefit from technological changes – our investments in education, R&D and digital infrastructure will enable us to seize new opportunities.
We also started restructuring early and our firms, including SMEs, are embarking on change. Our people are valued for their integrity, adaptability and their multi-cultural sensitivity. Singapore is regarded as a highly-connected, trusted node.
In summary, we face near-term cyclical weaknesses, which affect various sectors in different degrees, as well as medium-term structural challenges. But we are well-positioned to manage these challenges.
Budget 2016 has three key thrusts to address the challenges in our economy.
First, to address cyclical weaknesses, we will adopt an expansionary fiscal stance to provide some counter. Taking into account the higher expenditures and additional measures introduced in this Budget, our projection is that this will amount to a positive fiscal impulse of slightly over 1% of GDP. This, together with relief measures targeted at SMEs, will provide support in the near term.
Second, as increased spending alone cannot address structural issues, we will target resources towards enabling firms to build deeper capabilities, develop their people, scale up and internationalise. We will launch the Industry Transformation Programme to strengthen enterprises and industry and to drive growth through innovation. The aim is to enable our firms to emerge stronger to benefit from the broader global recovery when it takes place.
Third, we will support our people through change, by enabling them to learn new skills, especially in new, fast-growing sectors, and in facilitating employment and job-matching.
To tackle medium- to long-term issues, we have convened the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE). Though CFE has just begun work, the inputs have been valuable for the measures in this Budget and, as the deliberations continue, we will update our plans.
Let me speak now on the support we are providing to address immediate concerns while encouraging restructuring.
The first source of support for firms comes from existing measures and public spending, including public infrastructure projects. This year, total spending is expected to be $5 billion, or 7.3% higher than in FY2015. The increases are mainly in healthcare, education, security and urban development.
The Transition Support Package that was introduced in financial year (FY) 2013 will also continue to support our firms in raising productivity. In particular, this month, firms will receive a total of $1.9 billion for qualifying wage increases given under the Wage Credit Scheme13, the largest payout to date.
In addition, public sector demand for construction projects is expected to increase significantly in 2016, helping to mitigate a decline in private sector construction demand. This includes more than $2.5 billion of public sector contracts for smaller projects14, which will benefit smaller construction firms.
Second, to help companies, especially SMEs, I will raise the existing Corporate Income Tax (CIT) Rebate, from 30% of tax payable to 50% of tax payable, with a cap of $20,000 rebate each year for Year of Assessments (YAs) 2016 and 2017. The last time we had a 50% rebate was in YA 200115.
The higher percentage rebate is targeted at SMEs.
The increased support is expected to cost an additional $180 million over two years, bringing the total support to companies under the CIT rebate to close to $1 billion over two years.
Our third measure to support companies is the Special Employment Credit (SEC). SEC is due to expire this year. I will modify and extend SEC for three years, to the end of 2019, to provide employers with a wage offset for workers aged 55 and above and earning up to $4,000 a month16.
Employers with Singaporean workers aged 65 and above will continue to receive a wage offset of up to 8%. This is in addition to the wage offset of 3% for the re-employment of workers aged 65 and above till the re-employment age is raised in 2017.
The SEC will be up to 5% for workers aged 60 to 64 and up to 3% for those aged 55 to 59.
The SEC will cover about 340,000 workers, or about three in four older Singaporean workers. To support this extension, I will top up the SEC Fund by $1.1 billion [Please refer to Annex A-1.]
The fourth measure will support viable SMEs that may have cash flow concerns or wish to continue growing their business. We will introduce an SME Working Capital Loan scheme, for loans of up to $300,000 per SME. Under this scheme, the Government will co-share 50% of the default risk of such loans with participating financial institutions to encourage lending to our SMEs.
The SME Working Capital Loan will be available for three years. This could catalyse more than $2 billion of loans over this period. [Please refer to Annex A-2.]
Fifth, we will help our heartland shops to be more vibrant, as these shops give our neighbourhoods a sense of community. The Ministry of National Development (MND) will enhance the Revitalisation of Shops package to better support promotional activities and upgrading projects in the Housing and Development Board (HDB) town centres and neighbourhood centres.
The Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) will also work with the Federation of Merchants' Associations and local merchant associations to strengthen their capabilities to support heartland businesses.
This enhanced initiative is expected to cost about $15 million annually.
Finally, in view of the challenging business conditions in the Marine and Process sectors and the reduction in the number of Work Permit holders in these sectors, we will defer levy increases for Work Permit holders in these sectors for one year. Manufacturing Work Permit levies will remain unchanged for another year, as announced at Budget 2015.
We will proceed with levy increases for Services and Construction Work Permit holders, as well as S Pass holders in every sector, as announced in Budget 2015. This is in view of the fact that the foreign workforce has continued to grow in these areas over the past year. Details are in the Annex. [Please refer to Annex A-3.]
Taken together, this calibrated set of measures is appropriate to address the near-term concerns of our firms, especially SMEs, while enabling restructuring. Some have asked for a repeat of the support measures we saw in 2009. But that was when the economy was already in deep recession and facing huge uncertainty. For now, while the outlook is soft, MTI expects positive growth in 2016. We must not let pessimism take hold, lest it creates self-fulfilling expectations. The Government will continue to monitor the situation and it stands ready to act if conditions warrant.
Some have also asked about the range of measures that we have introduced to stabilise the property market since 2010. These are intended to keep the market stable and sustainable. Based on the price level and current market conditions, our assessment is that it is premature to relax these measures. We will continue to monitor developments in the property market closely.
Even as we provide immediate relief and support amid the current cyclical slowdown, we must press on with economic transformation. The global economic landscape is changing and our challenges are pressing. We have a narrow window. We must find every opportunity to transform, to emerge stronger in the coming years.
In Budget 2016, we will launch a new Industry Transformation Programme to take us into the next phase of our development. This builds on our efforts under the Quality Growth Programme, which was introduced in Budget 2013 to achieve inclusive growth driven by innovation and higher productivity.
The Industry Transformation Programme will help firms and industries to create new value and drive growth in four ways.
First, it will involve integrating our different restructuring efforts. Our efforts to raise productivity, develop our people and drive research and innovation are working, but we can maximise the impact by pulling these together.
Second, we will take a more targeted and sector-focused approach to better meet the needs of firms in each sector.
Third, we will deepen partnerships among the Government, workers and the industry, and among industry players to identify challenges and develop solutions to support transformation.
And fourth, we will place a stronger emphasis on technology adoption and innovation.
The Food Manufacturing sector is a good example of how such an approach can work.
Individually, our Singapore food companies have put in place many innovations. Some, such as Tan Seng Kee, have used technology to develop a whole range of products which stay fresh for longer. This enabled Tan Seng Kee to be the first company in Singapore to export fresh noodles that can be easily prepared with its special sauce mixes in flavours, such as laksa and curry mee. Others, such as Foodgnostic, have transformed their business models to enhance business growth through internationalisation and food exports.
As an industry, our food manufacturers built on their innovations and Singapore's trusted reputation for high quality and safe food to jointly create the \"Tasty Singapore\" brand. Using this brand, they are internationalising and selling to China, India, the Middle East and even Africa. They are now expanding through e-commerce, using websites, such as Tmall.com.
The food industry integrated their efforts. The combined novelty and quality of their individual products allowed them to stand out as a group. The sharing of common facilities gave them economies of scale. And building the Singapore brand together won them global recognition. In turn, their success creates a virtuous cycle of investments.
Our food industry has also been investing in their people. These include 280 management associates and interns they see as future leaders.
There have been strong partnerships across firms, as well as among firms and the Singapore Food Manufacturing Association (SFMA), the Food Innovation Resource Centre in Singapore Polytechnic17 and various Government agencies18.
As a result, what once appeared to be a sunset industry – because of low margins and high labour cost – is now a thriving sector. Value-add per worker has grown considerably from 2010 to 2014.
The Food Manufacturing sector shows the importance of mindset. As one of the industry's leaders told me: \"There is no such thing as a sunset industry, only sunset thinking!\"
It shows that transformation comes not only from individual firms but the industry as a whole working together. This year, we will set out three key thrusts under the Industry Transformation Programme.
First, we will support the transformation of enterprises, to build deep capabilities, deploy technology, develop scale and internationalise.
Second, we will support the transformation of industries at the industry level, to adopt technology and innovate faster, come up with common industry solutions to common problems, seek new markets overseas and deepen industry partnerships.
Third, we will drive transformation through innovation.
Let me start with transforming enterprises. Enterprises are the building blocks of our economy. Vibrant enterprises that change and transform with the times create growth and buzz in the economy.
Take the example of Xin Ming Hua Private Limited. Started as a small machinery and repair shop in 1955, it is now one of the largest distributors of engines and power systems in Asia. It has been active in innovating and building up in-house design and manufacturing capabilities; adopting automation to achieve productivity gains of up to 75% with the help of Republic Polytechnic19; and internationalising and scaling up its operations to serve customers better.
To support many more firms to transform successfully, we will introduce several measures in this Budget.
Today, we have a wide range of schemes administered by various Government agencies to help enterprises20 of different sizes across industries.
To help SMEs access these schemes, we established SME Centres and stepped up our outreach efforts.
Still, many firms found the range of incentive schemes and agencies confusing. Indeed, it is an alphabet soup, as shown on this slide: it is scheme-centric, not enterprise-centric.
To be more enterprise-centric, we will launch the Business Grants Portal in the fourth quarter of this year. This portal will be organised along the core business needs of capability building, training and international expansion. Firms will not need to go from agency to agency to figure out which schemes apply to them.
The portal will also pre-populate details that are available in the ACRA database. The Business Grants Portal will start with grants from IE Singapore, SPRING, Singapore Tourism Board (STB) and Design Singapore and progressively include grants from other Government agencies.
We will also continue to review and simplify the various support schemes to improve access and strengthen assistance for enterprises at various stages of growth.
To support companies to automate, drive productivity and scale up, we will offer a new Automation Support Package for an initial period of three years. Currently, there is no support for the scaling up of automation projects. As these involve significant financial outlays, some companies find it difficult to commit. The new Automation Support Package from SPRING will comprise four components.
First, we will provide a grant to support the roll-out or scaling up of automation projects. We will fund these projects up to 50% of project cost, with a maximum grant of $1 million.
Second, for qualifying projects, there will be a new 100% Investment Allowance for automation equipment.
Third, we will improve SMEs' access to loans for qualifying projects. To do so, the Government will enhance our risk-share with participating financial institutions from 50% to 70% for such projects.
Fourth, as such large-scale automation projects enable firms to scale and internationalise, IE Singapore will work closely together with SPRING in relevant cases to help these businesses to access overseas markets.
This comprehensive package offered by the Automation Support Package will be useful to firms seeking to grow.
We anticipate that the Automation Support Package will provide support of over $400 million over the next three years. Details are in the Annex. [Please refer to Annex A-2.]
The third set of measures to transform enterprises is to support scaling up. I will expand the SME Mezzanine Growth Fund from the current fund size of $100 million to a total fund size of up to $150 million. We will do so by matching up to $25 million of new private sector investment on a one-to-one basis. This will provide more capital to support our SMEs to scale up and internationalise21. [Please refer to Annex A-2.]
To support more mergers and acquisitions (M&As), I will grant the M&A allowance of up to $40 million of the value of the deal, instead of the current cap of $20 million. With the enhancement of the M&A allowance to 25% of the value of the deal as announced in Budget 2015, companies can now enjoy up to $10 million of M&A tax allowances per Year of Assessment.
To provide upfront certainty to companies for their corporate restructuring, I will extend the non-taxation of companies' gains on disposal of their equity investments, based on existing scheme parameters, until 31 May 2022. More details on these tax incentives can be found in the Annex. [Please refer to Annex A-4.]
Our firms, especially SMEs, are eager to seek new markets and new growth opportunities overseas. In the coming years, IE Singapore will support more firms in their internationalisation efforts. In 2015, IE supported 34,000 companies in their internationalisation efforts, a 21% increase over 2014. In 2016, IE expects to help around 35,000 to 40,000 companies of all sizes to venture overseas22.
In addition, I will extend the Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation scheme until 31 March 2020. This covers qualifying expenses incurred for activities, such as participation in overseas business development and investment study trips.
I have outlined the four sets of measures to help individual enterprises transform. They will find it easier to transform if their entire industry also undertakes transformation. By doing it together, firms achieve scale, drive down cost, incentivise service providers to step forward and expand mindshare.
The second thrust of our Industry Transformation Programme is thus to support industry-level transformation.
For example, robots can handle metal fabrication processes more efficiently, from steel cutting to welding to machine tending. But these may be too expensive or complicated for many SMEs. Recently, a number of solution providers, including Lincoln Electric, came forward to design and deliver more affordable, modular systems for SMEs. Over 1,000 SMEs could benefit, if this is scaled up across the manufacturing sector.
Industry-level transformation works best if firms partner one another, or if industry associations lead the effort, because they know their needs best. Government agencies can support by initialising lead demand or through regulatory changes. We need to form close partnerships among firms, industry associations and the Government to drive industry-level transformation.
Let me highlight some specific measures.
First, we will develop a National Trade Platform (NTP) as the next-generation platform to support firms, particularly in the logistics and trade finance sectors. This will eventually replace our current TradeNet and TradeXchange systems.
As a one-stop trade information management system, the NTP will enable electronic data sharing among businesses and the Government. Firms only have to provide trade information once and authorise its use by logistics providers as well as business partners. The information can also be used for Customs and other trade regulatory approvals. This will be especially helpful for SMEs to cut costs and streamline processes.
NTP is not just an IT system. We will develop it as an open innovation platform, so that other service providers can develop value-added services and apps in areas, such as operations, visibility and trade finance.
NTP is expected to cost more than $100 million to develop. It has the potential to bring over $600 million worth of man-hour savings each year for our firms.
A second way to drive industry-level transformation is to develop and deploy new technologies to solve problems that are relevant for the entire industry. Robotics is a case in point.
Robotics technology can enable us to work more effectively in a tight labour market. It can also create more high value-added jobs.
In our hospitals, robotic technology is used in the pharmacy to pick medication accurately and quickly. This frees up time for pharmacy staff to provide advice on medication. Autonomous transporters are used to move supplies efficiently in the hospital. Our hospitals are also trying power-assisted bed transport technologies to reduce the manual effort in moving patients. All these technologies can improve efficiency and transform the healthcare industry.
Apart from healthcare, robotics and automation technology can be applied widely to transform sectors, such as Construction, Manufacturing and Logistics. We announced the National Robotics Programme last year. We will now scale up our efforts and, in particular, work with solution providers to offer packaged solutions to SMEs at a reasonable cost.
I will make available over $450 million to support the National Robotics Programme over the next three years.
The third way to drive industry-level transformation is through our trade associations and chambers (TACs). TACs have intimate knowledge of the needs and potential of their specific sectors. They are well-placed to reach out to many firms, especially SMEs.
We will build on the existing Local Enterprise and Association Development (LEAD) programme to help our TACs strengthen their outreach through the new LEAD-Plus programme. This will provide wider funding support for TACs to attract talent, develop their capabilities and strengthen their processes and services.
To forge a closer partnership and enable public officers to better understand the needs of our firms, we will also second up to 20 public officers to interested TACs as part of the LEAD-Plus programme over the next five years. Various TACs have already expressed interest.
In addition, TACs can support firms to build capabilities and lead the development of industry-wide solutions for common challenges. So, common solutions for common problems. SPRING will partner TACs to drive 30 such projects over the next three years, to reach out to more than 3,000 SMEs.
We will set aside up to $30 million over the next five years to support TACs in developing their capabilities, with additional funding for industry-wide transformation projects23. I encourage TACs to step forward. Some have already expressed interest and SPRING will announce these soon.
I just spoke about how we can drive transformation at the industry-level by leveraging platform solutions and new technologies and increasing industry outreach through TACs. This builds on enterprise-level transformation and strengthens our economy.
Let me now speak about how firms and the industry as a whole must transform through innovation.
Innovation is critical to the Industry Transformation Programme. Many of the successful enterprise and industry-level transformations I described earlier have some elements of innovation in the form of new products or services, new processes, or new business or organisation models.
Innovation is enabled and enhanced by the use of technology, but innovation goes beyond that. It is fundamentally about new ways of doing things to meet the needs of people and industries better.
Innovation is the engine of value creation and growth. We must make innovation pervasive in our society. This is a long-term endeavour but let me outline some steps.
First, we will continue to deepen industry capabilities in innovation and research and development (R&D).
Of the commitment announced for the Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2020 Plan, up to $4 billion will be directed to industry-research collaboration. This represents a concerted shift towards innovation and enterprise, to capture the economic and social value of R&D.
Let me give an illustration. Procter and Gamble (P&G) has worked with the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) and Economic Development Board (EDB) to set up the Singapore Innovation Centre (SgIC). It is one of P&G's major innovation centres, focusing on research and product development for its global business units in Home Care, Healthcare, Grooming and Skin Care. The SgIC will be a key open innovation hub to accelerate and facilitate collaborations between P&G and partners in Asia, including Singapore enterprises.
To support the RIE 2020 effort, I will provide a top-up of $1.5 billion to the National Research Fund this year.
The ownership of intellectual property (IP) allows companies to realise the value of its efforts. To encourage companies to acquire IP, I will now allow businesses the flexibility to write down the cost of acquiring IP over different periods of five, 10 or 15 years, instead of the current five years only24.
A second way to transform through innovation is to promote startups in new and existing industries. We have been nurturing our startup ecosystem, including venture funding and support for accelerators and incubators25. The startup scene today is more vibrant, with growing funding support from venture and private equity funds.
To give these efforts a further boost, we will set up a new entity called \"SG-Innovate\". SG-Innovate will match budding entrepreneurs with mentors, introduce them to venture capital firms, help them to access talent in research institutes and open up new markets. SG-Innovate will build on what has been done by the Infocomm Investments Private Limited (IIPL), and work with SPRING and EDB to expand the accelerator programmes to new and emerging sectors, such as Smart Energy, Digital Manufacturing, Fintech, Digital Health and Internet-of-Things.
A third way to transform through innovation is to create an open and innovative urban environment. We will launch an exciting new development: the Jurong Innovation District. It will be the future of innovation for enterprise, learning and living.
Fifty years ago, we transformed Jurong from swampland into a thriving hub for the manufacturing industry that powered Singapore's economic growth. We will now make another leap to create the industrial park of the future.
Our earlier industrial estates were developed for specific industries, focused mostly on production. Today, however, learning, research, innovation and production are closely intertwined.
The Jurong Innovation District will create an environment to house these different activities within a single, next-generation industrial district. This has the potential to transform how we live, work, play, learn and create.
Let me show Members a video of what the Jurong Innovation District (JID) could look like when it is completed. [A video was shown to hon Members.]
Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) is currently constructing Launchpad @ JID, to serve as a space for entrepreneurs, researchers and students to design, prototype and test-bed their new innovations26.
JTC has also launched an Open Innovation Call to invite private sector technology owners to test-bed and develop innovative and sustainable infrastructure solutions within the District. In parallel, we will be building JID progressively, with the first phase targeted for completion around 2022.
Similarly, we are investing in infrastructure for the future, such as Changi Airport Terminal 5, to better connect us to the world and to test innovative solutions. This year, I will make a further $1 billion top-up to the Changi Airport Development Fund to support this effort.
Let me summarise. We are launching the Industry Transformation Programme to transform our enterprises, transform industries and transform through innovation. These three thrusts will take concerted partnership to realise. I have highlighted a few examples of how enterprises and entire industries can embark on this transformation journey, but these are just a beginning.
As a Government, we must adopt a more integrated approach to support transformation. Our agencies will work more closely together, integrating their different support schemes to take a more targeted approach to developing each industry. We will work closely with enterprises and, at the industry-level, to develop transformation maps for each sector. These will help us allocate the resources to develop each sector appropriately.
As a whole, I will set aside a total of $4.5 billion27 under the Industry Transformation Programme to support enterprises and industries, on top of the amounts for R&D and National Productivity Fund. This includes the next tranche of increased funding to SPRING, IE Singapore and EDB to support economic development, as well as new resources for measures announced in this Budget. These resources will support the sectors under the Industry Transformation Programme, as well as to cater for the growth of new industries over the next five years. The actual spending will depend on the take-up rates of the various schemes.
For example, we will make available over $300 million to the Food Manufacturing sector over the next five years. This includes support to firms and TACs, as well as initiatives, such as specialised industrial infrastructure.
We will take this more integrated and more targeted approach, in partnership with industry, across more than 20 sectors, covering around 80% of our GDP. The work with sectors, such as precision engineering and logistics, is at a more advanced stage. We will systemically develop transformation maps, sector-by-sector.
These maps will be \"live\" documents that we have to adjust as we navigate our way. We may not have all the answers today, but we must work together – our people, firms, unions and Government agencies – in a spirit of partnership and to keep experimenting and trying, in the spirit of enterprise and innovation.
As we move towards more targeted measures under the Industry Transformation Programme, I will continue the tapering of broad-based measures. PIC, currently, has two components: cash payout and tax deductions. In line with our move towards more targeted measures, I will lower the cash payout rate under PIC from the current 60% to 40% for expenditures incurred on or after 1 August 2016. The 400% tax deductions under the scheme remain unchanged. The PIC scheme, which has been extended for YA 2016 to YA 2018, will expire thereafter.
Even with the tapering of these broad-based measures, we will continue to provide significant support for firms to restructure in the coming years.
In addition to the Industry Transformation Programme, I will also extend and strengthen tax incentives to encourage higher industrial land productivity and to enhance activities in the areas of finance and treasury, global trading and maritime activities. The details of these changes are in the Annex. [Please refer to Annex A-4.]
This Budget sets the direction, taking into account feedback from businesses during the initial phase of the work of CFE. As CFE deliberates and consults more widely, we will adjust, but we must start to move in the new direction early.
Let me now go on to speak about how we will support our people to overcome challenges and seize opportunities.
As firms face weaknesses in cyclical demand and structural challenges, our people, too, will be directly affected. Some Singaporeans have been retrenched, while others are anxious about their future. Even where new jobs are being created, they wonder if they can keep up.
Indeed, as economic cycles shorten and changes occur faster, the pressure on our people to adapt will rise. People all over the world are facing this. I understand Singaporeans' anxieties and concerns and we must give every support to our people.
One major way is for our firms to restructure, so that our workers have better prospects. This chart shows that across selected industries28, firms with higher productivity tend to pay higher wages.
It is important for our firms to raise productivity, or else our workers would remain in low value-added jobs with weak prospects. We must aim for a virtuous cycle of higher skills, higher productivity and higher wages. The Industry Transformation Programme I outlined earlier will be a major effort to achieve this.
Even in new sectors that are growing, such as ICT, new skills are constantly needed as technologies change rapidly. Today, with the exponential growth of social and mobile offerings by businesses, employers are looking for software engineers with skills in User Interface and Design, Android/iOS development, Application Programming Interfaces on top of the commonly used programming languages like Python, C++ and Java.
In short, like firms, our people, too, are facing cyclical and structural changes. I appreciate that it is not easy for those who are retrenched to learn new skills and find new jobs. But if we remain adaptable, learn, unlearn and relearn quickly, we can stay relevant and seek new careers.
With the robust attitude of Singaporeans towards changes, and our willingness to learn, we are better-placed than many others elsewhere to cope with change. We must retain our confidence.
Our people are increasingly better-educated and we are investing significantly in life-long learning and skills development under SkillsFuture.
Our polytechnics and universities have responded to the changing job market. For instance, our polytechnics now offer new courses, such as cybersecurity and digital forensics. The Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) also now trains food technologists29.
Dealing with change will be a long-term endeavour and for this Budget, the Government will, together with employers and unions, support our people in three ways.
First, through SkillsFuture, we will support our people to keep learning new skills. Second, we will help those who have been laid off to find new work and build a new career. Third, we will pilot new approaches to job matching and training, to enable more people to seize new opportunities in growth sectors.
Let me talk about SkillsFuture. SkillsFuture is our long-term game plan. Since we launched SkillsFuture in November 2014, we have put in place many initiatives. These will enable our people to identify and pursue their interests at every stage of life and to broaden and deepen their skills with better education and training.
For example, we have announced SkillsFuture Earn and Learn Programmes in 12 sectors. Since January, Singaporeans have also started using the SkillsFuture Credit to learn new skills.
The SkillsFuture Study Awards, which support individuals to develop specialist skills, is taking off nicely. Since October last year, the response has been good and we have rolled out the study awards covering 12 areas of specialisation.
Take, for example, Ms Yap Chui Hoon, who will be using the SkillsFuture Study Award to deepen her skills as a social worker. She has been a lifelong learner. After graduating with an ITE certificate, she worked for more than 10 years. She learnt on the job with the help of multiple part-time courses, including diplomas in social service and disability studies. I am happy to say that she is now embarking on a degree programme in social work to better support her clients with special needs at the APSN Centre for Adults.
We are off to a good start and must continue to expand and deepen SkillsFuture.
To support our people amidst softening economic conditions and ongoing restructuring, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will enhance employment support through the \"Adapt and Grow\" initiative. This will help our people adapt to changing job demands and grow their skills.
For workers who may face greater difficulty in finding jobs, we will expand our wage support schemes to encourage firms to hire them. This will benefit more workers who may be affected by retrenchments or business restructuring.
For mid-career jobseekers, including retrenched professionals, we will step up professional conversion programmes. New programmes will be launched in sectors, such as Design and ICT. We will also enhance efforts to help match them in jobs with SMEs.
We expect to more than double the current outreach for professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) from 2,000 to over 4,000. MOM will commit an additional $35 million a year from the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund and Skills Development Fund to support these initiatives.
The final thrust of our efforts is to support our people to acquire new skills and match them to new opportunities in growing sectors.
We will start with the ICT sector. The demand for ICT professionals is growing because it can enable many new businesses as well as disrupt existing ones. To drive our Smart Nation effort, we will need many more of our own experts, in a wide variety of skills – programmers and coders, cybersecurity specialists, user experience designers. The current shortage is driving up pay. The average starting pay of fresh computer engineering graduates increased by over 14% last year to around $4,000 for fresh graduates. The Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) estimates that we will have about 30,000 new positions by 2020.
To enable our people to learn new ICT skills quickly, we will set up the TechSkills Accelerator, a new skills development and job placement hub for the ICT sector. Major IT employers and associations, including the Singapore infocomm Technology Federation (SiTF), Singapore Computer Society (SCS) and IT Management Association (ITMA), will partner IDA in this effort.
TechSkills Accelerator will pioneer a new way of enabling our people to acquire expertise and skills, so as to engage in the fast-growing ICT sector. It will: (a) identify specific skills in demand and work with specialised training providers to meet these complex demands in startups and in sectors, such as finance and healthcare; (b) develop industry-recognised skills standards and certification. This will guide ICT professionals to acquire industry-relevant skills and help employers assess the skills proficiency of their employees; (c) work with anchor employers to commit to hiring and paying based on certified skills proficiency rather than academic qualifications alone. Several employers have agreed to come on board, including the Government Technology Agency.
TechSkills Accelerator will pioneer new ways of enabling Singaporeans to be at the frontiers of learning and knowledge to seize opportunities in new growth areas. We will expand these efforts to more sectors in the coming years.
As announced at Budget 2015, we estimate that our spending on SkillsFuture and related initiatives will average over $1 billion per year till 2020.
The Ministers for Communications and Information, Education, Manpower, National Development and Trade and Industry will elaborate on the various measures that I have spoken about at the Committee of Supply (COS).
Through all these measures, Budget 2016 seeks a new way to transform our economy through enterprise and innovation, with stronger partnerships among stakeholders to support our people to manage change.
Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to distribute materials to the Members in this House?
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I have spent some time on how we will transform our economy through enterprise and innovation. We seek to transform our economy so that we continue to have the resources and opportunities for our home to be safe, and for our people to find fulfilment. Together with a strong economy, we need to build a caring and resilient society.
We want a Singapore which is a great place to raise a family and where we bring out the best in every Singaporean; a society that takes care of those who have special needs, who are less well-off or who have fallen on hard times; a society where our seniors age with energy and dignity.
Over the last decade, the Government has invested more in our schools and preschools. We have done more for families with children, through measures like the Baby Bonus and additional leave for parents. We have strengthened the four pillars of our social security system: home ownership, healthcare assurance, Central Provident Fund (CPF) and Workfare. We have also enhanced ComCare and made help more accessible through the Social Service Offices.
This Budget builds on what we have done and looks at new ways to build a caring and resilient society. We will forge a deeper partnership among individuals, the community and the Government, catalyse ground-up initiatives to build caring and cohesive neighbourhoods and pilot new ways to reach out to our seniors.
I will, first, speak about the measures for our young – First Step, KidSTART and Fresh Start.
We will introduce a new Child Development Account (CDA) First Step grant for all Singaporean children. Parents will automatically receive $3,000 in their child's CDA, which they can use for their children's healthcare and childcare needs. This will apply to eligible babies born from today. I am told that, on average last year, we had 93 babies born every day. So, congratulations to the 93 babies born today.
Parents who save more will continue to receive dollar-for-dollar matching from the Government, up to the co-savings cap. For example, if they put $3,000 into their first or second child's CDA, they will receive an additional $3,000 in matching grants, bringing the total Government CDA grant to $6,000, for a total of $9,000 in the account.
Similarly, parents with more children will receive the CDA First Step grant. They can receive higher matching grants, as shown in the table [Please refer to Table 2 below].
We will also double the MediSave withdrawal limit for pre-delivery medical expenses, from $450 to $900, with immediate effect. Details are in the Annex [Please refer to Annex B-1.] The Senior Minister of State in charge of the National Population and Talent Division will elaborate on further measures to make Singapore a great place for families at COS.
Next, we will pilot a new initiative, called KidSTART, for children in their first six years. There is extensive research which shows that experiences in the early years of a child's life significantly influence his or her physical, cognitive and social development.
We have been enhancing development programmes through our pre-schools and primary schools. However, there is a small group of parents who may need more support to give their children a good start in life.
KidSTART will draw together Government and community resources, to help these children receive appropriate learning, developmental and health support. We will develop approaches that work best in the Singapore context.
About 1,000 children are expected to benefit. This pilot is expected to cost more than $20 million. The Minister for Social and Family Development will elaborate on this at COS.
We will also do more to help families with children in rental housing. The Prime Minister mentioned the Fresh Start Housing Scheme at last year's National Day Rally. There are some families who previously bought a flat, but sold it, and are now living in public rental flats. These families are not eligible for housing grants for first-timers, as they had received a housing subsidy before. For those who are determined to work hard to own a home again, we want to give them a fresh start.
The Fresh Start Housing Scheme will provide a grant of up to $35,000 to help such families with young children to own a 2-room flat, with a shorter lease, which will be more affordable for them. Families will need to demonstrate effort, for example, by staying employed and making sure their children attend school.
The Minister for National Development will provide more details at COS.
To thrive, our young people need a sense of adventure, resilience and be ready to challenge themselves to be their best. To help our students develop these attributes, we will expand outdoor adventure education for all students, through a new National Outdoor Adventure Education Masterplan. As part of this effort, we will build a new Outward Bound Singapore (OBS) campus on Coney Island.
Many more youths will have the chance to go for an expedition with OBS. These activities will help them build confidence and develop camaraderie with students across different schools. This is a very exciting project.
The OBS campus on Coney Island is expected to be ready around 2020 and cost about $250 million. Just like the OBS campus on Pulau Ubin, it will be rustic and blend in with the rest of the island. Coney Island remains open for everyone to enjoy. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) and Ministry of Education (MOE) will provide more details later.
For our children and youths, we concentrate on providing them opportunities through education. For adults, we focus on opportunities through work – through which we learn and contribute and derive personal pride and dignity. There are three groups who may need more support in the workforce: seniors, low-wage workers and persons with disabilities. We can do more together to help them.
I spoke earlier about the extension of the SEC, to encourage employers to hire seniors. I will now speak about helping our low-wage workers and persons with disabilities.
The Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme has encouraged workers who are 35 years old and above to join the workforce, by supplementing their income and CPF savings. They can also upgrade their skills through the Workfare Training Support scheme and SkillsFuture.
We will further improve WIS for work done from January 2017.
First, we will raise the qualifying income ceiling from the current average wage of $1,900 a month, to $2,000 a month. WIS will continue to help the bottom 20% of workers, with some support also provided to those in the 30th income percentile. In total, we expect WIS to benefit about 460,000 Singaporeans.
Next, we will increase WIS payouts. Eligible workers will receive higher payouts. Payouts will vary, depending on their age and income. For example, workers earning $1,000 to $1,600 a month29 will receive increases in payouts of $100 to $500 per year. Workers will continue to receive 40% of WIS in cash and 60% in CPF.
To illustrate, an older worker aged 55 earning $1,200 a month will now get a total of $2,900 a year from WIS, with about $1,200 in cash and $1,700 in CPF a year. He will then have $3,500 more in his CPF account at age 65.
We will also simplify the qualifying criteria for WIS. Today, to receive WIS, one has to work two out of three consecutive months, or three out of six consecutive months, or six out of 12 months in a year. We will now pay WIS for every month worked.
By simplifying the qualifying criteria, workers can also look forward to receiving WIS payments more quickly – monthly rather than quarterly.
With these enhancements to WIS, the total budget will be about $770 million a year. [Please refer to Annex B-2.]
Many persons with disabilities also want the opportunity to contribute through work. We should support them. Today, those who meet the WIS eligibility criteria receive WIS, even if they are under 35 years old. They will benefit from the WIS enhancements I spoke about earlier.
Employers who hire persons with disabilities who earn up to $4,000 a month will continue to receive the SEC. They get a credit of up to 16% of the employee's wages, twice as large as the SEC for older workers.
Currently, only low-wage workers 35 years old and above are eligible for the Workfare Training Support scheme. We will now also enable persons with disabilities who earn low wages and are under 35 years old, to be eligible for the Workfare Training Support scheme, so that we can better support them in their learning.
The Public Service will play its part in expanding job opportunities for persons with disabilities, with support from SGEnable. The Minister for Social and Family Development will speak on the review of the national Enabling Masterplan at the COS.
There will be many more seniors amongst us in the coming years. The proportion of Singaporeans aged 65 and above will double from one in eight today, to one in four by 2030. How we adjust and turn this into a source of strength will shape our society. Together, we must, and will make Singapore a model for successful ageing and empower all to age with dignity and vitality.
In this Budget, we will increase retirement support for seniors who have lesser means. We will also build strong communities, to support active ageing and engagement in the community.
At Budget 2015, we spoke about the introduction of the Silver Support Scheme. It is a major new feature in our social security system. Some of our older Singaporeans have fewer resources in their retirement years than others, because they earned low wages even after working consistently throughout their lives, or because they stayed home to raise their families.
The aim of Silver Support is to support the bottom 20% of Singaporeans aged 65 and above, with a smaller degree of support extended to cover up to 30% of seniors. It can be a modest but meaningful supplement to their retirement incomes. It is not intended to substitute other sources of support, whether from their own savings or family support. Silver Support also complements other forms of assistance they may receive from existing schemes, whether it is Workfare, healthcare subsidies or the Goods and Services (GST) Voucher.
Silver Support is not only for the neediest of our seniors. For the truly needy, we have the safety net of Public Assistance (PA), which I will speak about shortly.
Over the past year or so, we have deliberated with care on the fairest way of identifying those who are the bottom 20% to 30% of our seniors. As no single criterion allows us to assess needs and operationalise the scheme effectively, we will use three criteria in combination – lifetime wages, housing type and the level of household support.
The first criterion, lifetime wages, is measured by the amount the individual has contributed into his CPF accounts in total30 by the age of 55. Seniors who have not more than $70,000 in total CPF contributions by age 55 will meet the first criterion. We do not look at CPF contributions after 55, to encourage older Singaporeans to continue working.
The second criterion is housing type. Silver Support will cover the seniors who live in and own a 4-room or smaller HDB flat31. Seniors who live in 5-room HDB flats, but do not own the flat, will also qualify if they meet the other criteria.
The third criterion is household support. Seniors in the bottom one-third of households where, on average, each member earns not more than $1,100 per month, can benefit from Silver Support.
Together, these three criteria allow us to make sure Silver Support goes to those who have lower incomes over their lifetimes and less retirement support.
Eligible seniors will receive between $300 and $750 every quarter, depending on their flat type [Please refer to Table 3 below.] The majority of seniors living in 1- and 2-room flats will receive Silver Support. About half of the seniors living in 3-room flats will also receive Silver Support.
To illustrate, take a retired couple living in a 3-room flat. Each had put less than $70,000 into their CPF accounts by the age of 55, perhaps because they were in low-wage jobs throughout their working lives. By all three counts, the couple qualify for Silver Support. The couple would receive $600 each in Silver Support payouts every three months, or $4,800 together over the whole year. This will not change or stop any other support they are receiving, such as the GST Voucher or healthcare subsidies through CHAS. For such couples, Silver Support can be very meaningful.
There may also be some seniors in lower-income households who qualify for Silver Support, but subsequently no longer need it, for example, because their children are able to provide stronger financial support. The converse may also happen, resulting in the senior needing more support. So, we will make an assessment annually to take into account changes in circumstances, to make sure we target Silver Support at those with lesser means.
We earlier announced that we would implement Silver Support around the first quarter of 2016. As this is a new and extensive scheme, we needed more time to operationalise it. We will make the first payout in July this year, and it will be a double payout for two quarters – the two quarters of April to June 2016, and July to September 2016. The next two payouts will be made in end-September and end-December. Each one is a payout for the coming quarter. In subsequent years, payouts will be made in March, June, September and December.
CPF Board will notify eligible seniors before the first payout is made. There is no need for seniors to apply; this will happen automatically.
Silver Support will benefit more than 140,000 seniors and will cost close to $320 million in the first year. The cost will likely increase over time as our population ages. [Please refer to Annex B-3.]
The majority of our seniors, even if they do not qualify for Silver Support, will continue to benefit from substantial existing support schemes. These include the GST Voucher, higher healthcare subsidies through MediShield Life premium subsidies and the Pioneer Generation Package, foreign domestic worker levy concessions, and ElderCare subsidies. Some could also choose to realise the value of the property they own, through renting it out, or making use of the enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme or the Silver Housing Bonus. This is on top of the support from children which many receive.
Let me now turn to successful ageing. We care about enabling our seniors to stay active and healthy, to stay meaningfully engaged.
I recently met Mrs Lucy Tan, who is the Cluster Director of PEACE-Connect. PEACE-Connect has been taking care of needy seniors in Kampong Glam for the last 20 years.
Lucy related to me how she has seen the social and medical needs of the seniors evolve over the years – they grew ever more complex, affecting more and more seniors. Lucy and her organisation had to evolve, too. She realised PEACE-Connect would have to work with more partners if they wanted to support seniors better. She has been developing partnerships with other organisations and, with the support of her Advisor, Ms Denise Phua, she has integrated these resources well. For instance, she works with Kampong Glam CC to provide subsidised meals daily to some residents in the area, and links seniors up with services that they need at Town Councils and Social Service Offices.
Lucy shows what is possible when we strengthen partnerships. To better support leaders like Lucy, we will pilot Community Networks for Seniors. These networks will comprise local stakeholders, such as voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), community volunteers, schools and businesses. At the core, the network will have a small team of full-time officers who will study the health and social needs of seniors and draw together stakeholders to provide coordinated support.
We hope to help seniors discover health conditions earlier and manage them well, while connecting those who are healthy and mobile to a wide range of activities to encourage seniors to stay active, healthy and engaged in the community.
Under this pilot, our Pioneer Generation Ambassadors will, through their outreach, encourage seniors to stay active and connect them to relevant support.
There will be a group of seniors who may require more help, such as frail elderly living alone, who have limited family support. These networks will provide more targeted and coordinated health and social support for them.
By integrating the resources and efforts of Government agencies, VWOs and local volunteers, these networks can make a big difference to support seniors to stay active and engaged. It will also be a new way of service delivery and a meaningful way to realise the Action Plan for Successful Ageing launched last year. We will pilot these Community Networks for Seniors in a few areas. If successful, this pilot can be scaled up later.
I have spoken about our care measures for the young, low-wage workers and those with disabilities and seniors. We will also provide additional support to households in general.
Those who are permanently unable to work and have little or no means of income and family support, currently receive free or highly-subsidised social services and free medical treatment in polyclinics and public hospitals.
In addition, they receive a basic monthly cash allowance through the Public Assistance scheme. Additional amounts are provided for families with children, and for needs, such as medical supplies and household appliances. Public Assistance recipients also often receive assistance in cash, food delivery and other vouchers from community-based agencies and grassroots volunteers.
We will raise the basic monthly cash allowance. For example, a two-person household, where both are on public assistance, will now receive an additional $80 a month, bringing the total amount of cash assistance per month to $870. The Minister for Social and Family Development will announce more details at COS.
To help Government pensioners who draw lower pensions, the Government will increase the Singapore Allowance and monthly pension ceiling by $20 per month – to $300 and $1,230 respectively. This will benefit about 10,000 pensioners.
To support households amid current economic conditions, we will provide a one-off GST Voucher – Cash Special Payment of up to $200 for eligible GST Voucher – Cash recipients. In total, eligible households can receive up to $500 in GSTV – Cash in 2016 [Please refer to Table 4 below.] If our recipients spend some of these in our neighbourhood shops, it will support our local businesses as well!
The one-off GSTV – Cash special payment will cost an additional $280 million in 2016 and benefit 1.4 million Singaporeans. [Please refer to Annex B-4.]
We will also provide one to three months of service and conservancy charges (S&CC) rebate: 1- and 2-room HDB households will receive a total of three months of rebates for this year, while 3- and 4-room households will receive two months of rebates [Please refer to Table 5 below.]
This will cost the Government $86 million and benefit about 840,000 HDB households. [Please refer to Annex B-4.]
We will also make a tax change. We currently have 15 personal income tax reliefs. We have enhanced many of these over the years. Each tax relief serves a worthy objective, such as to supplement retirement savings, encourage mothers to work after having children, or take up a course.
However, taken together, the tax reliefs may unduly reduce total taxable incomes for a small proportion of individuals.
I will introduce a cap on the total amount of personal income tax relief an individual can claim, at $80,000 per YA. At this threshold, 99% of tax-resident individuals will not be affected. Many can still continue to enjoy reliefs. For instance, among those currently claiming the Working Mother's Child Relief, nine out of 10 are expected to continue to claim it fully, without being affected by this cap.
This cap will make our personal income tax system more progressive. Nevertheless, our personal income tax burden remains low. Our personal income tax structure must allow us to continue to stay competitive.
The personal income tax relief cap will take effect from YA 2018 and is expected to raise an additional $100 million a year.
Let me now speak of what we will do to bring Singaporeans together to build a caring society.
Today, our schools have meaningful values-in-action programmes for our students to help others. At work, businesses are well-placed to run impactful programmes. We should give a boost to Corporate Social Responsibility and make it easier for employees to contribute through their workplaces. This Budget will support the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre's efforts to promote and build capacity for giving among corporates.
I have seen some inspiring examples. For instance, Samsui Supplies and Service, a food retailer, uses their kitchen facilities to prepare 2,000 free meals a day for the needy.
We must encourage more businesses to step forward.
This Budget will also catalyse more ground-up initiatives, to better tap on the creativity and energy of Singaporeans, many of whom want to give back. Such citizen-initiated efforts can drive community-based and neighbourhood-based initiatives. Let me speak about these.
Currently, we allow for 250% tax deduction for donations of cash, and qualifying in-kind donations, such as land and computers, to certain Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs). This has seen good results, with cash donations rising each year.
Many employees also want to volunteer and we hope businesses will support them. To do so, I will introduce a Business and IPC Partnership Scheme. From 1 July 2016 till the end of 2018, businesses that organise their employees to volunteer and provide services to IPCs, including secondments, will receive a 250% tax deduction on associated cost incurred, subject to the receiving IPC's agreement. This deduction will be subject to a yearly cap of $250,000 per business and $50,000 per IPC.
Community Chest (ComChest) plays a critical role in raising funds for about 80 VWOs across the entire social sector, including the Family Service Centres and special education schools. ComChest's monthly donation programme, SHARE, enables it to receive regular donations, through payroll deductions or GIRO. Some businesses have been active in supporting SHARE.
To give a boost to ComChest's good work, I will provide dollar-for-dollar matching for any additional donations through SHARE, over and above the FY2015 level. We will do this for three years, starting from April this year. Where businesses encourage their staff to donate regularly, we will allow part of the matching funds to be used by them to organise Corporate Social Responsibility activities. The Minister for Social and Family Development will elaborate at COS.
For SG50, we started the SG50 Celebration Fund. We had a very good response and supported close to 400 projects initiated by Singaporeans from different walks of life to celebrate our Jubilee year and to build a sense of community.
These are Ms Seema and Ms Harsha Dadlani, two Singaporean sisters who are passionate about writing and helping children learn. With support from the SG50 Celebration Fund, they wrote and published six children's books about Singapore, which were very well-received.
Also, I recently met Mr Dennis Quek and Mr Wilson Ang.
They organised a project to take 100 wheelchair users on a tour of Pulau Ubin, getting help from over 600 people to do so, including help from the Singapore Navy to ferry the participants on navy vessels. When I met them recently, I asked them why they did what they did. They told me they just wanted to share the parts of Singapore they love with fellow Singaporeans who may not be able to have the same experiences that they had. When I told them that it was kind of them to do so, they said they got a lot more out of the project than they put into it – in terms of learning, new friendships, appreciation for what can be achieved when many parts, many people come together for a common cause. They were amazed at how many people came forward to realise the power of partnership.
To support passionate citizens like Seema, Harsha, Dennis and Wilson, and many others like them who created a whole array of meaningful SG50 projects, we will set up a new fund called Our Singapore Fund. It is Our Singapore Fund because it is about how we can all come together in partnership to share our strengths and loves, create something more and better together, to build our Singapore together. The Fund will support projects that build the spirit of caring and resilience, nurture our can-do spirit and promote unity and our sense of being Singaporean.
The total fund size will be up to $25 million and it will be set up by the second half of 2016. The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth will elaborate at COS.
I hope that these three measures will catalyse efforts for a kinder and more caring society. The details of these measures are in the Annex. [Please refer to Annex B-5.]
I would like to share a story which shows how working together can make a big difference. This is Ms Norashidah binte Mohd Yassin, who is 39 years old this year. Three years ago, she was staying in interim rental housing with her two young children, without family support or income.
With the support of her Member of Parliament, Dr Maliki Osman, who coordinated the help from a welfare organisation, PAVE, grassroots volunteers and various Government agencies, she gradually got back on her feet. She first took on ironing of clothes for her neighbours, then baking, after getting a baking certificate. She later got a job as an administrative assistant and was soon promoted. Today, her children are well-adjusted and she is waiting for her flat.
Her story is inspiring not just because of her remarkable progress, but also because she is now reaching out to help others who are in the same situation that she used to be in, counselling them and teaching them baking skills.
This is the spirit of the society that we are building. It is one where we rise above our circumstances to build a better life for ourselves and our children. It is a society that cares for those in need and where those who are helped do their part to help others. It is a society that we are all proud to be a part of.
Mdm Speaker, let me now summarise our Budget position.
For FY2015, our Budget is expected to record a deficit of $4.9 billion or 1.2% of GDP. This is lower than the deficit of $6.7 billion or 1.7% of GDP we had budgeted a year ago. In FY2016, total spending is expected to be $5 billion or 7.3% higher than in FY2015. As we spend more, we must also spend right: to both provide immediate relief to businesses and support longer-term economic transformation; to both provide targeted support to those in need and invest in developing our people.
The rise in expenditure in FY2016 is supported by increases in both Operating Revenue and higher Net Investment Returns (NIR) Contributions. We are benefiting from an increase in Operating Revenue this year due to one-off factors which we do not expect to be sustained32. In addition, this year, Temasek will be added to our NIR framework and this will be a source of revenue for the long term.
As mentioned earlier, the longer-term picture will grow more challenging as we expect expenditure needs to grow faster than revenues. Even as we plan for rising expenditures, we must spend only when it is needed and where it best achieves our social and economic objectives. We will review the major expenditure items we expect ahead to ensure efficiency and effectiveness.
We expect an overall budget surplus of $3.4 billion or 0.8% of GDP in this first year of the term. Our budget position seeks to strike a balance between being prudent, given the continued rise in expenditures we expect in the years ahead and being accommodating to support enterprises in the current economic climate even as we continue our restructuring efforts. Should economic conditions turn, we stand ready to adjust and respond.
Mdm Speaker, let me conclude.
I started today by recalling the first Budget of the Independent Republic of Singapore.
Eight days after that first Budget was presented, our founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said that we must keep Singapore here a thousand years from now. And he said, \"That is your job and mine.\"
A thousand years from now. Singapore was only 135 days old when he said that. But he had that faith.
And, more importantly, an indomitable will: for it is your job and mine, he said, to make sure we survive. If Singapore is to have a future, we have to work hard at it – together.
It is poignant to recall these words one year and one day after Mr Lee's passing. He attended almost every Budget Day since 1959. Each of us has only so many years on this earth to do our best for one another and for our country. How do we make these years count? Together, we can make our time count. We can dream, plan and build for a thousand years. We must try.
Budget 2016 is the first step of the next lap in what we hope will be a long, successful journey.
For our economy, we will tackle immediate pressures head-on. We will also set our sights on the long term and position ourselves to stand out.
We will transform our economy through the Industry Transformation Programme, emphasising enterprise and innovation. This marks a new phase in our economic restructuring. Through targeted efforts and close partnerships, we must drive scale and create value. We will build resilience in workers, enterprises and industries so that they can weather changes and emerge stronger.
The Committee on the Future Economy will dive deep into what we must do to get our economy ready for the future.
And we will build a caring and resilient society. Silver Support is a major new step to help seniors with lesser means. The Community Networks for Seniors will forge a new way to care for our seniors. First Step, KidSTART, Fresh Start, OBS@Coney – these are our investments in our young.
We will find new ways of encouraging people and companies to come forward to help the vulnerable. We will find new ways of collaboration and social innovation.
Just like our Pioneers had no textbooks to show them how Singapore could thrive in its first 50 years, we have no instruction manual for our future. What we have are our shared values, our common vision, a sense of duty and the conviction that we are one people.
Together, we must harness the creativity and energy of every one of us to transform our economy and strengthen our society.
Together, we must be prepared to change. We cannot always know the future and we would not always have ready answers. But we must have the imagination to forge new paths, the courage to try new ways and the tenacity to persevere if we do not succeed on the first try.
As long as we stand by our values, keep faith with one another, think long term, dare to try and be open to change, we will move in the right direction.
When the new Cabinet was sworn in last year, the Prime Minister said, \"The Singapore Story belongs to all of us. If we have faith that Singapore will endure and thrive, and put our heart and soul into building Singapore, then we will prevail and secure our place in history.\"
That is your duty and mine. The Singapore Story belongs to all of us. There are many chapters yet to be written in that story. Let us put our heart and soul to write our story – together, in partnership. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [Applause.]
Mdm Speaker: The Question is, \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2016 to 3129 30M31a32rch 2017.\" In accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order No 89, the debate now stands adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on what day?
Mr Heng Swee Keat:\tMonday, 4 April 2016, Madam.
Mdm Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Ten years ago, we spent $7 billion on education.","2 : Ten years ago, we spent $1.9 billion on healthcare.","3 : Ten years ago, we spent $1.8 billion on transport.","4 : The Transition Support Package consists of the Wage Credit Scheme, the PIC Bonus and the Corporate Income Tax (CIT) Rebate.","5 : The percentage of SMEs taking steps to raise their productivity rose from 83% in 2013 to around 90% in 2014 and 2015, according to the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI)'s annual SME Survey. In particular, the proportion of micro-SMEs (below $1million turnover) embarking on a productivity drive rose from 80% in 2013 to 86% in 2014 and 92% in 2015.","6 : MOM Labour Market Report 2015. Total Foreign Workers, excluding Foreign Domestic Workers.","7 : Figure is deflated by Consumer Price Index for all items at 2014 prices (2014 = 100).","8 : Measured by VA/Actual Hours worked.","9 : VA/AHW grew at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 1% from 2013 to 2015.","10 : Fourth quarter of 2015 Economic Survey of Singapore, Ministry of Trade and Industry.","11 : Weighted by the share of each country's nominal GDP.","12 : Based on IMF forecasts.","13 : This includes wage increases given in 2015, as well as those sustained from 2013 and 2014.","14 : \"Smaller construction projects\" refer to projects with construction value estimated to be below $100 million.","15 : The rebate for YA 2001 was 50% of tax payable on the first $25,500, that is, cap of $12,750, and 5% of tax payable on the excess of $25,500.","16 : A lower SEC is provided for workers with a monthly wage of between $3,000 and $4,000.","17 : The Food Innovation and Resource Centre (FIRC) is a Centre of Innovation in Singapore Polytechnic. It was established in 2007 to provide food enterprises with technical expertise in new product and process development, including packaging, shelf-life evaluation and market testing. FIRC also works closely with Singapore Food Manufacturing Association (SFMA) to organise workshops for the industry. From 2010 to 2015, FIRC supported more than 300 companies on shelf life extension, product innovation and process improvement.","18 : From 2011 to 2015, SPRING supported more than 900 innovation, automation and standards adoption projects, benefiting some 500 companies.","19 : Centre of Innovation for Supply Chain Management.","20 : These include broad-based schemes, such as the Innovation and Capability Voucher, more targeted support, such as SPRING's Capability Development Grant, and even sector-specific schemes, such as MDA's Market Assist grant.","21 : The SME Mezzanine Growth Fund was first announced in Budget 2014.","22 : This targeted assistance is provided through the Global Company Partnership and Market Readiness Assistance.","23 : This will be done under SPRING's Collaborative Industry Projects programme.","24 : In Budget 2014, we had extended the writing down allowance scheme for another five years till YA2020. The scheme allows businesses to claim writing down allowance on the cost of acquiring IP rights, including patents, trademarks, registered designs, copyrights, over a period of five years.","25 : Including EDB, IDA, MDA, NRF and SPRING.","26 : Launchpad @ JID is targeted to be completed in 2017.","27 : This includes the new tranches of funding to support economic development under the Enterprise Development Fund (EDF) and the Economic Development Assistance Scheme (EDAS).","28 : Accommodation, F&B Services, General Manufacturing and Precision Engineering.","29 : Corresponding approximately to wages in the bottom 20th percentile.","30 : Total CPF contributions to the Ordinary Account and Special Account (including amounts withdrawn for housing, education and investment) and amounts in the Medisave Account above the Medisave Minimum Sum.","31 : Seniors will not qualify if they, or their spouses, or both, own an HDB flat which is 5-room or larger, private property, or multiple properties.","32 : The key increases in Operating Revenue for FY2016 are vehicle-related revenues and Statutory Boards' Contributions. Vehicle-related revenues are expected to decline after the next 1-2 years when registration numbers are expected to start declining. This year's increase in Statutory Boards' Contributions is mainly from MAS."],"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to Monday, 4 April 2016.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien.] (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at
5.27 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lift Upgrading Programme for Previously Ineligible Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB can reconsider to (i) offer the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) to ineligible flats due to cost considerations, (ii) offer LUP again to those blocks of flats that have not been successful if there are changes to the owners of the benefiting units; and (b) whether HDB will withdraw the right of the owners of the benefiting units to ballot if their units have been rented out or they could not be contacted for whatever reasons.
Mr Lawrence Wong: When the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) was introduced in 2001, there were more than 5,300 blocks that did not have direct lift access. Almost 1,000 blocks exceeded the LUP cost cap then. However, over time, HDB developed various cost-effective technical solutions so that more blocks could benefit from LUP. These efforts have reduced the number of ineligible blocks to around 150.
Despite HDB's best efforts, there will still be some blocks where the LUP cannot be offered due to excessively high costs or technical constraints. By necessity, we have to set a financial cap on how much we can build and spend on each benefiting unit. This is so that we spend prudently.
For blocks that have failed the LUP polling previously, HDB will evaluate appeals on a case-by-case basis. Key considerations are whether the circumstances have changed since the last polling and if there is at least 75% support from residents before appealing for LUP to be re-offered. This is regardless of whether there has been any change in owners of the benefiting units.
Singaporean flat owners are the eligible voters for LUP. Even if they have rented out their flats, they remain eligible to vote for LUP. As such, the rights of the owners of the benefiting units to ballot will not be withdrawn. If the eligible voter is unable to cast the vote for LUP, he can appoint a proxy to vote on his behalf during the polling period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"CPF Special or Retirement Account Funds for Mortgage Arrears","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower whether HDB can reconsider allowing HDB home owners who do not have sufficient savings in their CPF Ordinary Account to utilise their CPF Special or Retirement Accounts to manage their home mortgage arrears.
Mr Lim Swee Say: CPF members can use their Ordinary Account (OA) savings for the downpayment, monthly instalments and mortgage arrears for their housing purchase. The Special Account (SA) savings are generally preserved for members’ retirement needs and cannot be used for housing purposes.
When members turn 55, a Retirement Account, or RA, is created. Monies from OA and SA are transferred to RA up to the Full Retirement Sum. OA continues to exist even after RA is created. Any remaining OA balance, as well as new contributions to OA after the age of 55, can be used to meet housing needs. In addition, any RA savings in excess of the Basic Retirement Sum can also be used for housing purposes.
The Housing and Development Board (HDB) proactively helps flat owners manage their arrears early. If their financial difficulty is temporary, HDB will consider reducing or deferring their instalments to help them resolve their arrears. For flat owners who can no longer afford to keep their flats, HDB will help them explore more options, including right-sizing to a more affordable flat.
For CPF members who do not have sufficient OA savings to meet their housing needs, we have exercised flexibility where cases merit it. For example, we have, upon appeal, allowed CPF members to use their RA savings that originated from their OA to pay for their housing, even if their RA savings are below their Basic Retirement Sum.
Overall, we need to strike a balance between allowing CPF members to use their SA and RA savings for housing needs and safeguarding such savings for their retirement needs, so as not to compromise their retirement adequacy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Labour Crunch in Maritime Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the status of the labour shortage in the maritime industry; (b) how has the labour crunch affected the industry; and (c) whether the Ministry will adjust the current foreign worker quota to help ease the situation.
Mr Lim Swee Say: The port is an important pillar of Singapore’s economy, providing critical connectivity to global markets. To strengthen Singapore's status as a leading transhipment hub, an adequate pool of skilled manpower is essential to support port operations round the clock.
Overall, while manpower is tight, for certain jobs that are physically taxing or require sea-going expertise, such as stevedores or harbourcraft crew, foreign workers complement the local workforce due to a shortage of Singaporeans willing to do the work. Nonetheless, most companies are well within their dependency ratio ceiling (DRC) for the employment of foreign workers.
As part of developing the Sectorial Manpower Plan (SMP), the Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) is also working with industry partners and the unions to help more Singaporeans take up seafaring as well as shore-based careers in the maritime sector. These efforts include putting in place programmes to train more Singaporean seafarers and developing career ladders for various professions in the sector.
MPA is also promoting the use of technologies and automation at our port to reduce reliance on manual labour. For instance, MPA is working with PSA to pilot the use of Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs). As port operations expand, the use of AGVs will reduce the need for more foreign port workers.
With the implementation of productive technologies and efforts to address the manpower shortage for specific jobs at the port, we do not see a need to adjust the foreign worker quota for this industry at this point of time. We should instead press on with our efforts to drive productivity improvement and accelerate the shift towards a more manpower-lean mode of port operations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Separating Clients' Deposits and Payments to Prevent Unlawful Withdrawal of Funds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) whether the Ministry will consider enhancing the protection of consumer interests by requiring merchants and sellers to set up and maintain client accounts to keep the deposits/payments separate from their daily operating accounts and making unlawful withdrawals from these accounts a criminal offence.
Mr S Iswaran: The Government’s approach to consumer protection is based on promoting fair trading among retailers and helping consumers make informed purchasing decisions. This approach has benefited consumers and businesses, as the vast majority of our retailers are legitimate businesses who want to serve their customers well.
As the nature of consumer transactions can vary widely in practice, broad-based requirements, such as mandating that deposits be put into escrow accounts, would be onerous and raise the cost of doing business which will, ultimately, be passed on to consumers.
In sectors where deposits are the norm, the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) has worked with sector associations to develop the CaseTrust accreditation scheme. Most businesses accredited under the CaseTrust scheme provide protection for consumers' deposits. This usually takes the form of business insurance which will compensate consumers if the business becomes insolvent.
Currently, more than 700 businesses from various sectors offering motoring, renovation and spa and wellness services are CaseTrust accredited. CASE recently announced that it has partnered the Hair and Cosmetology Association (Singapore) to work on CaseTrust accreditation to promote fair trading, improve the sector's image and raise consumer confidence. CASE is in similar discussions with the Association of Catering Professionals. We encourage more businesses to become accredited as this helps to provide consumers with greater confidence that their interests are safeguarded.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Upgrading of Private Estates above 30 Years Old","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for National Development how many private estates there are that are currently above 30 years old and whether there is a plan to upgrade these estates through the Estate Upgrading Programme by a certain due date.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Since the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) was launched in 2000, the Ministry of National Development (MND) has selected 63 private estates through nine batches of EUP, benefiting more than 46,000 households. There are about five to nine estates selected in each batch. In selecting estates for EUP, we consider the age of the estate as well as the physical conditions. We prioritise the older estates, which have greater need and more opportunities for significant improvement through the upgrading works. These works include installation of park furniture and playground equipment that provide a more conducive environment for community bonding, and footpath improvement to provide better connectivity and accessibility. With the nine batches of EUP, we are making good progress in upgrading the estates that are more than 30 years old.
MND aims to offer EUP to more estates. There are slightly more than 20 estates which are more than 30 years old and have yet to be selected for EUP. We will continue to prioritise these older estates for EUP.
The pace of the programme will depend on the resources available. We will also coordinate with other Government agencies that are also planning upgrading works, so as to minimise inconvenience to the public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Repairs and Maintenance Schedule for Nature Parks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether NParks has a maintenance schedule for the nature parks, such as that for repairing footpaths and lights; and (b) whether there are any plans to upgrade the foot paths and facilities at the Bukit Batok Nature Park.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The National Parks Board (NParks) carries out quarterly checks of the amenities within nature parks and repairs them if necessary. NParks also replaces their lights and footpaths every 15 years and will consider accelerating the replacement cycle if the conditions warrant it. In addition, NParks responds expeditiously to replace or repair damaged amenities when ad hoc feedback is received.
For Bukit Batok Nature Park, NParks recently completed an extensive series of maintenance works to improve the amenities. For instance, in 2015, NParks upgraded the existing lamps and implemented measures to reduce soil erosion near footpaths.
Moving forward, NParks also plans to install a fitness corner with senior-friendly exercise equipment to make Bukit Batok Nature Park even more friendly to users of all ages.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Difference between Parking Fees for Surface and Multi-storey Car Parks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for National Development whether there can be a review of the monthly parking fees at HDB estates in particular, the fee difference between surface and multi-storey carpark lots.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Parking charges are levied to recover part of the cost of providing and maintaining Housing and Development Board (HDB) car parks. As it costs more to provide and maintain multi-storey car parks (MSCPs) compared to surface car parks, the monthly season parking rate is generally higher for MSCPs.
Some precincts are served by both surface car parks and MSCPs. As the surface lots are generally nearer to the flats, they are understandably more popular. In some instances, this imbalance in demand has resulted in congestion in some surface car parks while the MSCPs are underutilised. In these car parks, one of HDB's measures to regulate and even out the parking demand is to equalise the monthly parking charges between the surface car parks and MSCPs. However, HDB has no plans to implement islandwide equalisation of season parking charges as there is no widespread imbalance in parking demand today.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feedback from Public Consultation on Fresh Start Housing Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry can provide an update on the feedback received from the public consultation on the Fresh Start Housing Scheme.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Fresh Start Housing Scheme aims to help second-timer families with young children living in public rental housing to own a home again.
In November and December last year, the Ministry of National Development (MND) and Housing Development Board (HDB) held a series of focus group discussions to better understand the challenges that public rental tenants face in owning a home again, and seek views on how to support them in a meaningful way. We consulted former rental tenants who have successfully moved on to home ownership, current rental tenants, as well as social workers and frontline public officers who work with rental tenants.
Most of the participants agreed that the Fresh Start Housing Scheme cannot just be a housing scheme but must include guidance and support for families along their journey to home ownership.
There was also broad agreement that the families benefiting from the Scheme must also do their part to get their lives and finances in order. This means that they must show the commitment to find a job and maintain a stable income. At the same time, there was a strong view that the Scheme should focus on the children and ensure that they are attending school regularly, so that the next generation can make progress and secure a better future.
More detailed summaries of the consultation are available on MND's website. Based on the feedback received, we are now working out the detailed parameters for the Fresh Start Housing Scheme. What is clear is that the Scheme must be more than just the provision of another housing grant and a new flat. It is about supporting the families in need and helping them to solve their problems holistically. We continue to welcome feedback and will announce more details about the scheme soon.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Quality of Works Done for Home Improvement Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the measures that HDB has put in place to (i) ensure the quality of Home Improvement Programme (HIP) upgrading works; (ii) minimise disamenities to residents undergoing HIP; and (b) what are the penalties imposed on contractors performing substandard HIP work.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Home Improvement Programme (HIP) seeks to enhance the safety and functionality of our older flats and help residents to resolve some common maintenance issues that they may face within their flat, such as ceiling leaks or spalling concrete.
The Housing and Development Board (HDB) adopts a multi-pronged approach to ensure the quality of HIP upgrading works. First, HDB has a stringent procurement process to engage capable and financially-sound contractors and consultants. Second, HDB maintains a list of recommended building material suppliers for contractors to use in HIP projects. Third, HDB requires contractors to provide sample units before mass production. Once these sample units are approved, they serve as the quality benchmark. Fourth, HDB engages consultants with full-time staff on site to supervise upgrading works. Fifth, HDB institutes a robust quality audit and enforcement regime. Sixth, HDB has regular dialogue sessions with the contractors' senior management to share the expected quality and workmanship standards and alert them of the quality issues that require their remedial action and pre-emptive measures. Seventh, HDB and consultants carry out functional tests to check on electrical services installed and the water-tightness of the upgraded toilets. Finally, HDB and the consultants conduct a final inspection on completed upgrading works prior to the handover to residents.
Residents do not need to move out of their flats when HIP is underway. Understandably, there will be some inconveniences when the works are in progress. HDB seeks to keep these to a minimum and to complete work on the interior of each flat within 10 working days. When work is in progress, temporary common toilets/bathrooms are provided at the void deck. Portable toilets are also set up at the end of each working day in flats undergoing upgrading works, for residents' use at night. In addition, an air-conditioned study room and rest area are provided for residents' use. Residents can also provide feedback, make enquiries and seek assistance at the Information Centre.
Should there be any service or quality lapse, HDB will take enforcement action against the contractor. This includes imposing administrative charges and demerit points. If a contractor performs poorly, the contractor may be precluded from tendering for future HDB projects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Role of District Mayors After Transfer of Functions to Social Service Offices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the role of district Mayors in the respective Community Development Councils (CDC) and whether their role is still relevant given that the ComCare assistance programmes have been transferred to the Social Service Offices under the care of the Ministry of Social and Family Development; and (b) what is the annual income of a Mayor.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Community Development Councils (CDCs) were set up in 1997 to foster community bonding and strengthen social cohesion in Singapore.
The Mayor, as the Chairman of the CDC, plays a key role in strengthening the social infrastructure in the community. The CDCs bring together various community stakeholders across the people, public and private (3P) sectors to serve the residents in each District. This engenders community ownership and builds community resilience. For example, by partnering the Law Society, CDCs have provided residents with greater accessibility to legal advice and better awareness of legal issues through legal talks by pro bono lawyers. By partnering the National Arts Council (NAC), CDCs have made arts programmes more accessible to the vulnerable. By working with SPRING Singapore and the Business Associations to set up the five Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) Centres@CDCs, the CDCs have helped to promote greater awareness of the Government's help schemes and offer business advice to SMEs.
In the same spirit, the CDC mobilises the local resources of community and corporate organisations to complement the national assistance schemes to meet the needs of the residents. For example, at North East (NE) District, the NE CDC coordinates among Grassroots Organisations, Social Service Offices and Workforce Development Agency to help the residents achieve self-reliance from receiving financial assistance to getting employment. In 2015, the CDCs helped over 100,000 beneficiaries.
Mayors are appointed by the Chairman of the People's Association (PA) who is the Prime Minister. Each Mayor is in charge of a District where the number of residents in the District is not less than 500,000. As chairman of the CDC, the Mayor maintains the focus of the CDCs to serve the residents and ensures the efficient running of the CDC. He or she advises the PA Board on matters affecting the well-being of the residents in the District and the provision and use of public facilities and services within the District. From time to time, they will be asked to represent Singapore at official international conventions or meetings in their capacity as Mayors.
Mayors hold responsibilities which are comparable in scale and complexity to that of officeholders at the Ministries. The norm annual salary of a Mayor is $660,000, pegged between the salary range of a Senior Parliamentary Secretary and that of a Minister of State. A Mayor who also holds a concurrent appointment in the Ministry will only receive one salary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Operating Hours of MRT Station Pedestrian Walkways","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport whether the underground pedestrian walkway at the Potong Pasir and other affected MRT stations can remain open for public use even after the MRT stations have stopped their operations in the early morning hours.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Pedestrian links are kept open round the clock for the convenience of pedestrians. This is the default position, unless there are strong reasons not to do so.
In the case of Potong Pasir MRT Station, the underground pedestrian link leads directly to the station’s platform. If it is kept open after MRT operating hours, it can pose security issues, such as vandalism of station property.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Full-day Bus Lane Implementation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will consider imposing the full-day bus lane traffic rule only for stretches of roads which face heavy congestion, instead of all bus lanes in the city area as per the current regulations; and (b) whether taxis will be allowed to pick up and alight passengers along roads marked for bus lanes during bus lane operation hours, as vehicles providing public transportation services.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Not all bus lanes in the city area are full-day bus lanes. Only roads with high bus volumes throughout the day have full-day bus lanes.
Allowing taxis to stop within bus lanes during operation hours will hamper bus speeds and timeliness, to the detriment of many bus commuters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Illegal Parking at Taxi Stands","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many cases of illegal parking or misuse of taxi stands and taxi stops have there been over the last three years; (b) what is the breakdown in terms of the number of such cases committed by taxis and non-taxis; and (c) what efforts will the Ministry embark on to reduce such cases.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Over the last three years, there were 4,329 cases of illegal parking at and misuse of taxi stands and taxi stops. Of these, 325 were committed by taxis.
The Land Transport Authority will continue to deploy enforcement officers to deter motorists from misusing taxi stands and taxi stops.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Justification for Building Sheltered Pedestrian Overhead Bridges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the reason why some pedestrian overhead bridges are sheltered while others are not; and (b) whether shelter can be provided for the pedestrian overhead bridge at Braddell Road near Carmichael Road and its linked walkways to the surrounding bus stops.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: In building shelters for pedestrian overhead bridges, the Land Transport Authority prioritises those bridges that are more frequently used. We will review the case for the bridge at Braddell Road.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reason for Delay in Completion of Sheltered Linkway at Woodleigh Close","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the reason for the delay in completion of the sheltered linkway at Woodleigh Close under the Walk2Ride programme; and (b) what is LTA's estimated date of completion of these works.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: It was originally estimated that the sheltered linkway at Woodleigh Close would be completed by May 2016. Since then, the Land Transport Authority has found that it needs more time to ensure that the linkway's construction does not affect existing utilities infrastructure and adjacent trees. The expected completion date is now August 2016.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Account Balances by Gender of CPF Members","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Manpower how do the average CPF balances of members vary by gender and what is the breakdown of gender differences by the respective age groups.
Mr Lim Swee Say: In 2015, the average net Central Provident Fund (CPF) balances1 of males and females across all ages was $86,000 and $76,000 respectively. The difference between male and female CPF balances has narrowed from 21% in 2005 to 14% in 2015.
Table 1 below shows the male-to-female ratio of average net CPF balances across different age groups. The male-to-female ratio is lower for younger age groups and increases for older age groups.
8 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in 2016, so far, what is the number of CPF members who choose to pledge their properties in order to withdraw their Retirement Account savings above their Basic Retirement Sum; and (b) how much of the amount withdrawn has been used to top up their spouses' CPF accounts.
Mr Lim Swee Say: Central Provident Fund (CPF) members aged 55 and above can withdraw their Retirement Account savings above their Basic Retirement Sum if they have a sufficient existing charge on their property. Those who do not have a sufficient existing property charge can still make such a withdrawal after making a pledge on their property. This property charge or pledge does not affect the ownership of the property and is intended to ensure that the member's Retirement Account is restored up to the Full Retirement Sum if the property is sold in the future.
In January and February 2016, 1,200 CPF members withdrew their Retirement Account savings above their Basic Retirement Sum through a property charge or pledge. Seven hundred of them turned 55 in January and February 2016 and became eligible to make such withdrawals. These members had withdrawn their Retirement Account savings in cash. We do not track whether any of them subsequently make cash top-ups to their spouses' CPF accounts.
CPF members can also directly transfer their CPF savings above their Basic Retirement Sum to their spouse's Special or Retirement Account, without the need for a property charge or pledge.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Productivity Growth of Government over 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Finance about (a) the productivity growth of the Government over the last 10 years and (b) the areas which showed the most improvement.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The Public Service is constantly seeking to be more productive, doing more with the same or less resources and ensuring that we continue to be effective and efficient in delivering our services. However, unlike the private sector, it is difficult to measure productivity growth in public services, as the outcomes achieved and value created from the diverse range of public services are often intangible and not easily quantifiable.
Nevertheless, to give a sense of the numbers, our population and real gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 2.6% and 5.3% per annum, on average, over the past 10 years. During the same period, we have maintained our public sector manpower growth at an average of 1.8% per annum to serve the population and support the economy. The lower public sector headcount growth is a result of a deliberate policy to constrain Ministries' headcount growth under the Manpower Management Framework. As a result, the public sector’s share of the total labour force has also decreased from 4.3% in 2006 to 3.97% in 2015. This is one of the lowest internationally; it is the same as that in Hong Kong (4%) and lower than in countries, such as New Zealand (7%) and the UK (12%). In all these cases, the numbers exclude defence personnel.
To drive productivity and innovation in the Public Service, our agencies have been tapping on technology and information and communications technology extensively. Compared to 10 years ago, there are now more e-services on multiple channels, which have made it more convenient and efficient for both the users as well as the agencies. For example, through electronic tax-filing and the no-filing scheme, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) has saved time for taxpayers. It was also able to redeploy 100 officers to doing new and other areas of work, despite the tax base growth of 32% from 2009 to 2014. Another example would be the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA)'s Bizfile which has enabled businesses to be registered and companies to be incorporated online in just 15 minutes or less, compared to the manual process which would have taken 24 hours for businesses and five days for companies.
We have also sought to drive productivity gains through organisational restructuring. For example, we set up the Municipal Services Office (MSO) in 2014 to improve the Government’s overall coordination and delivery of municipal services; often, these services involve multiple agencies. Since its establishment, MSO has worked with these agencies to improve interagency workflows, processes and SOPs to reduce the average time taken to respond to feedback, especially for complex cases. MSO has also worked with agencies to improve the adoption of structured digital channels, such as mobile apps and web portals. This has allowed feedback to be routed quickly and automatically to the correct agency for attention.
Beyond tapping on information technology and organisational restructuring, we have also started to harness data analytics to innovate and improve services. For example, the National Library Board (NLB) analysed borrowing data to understand library users and their borrowing behavior. This has enabled NLB to determine the type and number of books it should purchase and improve its mix of book collections to make library services better.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals for Public Rental Flats and Interim Rental Housing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for National Development for each year between 2013 and 2015 (a) how many cases of appeals have been received from the respective Members of Parliament on behalf of their residents for public rental flats and interim rental housing respectively; (b) of the total number of appeals, what is the number of successful appeals; (c) what are the main considerations for favourably granting these appeals; and (d) whether for complex cases, referrals will be made to Family Service Centres or voluntary welfare organisations to have the respective cases further assessed before a decision on their appeals is made.
Mr Lawrence Wong: From 2013 to 2015, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) received requests from around 8,700 appellants a year for public rental flats. These included appeals made through Members of Parliament and appeals made directly to HDB.
Over this same period, a total of 6,900 households were successful in their requests for public rental flats. Another 510 households were assisted with Interim Rental Housing.
HDB assesses each appeal on its own merit. For needy households which do not meet the eligibility criteria, HDB will exercise flexibility and offer public rental if they are unable to buy a flat and have no other housing options or family support.
HDB may also refer complex cases to a Family Service Centre (FSC) for a social worker’s assessment if the client consents. Apart from exploring their housing options, HDB will then work with the social service agencies to help the families with counselling, financial assistance and employment support to address the underlying causes of housing instability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":602,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex to the Speech by Minister for Finance Mr Heng Swee Keat (Annex A-1)","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160324/annex-Annex A1.pdf","fileName":"Annex A1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":603,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex to the Speech by Minister for Finance Mr Heng Swee Keat (Annex A-2)","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160324/annex-Annex A2.pdf","fileName":"Annex A2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":604,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex to the Speech by Minister for Finance Mr Heng Swee Keat (Annex A-3)","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160324/annex-Annex A3.pdf","fileName":"Annex A3.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":605,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex to the Speech by Minister for Finance Mr Heng Swee Keat (Annex A-4)","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160324/annex-Annex A4.pdf","fileName":"Annex A4.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":606,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex to the Speech by Minister for Finance Mr Heng Swee Keat (Annex B-1)","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160324/annex-Annex B1.pdf","fileName":"Annex B1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":607,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex to the Speech by Minister for Finance Mr Heng Swee Keat (Annex B-2)","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160324/annex-Annex B2.pdf","fileName":"Annex B2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":608,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex to the Speech by Minister for Finance Mr Heng Swee Keat (Annex B-3)","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160324/annex-Annex B3.pdf","fileName":"Annex B3.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":609,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex to the Speech by Minister for Finance Mr Heng Swee Keat (Annex B-4)","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160324/annex-Annex B4.pdf","fileName":"Annex B4.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":610,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex to the Speech by Minister for Finance Mr Heng Swee Keat (Annex B-5)","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20160324/annex-Annex B5.pdf","fileName":"Annex B5.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}