1 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Education whether Temasek Polytechnic and Ngee Ann Polytechnic had carried out any due diligence to check the background and academic qualifications of Mikhy Farrera-Brochez who apparently had the qualifications of APA, APS, MCollT, MS DPSY, DipED and who was later convicted of having forged his educational qualifications, before employing him.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, prior to employing Mr Mikhy Brochez, Temasek Polytechnic and Ngee Ann Polytechnic had conducted pre-employment checks by verifying copies of Mr Brochez's educational certificates against the original. This is in line with the practices of the public sector, as well as many private sector companies.
In addition, Mr Brochez demonstrated a good grasp of the subject during his interviews with the polytechnics' management staff, including those with expertise in psychology. These factors led the polytechnics to decide to hire him.
While due diligence may be conducted thoroughly, there is, unfortunately, no system that is able to exhaustively keep out those who are out to lie and cheat.
Temasek Polytechnic and Ngee Ann Polytechnic have since incorporated more stringent checks, including the verification of educational certificates with the issuing institutions. However, there are practical limits to such checks. Some overseas institutions may not provide their confirmation, citing privacy reasons. We are also mindful of not going to the extremes and risk losing out on valuable talents. Therefore, the role of in-service performance appraisal and regular monitoring is very important in our human resource (HR) practices.
Mr Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answers. However, I find it a bit strange that the polytechnics checked the copies with the originals. So, if the original is already falsified, then you are just checking a false document against another false document. I would think that there must be a more robust process in place, where the institution that is keen on hiring should check back with the institution that conferred those certificates in the first place. On top of that, there could also be a check with character referees that a potential employee would have worked with in the past.
My second question is whether Temasek Polytechnic allowed Mr Mikhy Brochez to set up that Child Psychology Clinic where he had access to exceptional children through the clinic because that was what was reported. Could the Ministry of Education (MOE) verify that?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Dr Intan Mokhtar for her two supplementary questions. For the first, she had some queries and suggestions. Prior to making a hire, all our five polytechnics conduct pre-employment checks. This is in line with the public sector practice and also that of many companies in the private sector. These checks include background checks and also checking the applicants' academic qualifications against the original certificates. Since then, Temasek Polytechnic and Ngee Ann Polytechnic have tightened their checks to verify with the issuing institutions, not just for the foreign educational qualifications of new staff but also existing staff. So, that is being done and in progress.
In addition to that, since 2014, all our five polytechnics conduct reference checks with the applicant's previous employers or referees indicated in the application. So, on the first question, I want to assure Dr Intan Mokhtar that MOE will continue to work closely with our five polytechnics to continue strengthening their recruitment process.
On the second question, Mr Brochez taught at Temasek Polytechnic for a period of two years, from February 2009 to January 2011. He taught for a much shorter period of only six months as an Adjunct Lecturer at Ngee Ann Polytechnic. During that stint in Temasek Polytechnic, he taught four modules for the first-year students, three modules for second- and third-year students, a total of only 85 students. At that point in time, Temasek Polytechnic had a cohort of about 15,900 students, which means the number of students whom he taught represented about 0.5% of the cohort. In Ngee Ann Polytechnic, the percentage of the students he taught was about 1.5%. His work is concentrated on delivering the modules. And even for those modules that the students attended, for Temasek Polytechnic, that comprised about 10% of their graduating requirement. For Ngee Ann Polytechnic, it is even less; it is about 3% of their graduating requirement.
Mr Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar: I wanted to ask about the plans that Temasek Polytechnic had for him to set up a Child Psychology Clinic within the polytechnic. Did that go through? Did he have any part in doing that and did he have any access to young children through that planned clinic? Secondly, I would urge MOE to encourage not just the polytechnics, but also across all our educational institutions, to verify the qualifications and credentials of potential employees with the institutions that confer them as well as with character referees.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: To the first question posed by Dr Intan Mokhtar, his work was confined to delivering the modules. But let me check on that and I will come back to the Member. For the second question, I want to assure Dr Intan Mokhtar and Members that MOE will spare no effort to work closely with our polytechnics, universities and also the Institute of Technical Education to strengthen our pre-employment checks and ensure that the standard of academic rigour is kept by our educators in our institutions.
Mr Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar, next question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stricter Measures to Ensure Pre-employment Blood Tests Cannot be Forged","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Health whether there are stricter measures put in place to ensure blood tests cannot be forged for employment purposes.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, there are processes in place to ensure the integrity of the blood tests. First, the patient's identity is verified at several points: when the blood tests are ordered, when the blood is drawn, and when the blood specimens are labelled. At dispatch and receipt by the testing laboratories, the labelled specimens are checked against the identity of the patient recorded in the laboratory test request forms.
For human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV) tests, testing laboratories only accept patients or blood specimens with a referral from a registered medical practitioner. Hence, any direct request by employment agencies, employers or prospective employees for employment purposes would be rejected by the HIV testing laboratory.
Doctors who commit fraud involving blood tests or forgery of blood test results will be dealt with sternly, including prosecution under the Penal Code. Additionally, as doctors are required to adhere to a strict code of conduct by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC), they may also be subject to disciplinary action by SMC for professional misconduct.
The process checks, ethical standards to which healthcare professionals are held to and the deterrents imposed, work in tandem to safeguard against the falsification of blood tests.
Mr Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarification. May I ask, other than blood tests, how else would the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) monitor possible forgery of work qualifications, academic qualifications, past work experience that may be put up by applicants, especially foreign applicants?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: Can I just check with Dr Intan Mokhtar if she is referring to prospective employees who are employed by the healthcare sector?
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar: Sorry. Okay, for the healthcare sector. I think it was supposed to be directed to MOM.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I suppose it would be similar with the other Ministries in that we would actually check against the authenticity of the certificate and, if necessary, even to verify with the institution that issued the certificate to the prospective employee.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines on Disability Duration for Specific Injuries for Doctors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider issuing guidelines on disability duration for specific injuries for the use of doctors issuing medical leave and light duties for injured workers returning to work.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, in assessing the need for a medical certificate and its duration, both medical conditions and non-medical circumstances need to be considered. These include the type and severity of the medical condition or injury; time needed for the treatment, rehabilitation and recovery; and work requirements and workplace conditions. The circumstances vary widely among different persons, making it difficult to come up with prescriptive guidelines.
The attending doctor should use his or her professional judgement, and when, in doubt, consult fellow peers on what is needed to help the patient recover from a medical condition or injury.
To guide this, the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) revised the Ethical Code which came into effect in 2017. This provides broad guidelines that medical certificates must be issued to patients on proper medical grounds arrived at through good clinical assessment, and doctors must not take into consideration extraneous factors, such as who pays for the consultation, what benefits the patients may receive or what employers’ preferences may be. Also, when certifying that patients are fit to return to work but with limitations on their level of activity at work, doctors must first ensure that the patients’ work conditions allow this and, to the best of their ability, ensure that appropriate light duties are, in fact, available to the patients at their place of work.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) will study if it is necessary to formulate specific guidance in particular settings and seek inputs from the professional bodies.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I just wanted to check the last part. He said that MOH is going to study this issue. Is it going to conduct a review on whether we can set up more specific guidelines, rather than the broad guidelines we have in our code now?
Secondly, I am asking this in relation to the recent case where the doctor issued two days of light duty for the worker who had a broken collar bone. So, how does MOH ensure that the appropriate number of days of medical leave or light duty is issued after a surgery or after a work-related accident?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: Mr Speaker, as alluded to in my reply, there are already existing broad guidelines issued by SMC in their ethical code which gives some guidance to doctors on what is expected of them. With regard to whether we will come up with any specific guidance, this is an area where we will consult professional bodies to study whether it is feasible or practical to even do so. However, if the professional bodies think that there may be scope to provide some kind of guidance for certain types of injury, we will take their advice into consideration.
With regard to Mr Louis Ng's other question about the duration of medical certificates, this question had also been raised in the last Parliamentary Sitting by the Member, where a question was posed to MOM about whether MOM will be studying ways to better support the injured workers. MOM has already given the reply that they are currently reviewing it and will be conducting public consultation on this issue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Malaysian Government's Detention of Greek Vessel Pireas and Crew","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether the Malaysian government's detention of Greek vessel Pireas and crew, which collided with the Malaysian vessel Polaris in Singapore territorial waters, represents an exercise of foreign sovereignty in Singapore territorial waters; and (b) what measures can be taken to ensure that vessels, crew and passengers, particularly Singapore-flagged, will not be subject to foreign authority whilst in Singapore territorial waters or for acts committed in Singapore territorial waters.
\tThe Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): On 9 February this year, the Greece-registered bulk carrier Pireas collided with the Malaysian government vessel Polaris in Singapore Territorial Waters off Tuas. A Singapore Police Coast Guard vessel was onsite, observed and recorded the collision. The Maritime Port Authority (MPA) was, therefore, notified by both the Maritime Security Task Force and by the Pireas herself. MPA ascertained that this incident was not classified as a \"very serious marine casualty\" under the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Marine Casualty Investigation Code. The ship, Pireas, was, therefore, allowed to proceed with its journey to its next port of call, which, in this case, happened to be Tanjung Pelepas in Malaysia.
Pireas was not detained by the Malaysian authorities in Singapore Territorial Waters.
We will not allow foreign government vessels to assert any authority in our waters.
\t
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
\tAssoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for that very strong statement that Singapore will not stand for foreign governments exercising sovereignty in our waters. I would like to ask if the Minister has any advice for mariners regarding travel or transit through this area? For example, should they take alternate routes and, if they are given instructions from Malaysian government vessels, what should they do? Perhaps, what would our forces do if they were to observe attempts to give such instructions in the area?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, these are Singapore Territorial Waters. In fact, these have now been designated Singapore Port Limits. All vessels which are passing or transiting through these waters should, therefore, take instructions from the MPA. Any foreign government vessels have no locus standi to be issuing any instructions. If there are any attempts to assert authority or take any unauthorised actions, our agencies, our vessels and our forces will take appropriate measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Findings from Trial of Using Speed-tracking Devices for Heavy Vehicles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the findings from the trial of using speed-tracking devices for heavy vehicles in 2018; and (b) whether there are plans to mandate speed-tracking devices for heavy vehicles to curb speeding.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Today, the Traffic Police (TP) already require the use of speed limiters for heavy vehicles. One limitation, however, is that the speed limiters can be tampered with.
Between December 2017 and August 2018, TP conducted a trial on speed-tracking devices, to assess if they might be more effective than speed limiters in discouraging heavy vehicle drivers from speeding. TP concluded from the trial that even though the speed-tracking devices were accurate in measuring vehicle speed, they were also susceptible to being tampered with. They do not, therefore, confer significant advantages over speed limiters.
In addition, the cost to install the speed tracking devices is not low. TP has decided not to make the speed tracking devices mandatory. TP will continue to require the use of speed limiters in heavy vehicles.
TP will continue to monitor the development of other technologies that can help to discourage speeding. TP will also continue to adopt a multi-pronged strategy to getting heavy vehicle drivers to drive safely, including strict enforcement, sustained education and engagement.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. My main concern really is that when there is an accident involving a heavy vehicle, the chance of fatality is very high, especially for those who are carrying a lot of people in the back. And we still see them speeding. The problem then is how are we going to tackle the people who are tampering with the speed limiters. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary or the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) consider increasing the penalties for those who tamper with the speed limiters?
My second question is whether MHA will consider installing the speed counters that we have in our military vehicles. We seldom see the military vehicles speeding. Can we consider putting those counters in our heavy vehicles?
\tMr Amrin Amin: I thank the Member for the suggestion. We will study whether we need to increase the penalties for tampering. But currently, the penalties are quite significant. Just to share with the Member that it is an offence to tamper with a speed limiter installed in heavy vehicles. First-time offenders are liable for an imprisonment term of up to three months, a fine of $1,000 or both. And this is for first-time offenders. More severe punishment is meted out to those who are repeat offenders. There are also laws that ensure heavy vehicle owners maintain the speed limiters in proper working condition. Again, there are penalties for failure to abide by this law.
That said, we are not just stopping there. We are also looking to enhance the punishment, in particular. MHA recently announced increases in composition sums for road traffic offences which will take effect on 1 April 2019. With this change, the composition sum for heavy vehicle drivers who exceed the speed limit by over 31 kilometres per hour would be increased from $200 today to $400.
Also, TP engages heavy vehicle drivers regularly through education, safety dialogues and various other sessions.
On the use of the speed tracking devices, that is part of the trial. In fact, what we have tested in the trial were enhanced features where the business owners could actually track the speed of the vehicles when they are transmitted to the companies. So, the tracking device, as I have mentioned, can be tampered with, and tampering is something that is very difficult to detect. That is why we have quite serious punishments for it. We will continue to study what we can do better.
On a good note, the accidents involving heavy vehicles have, in fact, decreased. Let me share with Member the figures that we have. Between 2014 and 2018, the number of speeding violations involving heavy vehicles with speed limiters actually decreased by about 37%, from 1,737 in 2014 to 1,087 in 2018. And the number of speeding-related accidents involving heavy vehicles decreased, too, by about 37% from 27 in 2014 to 17 in 2018. But nevertheless, we agree with the Member, one accident is still one too many. We will see what we can do better in this area.
\tMr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Low Yen Ling.
CLARIFICATION BY SENIOR PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Ms Low Yen Ling): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Please allow me to respond to the earlier clarification by Dr Intan Mokhtar. The child psychology clinic that she cited was reported by The New Paper in a 2010 article, and this child psychology clinic was just one of the initiatives that Temasek Polytechnic was considering. This initiative was never implemented and Mr Brochez was not involved in this initiative.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supply BIll ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund and the Development Fund of the sums necessary to meet the estimated expenditure for the financial year (FY) 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2019/2020, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supplementary Supply (FY 2018) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to make supplementary provision to meet additional expenditure for the financial year (FY) 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2019/2020, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Debate on Annual Budget Statement ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [18 February 2019], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020.\" ‒ [Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on four areas of Budget 2019, namely, Growing our Enterprises; Supporting our Workers; Healthcare Support; and Fiscal Management.
Firstly, on growing enterprises. Budget 2019 continues to press on with efforts to build competitive enterprises within our economy with greater focus and emphasis on changes at the microeconomic level. The slew of schemes and programmes announced aims at helping enterprises deepen capabilities and to scale up.
Besides new schemes, such as Scale‐up SG, Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) Co‐Investment Fund III and the Innovation Agent Programme, the Finance Minister has also extended and enhanced existing schemes, such as the Enterprise Development Grant (EDG), the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) and others, with the intent to boost effectiveness and reap better outcomes. Eight existing financing schemes offered by Enterprise Singapore (ESG) were also streamlined into a single Enterprise Financing Scheme (EFS), making it simpler for businesses to apply and easier to access the loans.
The merged EFS is also extended to companies which have been incorporated for less than five years and may not have yet met the credit evaluation criteria or vintages as required by banks. The Government's willingness to risk sharing up to 70% of the loan amount significantly enhances the lending proposition which would encourage more financial institutions to participate. The ability to obtain financing means a great deal to companies, especially those in the early growth phase. Being able to readily access funding and liquidity can make or break a company. This is an essential enabler for a flourishing enterprise ecosystem to exist.
Besides financing, companies that are in the scaling up phase also often need private capital from investors who are more patient and with a longer time horizon. Hence, the additional $100 million injection to establish the SME Co‐Investment Fund III can act as a catalyst to entice even more crucial investments in these high-growth potential companies. Of course, there is no guarantee of success in such co‐investments, but it is necessary to make available such risk capital so as to give promising startups a lift.
Sir, today, our economy is more innovative‐ and technology‐driven and we do have a vibrant startup ecosystem. More new‐to‐economy activities have also been developed in recent years, such as the proliferation of FinTechs, sharing economy apps, deep tech ventures and so on. Progressing from startup to scale‐up is the next logical move. Startups and enterprises can only thrive when they scale up and seek greater market opportunities. To achieve this, we must be open to trying new approaches to grow our enterprises.
From an economic resource allocation standpoint, it makes excellent sense to help grow the sizes of our companies, especially the smaller enterprises. Bigger companies enjoy better economies of scale advantages and are in a better position to expand, innovate, internationalise and manage business risks. In general, larger companies tend to be bigger value contributors to the economy as a proportion and offer better job opportunities for Singaporeans.
The new Scale‐Up SG programme is a bold move to help fast track growth for promising enterprises. I would imagine that such a programme will offer highly customised assistance which may entail differentiated support and assistance, better financial support for the adoption of technology and so on. We will await more details from the Committee of Supply (COS) debate on the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI). But the instinctive question I have in mind is whether such schemes, being customised and, hence, selective in nature, would involve some extent of picking winners? Would the Scale‐Up SG be a separate track of work from the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs)? How do we eventually expand or scale up the Scale‐Up SG to move the needle for the economy?
Second, on supporting our workers. Sir, I am most heartened that the Finance Minister has again committed solid budgetary support to help Singaporean workers stay employed and be re‐employed. Out of the $4.6 billion allocated to transforming the economy, a lion's share of $3.6 billion will go towards helping our workers. It underscores the Government's resolve to help workers adjust to the future economic landscape, no matter how difficult the adjustments may be. Among others, the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) will be expanded to cover new growth areas. This would help jobseekers reskill to transit into new occupations or sectors with good prospects and opportunities for progression. PCP, which is part of the Adapt and Grow initiative, has since achieved encouraging results, helping 76,000 jobseekers find jobs in the last three years.
But we should continually raise the bar here, aiming not only to help even more jobseekers find new jobs but also to improve the overall experience of the jobseekers. The newly harmonised Global Ready Talent Programme (GRTP) will help young Singaporeans gain overseas work experience in the key growth regional markets where we are seeking greater economic interdependencies, such as Southeast Asia, China and India. Under the scheme, participating local firms can receive funding support of up to 70% of costs. These are markets in our immediate neighbourhood where we need to strengthen our connectivity and expand the talent pool of people.
I thank the Finance Minister for extending the Career Support Programme (CSP) for another two years. CSP is a much‐appreciated scheme by both companies and workers. The programme encourages companies to hire mature workers who may have been in long-term unemployment by subsidising a significant share of the workers' salary. Rather than renew this programme every two to three years, I hope that the Government can turn the CSP into a permanent scheme. Of course, the terms can be refined from time to time to meet changing circumstances. It will give workers, especially mature workers, who are concerned about their job security a sense of assurance that the Government will be there to help in their transition to a new job. It will also demonstrate the Government's resolve to keep long-term and structural unemployment to the lowest possible level even as our economy becomes more innovative‐ and technology‐driven.
To encourage employment of older workers, the Special Employment Credit (SEC) scheme and the Additional SEC have been extended by another year. SEC provides a wage offset to employers for hiring workers aged above 55 earning up to $4,000 per month. These are consistent with our strategy to tackle the twin challenges of a tightening labour market and our ageing demographics.
The enhancement to the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme (WIS) is another piece of welcome news, especially to low-wage workers. The higher payouts of up to $4,000 per year will help low-wage workers cope with the cost of living.
Sir, I support the reduction of services sector S Pass Sub‐Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) to address the sharp growth of S Passes in this sector. It is not sustainable, both economically and socially, to keep having more and more foreign workers in the workforce. In particular, such mid‐level skills labour is also increasingly in demand in other countries as well and companies will, in a matter of time, face competition in getting those workers to come in. Hopefully, this tightening will also signal to companies that they need to revamp their work processes, redesign jobs and reskill their local workers.
There are already almost 200,000 S Pass holders in the workforce now. Our S Pass system should be structured in a way where companies are given more S Pass only if they have more local workers at mid‐ to high‐wage levels and demonstrate high value contribution to the economy. We should strengthen this linkage. Can I also suggest that the companies that have been shown to hire more displaced or retrenched local workers, for example, via Workforce Singapore (WSG) or the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i), be given favourable consideration for their renewal of S Passes as well? At the end of the day, we want more of the S Pass type of jobs to be undertaken by Singaporeans, whether they are seniors, Institute of Technical Education (ITE) or polytechnic graduates or back‐to‐work mothers.
Tightening of the foreign worker quota is understandably painful to companies which are unable to find local workers. I hope that with the EDG and PSG extended and expanded, it would help firms adjust to this round of tightening of the labour market. I look forward to hearing more details at the MTI COS on the measures.
Sir, I like the statement from the Finance Minister that starting from 1 April 2020, all transformation efforts supported by ESG's EDG must include positive outcomes for workers, such as wage increases. Growing the economy is a means to an end, and the end must be to create good jobs and better salaries for our people. We have seen how economic growth in other developed economies has not always led to better workers’ outcomes and resulting in deep divisions within their societies. At the end of the day, economic development cannot be delinked from the social well-being of the people.
Thirdly, on healthcare support. For many years, the Government has been highlighting the challenges of our ageing demographics and have put in place a series of long‐term policies to deal with this imminent development. One serious implication of an ageing society is that healthcare needs will grow, will increase. The Government has put its money where its mouth is. Over the years, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has expanded the healthcare infrastructure, such as hospitals, polyclinics, senior care centres and many others.
At the community level, there are also more social support, such as the Community Network for Seniors (CNS) and the People's Association's (PA) Wellness Programme, as well as the many voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) working with the community organisations. The Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and Silver Generation Office (SGO) are today better resourced to assist and engage seniors.
Besides the infrastructure, healthcare support must also include providing assurance that healthcare services will be affordable and that individuals will have adequate savings and insurance coverage to meet their old age needs. Building more polyclinics and the introduction of the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) have made affordable primary care more accessible to the people.
The enhancement in CHAS to cover all Singaporeans for chronic conditions, regardless of income, is another indication of our improving social safety net. As a further icing on the cake, we now have the Merdeka Generation (MG) Package (MGP), which will have benefits better than the Blue CHAS card. I support the decision not to have means-testing for the MGP, just like the Pioneer Generation (PG) Package (PGP). These are a very special generation who went through some of the most trying times during our pre and early Independence years.
Sir, to help with large hospital bills, we now have the enhanced MediShield Life coverage covering all Singaporeans, including those with pre‐existing conditions. To protect against the uncertainties of long‐term care costs, we will soon transit into CareShield Life. Premiums for both schemes can be paid using MediSave, which is why it is helpful that the Government constantly look to top up the MediSave account of Singaporeans whenever we have Budget surpluses.
Both MediShield Life and CareShield Life are now administered by the Government. My ask to the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and MOH is that we should continually looking to enhance the terms of the coverage. Whenever there are surpluses, we should consider one‐off injections into the risk pool to continually improve the claims economics for the insured.
Overall, credit must be given to MOH and Minister Gan Kim Yong for their tremendous efforts to strengthen our massive healthcare system and for giving Singaporeans much better peace of mind today.
Fourthly, on fiscal management. Sir, Budget 2019 will have a long‐lasting impact in many areas, such as national security, economic transformation, helping our workers, infrastructural development and enhancing the social safety net.
For a Budget to be impactful, having the required financial resources is, of course, a given. But we also need the right strategic plans and the ability to carry out the plans coherently across financial years and across terms of government. We are in this enviable position because, in each Budget since our founding years, we have always been prudent and steadfast in resisting the temptation to spend more than necessary. As the base of our Reserves grow, the investment returns have now become the largest revenue contributor, helping us balanced the Budget, which we would otherwise run into deficits.
Given this is the case, our Budgets in recent years, including Budget 2019, are, by definition, expansionary budgets, with the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) the stimulus injection. Of course, we cannot count on NIRC to fund all our expenditures. Growing the economy to generate tax revenues and create good jobs for our people continue to be critical to our long‐term survival.
The Constitution requires the Government of the day to maintain a balanced Budget over each term so as to ensure that public funds are allocated sustainably. This arrangement has worked well for Singapore, requiring the Government of the day to be disciplined and prudent in managing our finances, and sharing of the fruits of our better economic performances whenever surpluses are generated. The surpluses are also used to fund massive social and healthcare programmes, like the PGP and MGP, without adding the burden to future generations.
Sir, based on the estimates from Budget 2019, the accumulated surplus from this term of government is projected to be about $15.6 billion, after allowing for the projected deficits of $3.5 billion for financial year (FY) 2019. Under the Constitution, this amount not spent will be locked up as past Reserves in the new term of government. With about two more years of the term to go, I would like to ask the Finance Minister how he envisages the accumulated surpluses for this term of government to be utilised.
Sir, my final point relates to the recent spate of incidents and lapses involving public service and public service providers. These series of incidents have naturally raised concerns whether the standards in the delivery of public services have slackened. In each of these incidents, the Government has been transparent in getting to the root of the problem, holding the organisations or companies accountable, and each time committing to take the necessary corrective measures.
I appreciate Minister Heng Swee Keat's article to the Straits Times on 9 February 2019, reaffirming the Government's commitment to strive for the highest standards of excellence in Singapore. Singapore has always been effectively governed and has achieved very commendable outcomes for our people. Whether it is growing our economy and creating jobs, building a liveable home or building a harmonious society, providing law and order or securing our sovereignty, we have always gotten our fundamentals right. We always do what is right for the long-term good of the country.
I am sure Singaporeans feel proud of our achievements. But we also know that the public wants their day‐to‐day services to run well, too, and to have minimal disruption in the delivery of services as they go about their daily lives. In other words, besides doing big things right and well, which is critical, the public also expects those who are mandated to deliver public services to achieve operational excellence and do the last 5% well, too.
This entails a different mindset at both the organisational and leadership levels as to how we look at operations and the daily functioning of services. Operational responsibilities cannot be just delegated to line managers, supervisors or individual employees. It is a collective responsibility of the management and their employees, with each employee at the individual level taking ownership and pride in carrying out their duties and responsibilities.
Minister Heng Swee Keat, in his article, also mentioned about leaning from the Japanese and the Swiss who have a strong sense of personal responsibility in what they do at work and a meticulous attention to details. It reminds me of this story about President John Fitzgerald Kennedy's visit to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in 1961. He met a janitor or cleaner who was mopping the floor as he walked in and asked what he was doing. The janitor replied, \"I am helping put a man on the moon!\"
The leadership and the management set the culture. But it must manifest through the actions of every individual and on a daily basis. Management must take deeper interest in what each of their employees is doing, what their daily challenges and pain points are, whether the employee is adequately resourced to do the work and how can we improve their work situation and employee journey.
Sir, our system as a whole is in a good position to deliver the excellent service to our people. We just need to bring everyone on board, instil ownership and pride in what we do, ensure that there are adequate support and resources for people to do their job well, and to build a strong sense of purpose that each of us can make a difference. I agree with Minister Heng Swee Keat that we do have this ethos and DNA within us, and I am sure we can do a better job, going forward. So, with that, I support the Budget, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in the Budget Debate. I would like to thank Minister Heng Swee Keat for delivering a Budget that balances the needs of Singaporeans in areas that matter at each stage of life and, the same time, supporting businesses as they restructure, while continuing to push forward the strategic long-term goals needed to enable Singapore to stay relevant and build the society we aspire.
In my speech today, I will touch on the following areas: (a) building SME capabilities; (b) lowering the foreign worker DRC; (c) supporting an inclusive society; and (c) tightening of relief for travellers.
Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) make up more than 90% of the total number of the businesses operating in Singapore and employ 65% of the workforce. Therefore, supporting SMEs to build deep capabilities and grow to stay relevant and competitive are key for both companies and individuals. This will impact the number and quality of jobs, as well as the competitiveness of businesses.
The feedback I have received from dialogue sessions I have had with SME leaders and members of business associations that operate in my ward is that existing schemes with pre-approved digital solutions are helpful, but more flexibility is needed to support the diverse needs and stages that their businesses are at. This will enable them to address the opportunities and challenges, with the major shifts that Minister Heng Swee Keat had spoken about in last year's Budget as well as in the opening of his Budget speech, that are impacting these businesses – the shift in global economic weight to Asia, which brings opportunities for our businesses, but also increases competition; rapid technological advances that enable new capabilities but disrupt business models; changing demographic patterns, with an ageing population impacting both our talent base as well as our manpower requirements; and the decline in support of globalisation that is impacting and creating greater geopolitical uncertainties.
Just last week, a resident, who is an SME business owner, came to our Meet-the-People Session (MPS) seeking help for his business. We initially thought that he was seeking for financial support and grants. But after discussions with him, I realised that what he was really seeking help for was to restructure his business and digitalise. He was, however, at a loss and did not know how to go about it. He did take advantage of the current schemes available to digitalise to have his website and online presence set up.
But he, too, realised that it was not enough. He needed to rethink how he did his business in order to better leverage technology to help him stay competitive. He clearly needed help not with funding but in transforming his business. Transforming how he did business in the markets and market his products and services, he needed new skills to understand how to do so. And he needed to also understand how to leverage the technology.
The Budget builds on programmes already in place to support businesses but introduces new initiatives to help businesses restructure. I believe that an approach that supports companies at different stages of growth is needed. I welcome the announcement in this year’s Budget to focus support in an enterprise-centric way, noting the different approaches for large companies with complex needs as well as the common challenges that SMEs are facing, and digitalising in common functions like HR, finance and customer relationship management and more targeted support for SMEs as they restructure and grow.
Minister Heng Swee Keat spoke of the introduction of the Innovation Agents Programme where businesses can obtain advice from experienced industry professionals who have both technology expertise and business experience to support their innovation efforts. I would like to ask how support will be provided by the Innovation Agents and how will it be structured. What are the qualifying criteria for support and how can businesses tap on this programme?
Let me touch on the lower foreign worker DRC. This announcement on the reduction for the services sector had sent a very strong message to companies on the need to be more productive and to rely less on foreign workers. We must recognise that this will not be easy for companies in the services sector as they rely heavily on manpower and currently are facing challenges in attracting Singaporeans to take on jobs in the service sector.
The countries of sources for foreign manpower are also developing fast and will progress well and businesses must understand that supply for this manpower will eventually diminish as well. While it is painful and difficult, if companies in the services sector do not reduce reliance on foreign manpower for their businesses now, they will be more severely impacted if they are not prepared for it. To raise productivity of the services sector, companies will need to innovate and restructure. We will see some companies struggle to make the shift.
Apart from the extension of the EDG and PSG, more needs to be done to help businesses in the services sector improve productivity and reframe their business models and strategies. The same challenge will be met by other sectors that are labour-intensive and have low productivity.
Why is it challenging for companies in the services sector to reduce their dependency on foreign manpower? Is it a question of not being able to attract Singaporeans to the jobs? Are the factors due to the demographic changes with an ageing population? Is it because of the demand and working conditions of the jobs? Or is it due to the high expectations of Singaporeans for work? Is it an issue of salary? Or is it an issue of cost of getting Singaporeans?
The questions and issues have been debated and many of these factors have been attributed as possible reasons. I believe that the answer actually is in all of the above. What is important now is that, for businesses to build a sustainable model in a market like Singapore which is developed, where we are not a cost leader, we have a tight labour market, our market is small. So, therefore, we have to differentiate by being more innovative and delivering better quality.
How we do this will decide whether we are competitive or not. The answer though is not a simple one and it cannot be achieved by doing more of the same. And it is also not about just innovating and applying technology and automation. It requires rethinking of how business and work are done.
The services sector, as the name suggests, is all about service and customer experience. Many do fear that technology will result in lower customer touch, lower personalisation of services and poorer customer experience. With innovation, technology, if applied right, can achieve greater productivity and better quality but requires rethinking of the way we do things.
Let me share an example, a very simple one. This is an example that was shared with me of a business, Kopi Ong. It is a food and beverage (F&B) business. It services professionals in the Central Business District (CBD) area with freshly brewed coffee and tea. They differentiate themselves in a very simple way, by the signature kopi and teh to each of the customers' preferences. What it means for them though is that their staff will take longer in preparing the coffee, leading to queues and longer waiting time. What they did was that they tested a solution offered by Foodster, a chatbot solution developed by the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS) and Every Botty, a chatbot developer. And it allowed them to be able to let their customers chat via Facebook Messenger and order the drinks they want and pick it up and get notification when the drink is ready to go and pick it up. What it meant is that the business was able to achieve greater sales, better customer satisfaction because they picked up the coffee and did not have to wait in the long queue and they did not need to have more workers. They did not need to have more space as well. What this allows them to do is use technology, make it easier for their workers to plan the work and, at the same time, be able to get better personalised customer service.
So, if applied right, with the right partnerships, the right support, businesses can change. Just a simple example. But I thought it is important to make the point that it is not just about technology, it is not just about the way we do business, it is not just about people and the skill, it is all of them. Therefore, the support that is in place needs to do that.
Now let me talk about supporting an inclusive society. Education, employment, healthcare benefits and affordable healthcare and caregiving affect all Singaporeans at different stages of life and regardless of status. The various programmes announced in the Budget did signal an inclusive approach to support Singaporeans through the stages while building on the fundamentals for the long term.
Whether it was the MGP, the extension of CHAS for chronic conditions and some of the measures in the Bicentennial Bonus like the five-year MediSave top-up, these gave Singaporeans who are eligible, regardless of income and type of property they lived in, the support and the assurance. This inclusive approach in important in building our social fabric.
Similarly, Edusave top-ups to support families with school-going children as well as employment support for workers and seniors to enable access to opportunities were equally welcomed. And it is very important as they help give opportunities to all at different stages to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that they are presented with.
But as with all Budgets, we do have to recognise that finances are finite. To be sustainable, most support packages are means-tested to ensure that they are targeted and go to those who most need it. The challenge is finding the right criteria to use for the means-testing. While not perfect, per capita income and annual value of property living in are used in Singapore to assess eligibility. For several healthcare and care support programmes as well as the cost-of-living relief initiatives, when there is no household income, the annual value of property is used. With an ageing population, there are many middle-income seniors who live in modest private properties that will be above the $13,000 or the $21,000 annual value criterion used for means-testing. They, therefore, will not be eligible for many of these support schemes. An example is the Caregiver Grant that has recently been announced. Another is the support given to lower-wage seniors who work, which is WIS. For some of these seniors who do not own properties, they are not eligible for WIS if they live with a relative in a private property which will obviously have an annual value above the criterion.
With people living longer and cost of living concerns in a developed market like Singapore, while I agree that these schemes must continue to be means-tested and targeted to provide support for those who most need it, will the Minister give consideration to refining how we use the criterion of annual value of the property lived in? The current blanket rule of annual value of the property in relation to all who live within the same dwelling unit may miss its intent for scenarios that I had highlighted. Is it possible for there to be consideration for more flexibility in such cases to allow for eligibility?
The last point that I would like to touch on is the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Import Relief for travellers. I had not intended to speak on this, but it did intrigue me and the feedback I got was quite surprising. With the increasing trend of Singaporeans travelling, and if I understand correctly, the intent of the change is to make the tax system more resilient. If this is the case, has assessment been done on how much it is going to cost to collect the tax? I believe there will be some digital methods to submit the tax. But there will be administrative cost, workload for customs officers and inconvenience to travellers. This will all increase. So, I hope consideration is given to that. Will the cost of collecting the tax result in net revenue loss from the taxes collected? Can the Minister share the anticipated amount of tax to be collected and the significance to the tax revenue?
Regardless, all Singaporeans traveling will have to be more diligent in declaring their expenditure as failure to declare or incorrectly declaring the expenses does carry fines as well as prison sentences. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my concerns and comments, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree completely with the Finance Minister’s statement that Singapore's ability to plan for the long term is our strategic advantage. The social and economic measures unveiled in Budget 2019 build on the Government's efforts and investments in prior years to address ageing, social mobility and economic transformation. I welcome the targeted measures that build on that momentum to transform our economy and care for our people. This Budget offers a systematic set of programmes, each reinforcing and building on existing ones.
I am also heartened to see how, over the years, social safety nets continue to be strengthened for Singaporeans, and how our drive to raise productivity and transform the economy begins to bear fruit, even as much remains to be done.
As we celebrate our bicentennial year, we should count our blessings of a strong economy, a united people and the enormous advantages this presents in enabling us to chart our future confidently over the long term amidst a complex and volatile world. Our unique position contrasts starkly with many other countries. These include two of the world’s largest economies. I witnessed the anxiety and suffering of many American families resulting from their government shutdown, and the nightmare scenarios that the British people and businesses are contemplating in anticipation of the Brexit outcomes.
Sir, the generous measures in this Budget to help alleviate cost of living pressures are, indeed, timely. The MGP of $6.1 billion will provide half a million Singaporeans born in the 1950s better peace of mind in regard to their healthcare costs. The Bicentennial Bonus of $1.1 billion will provide additional help for broad groups of Singaporeans with their living expenses.
This year's Bicentennial Bonus follows last year's $700 million SG Bonus. This gesture of sharing surpluses with Singaporeans, whenever our finances allow, should be the regular feature of all future Budgets. There is no better way to build social cohesion than to share these upsides with the people.
Sir, Budget 2019 attempts to tackle many core issues facing Singapore, and I would like to focus my speech on the measures proposed to transform our economy and strengthen Singapore’s economic competitiveness.
The Finance Minister's vision of building Singapore as the Global-Asia node of technology, innovation and enterprise is very exciting. We can be very proud of the progress we have made in nurturing a flourishing startup ecosystem. We saw a significant rise in venture capital deals and the setting up of 150 global venture capital funds, incubators and accelerators based right here to support startups in Singapore and in the region. We invest substantially in scientific research, with $19 billion set aside for the Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2020 Plan. We now have a huge pulling power to bring the global innovation community to Singapore, as witnessed by the success of the Singapore FinTech Festival. As a globally recognised leader of intellectual property (IP) protection and scientific research, we are, indeed, very well poised to fully deploy our strengths and make this vision a reality.
Sir, to support this vision, we should focus our support on startups in deep-tech with research-based IP at its core rather than just general startups, especially on startups with the potential to scale globally. We should also strengthen our funding strategies for our universities and research institutes to encourage multidisciplinary collaborations, including partnerships with corporates, to solve impactful real-world issues. The reward system for our researchers and academics should provide the motivations for them to supercharge commercialisation of research and development (R&D) and industry applications.
I am excited about the plans to encourage young Singaporeans to gain overseas working experience with GRTP. Such internships afford an eye-opening and mind-broadening experience that no amount of book learning can offer. Our youths, equipped with unrivalled education and multilingualism, will better understand our place in the world and how to make the most of it. During my own corporate days, overseas assignments were a key component of development programmes typically reserved for the selected top graduates only. So, I am very pleased that this is now readily available to many Singaporeans through the Government's support. My advice to our lucky young people is, \"Go seize the opportunity!\"
Going digital and automation continue to be big themes in Budget 2019. The call for businesses, big and small, to go digital is loud and clear. Many companies have highlighted skills and talent shortages as significant barriers for them going digital and adopting new technologies.
Sir, besides the basic digital skills for everyday activities, our push to go digital must include an expansive talent strategy, especially for expertise in high demand areas, such as quantum computing, data analytics, artificial intelligence (AI) and cybersecurity. The expertise and skillsets we need for this digitalisation drive are in short supply the world over. So, we must critically evaluate how Singapore can build a sustainable pipeline of local talent as well as attract the best of foreign manpower, in order to build the critical mass necessary for a thriving innovation hub. We cannot do this alone. We must also look around. We must benchmark our attractiveness to compete for these globally mobile talents with other established centres, such as Silicon Valley, as well as new clusters like the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area.
With ITMs covering 80% of our economy, their progress is central to our economic restructuring effort to foster innovation, boost productivity and develop skills of workers in their respective industries. Even with 23 ITMs launched, their contributions so far are unclear. The feedback from the ground is that the pivotal roles that industry stakeholders and Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs) are expected to play have proven to be uneven across industries. Far too few TACs are able to lead the development of industry-wide capabilities and help their members access local and international networks. There is really an urgent need for the Government to evaluate the partnership model and support structure of how the different Government agencies, TACs, industry players, unions and training providers can come together to accelerate deep capability development.
Sir, amongst the economic measures, I am comforted to see that the Minister for Finance has dedicated $3.6 billion to support workers across many schemes. Many lower-wage workers who previously earned just over $2,000 are rejoicing to see the WIS qualifying income cap being adjusted from $2,000 to $2,300 per month. WIS is a key pillar of our social security system. This enhancement will provide $1 billion a year to supplement the income of 440,000 Singaporeans. I would like to ask the Government to consider qualifying more low-income Singaporeans to this uniquely Singapore scheme. With the rise of the gig economy, more Singaporeans, young and old, are engaged in work without the security of regular contributions to Central Provident Fund (CPF) and healthcare support. So, keeping in mind the overriding social objective of helping Singaporeans with earnings in the bottom 20%, it really would make sense to offer a form of WIS to lower-income gig economy workers to also help them save for retirement and healthcare, encourage work and raise their income.
Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the outlook for our fiscal position, Budget 2019 is expansionary, with an overall deficit of $3.5 billion. The healthy fiscal surplus accumulated by this Government in its current term has provided significant room for the Minister for Finance to plan ahead. He set aside a large sum of $15.3 billion under Special Transfers, including $6.1 billion for the MG Fund and $5.08 billion for the Long-Term Care Support Fund, to meet Singaporeans’ long-term needs. This is on top of the FY2018 Special Transfers of $9 billion for future rail infrastructure and GST Voucher needs. This enviable financial position is made possible by our strong fiscal discipline, robust contributions from NIRC and a strong economy in 2017 and 2018.
With the accumulated surplus of about $18 billion from previous years, there is also an ample buffer for counter-cyclical measures should the global economy pose greater downside risks than anticipated. With the significant funds already set aside in the last two years for future healthcare and infrastructure needs, I believe we are now in a much stronger fiscal position than planned. This scenario, coupled with the Government’s differentiated fiscal strategy of using borrowings to fund major long-term infrastructure projects, should offer relief from the need for major tax increases in the near to medium term. I urge the Minister for Finance to maintain our current tax regime for a much longer period, postponing the unpopular GST rate hike for as long as possible.
Mr Speaker, Budget 2019 addresses many issues, none more urgent than the need to restructure our economy for the next lap. This is truly our \"burning platform\", and we must press on. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, this year's Budget caught the eye for its strategic purpose – to build a strong and united Singapore. Singaporeans from different walks of life would inevitably have different ideas on how best to achieve this, with perspectives and views shaped by one's values and sense of justice and equality. To that end, the Workers' Party is no different. Apart from the strategic objective of the Budget, three statements resonated strongly for me, each albeit in a different context. These were: first, developing our people on a lifelong basis; second, taking care of not just this generation but our children and their children’s generation; and, finally, that the changes ahead will be deeper and faster. My speech will use these overarching statements to cover areas where the Government should consider and reassess its approach to build the strong and united Singapore that all Singaporeans, not just the Government, must navigate towards.
First, \"developing our people on a lifelong basis\". Mr Speaker, on this broad idea, I will share my thoughts about the MGP. The ground feeling is that even though it helps our senior citizens with their medical bills, albeit less generously than the PGP, there are also quarters who conclude that it is pungently timed with the election cycle, giving off the odour of an unfair advantage aimed at the electoral prospects of the People's Action Party (PAP).
Another feedback I received about periodic benefits like the PGP and MGP is the inherent inequity for some of our senior citizens who, by virtue of their year of birth, stand to miss out on a few years of medical benefits because of the interval between one-time packages. Similarly, senior citizens who missed out on the more substantial PGP when they were between the ages of 60 to 64 in 2014 also feel that the eligibility age of 60 for the MGP is inconsistent with the PGP.
To address such feedback, the Government should introduce a basic level of medical benefits through a universal and permanent senior citizen healthcare package from the age of 60. Quite rightly, the MGP announcement has led some Singaporeans to enquire whether our Budget can support such a package for our senior citizens. There is good reason to opine that it can.
Firstly, the introduction of Temasek into the NIRC framework from 2016 brings an additional $5 billion a year into the mix instantly and about $25 billion across a 5-year term starting from this term of Government. Notwithstanding the greater spending needs of the Government that certain Ministers have raised in the past, going forward, the 35%-odd increase in the NIRC from 2016 goes some way to explain the healthy accumulated surpluses accrued to this term of Government from the Opening of Parliament in 2016.
Secondly, with Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat's announcement this year of new modalities of development funding through borrowing, does this development free up revenue to fund recurrent spending? If it does, it would appear that funding such a universal and permanent healthcare initiative for our seniors cannot be dismissed as dishonest, unreasonable or imprudent. Instead, it can and should be viewed as the key pillar of a strong and united Singapore.
To begin with, the centrepiece of such a scheme should be aimed at alleviating the out-of-pocket expenses for primary healthcare, so as to address cost of living for all Singaporeans from the age of 60. Here, the additional subsidies for common illnesses and chronic conditions for outpatient care and meaningful discounts off subsidised bills at polyclinics and specialist outpatient clinics should be its central features.
The additional components of both the PGP and MGP, such as top-ups to PAssion Silver Cards, MediSave top-ups and other specific enhancements, such as the participation incentive to join CareShield Life for other unmet healthcare needs, can turn on the fiscal position of the Government. This would also provide a sufficient buffer to allow each Government to look into addressing more unique healthcare needs of specific cohorts or categories of workers. They would include those that had taken up gig-economy jobs or, for example, to address the CPF shortages of workers who made sacrifices when the Government moved to cut the employer contribution of their CPF in 2003 to keep Singapore as a whole economically competitive.
In addition, it is axiomatic that immigration is a permanent feature of Singapore for the foreseeable future. A permanent and universal senior citizen medical package would also represent a critical symbol of integration among all Singaporeans who hold the red passport, and it would follow that the eligibility age into such permanent schemes should be dispensed with. This is particularly so as about 20,000 new citizens are added to the pool of Singaporeans on a yearly basis.
Mr Speaker, when the Minister speaks of \"developing our people on a lifelong basis\", this House should not underestimate the peace of mind a permanent and universal medical package can give not just to senior citizens above the age of 60, but to all Singaporeans throughout their lives. Indeed, to be constantly reminded that a covenant exists between the state and citizen. Vowing to assist all Singaporeans equally with their medical needs in their silver years augurs well for a confident and assured society, without compromising the work ethic.
This is especially so as living in a developed country with one of the highest per capita gross domestic products (GDP) in the world comes with costs, particularly for the sandwich middle-class. As all Singaporeans commit their best years and pay taxes like the GST to the state throughout their working lives, a permanent package that helps our seniors manage their cost-of-living issues in their golden years will inject a powerful message of unity into Singaporeans of all ages. My colleagues Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, Mr Faisal Manap and Mr Dennis Tan will speak more on the MGP in the course of this debate.
Secondly, I seek to share my views on the Minister's exhortation that the Government seeks to \"not only take care of this generation but our children and their children’s generation\".
Mr Speaker, there is little to quarrel with such a statement. It coheres with the values many Singaporeans hold dear, regardless of race or religion. But looking after the next generation puts the question of intergenerational equity on the table. During the course of his speech, the Minister confirmed the Government's intention to pursue a differentiated fiscal strategy – one for major infrastructure investment and another for recurrent social and security spending. But this strategy also implies that there is a limit to how much the current generation should pay for the benefit of our children and their children, too.
To this end, when speaking of specific infrastructure investments envisaged, the Minister only spoke of funding Changi Airport's expansion through borrowing, while speaking more generally about how the Government funded the first Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) line through borrowing as well. In comparison, at last year’s Budget, four separate infrastructure prongs were highlighted, and these included the expansion of our MRT lines, regional redevelopment including the Jurong Lake District, Punggol Digital District and Woodlands North Coast, the rejuvenation of our Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats and associated infrastructure and finally, Changi Airport Terminal 5 (T5), the Tuas Megaport and the now postponed High-Speed Rail (HSR).
I have a few clarifications in this regard. First, can the Minister clarify if borrowing from the market for infrastructure development is only limited to Changi's expansion or does it extend to the other long-term infrastructure plans shared by the Minister last year? Secondly, and as a consequence, how will this new differentiated approach announced this year impact future budgeting and, more specifically, revenue available for recurrent spending?
Mr Speaker, leaving a sustainable Singapore for our future generations would mean planning infrastructure for climate change and rising sea levels, a subject Minister Heng Swee Keat spent some time on.
At the COS debate in 2016, I filed a cut on rising water levels and shared with Members a video of waves breaching the foreshore along a beach at the East Coast Park, flooding the back shore. The prospect of raising our roads, port areas amongst others, sounds like a massive undertaking both in effort and expense, particularly when one does not just imagine raising road levels, but thinks about building kilometres of dykes and so forth. The Minister shared that while it was difficult to project such spending, some preliminary estimates had been carried out. Could the Minister provide a sense of these estimates, the financing approach and the infrastructure required for this purpose?
Continuing on the effects of climate change, how little is recycled and how much food waste is generated in Singapore, it is apparent that the conversation Singaporeans need to have on conservation has to be elevated. This objective should be an explicit goal of the Waste Masterplan. I look forward to the Masterplan and hope Singaporeans are sufficiently moved into action by it. In fact, like the Government's successful water story, closing the waste cycle would be a significant chapter of the Singapore story and provide a blueprint for other cities to consider.
The Minister also mentioned in his speech that greening is an important public policy, given our dense urban environment. A few weeks ago, Channel NewsAsia ran a one-hour documentary on the effects of rising temperatures in Singapore with an emphasis on not just climate change in general, but the perils of greater urbanisation, identifying the urban heat island effect, with the loss of open areas and secondary forests like Tengah likely to have an immediate impact on liveability in future. Researchers posited that greening, it and of itself, contributes little to mitigate the urban heat island effect. How does the Government and the upcoming Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Masterplan accommodate the drawbacks of greater urbanisation, particularly rising temperatures, and how does it gel with our desire to leave a liveable Singapore behind for our children and their children’s children? If the Government is not finished building Singapore, how will it ensure that this effort will not come at the expense of our green spaces? I hope the Government addresses this matter clearly and actively welcomes a future where we place far greater emphasis on environmental impact assessments and its attendant social issues with a view to leave a sustainable Singapore for future generations of Singaporeans.
Finally, Mr Speaker, the Minister shared that the \"changes ahead will be faster and deeper\". In this regard the Bicentennial offers a unique opportunity to reflect on the colonial experience, both the good and the bad, the choices made, and where we are headed as a people. As Singaporeans of the PG grew up through the 1950s and as the MG grew up in the years after self-government, the colonial masters in the United Kingdom (UK) had earlier taken a leap of faith, ambitious and bold, even if imperfect, implementing a universal healthcare system for about 50 million people as the flag of the empire was lowered across the colonies. The 50-odd years since decolonisation saw newly independent societies and governments fashioning their countries to improve the lives of their peoples. Not all succeeded to the same degree. The vast majority had to contend with extreme poverty and problems on a far greater scale and with a much larger population than Singapore's.
As we move past the Bicentennial and into unchartered terrain, our challenges will be far more unique and complex than before. The availability of good jobs for Singaporeans first will be at the heart of many conversations. Employers and SMEs, many of whom have delivered phenomenal economic success to Singapore in the past, will have to adjust and effect real change at the workplace for the benefit of Singaporeans. This would include redesigning jobs for older and more experienced Singaporeans, more part-time or half-day or work from home opportunities, so as to better support our workers from mothers to senior citizens and gig-economy workers. On its part, the Government must be prepared to do more to support businesses that do so with tax relief or rebates so that the economic transformation many businesses are undertaking is directly dovetailed to jobs for Singaporeans. My colleague, Workers' Party Chair Sylvia Lim, will speak more on the employment landscape tomorrow.
The faster and deeper changes premonitioned by the Minister would no doubt include the irreversible advance of the smart nation, the rapid evolution of technology and its disruptive and dislocative effects on jobs. But what this prospect also means is that Singaporeans must commit themselves to participate in civic affairs if we are to be united and strong.
Mr Speaker, Singaporeans have been referred to as champion grumblers. I disagree. Singaporeans criticise because we care about the country and we care about the direction it is headed. But we also care about ourselves and our families and friends and do not want to be shortchanged.
A strong and united Singapore will not be built with some Singaporeans being made to feel that they must conform or support the Government's narrative with little room for alternative views. This is a sure way of heralding not just a divided and insecure population, but a divisive conversation about the choices we have to make collectively.
Increasingly, as we move into the future, the Government will not have all the answers. Since the days of decolonisation, numerous countries have introduced some form of legalisation that promotes greater transparency and accountability. In fact, out of the 110 or so countries in the world today which host some form of a freedom of information law, about 80 introduced such legislation only in the last 30 years or so. While such laws are no panacea nor a silver bullet, they are but one piece of a larger citizen-centric ecosystem, which moves the needle forward on civic participation. If change is, indeed, going to be deeper and faster, then Singaporeans must be ready to become active participants of that process, with the Government facilitating conversations by sharing more information. For example, insofar as the Budget is concerned, enough well-meaning Singaporeans do not just want to take the Government at its word but want to crunch the numbers themselves and better understand policy tradeoffs, but they are not necessarily able to do so today.
Last year, an article in the Business Times put this quandary in stark perspective. It was appropriately titled, \"Lack of data on Singapore's Reserves limits discussion on its use\". With about 20% of our Budget financed by proceeds from our Reserves, one can understand why this issue is a relevant one.
Mr Speaker, there are many well-meaning Singaporeans who want to consider different roads for Singapore, without losing sight of the hard truth of being a country without any natural resources and with our human resource (HR) of fellow Singaporeans as the only real substantive competitive advantage. The Bicentennial offers us an opportunity to imagine the richness and breadth of conversations about the Singapore we are entering into in the years to come, a Singapore that is not just economically successful, but socially and culturally confident, too, with Singaporeans of all stripes proud to call it home.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, many of the values that we hold dear – the importance of family, prudence, hard work and discipline – are all-weather values and must stand the test of time. These values must run through whatever future we envision for our children’s generation, wherever the winds of Global-Asia lead us and wherever we lead them. They must stand the test of time even if changes come thick and fast. They are at the foundation of the Singapore we all want.
But each generation must also be given the freedom to shape the future they seek and to feel that they are an integral part of the country. The Budget should reflect and facilitate this. The need for a confident population, as opposed to an insecure one, will be the \"X\" factor that determines how united and strong the Singapore of tomorrow will be. A confident population being one with more choices to determine its destiny; a society that accepts that it is only as strong as its weakest link and its most vulnerable; and a people – both employers and employees – all rooted to the Singapore that will always be home for us as we transit into our golden years.
Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his development and delivery of Budget 2019, our Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat, has lived up to his reputation of being both gentle and firm. This is a Budget that tries to uplift every Singaporean – the children, youths, seniors and, in particular, the MG. This is also a Budget that relentlessly pushes local enterprises and workers to step out of their comfort zone and build deeper capabilities to fend against the unforgiving disruptions caused by globalisation and technology.
I would like to speak on, one, the key pillar of our economy, the SMEs, which form 99% of all local firms; and two, the key pillar of our social service terrain, the VWOs, which, together with the public agencies, jointly deliver many of the social and even healthcare services in our country.
First, on SMEs, a key pillar of the Singapore economy, contributing about 50% of our GDP. In addition to creating wealth and jobs, a vibrant entrepreneurial spirit is a national asset that feeds a flourishing society. Hence, the responses by SMEs are important points of consideration in finetuning our policies or communications efforts.
There are two Budget features that I would like to touch on concerning businesses.
One is on the DRC or the restrictions on foreign manpower. It has been more than six years since foreign manpower dependence was tightened to drive higher productivity and redirect foreign manpower to higher tech-content businesses and also to protect the employment of our own local workers. However, whilst automation and digitalisation have helped industries, such as the construction and manufacturing sectors, the same cannot be said of the service sector. As Budget 2019 continues with the latest DRC reduction to 35% in 2021, sectors likely to be hit will be in hospitality, F&B services, the arts, entertainment and other lifestyle sectors.
I spoke to Mr Benedict Choa, the owner of Cube Boutique Hotel, which specialises in the capsule hotel model with its highly space-efficient yet comfortable bunk-bed accommodation in both Chinatown and the Kampong Glam vicinity. Ben, who has fully used up his foreign worker quota, primarily in the housekeeping department, has tried all means to transform his business model. He has found a new market niche in the highly space-efficient capsule hotel market. He has also automated his guest check-in system, and he took a leap with the Government agency, Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), to install a communal dining ordering system in the Kampong Glam tourist belt. And Ben is all ready to employ any local staff willing to work if he only can find them.
This manpower challenge on the ground is also faced by larger service enterprises, too. Mr Andreas Sugaimin, Senior Vice President of Human Capital and Development of Pan Pacific Hotel group, in his efforts to employ local staff, has embarked on a programme to employ persons with disabilities. Despite this, the group is still short of manpower as shift jobs in his industry continue to be unpopular amongst Singaporeans. Andreas and his team shared that the pool of willing workers from Malaysia and China is shrinking. And these are the hard truths on the ground.
How does the Government encourage enterprises like Cube Boutique Hotel and Pan Pacific Hotel which are aligned with our national directions and yet still face manpower challenges?
Next, on the tiered support for different tiers, different types of SMEs according to size. Instead of broad strokes, a different tiered approach is explicitly adopted in Budget 2019 to provide different strokes of help to SMEs of different sizes. Hence, high-growth large firms get more dedicated support and account management to scale and internationalise, such as using the Scale-Up SG programme. Those in the mid-sized tier will get slightly less. And the biggest base, comprising many of the small and micro firms, are assisted through more plug and play solutions at mostly self-help platforms or the heartland SME Centres. So, very differentiated approach for different tiers.
Dr Sue Ann Toh and her team, one of my grassroots, recently started Novi Health, a small firm, a medical clinic and health tech company which combines clinical care with technology-enhanced holistic solutions, to prevent and manage diabetes and other chronic conditions. Sue Ann spoke to me about her team's wish to access a roadmap and a competent Tech Coach which will likely not be available in view of her startup size and in view of our strategy of differentiated support for different tiers of SMEs.
So, whilst differentiated support favouring larger SMEs makes sense as larger firms arguably give more returns to the economy and provide more jobs, all large firms themselves, however, started small, often with humble beginnings. How would the Government identify and nurture small startups which deserve a leg-up but which might be overlooked because of their being defined as a micro or small business?
So, I have further suggestions to help the SMEs, for the Minister to consider.
One, aggressively identify, train and develop a special workforce comprising senior citizens and persons with disabilities; two, incentivise SMEs through higher SEC to employ these special workforce members; three, provide a buffer foreign headcount for a duration if an employer guarantees the training and employment of, say, more than 10 local staff with disadvantaged backgrounds; four, update the pool of source countries to include countries, such as Myanmar, to allow employers to fulfil the DRC; and five, adopt and execute well a four-pronged process to nurture the largest base of small and micro SMEs, the largest base of most SMEs. And the four prongs being the 4As – Awareness, Affiliation, Action and Advocacy.
Many SMEs are still not fully aware of the purpose and slew of measures the Government has in store for them. That is for Awareness.
Those who are aware may not be convinced of the need to change and upgrade and will need to affiliate or buy in through a more impactful and regular targeted sharing of successful transformations in their specific industries.
And three, SMEs which are aware and willing to take action often find themselves burdened by daily operational demands and fires. My search on the SME Portal was interesting, but it was insufficient to develop a roadmap or action plan if I were running my own business. So, some way must be found to competently facilitate clusters of similar SMEs on a regular basis to adopt or to pluck some low-lying fruits together, such as shared services in HR, accounting and common industry-specific applications. That is for Action.
Finally, Advocacy, in this four-step process. Just as Dr Robert Yap from YCL Group has risen to become an advocate for transformation in the logistics industry, more aggressive efforts ought to be made for more of such evangelists to be profiled for the rest and its industry and to harness these advocates' ideas for further industry transformation. We need more of the Robert Yaps in the other industries as well.
Sir, moving even the smallest SMEs from Awareness to Affiliation to Action and to Advocacy in Singapore's enterprise transformation vision is a framework that the Government can consider.
Finally, on building a caring society and the role of VWOs. Sir, it is a known fact that the demand for healthcare and other social service to assist our disadvantaged is mounting in our society. Our Finance Minister had himself shared that these needs cannot be met by the Government alone and will require the rest of the society – the village – to join in the solutioning. Besides donors, one significant partner to the Government is the VWOs. Unless they are more financially independent, much of their time will be taken up to seek funds instead of strengthening their services.
So, therefore, I have three suggestions to enhance the financial independence of the VWOs so that they can provide more sustainable quality services with the Government. I propose that the Government:
(a) further incentivise donors to Institutions of a Public Character by offering a 300% tax deduction provision for the Bicentennial Community Fund, similar to that implemented for SG50;
(b) help VWOs further earn their own stream of incomes by allowing VWOs to invest in Singapore Savings Bonds, for instance. This is currently not permitted; and
(c) invest. For Government to invest in and nurture VWOs with good track records and help them build social enterprises and other revenue-earning arms to reduce their dependence on Government grants and donations. Create platforms similar to the enterprise model that we see in the economy side, such as VWOs Go Digital!, Scale Up VWOs!, VWO Co-Investment Fund or even VWOs Go Regional! There is no reason why this sector cannot be more entrepreneurial and why they cannot spawn a MacDonalds' chain of sorts to create many more jobs for the differently-abled. There is no reason why they cannot set up e-commerce sites with plug and play solutions to market and distribute its own services and products. There is no reason why VWOs cannot start regional businesses offering much-needed training in social services, consulting services and disability management, for instance.
And since there is no way that the Government will be able to fund all the needs, it must find ways, like it does for the SMEs, to strengthen its VWO partners so that they, too, can be more financially independent and continue to be a strong service partner to the Government.
In conclusion, Sir, Budget 2019 is a comprehensive and sensible Budget. Will Budget 2019 make any major difference to the transformation of our country's business and social service sectors? I believe the devil is in the details and the key is in the execution. And I hope the Minister will consider some of my inputs. Sir, I strongly support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is against a backdrop of global economic uncertainty and geopolitical tension that Singapore is celebrating our Bicentennial in 2019. In recent times, waves of populism have swept across regions and countries, leading to the rise of nationalistic fervour, pressuring countries to adopt citizen-first policies and to implement protectionist trade measures over practices of global citizenship and internationalism.
Although trade relations seem to be improving between global giants China and the United States (US), the global economic marketplace and international political landscape are far from stable and certain. However, with uncertainty comes opportunity, and it is important for Singapore to continue to explore how we can continue to remain relevant and ready on the global stage, and leverage our strengths in multilateral and bilateral arrangements that benefit our country.
Sir, I would like to begin my speech by covering parts of the Budget that I believe supports this area.
First of all, supporting and enhancing the capabilities of our SMEs. SMEs continue to be the backbone of Singapore's economy, forming a significant number of all enterprises in Singapore, employing 65% of our workforce and contributing almost 50% of our GDP. I believe my Parliamentary colleagues Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Jessica Tan and Ms Denise Phua had already made this point.
In the midst of economic uncertainty, our SMEs certainly cannot afford to be complacent and it cannot be a case of \"business as usual\" for them. I thus applaud this year's Budget for keeping our SMEs in mind, and for putting in place measures that help them grow, especially to develop digital capabilities so that they can eventually cut down on the reliance on foreign manpower.
Schemes like the SME Co-Investing Fund III and the Enterprise Financing System are aimed at giving our SMEs a leg-up by improving their access to public and private funding so that they have the much-needed liquidity to import the latest technology, grow their businesses, and possibly eventually spread their wings beyond Singapore.
I would strongly urge our SMEs to continue to tap on schemes like the Go Digital programme and Digital Services Hub to scale up on their digital solution capabilities and shore up their competencies in the area of the Internet of Things as well. This would allow them to revamp their business model so that they could find their own niche in the midst of the evolving global economic landscape.
While the Government enables the financing system to help catalyse the growth of SMEs, I would urge International Enterprise (IE) Singapore do more perhaps to help our companies make their mark overseas, and to further enhance the Made in Singapore brand regionally and globally.
Can IE Singapore do more to help identify areas of growth and help groom our local companies to develop capabilities in those areas? The development of Centres of Innovation in Aquaculture at Temasek Polytechnic and the Energy Centre at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) have helped to synergise the R&D know-how of our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) with industry-led innovations to commercialise cutting-edge solutions. Can this be a model that IE Singapore can further explore moving forward? Can more such centres and incubators be created to spearhead growth in other areas?
I would like to move on to the topic of defence and security.
Recent developments in the region have shown that it is important for Singapore to have a credible defence force and to enhance our capabilities against cyberattacks. Mr Bilahari Kausikan put it adeptly at a recent public lecture that a strong and capable defence is Singapore's only leverage on the international stage, giving us an equal footing and bargaining power against other nations.
While much of the talks have focused on building our external defences, let us not forget to stay vigilant with regard to our internal security. As the Chinese saying goes, \"it is easy to parry a spear thrust in the open, but hard to dodge an arrow shot in the dark.\" While we can prepare and defend ourselves effectively against any form of external aggression, internal aggression by an enemy in the dark will always be the one that could catch us offguard. So, we thus need to maintain our vigilance against any potential acts of terror on our soil that might rear its ugly head from time to time. Our SGSecure initiatives must thus continue to be strong.
Very often, Mr Speaker, Sir, much more damage can be done by attacking the digital and cyber network of a country than attacking via a method of conventional warfare. Consider examples of how cyber terrorists could wreak havoc and create massive damage if they gained access and control of key services, such as our emergency services, airports and transportation networks or key installations like power grids. So, I am heartened that the Government has introduced a sixth pillar of total defence – Digital Defence – to combat this cyber threat.
I am thus in favour of the proposed spending on defence as I strongly believe that we need to ensure that we stay safe and secure always. Without robust international defence and domestic security, all our significant economic progress and social development would be significantly threatened and that would have grave consequences for Singapore.
I now would like to focus on a caring and inclusive society.
Singapore has always adopted somewhat of a centre-left policy structure and we must continue to take necessary steps to look after our citizens. The current ComCare scheme, for example, is useful in the way that it is meant to provide short-term support, but it does have its shortcomings.
At my Meet-the-People session, I have often encountered residents who need a little more support beyond what is presently available to get back on their feet. Although the ComCare short-to-medium term assistance that was rendered to them could be extended when needed, the process of putting in the repeated applications for extensions could be discouraging and demoralising for these residents who are already assailed by multiple challenges. As such, I am looking forward to the ComCare Long-Term Assistance scheme that will help provide a longer-term guarantee to help those who need more support, especially those who are unable to work due to unfavourable conditions and circumstances.
I would like to especially commend the Finance Minister and the Government for the MGP that recognises the contributions of the generation that lived in a period of uncertainty during Singapore's early Independence and who committed their lives to Singapore, often at significant personal sacrifice.
All of us here, Mr Speaker, would either have relatives or would know someone from the Mederka Generation, and one such person is one of my residents, Mr Sreevardhanan Vasu Pillai, or as he is known in our community, Mr Sree.
Mr Sree was born in 1951 and brought up in a kampung in Sembawang. As his father was the sole breadwinner supporting a family of eight children, Mr Sree entered the workforce after his Senior Cambridge Certificate, working as a bicycle mechanic while enrolling at Lembaga Gerakan Dewasa Pelajaran (Lembaga) which was a night school set up by the Ministry of Education (MOE) for workers seeking to upgrade themselves.
In 1969, he was called up to report for National Service as his request for a deferment to complete his studies was turned down. Mr Sree was eventually commissioned as an Artillery Officer in 1971 and he always speaks of his period of National Service with a great source of pride. As he himself says, and I quote, \"I was very proud to be in the Artillery Battalion. The training I underwent in National Service was very tough, but having lived in a kampung within a big family unit, I was able to tolerate the training regime. Along the way, I made many friends and they remain a source of strength for me up to today. The early batch of National Servicemen were considered the Pioneer guardians of Singapore.\" That is a wonderful tagline actually to tag for our early National Servicemen, the Pioneer guardians of Singapore.
Mr Sree then went on to join the Port of Singapore Authority as a clerk and, through continuous upgrading and learning, worked his way up to becoming an Operations Officer. In 2018, he retired from PSA after more than 45 years with the company. I think to some in our younger generation, that seems like an eternity. Forty-five years of loyalty to this particular company. This also included an eight-year stint in India that he saw as a form of \"National Service\", as felt he was part of a strategic initiative to develop a Singapore company overseas.
There are many men and women like Mr Sree who have shown the grit and resolve to not only contribute to the defence, economic growth and societal development of a newly-independent Singapore, but managed to upskill and upgrade themselves along the way, while also somehow finding time to raise a family.
These remarkable men and women are responsible for the trees that provide the shade that we are all now enjoying and I would urge the Government to review the MGP from time to time, and to top-up the benefits whenever we are able to so. I believe that this would give the MG peace of mind that their needs would be attended to and they would be looked after during their silver years.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I began my speech referencing Singapore’s Bicentennial and how we can continue to maintain our relevance and importance in the global landscape. Singapore has, indeed, come a long way since our founding 200 years ago, and we have survived several existential crises in the process.
As we celebrate the Bicentennial, I hope that we can all also take some time to think about not just where we came from, but where we are going to next. Let us embark on the search for deeper meaning behind what defines Singapore, our goals as a Country and our purpose as a People as these are important fundamental foundations and would certainly help our future generations remain anchored and rooted in the values that have brought us our success.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How.
The Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Heng Chee How): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. I listened to the Finance Minister's speech and noticed that he pointed to the role of unions, the crucial place of workers, many times in his Budget Speech. Therefore, it is true that we must continue to put workers at the heart of all we do. I thank Minister Heng Swee Keat for this.
My fellow Labour Members and I will speak up for the different segments of our working population. The common point that we want to make is that every worker matters to the overall good of the economy, society and country.
I will focus, as I have done over the years, on the mature working population. I would frame the context of my speech by making two points.
First, we are running into predicted headwinds as far as economic growth is concerned because of population and workforce trends. If we do nothing, our ability to generate national wealth to invest in the future and fund the welfare for the present will face problems, and inequality in our society will grow.
It is, therefore, crucial that we focus attention in this debate on how we can continue to grow this national economic pie.
Second, that by taking the right coordinated steps, we can turn threat into opportunity, continue our ability to grow economically and cohere better socially. This is the practice of social and economic defence.
For a few years now, we have been reminded that the local workforce in Singapore will plateau from around 2020, which is just next year. In other words, based on current employment and retirement rates, the incoming local workers will just be about enough to offset and replace the retiring workers, and there will be zero net growth in the local workforce.
So, one may ask, \"What if that happens?\" Well, GDP growth is the sum of the growth of productivity and the growth of manpower.
Thus, if the manpower growth component becomes zero, then GDP growth, which is how national resources are ultimately generated for use to care for Singaporeans, can only come from productivity growth. So, you have productivity and manpower, and if you get zero on the manpower side, then it is like flying a plane with one jet engine shut down.
Obviously, we would do better not to let manpower growth become zero. The question are: how do we do that? Where do we get the manpower from?
One way of looking at it is that we have four manpower taps.
The first one would be school leavers coming out of school and entering the workforce. What about these school leavers? To all intents and purposes, these were the babies born about 20 odd years ago. So, whatever those numbers are, it was already preset about two decades ago.
The second source is, indeed, productivity, and that is done through better work organisation, better design, technology, equipment and skillsets. And this is what Industry Transformation is about. By becoming more productive, the same number of people can create more economic value through their work, and this is very important and it is the other jet engine to fuel our growth.
The third source is foreign manpower. About one in three persons in Singapore’s workforce is a foreigner. It is obvious that we have to judiciously manage the size, mix and growth of this manpower source so that while we benefit from their important contributions, Singaporeans have a fair go at opportunities and prospects at all times.
In other words, we cannot just open the floodgates to foreign manpower in order to solve our zero net local workforce growth challenge.
Therefore, we have to look very carefully at the fourth tap, and the fourth tap is: how do we make the best use of our local population in the working ages, both those currently working, as well as the latent pool waiting to be activated for work.
Mr Speaker, Sir, prolonging the work years of those currently working was precisely the reason why I called for tripartite discussions to review the long-term retirement and re-employment ages in the Budget Debate last year.
I am grateful that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has convened a Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers to review retirement and re-employment ages and to consider adjustments to the CPF contribution rates for older workers. The Workgroup has been carefully considering these important and difficult topics, and there is much work ahead.
I am also grateful to the Finance Minister for extending the SEC and the Additional SEC so that mature workers’ cost-effectiveness continues to be reinforced.
There is more, however, that we can do besides reviewing the retirement and re-employment ages in order to get the best of our mature working age population.
Sir, when Singapore started industrialising in the late 1960s and 1970s and our economy needed manpower, that posed a challenge as to where that additional manpower would come from. At the same time, that challenge also offered an opportunity for households to increase their incomes and living standards and for Singaporean women to become more financially resilient.
There was a hurdle, however. Many women at the time were full-time housewives, having to look after the children at home while their husbands worked to provide for the family. How are they to go to work? Who is going to look after the children?
So, the basic transformation then was the scaling up of childcare provision. Parents could entrust their children to childcare in an affordable and accessible manner. That liberated the women from being stuck with no choice, to being able to choose to work.
At the same time, the economy got the additional manpower it needed. The country grew its wealth and could better afford to invest for the future and to care more for those in need.
And because Singapore took coordinated steps then to overcome that obstacle, the Singapore economy and our society are better off today, both in living standards and in having less inequality than if the women did not have the choice to work and to earn.
Sir, Singapore now faces a similar challenge to reactivate our latent working population to fuel growth and to meet short-term and long-term individual and societal needs.
According to MOM's Labour Force Survey 2018, there are close to 170,000 female residents aged between 40 and 59 in Singapore who were not working. Of these, around one in five, or about 33,000, of them cited caregiving to family members or relatives, excluding childcare, as the main reason for their not being at work.
Now, 33,000 is the equivalent of one year's birth cohort. And if we add to that caregiving that is cited as a secondary reason for the rest of that 170,000, net of the 33,000 citing caregiving, excluding childcare, as another important reason for their not working, then we are really talking about very substantial numbers. This leakage of national potential will grow as the Singapore population ages further, and more caregiving needs emerge within families.
At the same time, companies across many industries are facing a tighter labour market and crying out for manpower to meet their needs, and many Members of the House spoke about that just now.
So, there is a structural mismatch between the supply of and the demand for manpower, and it is not just a technical problem because there are profound social and financial consequences for the individual, family, economy and country if a large and growing pool of middle-aged Singaporeans is unable to earn for their immediate upkeep and retirement needs. This will then fuel inequality, and it will erode social cohesion.
The question then is: how do we turn this socio-economic threat into a dividend that will benefit all?
A 2017 survey by the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) U Family Secretariat of 529 stay-at-home women aged between 25 and 54 found that two in three of them were keen on returning to the workforce, if only suitable part-time or flexible work arrangements (FWAs) could be found to allow them to balance between earning an income and undertaking caregiving.
It is, therefore, clear that in order for this pool of latent workers to be activated, we need three key breakthroughs.
Firstly, we must establish what the requirements are for accessible, affordable eldercare provision in the community so as to relieve these 33,000 or even more caregivers to be available to undertake work, or at least part-time work if not full-time work.
Current capacity buildup and funding plans for such provision, be it for senior activity, senior day-care or live-in care, is mostly predicated on the expected health and social needs of senior care recipients. Considerations of how to relieve and liberate their caregivers to be able to choose to work are not central.
So, this review must look at that and must also consider whether the funding model for service provision can ensure that supply is sustainably built up at the pace that is required. Here, I would also want to borrow the point from Ms Denise Phua earlier when she spoke about VWOs to become even more financially viable and so on as they undertake the important work because many of the providers in the eldercare sector are, indeed, the VWOs and social enterprises and so on. So, the sustainability of the funding model is actually very critical as we scale it up.
Secondly, assuming that the effort to provide the care and to relieve the caregivers succeeds, then where can they find work and what can they find?
This is a critical question, because if supply of manpower is increased without a corresponding increase in the demand for manpower or increase in absorptive capacity, then it will not solve the problem, but will, in fact, raise the frustration and just increase the unemployment rate.
Earlier, I pointed to the U Family survey that showed a high proportion of caregivers wanting part-time or flexi-work. This also means that if more companies have such options for their workers, many of those who had to quit to care for family would have been able to stay on in work, thus continuing to earn and provide better for their immediate and longer-term needs, and also supplying the manpower on a continual basis to the companies.
But when we look at the Singapore labour market, it has long been based on primarily the full-time staffing model.
Comparisons of full-time employment rates for mature workers of ages between 55 and 64, comparing Singapore with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, it places us at about the 10th position with respect to our full-time employment rates for this group of 55 to 64. But when we look at the part-time comparisons, then we go down to the 23rd place, comparing with the OECD countries. These are 2017 figures.
So, this tells us that most Singaporean companies may not have yet learnt how to ably utilise and integrate part-time and flexi-work options into their mainstream manpower model, or are also perhaps unwilling to do so.
And this is so despite years of promoting flexi-work arrangements (FWA) by the tripartite partners at both the national and company levels.
I note with interest that there is an article in today's Business Times entitled \"Payoffs in productivity, engagement and creativity make flexi-work a worthwhile goal\". In there, there is a paragraph that says, \"A closer look at the data shows that although 93% of Singapore organisations offer flexible work, in only 21% is it offered broadly across the organisation. Flexible work needs to be implemented and not restricted in order for it to work\".
Therefore, a thorough review of how part-time work and flexible work options can become integral to the mainstream staffing models of Singapore companies, alongside the traditional full-time work model, is needed.
We also have to determine how to set expectations of HR practitioners in Singapore, so that they can then pick up and have the competence to operationalise this and make this work for companies, and to work well for companies.
We have to investigate mindsets, close knowledge gaps and consider incentives in order to open the way and grow the capacity. We can learn much from advanced economies like the Netherlands and Japan in this regard, as they have been able to achieve high employment rates for both full-time and part-time work. In other words, they are able to more fully activate their mature working populations.
So, it is not just a question of substituting full time for part time. Keep the full-time work rate high. But increasing needs, so how do we then introduce and enable this latent force, which is looking a lot for flexible and part-time work, to enter?
Success will only be achieved when potential supply is matched to potential demand. This matching is not trivial, and the outcome does not happen on its own.
Today, more than 40% of jobseekers above age 40, as helped by e2i, are successfully placed mostly into full-time jobs. Therefore, we must identify sectors and occupations with good relative prospects to achieve strong placement outcomes for flexi, part-time work as well. We must also see whether training and placement mechanisms for part-time work may be different from those for full-time work and, therefore, what may need redesigning.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I call in this year's Budget for a tripartite effort to, firstly, examine and ascertain the requirements for sustainable senior care provision so as to enable the activation of the latent mature manpower pool.
Secondly, to determine how fair and flexible work, especially part-time work, can be structured and pervasively incorporated into mainstream company staffing models, and to clarify the role and competencies of HR practitioners in this endeavor.
Thirdly, to determine how training and retraining and job matching methods should be adapted to achieve significant improvement in the placement rates into part-time jobs for the targeted returning stream of mature working age Singaporeans, many of whom currently have to make the stark choice between working and caregiving.
In doing so, Mr Speaker, we will stay alert to structural trends. We will then maximise our chances of staying a \"one united people\" that will, together, \"achieve happiness, prosperity and progress\". I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, every worker matters. As our society becomes more affluent, many of us are concerned with the plight of low-wage workers. Many of us have heard of the phrase \"It takes a village to raise a child\". In the same vein, I say that it takes everyone in society to help low-wage workers! Everyone, regardless of whether you are in Government, an employer, a service buyer or a concerned citizen, must realise that we all have a part to play to uplift the lives of our low-wage workers.
This year’s Budget is pro-worker. NTUC applauds the Government for its continuous efforts to help low-wage workers. We welcome the enhancements to the WIS scheme. Perhaps, the Government may want to consider increasing the cash-to-CPF ratio to put more cash in the hands of the low-wage workers to help them better meet their immediate needs, without impacting the allocated budget.
While NTUC continues to rally our workers to upskill, I believe that an important next step would be for the Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) courses to be reviewed. NTUC stands ready to work with the industry stakeholders, training providers and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) to ensure WSQ courses are comprehensive and flexible to suit the needs of the industry.
Our Government and employers have been very supportive of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM), and this has translated to real outcomes for our cleaners, security officers and landscape workers. NTUC hopes to see more industry stakeholders coming forward to work with the Government and NTUC to develop PWMs for their industries. Coupled with WSQ modules being made more relevant, it would be a sustainable way to raise the wages of our workers.
In this year’s Budget, NTUC welcomes the condition to have positive outcomes for workers as a core criterion for companies to tap on the EDG. NTUC is encouraging companies to work with their union leaders to set up training committees to identify training that will equip workers with the relevant skills for sustained productivity increase.
Although my previous call for better medical benefits under the Employment Act did not materialise, I welcome the enhanced CHAS subsidies and hope that MOH will allow CHAS cardholders to receive subsidised healthcare treatments at polyclinics even if referrals are made by CHAS-approved private clinics.
Mr Speaker, I believe service buyers can do more. Service buyers have a key role to play in uplifting the lives of our low-wage workers. NTUC has been encouraging them to adopt Outcome-Based Contracting and to place greater emphasis on quality attributes rather than contract prices. Adopting progressive procurement practices will ensure more favourable outcomes for all, including better welfare for our outsourced low-wage workers. What are these progressive practices?
First, contracts should specify service outcomes instead of headcounts and be evaluated more holistically based on the price-quality method, where quality has a higher weightage over price. Service buyers should avoid cheap sourcing which would lead to service providers undercutting one another in order to win contracts. Because with low margins, service providers are unlikely to provide better staff welfare beyond the statutory benefits.
Second, service buyers should consider longer contract periods. This would incentivise service providers to invest in technology since they can amortise cost over a longer period. Technology makes work easier, smarter and safer, leading to better service outcomes and higher productivity. In addition, it gives outsourced workers greater job security. Service buyers can also consider aggregating their demand to potentially enjoy economies of scale and more efficient manpower deployment.
Third, service buyers should treat their service providers as partners instead of mere contractors. They should ensure that their contracts have fair clauses and avoid unreasonable liquidated damages. When service providers have fair contracts, they are more likely to do a good job and train their workers to deliver higher service standards. Otherwise, workers would usually bear the brunt of bad contracts. This happens when service providers find ways to minimise cost at the expense of workers' welfare.
Finally, when contracts are renewed, service buyers should consider the experience of the incumbent workers as well. These workers are more experienced and familiar with the job requirements. Thus, in awarding a new or renewed contract, service buyers should ensure that incumbent workers’ wages and benefits are not worse off than before.
NTUC hopes to see more Government bodies take the lead to adopt these Outcome-Based Contracting and progressive procurement practices. Our unions have been working closely with the industry associations to engage buyers and catalyse this on the ground.
Besides this, service buyers have a moral responsibility to look after the welfare of their outsourced workers. This includes the area of training, allowing service providers to send their workers to attend training without requesting for headcount replacements, and workplace welfare.
Therefore, I call for building owners or service buyers to provide designated rest areas for their outsourced workers. I am sure if workers are treated well, they will put in their best efforts to deliver quality service. To lead by example, I call upon all Government agencies and related bodies to ensure proper rest areas are provided for outsourced workers. The unions can work with building management to propose solutions for proper rest areas to be built.
On the part of service providers, NTUC has been vocal against the practice of price undercutting or suicide bids, because when service providers have difficulty maintaining the contract subsequently, it is their workers who suffer. Service providers should not gamble on their workers’ wages and welfare and hope that the contract they won through price undercutting will bring them profit. I urge the Government Ministries and service buyers to keep a lookout for price undercutting and exclude such service providers from getting contracts.
NTUC has been instrumental in the recent changes to the Employment Act and the introduction of Tripartite Standards. We have been active in encouraging companies and service providers to adopt the tripartite guidelines and standards which promote fair and progressive employment practices, which have also helped to make working conditions better for low-wage workers. We hope that the Government will only do business with companies that have adopted these tripartite standards.
Mr Speaker, workers must embrace training and technology. Low-wage, vulnerable workers must also help themselves to earn better wages through upskilling and knowing their employment rights. NTUC has been urging our workers to \"train up to keep up\" and \"skill up to move up\". We want workers to embrace the adaptive technology and technical skills relevant to their industry to become Worker 4.0, hand-in-hand with Industry 4.0.
With the huge training subsidies provided by the Government, the onus is also on the workers themselves to seize the opportunities available.
Finally, society at large can make a difference. Let us not take for granted clean, green and safe environments that we work, live and play in every day. These are not a given. They are the result of a lot of hard work put in by our cleaners, security officers and landscape workers.
As individuals, we can show our appreciation to them with simple acts. Return our own trays at the food centres; greet and give them a smile when you see them. Do not litter and do not think that you are doing them a favour by creating work for them. These acts do not cost us a thing, but they can go a long way in brightening up their lives. Make it our habit to care. A gracious society does not happen by chance. It is up to you and me to make a difference. Mr Speaker, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tEvery worker matters. Helping low-wage workers should be everyone’s responsibility. In this Budget, the Government has increased the payout under the WIS scheme and provided other forms of assistance like CHAS and training support.
It is important that service buyers and service providers conduct their business honestly and fairly so that low-wage workers can enjoy better salaries and a better working environment.
Low-wage workers should also take up opportunities that are available to enhance their skills, especially in the application of technology. I would also like to encourage the public to be more considerate by lightening the workload of low-wage workers.
Many of us are perhaps unaware, but in our daily duties and lives, we can play a part in helping our low-wage workers earn a living with dignity.
(In English): Mr Speaker, let me conclude. As a society, we are judged by how we care for the less fortunate. Helping low-wage workers earn better wages, gain better welfare and be shown greater respect is not the responsibility of the Government alone. It is our collective responsibility to create a better society, one that is inclusive and caring, and one that ensures all workers feel a sense of belonging.
Whoever you are, do what you can, and with whatever you have to help a low-wage worker live with dignity. Every Worker Matters. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Hin Kee.
Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, the Minister for Finance spoke on the need to develop deep capabilities and how our Singaporean talents have been making their mark in various fields, and how connecting with other highly skilled individuals from around the world have made us even stronger. That has been most aptly portrayed by how our freelancers have contributed to the successful making of the Hollywood movie “Crazy Rich Asians”. They have also benefited from collaborating with global talents in this regard.
Let me declare my interest as a Director in charge of the Freelancers and Self-employed Unit in the NTUC.
Freelancers have responded positively to the Minister for Finance's message on how the Government will help workers deepen capabilities and seek new opportunities. I will touch on this in the first part of my speech and thereafter on the impact of diesel tax.
Today, one in 10 workers are self-employed or freelancers. The emergence of digital platforms has created more options and easier access to an alternative or additional source of income. However, freelancers that we spoke with cited challenges, such as loss of income due to prolonged illness or injury, training gaps and unclear contracts. The Tripartite Workgroup formed by MOM has come up with recommendations to address these concerns. Some ideas implemented have had good traction, but we can do more and do it faster.
A case in point is the formation of the National Instructors and Coaches Association (NICA). It was registered with the Registrar of Societies and became an affiliate of NTUC just last month to represent the interests of freelancers who teach sports, enrichment and wellness. Because every freelancer matters, NTUC and NICA's first piece of work is to collaborate with insurers to offer Prolonged Medical Leave (PML) insurance to instructors and coaches.
In fact, a member recently suffered an injury and was on medical leave for two months. Previously, he would have to rely on his own savings. But with the insurance cover, the payout enabled him to receive income during his recuperation. However, not many have taken up such a policy as they fear losing out on bids if not everybody takes it up. This is one area where Government Procurement entities can encourage freelance bidders to be protected.
In January this year, the National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA) worked with ride-hailing operator Grab to help their active drivers enjoy free Prolonged Medical Leave coverage. I am also the Executive Adviser for NPHVA and, this morning, we managed to get, together with the help of MOM, GOJEK to also offer similar product protection for their driver partners. I hope all operators will do the same for all taxi and private hire drivers to be covered under such insurance coverage. To this end, I would like to appreciate the efforts by MOM and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to engage these operators. It is actions, such as these, that will affirm their assertions that drivers' interests matter to them.
I feel that Budget 2019 is pro-worker with initiatives like the GRTP and the Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) to help workers with skills upgrading and to move into new growth areas. Freelancers also want to participate in these initiatives. They do not have easy access to courses and support. It can be extra daunting if they work in specialised fields where there are few local providers or experts. Typically, for them, training is also self-funded. Potential loss of income when they attend classes also deters some from attending such training.
But we have had some early successes in providing training support to them with the help of some Government agencies and NTUC Learning Hub. For example, we contextualised first-aid courses for outdoor learning and adventure instructors. We also customised SkillsFuture for Digital Workplace training for taxi drivers and sports coaches. Masterclasses and workshops were also co-organised with freelancer associations. We hope to receive more help even as we intensify our efforts to deepen the competencies of more freelancers.
We are glad that there are initiatives like those by IMDA to develop the media sector skills framework. IMDA also provides training allowance to alleviate the loss of income when media freelancers attend approved training. I hope that other Government agencies will quickly put in place skills frameworks and training allowance for freelancers in sectors under their purview.
We have also made some progress in technical training for individuals like riggers – those who set up lightings and sound systems on ceilings and walls – and boot camps to equip new media freelancers on how to go about submitting quotations and how to go about training and deepening their own competencies. This also includes upstream efforts with MOE’s Education and Career Guidance officers. Together, we co-curate sessions where youths in tertiary institutions can get a clearer picture as to what a freelance career entails.
Mr Speaker, Sir, young freelancers shared that they want to be a part of the GRTP. They, too, want opportunities to gain working experience overseas. We hope that the Ministry can consider partnering us and freelance associations to send our young freelancers to key regional markets. We in the NTUC also stand ready to select and prepare young workers from among unionised companies, especially those who have displayed leadership skills, to gain overseas exposure so that they can support our unionised firms’ expansion plans.
Freelancers and self-employed persons (SEPs) are often frustrated by late or non-payment for work done. Sometimes, they have to deal with buyers who exact additional demands beyond the agreed scope of work. Usually, disputes arise because the agreed terms are not documented or when the contract terms are vague.
MOM recently reported that 500 companies have adopted the Tripartite Standards when contracting with SEPs. I am glad our joint efforts have seen some early take-ups. The standard helps.
However, I also want to applaud the MOF team in getting all Government Procurement Entities to adopt the Tripartite Standards. Let us encourage more to do so, especially the recipients of transformation efforts supported by Enterprise Singapore’s EDG.
I would also like to thank the MOF team for guiding freelancers to navigate Government procurement procedures. Many would like to tender and bid for projects offered by the Government, and I am happy that we will next co-produce with MOF a brochure with information on procurement procedures and practices so that freelancers know how to provide and bid for Government projects.
Mr Speaker, the second part of my speech deals with the impact of diesel tax. The Minister for Finance's announcement that diesel duty will be increased has caused much concern among taxi drivers. Taxi drivers wished that the Government can provide more support to help them manage higher operating costs. Why is that so?
First, while there is some rebate to cushion the impact, they need more assistance. The average cost increase even after the $850 rebate is about $2 to $3 or up to $4 per day because they use about 50 litres of diesel a day if there are two shift drivers of the diesel taxi.
We have called upon taxi operators to help beyond just passing on this diesel rebate that the Minister has offered to the drivers. In fact, why is it that they can do more? It is because, firstly, they can consider reducing the daily rental of the taxis which, today, ranges from about $110 to $120. They can also consider cutting pump prices because they offer pump stations to their drivers. They themselves operate the pump stations. So, very different from other businesses. When their costs increase, taxi drivers cannot pass on this cost increase to commuters because they also do not set the fares of the taxis. The fares are set by the operators. The type of vehicle is selected by the operators. I cannot choose between vehicles A and B because you have 16,000 diesel vehicles that the taxi drivers choose from. So, if the operator offers non-diesel taxis, then the taxi driver would not have to incur this additional diesel tax.
So, a lot of the conditions seem to be favouring the operator or beyond the control of the drivers. I urge the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and MOF to look at taxi licence operators implementing positive outcomes for workers to form part of the licensing criteria.
Perhaps, if the operators are not keen on doing more, the Government can consider issuing fuel pump licensing rights to the unions. We can then appoint the appropriate operator who will sell fuel at the right price to members and manage them manage costs.
Mr Speaker, Sir, personal responsibility in making well-informed choices about contracting practices, protecting against contingencies, for example, buying insurance, and planning for future needs remain core principles for freelancers. However, support from the Government in training and setting the tone for all buyers will be an important boost. I urge business buyers and operators to also offer freelancers a fair and reasonable deal. That is a Budget outcome that will matter most to freelancers. With that, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Budget 2019 has been billed as a strategic plan aimed at building a strong and united Singapore. I am glad that the Minister for Finance has acknowledged in his Budget Speech that strengthening Singapore's economic competitiveness is an ever-continuing journey and there is more that we can do to support Singaporeans on this journey. My speech today will focus on two areas which I think we can do more, especially for working Singaporeans – in Training and in Workplace Safety and Health.
First, all of us in the Labour Movement are heartened to hear that the Government will be dedicating $3.6 billion towards helping our workers thrive and adapt to industrial and technological changes. With the increasing pace of technological advancement, we must ensure that workers – be it those in multinational corporations (MNCs) or those in SMEs – are able to tap on training opportunities and ensure that they continue to stay relevant amidst the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
From the feedback that I have received in my weekly visits to workplaces and through speaking to a broad spectrum of blue- and white-collar workers, I have identified three key challenges facing our workers when it comes to training. They are course, cost and time. Let me elaborate.
The first challenge that workers face comes when selecting their courses. The Government rolled out the SkillsFuture initiative to encourage a culture of lifelong learning. This initiative has done well, with about 465,000 Singaporeans benefiting from SkillsFuture Credit training subsidies. However, there is an overemphasis on having a breadth of courses available, rather than having in-depth SkillsFuture courses to help build mastery in the domain. Some have also given me feedback that the process of course selection can be disheartening, especially when they find that a course offered by a polytechnic or university is not eligible for reimbursement by their SkillsFuture Credit.
The second challenge is cost. The $500 SkillsFuture Credit offered by the Government may not be sufficient for a variety of reasons. Many courses cost more than $500 and, often, going on a single one-off training course would deplete one's entire SkillsFuture Credit account. Many workers do harbour hopes of returning to school to get that diploma or degree that they did not pursue when they were younger. But the cost of these courses can be prohibitive, as they are no longer eligible for the same subsidies enjoyed by our young Singaporean students.
The third challenge is simply the lack of time. Many working in the SMEs tell me that they do not have time to go for training as their organisations are already so manpower-lean. Those in the MNCs do not have it easier either. They tell me that while they are given the time to go for training in the day, they end up pulling what they call “double shifts” – having to still complete their work at night after class, in the office or at home. Cost and time are two of the most common reasons given by those who have yet to utilise their SkillsFuture Credits.
How then can we collectively work to address these challenges that our workers are facing? I am proposing three strategies:
(a) build depth;
(b) bring training closer to workers; and
(c) formalise the importance of training with management.
First, building depth. The Government can encourage workers to go for training and build depth in their chosen fields by allowing all local polytechnic and university courses to be automatically offset by the SkillsFuture Credit. This should cover all types of courses, be it part-time diplomas, specialist certificates, executive education programmes or one-off specialist modules. Given the more expensive nature of such courses, I would urge the Government to consider providing a top-up to the SkillsFuture Credit to encourage Singaporeans to go for these courses that provide them with more depth to support their career goals. Better still, I hope the Government can give all adult Singaporeans a second bite of the cherry by providing education subsidies to mature students who wish to pursue a diploma or degree in our local IHLs. This will certainly cement our commitment to invest in lifelong learning.
Helping to identify training needs and craft in-depth training courses is an area where tripartite cooperation is useful. The National Transport Workers’ Union (NTWU) has been actively working with LTA and the public transport operators to help our workers upskill and reskill. This includes setting up the Singapore Bus Academy and the Singapore Rail Academy to provide workers with relevant and timely training.
Last year, the union worked with Singapore Bus Services Transit (SBST) to roll out the Operator-Maintainer training course, which empowers our bus captains to perform simple vehicle repairs. At the course’s graduation ceremony, I met 63-year-old Bus Captain Varathan. He has been a bus captain for over 40 years and this was the first time he was taught to do maintenance work on his vehicle. He was one of the pioneers to complete the course and shared with me that there were plenty of hands-on practices during the course which made the training very much easier to understand. He was also appreciative of this chance to develop skills and knowledge that would come in handy in his daily work. I hope the story of Bus Captain Varathan will inspire many more workers to have a lifelong learning attitude and be open to training and upskilling.
Second, let us bring training closer to workers to support them in this lifelong learning journey. Some courses simply cannot be done online. For courses that require physical premises, our schools and IHLs can be a convenient location for workers to go and upgrade themselves. The Labour Movement has begun taking steps to bring training closer to our workers. Let me cite an example. The United Workers of Electronics and Electrical Industries (UWEEI) have signed memorandums of understanding with three polytechnics in the west, east and north to provide workers with a wide variety of training courses at locations close to their workplace or their home.
For SMEs worried about sending their employees for training over a long period of time, we can bring training closer to them by having modular courses offered online. SMEs can leverage NTUC's e2i U Leap app. This is a mobile learning platform that allows users to learn bite-sized modules on the go and take anywhere between 30 minutes and two hours off work to focus on learning during the week. Last year, e2i also released U Leap Enterprise, a mobile learning platform where e2i works with companies to curate specific courses for their workers, which I think is very suitable for SMEs to address their workers’ training needs. This will not only save employees' travel time and hassle, it also minimises downtime for the company.
To ensure that upgrading workers' skills is seen as a priority towards a company’s transformation, training must be formalised and recognised by the management. Therefore, I encourage companies to work with the Labour Movement to make training a shared responsibility and make training real for our workers.
Mr Speaker, let me now touch on workplace safety and health (WSH). It is imperative that we continue to invest in WSH practices to ensure that our workers can return home to their families, safe and healthy, everyday. Our closely coordinated tripartite efforts in recent years have started to bear fruits. Workplace fatalities in 2018 have reached a record low of 41 cases. But despite the decrease in fatalities, the number of major and minor injuries have increased.
There are four areas that we can do more to safeguard our workers' safety and health at the workplace. First, we need to place more emphasis on workplace health. Our workforce is ageing and many have shared with me that they are increasingly facing higher stress levels at work. Recent studies have shown that poor workplace health contributes to work-related injuries and fatalities. We can do more to place more emphasis on workplace health, for example, by mandating yearly health check-ups for better detection and prevention of chronic occupational diseases.
Second, to encourage employers to build safer and healthier workplaces, we need to increase the cost to companies with poor WSH track record as deterrence. Under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA), all employees doing manual work, as well as all employees earning $1,600 or less per month need to be insured. Insurance companies should put in place a tiered insurance premium framework under WICA, where companies will have to pay higher insurance premiums if there are many claims of the same incident nature.
Third, every company must have a trained WSH representative. The current legislation only mandates for a WSH officer to be appointed in some workplaces, such as shipyards, petroleum processing plants and factories which employ over 100 people. According to the 2018 National WSH Statistics Report released last week, even lower risk sectors are not spared from WSH accidents. As such, we should consider expanding the requirement of having a trained WSH representative to all companies, to make WSH pervasive in every workplace.
Fourth, we need a National WSH Training Academy. Our workforce is diverse and it is this cultural diversity in our workforce that makes it challenging to train our local and foreign workers in workplace safety. There are currently 12 approved training providers that conduct WSH WSQ courses for the construction and metal working industries, but the training resources at each of these training providers can vary significantly. Having a National WSH Training Academy will better ensure high and consistent WSH standards across all sectors, particularly in high-risk sectors like construction and manufacturing. I will speak more about this during the upcoming Committee of Supply debate.
In conclusion, the Labour Movement is heartened by the Government's commitment and investment in our workers throughout the years, in particular, the focus on deepening worker capabilities in this year's Budget. This is a Government that cares for our workers. Let us continue to invest in lifelong learning and put in place strong measures for WSH to ensure a well-trained, future-ready, safe and healthy workforce. Because, I am very sure, this House will agree with me that Every Worker Matters. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.
The Senior Minister of State for National Development and Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Mr Speaker, Sir, the 2019 Budget is a strategic and forward-looking one, with measures that are meant to benefit Singaporeans of all ages. These include strengthened support in education for young Singaporeans, as well as the MGP and Bicentennial bonus that will help older Singaporeans and low- to middle-income families. In particular, I was glad to see strong support for businesses and workers, with measures that will help them embrace and adapt to industry transformation.
For enterprises, the Scale-up SG programme and pilot Innovation Agents programme will help firms build deeper capabilities to innovate and grow. For workers, the extension of SEC and CSP will help them upskill so that they can keep ahead of the curve and be ready for emerging jobs. Businesses and workers must embrace change together so that everyone can reap the benefits of industry transformation. While these measures and announcements are encouraging, there is more that we can do and I want to focus my speech in two areas. First, to enhance the employability and employment of our older workers; and two, to make industry transformation \"real\" for our workers.
Sir, our population is ageing. Older Singaporeans form a significant part of our workforce, which has a quarter aged 55 and above. This proportion is likely to grow as Singaporeans enjoy better healthcare and higher standards of living. Older workers are valuable assets who can contribute experience and maturity to our workforce, and we must better ensure their employability and employment. With our transition to a knowledge-based economy and the wider use of enabling technology, our workers rely less and less on physical strength and their work experience becomes an even more important asset. Our older workers with their years of industry experience are well-placed to leverage technological tools to maximise their productivity potential.
Successful Industry 4.0 transformation must be complemented by a capable and competent Worker 4.0. But this transformation is not a straightforward process. There are challenges. The key challenge is mindset change of both employers and workers. Some employers prefer hiring younger workers, while some older workers are apprehensive and resistant towards emerging technology trends. In the face of rapid technological changes and the evolving demographic profile of our local workforce, the Government, businesses and workers must all be ready to adjust their mindsets and adapt to changes.
This change in mindset must be led by employers. With supportive employers coming on board the transformation journey, workers will also be encouraged to pick up the relevant skills. Here, I would like to encourage enterprises and companies to focus greater efforts in two areas to integrate more older workers into the workforce. First, companies must put an emphasis on job redesign to ensure that older workers are able to adapt to new technology and to different work environments. This could mean improving the user interface of a process so that technology adoption is much easier.
For example, some SMEs I have visited in the manufacturing sector have made the control of industrial robots via the use of iPads very much more intuitive. The operator does not need to understand the inner workings of the robot. He only needs to be familiar with the controls on the iPad. By using a familiar platform like the iPad as the user interface between the operator and the industrial robot, older workers found it much less daunting to adapt to robotics and automation and are able to improve on their productivity.
Innovation and technology adoption do not have to be complicated for businesses or workers. We must do more to ensure that job redesign and technology adoption remain user-friendly and intuitive for our workers, both the young and old. A more conducive work environment through job redesign will attract a younger talent pipeline to enter the industry while enabling experienced older workers to expand on their job roles.
Second, companies must provide better training for older workers to upskill or reskill to leverage technology. For example, PSA has been testing and adopting many automation technologies, including unmanned automated guided vehicles (AGVs) as well as automated and remotely-controlled yard cranes. To ensure that their drivers and crane operators remain relevant and employable, PSA worked with the unions to train them for higher-skilled roles. The result is new skills, better pay and greater fulfilment for its workers and, of course, enhanced productivity for PSA.
Training and reskilling are key to ensure that our older workers remain employed and employable. In 2018, more than 40% of clients served at NTUC's e2i Career Centre were aged 50 and above, and approximately 30% of this group were professionals, managers and executives (PMEs). PMEs are, therefore, also at risk of displacement and must continually upgrade to seize emerging job roles. NTUC has been working with the Government and industry partners on the PCPs, Place-and-Train Programmes and Professional Development Programmes to upskill and reskill older workers. These programmes have been successful in helping many mature PMEs enter new and exciting job roles.
We, therefore, welcome the Government’s move to expand PCPs into new growth areas, such as blockchain, prefabrication and the development of embedded software, to support mid-career professionals entering these sectors. We will continue to work with the Government and employers to strengthen the employability of our older workers through our network of unions, social enterprises and our U Associate partners.
There are other funding levers that NTUC can work with the Government to better incentivise and support companies to upskill and reskill older workers. We will work with the Government on implementing the changes to the EDG and PSG to ensure workers' outcome will be one of the key endpoints of ITMs.
Government grants for transformation must partner the Labour Movement and result in better outcomes for our workers. We need to continue helping Singaporean workers keep pace with economic transformation so that they can continue to have better wages, better career prospects, progression, protection and privileges.
Since we launched the ITMs, much has been done and we are starting to see early successes across many sectors. However, the ultimate beneficiary of our ITM initiatives must be the Singaporean worker. Transformation and ITMs need to be made real, with real tangible benefits for our Singaporean workers. And I will be sharing more about this at MTI's Committee of Supply debate.
Mr Speaker, Sir, training is, therefore, an important aspect of ensuring our workers, young or old, remain relevant to the transforming industry landscape. Only by helping our workers meaningfully and effectively use technology can we unleash the full potential of technology as a multiplier to the capabilities of our companies to be globally competitive.
In my many conversations with our workers and employers, two issues stand out.
First, workers and companies are unsure of where to go and get started on training. Workers who are keen to undergo training are confused by the myriad of courses available by different course providers and are unsure of what exactly is the most suitable course that they should go for. Some companies also find it difficult to navigate the training space and find the right partners to train their workers.
Second, workers are often not involved in the change management process in the company's transformation and wondered if they will be able to meet the needs of the company or get displaced by automation and robotics. Some companies have embarked on transformation but have yet to translate increased productivity into tangible benefits for their workers. This has all led to a sense of unease among some of our workers on what industry transformation holds for them.
To address these issues and make industry transformation \"real\" for our workers, the NTUC Training Council and the Training Executive Committee (Training Exco) were formed last year. The Training Exco, which I chair, comprises unionists and senior Government officials to coordinate the implementation of training efforts. To address the two issues which I highlighted, the Training Exco will focus our initial efforts in these two areas.
Firstly, to help companies and workers navigate the training space, a key priority for the Training Exco this year is for NTUC to become a viewfinder for workers' training. NTUC will work with unions, industry partners, Government agencies as well as IHLs to curate courses and simplify the training space for businesses and workers.
NTUC's e2i will be rolling out some enhancements to U Leap, a mobile app that can be a useful tool for workers to upskill, reskill and acquire knowledge in bite-sized formats. Over 200 topics and modules will be reclustered to align to the 23 ITMs to help workers in each of the sector navigate through the courses. There will also be quicker registration and on-boarding process for learners to intuitively navigate U Leap for a better user experience.
We plan to introduce more certifiable modules in collaboration with educational institutes and professional organisations. NTUC will also work with agencies like the Economic Development Board (EDB) and ESG to bring more SMEs onboard U Leap Enterprise version.
To date, we have 15 companies, including SMEs, such as Feinmetall and Fong Engineering, who have reaped the benefits of customised content for their workers' training to learn on-the-go. This has allowed workers to acquire useful knowledge without the need to be away from work, helping SMEs to better manage their manpower while, at the same time, upskilling their workforce.
To build a healthy ecosystem that supports transformation efforts, U Leap, together with Human Capital Singapore, will launch a community network for SME bosses in March this year. This is the start of various U Leap communities to enable users to network and participate in crowd-sourced learning as well as be attuned with trending topics on U Leap itself.
Secondly, to ensure that workers are co-drivers in the change and transformation process, the Labour Movement will be working with companies on the setting up of Company Training Committees, especially in our unionised companies. Both management and workers must work together to engender continual training as an important ingredient for business transformation and increased productivity. Workers must be a co-driver in this change process.
The Training Exco, through the promulgation of Company Training Committees in the companies, will enable the Labour Movement, employers and the Government to work together more closely to operationalise the ITMs and, in particular, support future skills development and job placement strategies under the various ITMs. We must ensure that industry transformation leads to real outcomes for our workers, be it wage growth or retention of older workers and upskilling of our workers.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, this year's Budget has presented a clear focus on supporting the needs of both businesses and workers so that they can take the necessary steps to transform and adapt to the future economy. This is a Budget that is both pro-enterprise and pro-worker.
It sends a strong signal that Industry 4.0 and Worker 4.0 must continue to go hand-in-hand for us to succeed in the competitive global environment.
With close partnership amongst the Government, businesses and workers, with our strong tripartite relationship, I am confident that we can overcome challenges and achieve win-win-win outcomes for all. Sir, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate. This Budget is a pro-worker Budget. By revising national enterprise schemes to focus on worker outcomes places workers' interests at the core of Government policies.
I would like to discuss further on two particular themes touched on in the Budget: helping youths succeed and prioritising lifelong learning for all workers.
Our younger Singaporean workers, unlike generations before theirs, face more disruptions in their work lives. In fact, they are almost certain to need multiple career and skill trampolines. Job facilitation for fresh graduates, many of whom are 26 years and below, is crucial as it sets their direction in life early. This is especially so for the students of Private Education Institutes (PEIs).
The latest PEI Graduate Employment Survey found that only 47.4% of private school fresh graduates secured full-time jobs six months after graduation. This was a steep decline from 60.1% for the previous batch. They also earned less, drawing a median gross monthly salary of S$2,650, compared to graduates from the local Autonomous Universities (AUs) who earned S$3,400.
We must continually review the PEIs to either enhance the skills and job value of these qualifications or to increase the students' awareness of alternative options. NTUC is prepared to assist with career navigation via its Youth Career Network platforms.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations' (ASEAN's) growth will turn it into one of the top economic regions in the world. There are significant entrepreneurial and employment opportunities for our Singaporean workers. ASEAN can be the important second wing of growth for our economy. How do we make it easier for people to move out of Singapore, explore the world, and open more gateways for themselves and fellow Singaporeans?
Our young people must seek regional working experience. Many major companies already require their senior executives to understand overseas markets. Without that, they cannot progress to become head of the companies.
While programmes like the National University of Singapore (NUS) Overseas Colleges (NOCs) and the GRTP allow for meaningful internships, we need our youths to pursue full-time job overseas. I hope that we can harness the strength of our overseas trade offices and larger Singaporean companies with regional presence to build employment networks. The latter can jumpstart growing our ASEAN-ready talent.
This Budget is also about addressing the needs and challenges of businesses and workers in the face of growing structural changes globally. To achieve this, we must prioritise and master lifelong learning.
Minister Heng Swee Keat aptly mentioned that Singaporeans need to \"reconceptualise\" what learning is about, adding that they need to be prepared to learn from \"anywhere from anyone at any time\". While this applies to all workers, we need to pay special attention to those who started off with lower qualifications. How do we extend more comprehensive learning support beyond SkillsFuture Credit for workers who want to return to school or to upgrade themselves?
Our workers and unionists are well aware of the need to continually retrain. It is vital to their livelihoods. It is made more urgent now with disruption. Most workers would not have a single linear career trajectory. They would need to be nimble and switch careers or job functions as seamlessly as possible. In fact, the majority would need to obtain additional skills or qualifications to progress within their specific industry or to switch to another industry.
Yet, this process is not easy, as my fellow Labour Member of Parliament Mr Melvin Yong had shared. Many workers have significant financial and family commitments. Retraining incurs costs and loss of income. Therefore, many workers choose to put off picking up another skill or qualification for as long as they can. The PCPs and CSPs have helped to provide these bridges. The combination of course subsidies and training allowances have lowered the barriers to career conversion. Yet, the limited number of PCP and Earn and Learn Programme (ELP) places meant that many workers would have to pay full unsubsidised fees, and some workers might not qualify for the PCPs and might need a longer time for them to qualify or succeed.
Recently, a 33-year-old resident staying in Tampines sought assistance from me. He has been working since graduating with a diploma in business in 2007. In his own words, he wrote to me, he said, \"I had no idea what I wanted to do after my GCE \"O\" level. Thus, I embarked on something very corporate. So, I did a diploma in business.\" He worked in a corporate function, and his job was in a polyclinic where he was inspired to become a nurse. After trying for two years, he finally obtained a place in Ngee Ann Polytechnic. Yet, he is unable to secure a tuition grant because he has already obtained a previous diploma in 2007. His school fees will amount to $21,000 per year which he cannot pay. He said, \"I do have some savings, but it is not enough for three years.\" Yet, he still has a burning desire to serve the community.
He also said, \"It took me a long time to finally get a placement at Ngee Ann Polytechnic to study nursing. But unfortunately, I do not come from a well-to-do family. My father is semi-retired and my mother is a homemaker. I do not behold high hopes in life. I will be gratified enough to be a nurse. But the cost of $60,000, I believe, is too difficult for me to manage. At the end, I do have some savings to tide myself through, but it is not enough for three years. However, I ain't giving up. Thus, I am seeking all forms of assistance which I can possibly conquer. This is possibly my last chance, and I am thoroughly sincere in becoming a qualified nurse.\"
While this is one appeal, there might be many other people in similar circumstances in different fields. We hope that more can be done for them. It entails expanding the number of PCP places by helping our Singaporean workers, especially younger ones, to obtain a second National ITE Certificate (Nitec), a diploma or degree that will help them better adjust to structural economic changes. It will also allow workers to discover new career choices instead of those predetermined in the earlier years. Returning to school for career switch can be socialised as a mainstream norm.
Workers require more support when they leave their jobs to expand their options on reskilling. Similar training allowances, such as those for PCPs, can be provided to them while they pick up their second qualification. Perhaps, along the lines of Workfare Incentive Scheme, we can think about it as a Reskilling Incentive Scheme.
Our polytechnics are also introducing more Common Entry Programmes in Business, and Information and Digital Technologies (IDT) clusters. This streamlining of courses allows for over-specificity early in life. Perhaps, we can also offer these to workers looking for career resilience and changes in modular fashion.
Creating a culture of reskilling is not just a government's duty but the duty of unions, employers and the Government. Learning agility is the key to building a modern workforce capable of navigating and leveraging opportunities arising from disruptions.
Every Worker Matters in Singapore. And the Labour Movement will continue to do its part to make it real for workers. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.20 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.00 pm until 4.20 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, may I congratulate you on your photo exhibition, which is aptly called \"Our Place in the World\". Whether 700 years, or 200, Singapore's place in the world remains geographically small. But with careful development and husbandry, we have seen our little place become more prosperous and more secure.
We often think that our dream of peace and safety can be secured by technology. And, indeed, in our armed forces, in the way we have harnessed technology to our service in infrastructure, housing, and even parking, we have seen how things can be cheaper, easier and better.
But technology carries with it not just a chance at greater comfort and ease, but also a risk of great evil.
Science or Technology. Sir, I would like to clarify briefly the difference between science and technology, two terms which we use interchangeably but, as the historian of science Thomas Kuhn has said, they are \"profoundly different\".
Technology is about process; it is an instrument which helps us to make things better and is valuable for that reason. Science works to a different purpose – it is the pursuit of knowledge and truth – working towards an accumulation of not just how we do things, but in understanding the true nature of the universe – physical and human – that we work and live in.
In this sense, science can be \"hard\" or \"physical sciences\", or \"the human, social sciences\".
One can, therefore, be a very good scientist, but a poor technologist and vice versa. I make this distinction only to say that the pursuit of technological advances cannot be a blind one but must contribute to a useful end.
For example, we would all agree that Parking.sg is a very useful technological product. It replaces paper coupons, makes it easy, quick and secure to pay for parking. You pay for what you use, and you get a refund for what you do not. That is an example where we used technology in a cost-effective manner to get us a service which we find useful. Technology needs a master, and we ought to be always careful of the purpose to which it is employed.
As a Labour Member of Parliament, I know that there are a lot of workers' concerns on Industrial Relations 4.0. It covers issues, such as the infringement of personal privacy, because smart technologies can determine an employee's whereabouts. Working life is also becoming more precarious for workers with no laws to protect them. It affects the way workers process information, their working time and workplace relationships.
The regulatory regime of our working life harks from the industrialisation era. This includes many practices within HR. For example, I hear of how an HR officer tried to convince her boss to install Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking for drivers, so as to monitor whether a driver is working or not. I am not sure whether this is the sort of working life we want.
Meanwhile, in the F&B sector, in the past, we had inhouse delivery riders, say, in fastfood chains. These are permanent employees hired by the fastfood chains with rights and protection given to all full-time employees. However, when online food delivery platforms are up, fastfood chains increasingly do not need the same number of inhouse delivery riders. At the same time, riders themselves may opt to join delivery companies because they see their earnings improve.
They do not see the important considerations in the short term – a career plan, stability, insurance and training.
NTUC FairPrice, in our transformation journey, is building automated distribution centres, online platforms and at the stores, adopting technology to help improve processes. Our HR side, working together with our union, has had to retrain our staff to take on new jobs and work with new machines and technology. This is important so that our staff, especially the older ones, are not left behind. In terms of staff demographics, more than 50% of FairPrice's workforce is above 50 years old. For sure, this is not a walk in the park. But we are committed to this journey.
In an age of technological advance, the HR divisions need to rise to the call, to remember that we are dealing with humans, and to ensure that our regulatory regime keeps up with very human needs and wants.
People First; Technology Second. There has been a lot of technological innovations in the payment ecosystem. With technology and the drive towards a cashless society, and with cashless payments becoming more widely accepted, a rising social issue could arise. The obvious question that comes to mind is: will the poor be left out?
We have moved from drawing cash from banks, counting cash, issuing cash to workers on pay day to getting everyone to have bank accounts. When the banks imposed a \"fall below fee\", it was the lower income who are likely to pay the cost.
With cashless payments, like using quick response (QR) codes or mobile pay, the poor may become excluded. And yes, they may yet pay the cost of going cashless.
So, we need to guard against being technology-centric over being people-centric. Let me cite another example from FairPrice to make this clearer. In our move towards self-checkouts, we started with having self-checkouts that accepted only credit cards.
There was, indeed, a very good take-up. But after a while, the level of usage stagnated. So, we talked to our customers. We realised that not everyone had a credit card and then there were also some who, even though they had one, preferred to use cash and so we started to work on the next generation of self-checkouts which also accepted cash in addition to credit cards.
Not surprisingly, with this new generation of self-checkouts that accepted cash as well as credit cards, we saw another huge jump in customer transactions at these self-checkouts.
Smart Nation; User Problems. Sir, we have put quite a large budget towards our move to being a Smart Nation. But should we pause to reconsider that even as machines become more powerful, people remain equally frail?
Technological changes allow us greater power. But the case of the leaked human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) identities and the MOH data leaks show us that user problems are as present as ever.
Sir, we will always have the careless, the malicious and the spiteful amongst us. We will always have unfriendly states, underhanded attacks, subversions.
The difference is that technology gives us all greater power. Therefore, I say, while we should not stop in our journey towards a smart nation, we ought always to remember “user problems” and give pause.
Remember Parking.sg? It is a great app if everything works. If it does not, well, you ought to know that the following pieces of information have been given by you – your credit, your debit card details, the location you were at at that point in time, your vehicle number and so on and so forth. I think it is a risk many of us are willing to take, and I certainly do not want to paint alarmist hypotheticals.
My concern is a separate one. We can try and ringfence technological gaps. But how do we guard against the bitter, the disaffected, the maladjusted or the pathological? The greater the power, the greater the evil that men can do.
One thing we can and should do is to invest more in humans, even as we invest in technology. For each course in information technology (IT), data analytics and cybersecurity, we need one on psychology, sociology, human relations; for each new resource in the IT department, a similar one in the HR department. We talk about industrial revolution but the quieter yet more violent one lies in the companion revolution in the way we work and relate to one another.
Technology allows us to do more. The humanities allow us to know why and how we ought to deploy our new powers. This calls for a way we think and invest in education, but also, what we can do, in Government.
Beyond good and evil. Finally, Sir, I want to make one specific suggestion. We have long vaunted our ability to tell “hard truths”, to value “doing the right thing” over doing the popular one. But with increasing use of AI and machines, our ability to tell what is the right thing we ought to do may be severely compromised. Our ability to incorporate technology in our lives has far outstripped our ability to reason morally about the choices that we will be forced to make as a technological society. This is no longer a choice between the right and the popular, the short and the long term, but the choice on how to programme machines to make choices that are not just about efficiency and speed, but about values – good, bad, right, wrong.
We know of the accident with the autonomous vehicle at one-north where, thankfully, no one was hurt. If there was, to whom do we attribute the blame? There is recently a rendition of the classic \"trolley problem\", where people all over the world voted on how they would resolve moral dilemmas. Would they save one or many? Would they save the young or the old? Would they kill their friends or strangers? Answers differ all over the world.
Sir, as Singapore develops into a smart nation, we need a collection of people – from the Government, ordinary men and women, policy scholars and moral philosophers, as well as scientists and private corporations, to think about ethical issues and how they ought to be tackled.
There are different ethics committees now, embedded in different Ministries and agencies, for example, in biomedical studies and research. Given the complexity and interlinkages, I think there is a case, and I would argue for a National Committee for Ethics in Science and Technology giving inputs on hard cases at the frontiers of new decisions relating to science and technology. I must clarify that the frontiers are not those of technological progress alone, but on how they affect humans and human relationships. And what, whether and how technology should be deployed.
Sir, this Budget has invested heavily in technology. It has made important provisions to keep us safe in the online space. The Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA's) Home Team Science and Technology Agency is one. Putting Digital Defence as our sixth pillar is another.
Sir, we should make a small additional provision to keep us not just safe, but strong, by allowing members of the public, as well as experts from the various humanities and social sciences, to debate, consider and crystallise our key ideas and feelings about what is right or wrong for us to do, using all the technological means we have at our disposal.
Mr Speaker, Sir, our \"Place in the World\" for the past 200 years had been secured in large part because we know how to exploit and work with technology. In the next 200 years, changes will be even faster and more severe. We need to not just understand science to take advantage of these changes, but also what it means to be human. Our investment, therefore, cannot be lopsided in favour of technology. Only then can we have a Strong and United Singapore. Sir, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Arasu Duraisamy.
Mr Arasu Duraisamy (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, data from MOM indicated that our labour force, also known as the economically active population, was 67.7% in 2017 and 2018. Given the changes that have been made to our manpower policies and resources, perhaps it is time that the Ministry conduct an in-depth study of the data and find ways to increase the labour force participation rate. If more Singaporeans are gainfully employed, we will also be able to reduce the corresponding resources needed from the Government and channel it for other uses. Simplistically speaking, one more Singaporean worker joining the workforce equals to the same Singaporean depending less on Government resources.
Sir, I will speak on two issues: retirement and re-employment, and skills upgrading and training.
First, on retirement and re-employment. It is heartening that this year’s Budget will provide more support towards the older workers, with increased annual payouts from the WIS scheme, by topping up SEC to support employers in hiring older workers, and other initiatives that will help them save more for retirement. While these are helpful to older workers, the best support is ensuring that they have a good job.
Many of the older workers have told us they are not ready to retire for good. Some need to continue working, as they are the sole breadwinners of their families. Some need to support their children’s education in universities, and others hope to build up the family's medical and retirement funds which, at 67 years old, many of them still felt were inadequate.
But most importantly, many of them expressed the fact that they are still physically able, relatively healthy and want to continue to be gainfully employed.
One area to look at is to help our older workers to continue working for as long as they wish to and are able to. One way to do it is to raise the retirement age from 62 to 65, and the re-employment age from 67 to 70. I am glad a Tripartite Workgroup has been set up to look into this.
Let us do more to help them. In fact, there are already more than 20 unionised companies which are at the forefront of this. Examples of such companies are ComfortDelgro, Gardens by the Bay, Hewlett Packard Singapore, among others. These companies have chosen to move the retirement age to 65 and beyond, with some of them having no contractual retirement age. From time to time, the Labour Movement also receives appeals from workers seeking assistance to extend their re-employment contracts. And I urge the Civil Service and other Government-linked companies to quickly take the lead.
As the SEC is further extended to end 2020, it is perhaps timely to raise re-employment age so that both workers and employers can benefit. The extension of retirement and re-employment ages provides certainty to our workers who want to continue working and allows a longer runway for employers to plan for training and upskilling, as well as adapt to digital transformation holistically.
Secondly, I will touch on skills upgrading and training. No worker should be left behind on our road to the development of a Smart Nation for Singapore. As such, I urge MOE to look into enabling continual education for our mature workers. Currently, companies are engaging IHLs to develop programmes for their workers. This approach only reaches out to a small number of workers. If MOE could step in, it can be further scaled up.
It has been particularly challenging training workers in the SME sector. A large number of Singaporeans work for SMEs. Due to their workforce size, many SME companies are often unable to send workers for training due to shortage of staff. At the same time, the other challenge is that SME workers are reluctant to go for training as it might affect their gross income and overtime.
We have also heard feedback from workers in their mid-50s who felt that it is not necessary to go for training as their career runway is shorter and training might not provide more opportunities for career advancement. We need to change their mindset and help educate them that training and skills upgrading are necessary for them to remain relevant. In view of digital transformation and the ageing workforce, ensuring that both SMEs and their workers are pro-training is especially important.
Hence, I urge the Government to recognise companies which are willing to send workers for training and willing to upgrade and automate job processes, to positively differentiate them by allowing them to easily tap on Government funding versus companies which do not do so.
To facilitate and accelerate training, I hope that training can be brought nearer to the doorsteps of companies and their workers, especially for companies that are situated at industrial areas. This will help to reduce travelling time for workers when attending training. For the more enlightened employers who grant workers paid time-off to upskill, the Government should provide further subsidies to companies in the form of grants or outright absentee payroll.
Singapore as a Smart Nation will position us well in the competitive global economy and, hence, we need to push everyone to step up the pace of industry transformation and push for productivity growth through automation and developing a skilled workforce. If our workers are gainfully employed, it will benefit employers, the Government and the nation overall as Every Worker Matters. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this year's Budget. Today, we are facing the headwinds of stiff global competition and a rapidly changing economy. Protectionism is on the rise and globalisation is giving way to \"slowbalisation\". As a small and open economy, these geopolitical forces impact Singapore. Last year, our economy expanded 3.2% while growth is forecast to be in the range of 1.5% to 3.5% in 2019.
While there are challenges, we must maintain our sights on the bright spots. Businesses are turning to ASEAN to diversify risks and Singapore can play a pivotal role as a regional hub. Technology and innovation can unearth new opportunities for our growth. Singapore must continue to sharpen our strengths as a trusted brand and a skilled workforce, and I am glad that this Budget provides a strategic plan to help Singapore and Singaporeans to do so.
Key to this plan is our workers. Our labour market is tight with lower birth rates, an ageing population and tightening foreign labour inflows. Work will be disrupted. A study says 44% of work activities in Singapore today can be automated with current technologies, with a third of the skillsets required to perform today’s jobs wholly new by 2020. Rapid skills churn will require workers to swiftly adapt and cope with frequent career transitions. We must not leave our workers behind.
I am heartened that come April 2020, all transformation efforts supported by ESG’s EDG must include positive outcomes for workers, such as wage increases. I am also glad that NTUC's call for the extension of the CSP and SEC have been heeded. This Budget is pro-worker and has put workers at the heart of it.
I strongly believe that Every Worker Matters and this Budget can do more for PMEs because every PME matters.
In 2018, professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) continued to be more affected by retrenchments with higher skilled, mature PMETs the hardest hit. Older PMETs also face greater difficulty in the job market with the long-term unemployment rate for resident PMETs aged above 50 higher than younger age groups. With technologies, such as AI, middle-income jobs can potentially be hollowed out, at the risk of workers' downward labour mobility. These are real concerns I have heard from PMEs I have met and spoken to.
Our skilled workforce is our competitive advantage and Every Worker Matters. Investing in our workforce enables us to grow the pie collectively and reap the fruits of labour together. I propose three key thrusts to do so. First, enhancing protection in the future workplace; second, enabling progression in the future of work; and third, expanding potential for our future workers.
The future workplace must take pre-emptive steps to redesign jobs and future-proof workers' skillsets. Stakeholders must strengthen information flow, overcome information asymmetry and collaborate on transformation.
At the recent NTUC Future Jobs, Skills and Training Forum, industry and union leaders, employers and workers shared actionable keys for industry transformation based on early successes. For example, in the financial services industry, the Tripartite Advisory on Human Capital Practices for Banking, adopted by 160 banks, calls on banks to proactively identify impacted jobs and redeploy workers into areas of job growth through PCPs. Our unions are also evolving in tandem. Last month, the Singapore Bank Officer's Association, now renamed the Banking and Financial Services Union, repositioned its mission to serve more workers to cope with disruption. The Labour Movement also welcomed the Singapore FinTech Association, which helps workers to reskill to take up financial technology (FinTech) roles, as an affiliated U Associate partner.
As work evolves, the line between the rank and file and PMETs is increasingly blurred, the share of PMETs among employed residents has also increased to 57% in 2018. Under the Employment Act and other labour legislation, there remains distinctions between our rank and file and PMEs, and \"manual\" and \"non-manual\" work. These distinctions influence the treatment and protection of these workers. It is particularly challenging today to make these distinctions as many jobs involve a mix of both manual and non-manual work. There are also workers who have been wrongly classified as \"managers and executives\", excluding them from protection under Part IV of the Employment Act. Some employers have also tried to exclude workers from union protection under the pretext that the worker is in a conflicted position as he wields \"managerial\" powers. The relevance of these dichotomies needs to be examined to ensure that our workers continue to be adequately protected.
The Future of Work is fast-paced and the half-life of skills is shortening. Much like our Formula 1 drivers, we must have quick and effective pitstops to retool and get back in the race. Training providers must have speed-to-market and move away from traditional certifications to peer network approval systems and industry crowdsourced on-the-go learning. An example of such a \"pitstop\" is the Healthcare Academy, set up by the Healthcare Services Employees' Union and NTUC Learning Hub, which upskills workers through industry co-created programmes, delivered through varied modes of learning. Such concerted efforts are needed to ensure that our workers upskill in tandem with transformation efforts.
While PWM is associated with low-wage, rank and file workers, PMETs, too, can benefit from PWM, especially PMETs earning between $2,500 and $3,500 per month in highly impacted jobs. Beyond the mandatory PWM, our unions have been implementing structured wage and skills ladders benefiting all workers, including PMETs. It is timely to scale these efforts on a national level and extend PWM to lower-wage PMETs to provide for their progression and upward labour mobility.
Our Future Workers will increasingly participate in new ways of work and employment models. With flexible and digital-enabled work, we can tap on sources of untapped labour supply to expand our workforce. To expand the potential of our ageing workforce, I have called for the SEC, CSP and WorkPro to be extended and enhanced to maximise our workforce's productive longevity and am glad that the Budget this year has responded positively. I want to also call for more pre-emptive and proactive training, and we can only do this with strong support from our tripartite partners.
To enable workers to take charge and expand their potential, workers can tap on their SkillsFuture Credits to upskill. Utilisation has increased and it is the time for a top-up of another $500 so that workers can go further in their personal growth through individual, initiated training. These credits have helped to seed and catalyse lifelong learning. Our unions have also been working with employers to set aside time for workers' upskilling. Some companies have even voluntarily provided a top-up of employees' SkillsFuture Credits to fund their training, and more companies are encouraged to do so.
All stakeholders have a part to play in co-creating our future. We need to create wealth rather than focus on spending more. More wealth means more to spend. We are generating wealth by transforming our economy to higher value activities and constantly attracting such investments. Most importantly, we have to make sure our workers have the skills to do these jobs. We should be bolder in spending money on upgrading and retraining. Help our workers earn more, in better jobs. Regulate the training providers, not the trainees. What obstacles are there to prevent our workers from going for continuous training and education? We need to tackle those. If we argue about how to share a stagnant pie, we are fighting a losing battle. We should be working together to grow the pie.
The Labour Movement is committed to serve as the workers' viewfinder in navigating the work landscape, by bringing stakeholders together to collectively make better skills, jobs and pay real for workers – I repeat, real for workers. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tI would like to propose a \"five-core\" strategy when we implement the Budget.
First, the Singapore Core ‒ build a workforce with a Singaporean Core.
Second, of one heart and mind ‒ the tripartite partners must work together with one heart and mind and adopt a worker-centric approach.
Third, determination ‒ our workers must be determined to learn new skills, pick up a second skill and develop a lifelong learning mindset.
Fourth, confidence – face the future challenges with full confidence.
Fifth, ambition – we must have the ambition to fulfil greater objectives.
Mr Speaker: Minister Ng Chee Meng.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Ng Chee Meng): Mr Speaker, the Minister for Finance has announced a Budget of $80 billion that is both pro-business and pro-worker. In particular, Minister Heng Swee Keat paid close attention to workers, not just workers in the generic sense, but workers as real people – the elderly, the unemployed, lower-income workers, even our youths, who represent the future workforce.
Feedback from our workers on the Budget has been positive. The MGP, WIS enhancements and other forms of support reflect a more \"caring and inclusive\" society. They appreciate what the Government is doing for them.
However, some middle-class workers pointed out that they did not feel the benefits as strongly. Some also noted that notwithstanding the disbursements, structural rises in costs of living – water, diesel tax, carbon tax and the eventual Goods and Services Tax (GST) rise – would ultimately be passed on to the end users. Some of our workers also wanted to clarify that disbursements, such as the MGP, would not burden future Governments or the workforce. I thought these were very insightful feedback from our workers.
In short, the Labour Movement appreciates the direction of our Government and, as Secretary-General of NTUC, I urge the Government to continue to put workers at the heart of all we do.
NTUC Labour Members and many other colleagues in the Chamber today have placed workers at the heart of our debate speeches. They have each addressed the various segments of our workforce and the issues they face, whether it is the elderly workers, low-income workers, workplace safety issues, balancing family with work, training and progression, all segments of the workforce, including freelancers and PMEs. Our vision and purpose in NTUC are a simple one. It is about doing the best we can for every worker.
Mr Speaker, this is both the necessary thing to do for our economy, and the right thing to do for our society. Our changing demographics mean a tighter labour force in the future and, with limited manpower growth, Every Worker Matters. Each worker's skills, knowledge, experience, contribute to our human capital. Our economy can only be at its best when all our workers are performing to their potential and are rewarded fairly for their productivity.
Having said that, the Minister for Finance has shared an encouraging statistic – productivity has increased 3.6% in the past three years. This is testament to the efforts of the tripartite stakeholders – the Government, businesses and our workers. But even as we have done well, the Labour Movement cannot rest and must look ahead.
At these moments of rapid economic change and disruption, I am glad that there are also many new opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans. NTUC will partner our tripartite partners to enable our businesses to seize new opportunities and create wealth, so that our workers can aspire to what we, in the Labour Movement call, the 3Ws: better wages, better welfare and better work prospects.
At the same time, the Labour Movement is cognisant that some workers in Singapore will feel dislocated by the rapid changes. NTUC will and must always and will do our best to support these workers to keep up. Let me elaborate on how we will manage and balance these multiple objectives.
The heart of the Labour Movement's purpose is for our workers to earn and secure a fair wage. This allows them and their families to keep up with the cost of living, save and flourish. We have no illusions that workers can do well if businesses do not do well. Thriving businesses are good for workers. In this regard, I agree with the Minister for Finance that a company's leadership is key. So, when the boss of a company is ready to seize new opportunities through technology, NTUC wants to partner you and wants to facilitate with the necessary worker training and upskilling.
With the economy transforming rapidly, if we are to help our workers upskill effectively, NTUC and our unions must now move upstream to participate in Government and industry-led transformation. This is why NTUC strongly welcomes the impending changes to the terms of ESG's EDG. For funding to be approved, a company must demonstrate how such initiatives not only benefit the business, but also provide positive worker outcomes. NTUC and our union leaders are eager to share our experience and expertise with our tripartite partners in ensuring that these outcomes are achieved.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
I will cite a simple example of what we have done for almost 10 years. NTUC's e2i launched the Inclusive Growth Programme (IGP) in 2010 as NTUC's advocacy for low-wage workers. The programme provides funding for companies' productivity initiatives that translate into actual workers' wage increments. Brother Norizal bin Zainal, a security supervisor at Temasek Polytechnic, benefited from this. He took part in a project that was looking to allow officers to update information to supervisors through their handphones.
This gives security supervisors more mobility and they were able to up their productivity. As a consequence, he enjoyed a $100 increment to his basic salary as a result. Some may think that $100 a month is not so significant an amount, but to many of our workers, this matters a lot.
As of December 2018, the IGP has benefited more than 91,000 workers from 2,000 companies across various sectors: security guards, cleaners, F&B service staff, and hotel service staff. In the past five years, the average wage increase per project was around 13%. The successful demonstration of sustainable, productivity-driven wage increases also facilitated the eventual legislation of PWM for lower-income sectors. These successes were possible because union leaders and our industrial relations officers acted as critical catalysts. They worked the ground, company by company, to understand specific business needs and operational process details. They persuaded management that innovation and worker training would be good for business and encouraged their fellow workers also to participate in this upstream work to support the successes of their bosses so that, in turn, they can get better pay. The Labour Movement looks forward to a productive partnership with MTI and ESG on the EDG.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now talk about how we can best help workers in securing good employment prospects in our rapidly transforming economy. The Labour Movement must act on the advent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, or Industry 4.0, as mentioned by Minister Heng Swee Keat.
For Industry 4.0 to be actualised, we need our workers to transform in parallel with their companies and industries because there can be no Industry 4.0 without the workers. These workers, what we have called and termed \"Worker 4.0\", go hand in hand with Industry 4.0. Many workers in countries overseas reject technology. They fear it, they do not understand it, and they are worried that technology will take away their rice bowl. Some of our very own workers in Singapore also feel threatened by the unknown and some of the fear mongering online. But we, in Singapore, cannot reject technology. Technology allows us, especially in our context, to overcome many of our labour shortage constraints and, if applied intelligently, businesses can be more productive and able to seize many emerging opportunities and create wealth.
In the past few months, we worked with companies and sector agencies on a study to produce archetypes of Worker 4.0 in different industries. Why? We want workers to be able to benefit from this transformation and be assured that this is, indeed, the best for them.
Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout to illustrate this Worker 4.0?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Ng Chee Meng: When Members get their hands on the pamphlet, you will see that this is a simplified example of what the archetype for Port Engineering Professional 4.0 looks like – the current version, what is the 4.0 version, the skills gap, and the necessary and required training for them to upgrade. Our intention is to help our workers visualise the potential of Industry 4.0, for the companies and for themselves, for their careers.
As part of this study, PSA officers worked with the Port Officers' Union to develop training programmes for Port Engineering Professional 4.0. When Minister Heng Swee Keat visited PSA over the Lunar New Year period, he may have noticed some automation projects which were on trial. Automation is an important area of productivity growth for PSA in the intense arena of competition for Ports. One of our Union members and a Senior Mechanical Engineer at PSA, Brother Ng Hwee Sheng, has completed a one-year Systems Engineering course at the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT). With his newly acquired skillsets, he now takes on a larger role managing various automated and intelligent systems. This is part of PSA's scheme in upskilling and multiskilling their PMEs to be more agile and adaptive to keep value-adding in the long run.
With a better vision of Worker 4.0, and examples of fellow workers that have achieved it, we want our workers to make it real for themselves, to know that it is doable that they must take personal responsibility for it.
Many colleagues in the Chamber today have called for workers' upskilling and upgrading. As the Secretary General, I am very grateful for the support this Chamber has for the workers, including Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Foo Mee Har, for standing in support of workers' training. NTUC will act to scale this effort. To do so, the Labour Movement will work to set up Training Committees with our partnering companies. These committees, made up of management and union leaders, will work together to articulate what Worker 4.0 looks like for the company, and partner management in the transformation towards Industry 4.0.
Some of our companies have already started. PSA, of course, is amongst a group of around 10 companies in various sectors working with our unions on their Training Committees. For example, in the aviation and aerospace cluster, we have SIA Engineering Company, ST Aerospace, SATS; in energy, we have the Singapore Power (SP) Group; in transport, we have the Singapore Bus Services Transit (SBST), Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) and so on. In the past, we also have companies that work with unions on training and wage increments to support the implementation of PWM. This provides a ready infrastructure for us to push Industry 4.0 and Worker 4.0 outcomes within these companies as well.
These Training Committees may have different sounding names and structures. But more importantly, I am concerned about the outcomes and not the form. Whichever the form they may come in, what they have in common is that management and union must sit down together to discuss, plan and execute these very important training programmes for workers. They must share information in a way that facilitates this mutually beneficial initiative.
Training Committees harness workers’ expertise to support companies’ business development and investments. Union leaders, by the nature of their work, have a deep understanding of the factory floor and intimate knowledge of ground worker readiness and realities. By harnessing both management and labour expertise, the Training Committee can chart out skills and competency requirements, put in place training programmes, such as PSA’s one-year Systems Engineering Course at SIT, schedule workers' training to minimise downtime in ongoing operations. This may seem simple in a speech, but it is no trivial matter in our companies' manpower shortage with shift work. And, when we do all these, it facilitates good outcomes for the workers and the companies. In addition, we can also map out, through the training committees, prospects for career progression, incorporating possible jobs of the future and, where possible, even tagged to wage increments of these future jobs.
With these initial pilot programmes and pilot companies, we can already reach out to about 64,000 workers in our unionised companies. Hence, in the next phase, we want to scale up further to all our unionised companies. Importantly, we must know that these Training Committees will benefit the businesses and they will benefit our workers.
This may sound easy but, in actuality, will not be so simple to execute. Nevertheless, it is a needed initiative. The Labour Movement, with our reach to partner unionised companies, can play our part in the Industry Transformation. It is important to start now, to put many good ideas discussed in this Chamber into practical action and, even if we may not get it 100% right at the first go, well, we will get it right. And let us get to the transformation process. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Union leaders and workers told me they are heartened that the Government is pro-worker. Besides supporting companies to deepen capabilities and increase competitiveness, the Government is also helping workers to enjoy better wages, welfare and career prospects in the new age of industrial transformation and digitalisation. More importantly, companies should share their successes with workers through gainsharing.
Therefore, they were very happy when they heard Minister Heng Swee Keat's announcement that, from next year April onwards, companies which tap on the EDG to transform must ensure that their employees also benefit, such as in the form of wage increases.
NTUC’s e2i IGP, since was launched in 2010, has benefited more than 90,000 workers. In the past five years, the average wage increase per project was about 13%. NTUC looks forward to partnering MTI and ESG for EDG to be both pro-business and pro-worker.
It has always been NTUC's belief that the best welfare for our workers is a good job. With the rapid development of technology, we are entering the era of Industry 4.0. But there can be no Industry 4.0 without Worker 4.0. Besides helping companies to stay competitive by leveraging smart technologies, it is also important to help workers accept and harness technology to realise their potential in Industry 4.0.
But what are the skillsets and attributes of Worker 4.0? What types of training should they undergo to become Worker 4.0?
Over the last few months, NTUC has been in discussions with companies and relevant partners across industries to develop archetypes of Worker 4.0. To actualise the archetypes, the next step is setting up Training Committees in companies to help workers undergo training and upskilling to become Worker 4.0.
In this rapidly changing world, it is critical that companies innovate and transform in tandem. Likewise, workers must also quickly adapt and seize opportunities.
The theme of this year's Budget is building a strong and united Singapore. I believe that if we put workers at the heart of everything we do and with concerted efforts, we will be able to create a better future for all.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude. In 1969, NTUC organised the \"Trade Union Seminar on Modernisation of the Labour Movement\" in the midst of an employment crisis when the British announced that they were pulling out of Singapore. This \"Modernisation Seminar\" generated Singapore's unique brand of collaborative tripartism. As a result, the trust and mutual respect between the Government and NTUC enabled the setting up of various co-operatives, such as NTUC FairPrice, to help workers manage the cost of living and serve workers.
The Labour Movement has since then played a crucial role in Singapore’s success. As Mr Lee Kuan Yew said back in 1979, \"The close cooperation between the political and the union leadership made modern Singapore. It is both history and today’s reality\". Mr Lee's statement remains true in the way forward for us.
Twenty-nineteen is the 50th anniversary of the Modernisation Seminar. Singapore is at a transition point, where our economy is taking on a major transformation, where our society is an ageing one, and our political leadership is also undergoing renewal. NTUC has enjoyed the strong support of MOM in labour issues. Moving forward, from all the different speeches, we know that there is a need for NTUC to engage other agencies upstream, particularly MTI for transformation and MOE for lifelong learning for our workers.
In these and other aspects, the political and union leadership must continue the close collaboration that made modern Singapore. It must be today’s reality; it must be the future reality. At the heart of what our 4th Generation (4G) leaders do, be it in the Government or in the Labour Movement, workers must be at the centre. With this close political and union cooperation, we can chart Singapore’s success together so that when Singapore succeeds, all Singaporeans can have a share in that success. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Budget. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the MGP appears to be the highlight of this Budget. I was born in 1973. I am not sure what the government of the day 20 years down the road will call my generation. My generation was raised by Singaporeans of the MG. My parents are from PG and they both worked. Many of my childhood caregivers and teachers were Merdekas.
If there was one value the Merdekas taught me, it was to grow up to be an independent Singaporean, proud and defensive of our Independent Singapore, and to think and act independently, beholden to no one but to my country and conscience. This generation truly deserves to be named MG, not because they happened to be born in the 1950s, just as Singapore fought and got its Independence, but because this generation was imbued with the spirit of independence and imparted the spirit of independence to future generations such as mine.
Today the Merdekas are aged 60 to 69 years old. This stretches across the landmarks of ageing in Singapore, from applying for the senior citizen concession card for public transport at 60 to getting the CPF auto-payout at 70 if they had not opted for earlier payouts. It is my sincere hope that a generation who embodied and imparted the spirit of independence will be able to age with independence.
What I mean by ageing with independence is the ability of our seniors to retire on their own, with as little financial dependence as possible on their children, siblings and other family members, and also on the Government and welfare organisations. Except for incidents of serious illness and accidents, seniors ageing with independence will be able to care for themselves or pay for the care that they require to lead purposeful golden years.
I believe the best way to honour the Merdekas is for the MGP and other Government policies to facilitate their ageing with independence. I shall discuss this now in five aspects, in terms of our Merdekas' physical well-being, socio-economic well-being, financial well-being, psychological well-being and the special concern for the well-being of women.
One, primary care. The first aspect of ageing with independence is physical well-being. The healthcare system secures our physical well-being, and our investment in preventive health services is paying off. In recent years, the Government has been investing in long-term care to prepare for the ageing society. In an ageing society, primary care is the critical frontline service to keep our seniors in tip-top health. Preventive care is a subset of primary care. Primary care is essential for the early detection and good management of chronic diseases, which are the leading causes of disabilities and deaths worldwide. Our seniors are particularly vulnerable to chronic conditions. Our seniors also need immediate remedies for colds and other common ailments, lest these snowball into major illnesses.
This recognition is built into the PGP in the form of subsidies for outpatient services. This recognition is continued into the MGP with the auto-enrolment of Merdekas into the CHAS scheme and further subsidies at polyclinics and public specialist outpatient clinics, as has benefited the Pioneers.
However, this has created a precedent. There is now an expectation that future generations will be auto-enrolled into CHAS and receive outpatient subsidies when they hit their 60s. Future governments will be hard-pressed into denying future generations of this benefit, not just because of the political cost, but also the sheer logic of the justification. If the Pioneers had worked hard to make Singapore what it is today, if the Merdekas had worked hard so that Singapore stands tall and proud today, who is going to deny that subsequent generations also worked hard to contribute to building a Singapore for future generations?
Did the generation born in the 1960s not work hard in the 1980s and 1990s during the first major economic restructuring and reskilling of the workforce? Did the generation born in the 1970s not work hard in the 1990s and 2000s to bring Singapore through the Asian Financial Crisis, the tech bubble recession, and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) crisis?
I do not think this is a bad precedent. In fact, it can and should be turned into something good. I, therefore, call on the Government to commit to providing primary care subsidies for all subsequent generations of seniors, that everyone who turns 60 would be auto-enrolled in CHAS and receive additional outpatient subsidies. Again, the MG is setting the foundation for subsequent generations.
In the last few years, the Government has socialised hospitalisation and disability insurance, making it universal and compulsory. With MediShield Life and CareShield Life, we are now dedicated to supporting one another as we age, shoring up our interdependence to secure our ageing with independence. Making it compulsory for all Singaporeans to help one another to pay for hospitalisation and disability has helped the Government save in healthcare expenditure. Singaporeans paying for one another has allowed the Government to focus its investment on the healthcare system and long-term care.
In return, the Government should make it compulsory that it provides for primary care subsidies for all future generations of seniors, so that we can all age with independence like the Pioneers and the Merdekas. I believe the Government should do this, not because of the political pressure, but because, with MediShield Life and CareShield Life in operation, making primary care affordable for all seniors will plug the remaining big gap to make public healthcare in Singapore truly universal and accessible to all.
Two, working as long as one desires. The second aspect of ageing with independence is socio-economic well-being. Singaporeans are renowned worldwide as a people who work hard and play hard. As a hardworking people, socio-economic well-being is a very important aspect of our overall well-being. Socio-economic well-being refers to the fulfilment one gets from being economically active. This fulfilment is both physical and mental. It is also social, as work brings people together to interact and collaborate to achieve specific objectives. Thus, many of our colleagues are also our friends.
Human beings are creative animals. What makes us distinct in the animal kingdom is our desire to be creative, to work to create things that become part of our social identity. Work is, therefore, filled with meaning and purpose. It underpins our dignity as human beings. Life expectancy has increased so much to give us decades of extra time to age with meaning, purpose and dignity. In the post-industrial economy, our workers are skilled knowledge-based workers who are continuously learning new skills. To allow our older workers to work as long as they desire, as long as they are able to, is to allow our workers to age with independence. This is because work provides for meaning, purpose and dignity.
Our older workers should be respected for their experience gathered in a lifetime, and not forcibly retired when they still have so much to contribute in meaningful ways. Our seniors should be allowed to continue to use their skills developed in a lifetime so that they find their lives to be filled with purpose. Our seniors should also be treated with dignity, not subjected to an ageist mindset or have their wages docked mechanically by formula just for crossing some threshold making them \"old\" when they can be just as productive.
In this regard, I would like to call on the Government to, one, remove the retirement age entirely; two, move the redefined re-employment age to 70 when employers would place able workers on rolling re-employment contracts; and three, restore the CPF contribution of older workers. This will allow our workers to strengthen their socio-economic well-being and age with independence. Doing this now that the MG is reaching the current retirement and re-employment ages of 62 and 67 is very appropriate. From the perspective of the economy and society, it is also a waste of human capital for workers to retire prematurely when their skills and experience are still invaluable. It is a win-win solution.
Nevertheless, our workers should also be empowered to retire in their 60s if they want to retire. Retirement, for many, is not the end of work, but the pursuit of creative activities that could be unpaid work, for example, providing childcare for their grandchildren, or part-time work in fields that they could not pursue previously. To enable our workers to work if they can and want to work by removing the retirement age does not mean, I repeat, does not mean to get Singaporeans to work till they die. It is to reform the system so that Singaporeans do not have to worry about their finances and can retire in their 60s if they want to, but they can also continue to work if they want to. The ideal would be that, from today, no Merdeka-Generation Singaporean, no Merdeka, would be compelled to retire or forced to work by necessity.
Three, CPF as safety net. The third aspect of ageing with independence is, therefore, financial well-being. Once we change our mindset about retirement and allow our workers to work as long as they can work and want to work, and to retire if they want, our approach towards CPF should also change. CPF has already been delinked from the retirement age and re-employment age. The question that remains is: what role should CPF play in the new ageing society we are facing?
In our maturing society, and especially from the MG onwards, our would-be seniors will increasingly not be dependent on one single source of income to meet their needs. This is a good thing, as it provides the financial basis for ageing with independence. Some will have enough savings that can be used to purchase private annuities. Many will be owners of a housing asset that can be monetised. Others will want to continue to work and they can continue to work to maintain a steady stream of income. In such a context, CPF becomes an avenue of supplementary income.
But CPF is more than supplementary income. CPF is a store of a worker's savings and is akin to a fixed deposit account. We have to be unequivocal in stating that the monies in a CPF member's account belong to the CPF member, no fudging around this principle just because there is an employer contribution component and there are occasional Government top-ups. Our CPF savings are the fruits of our labour, period. Our CPF monies are our savings secured by the Government as a fixed deposit account with attractive interest rates.
In this respect, CPF can be a crucial safety net in two ways.
First, we need to recognise that there will be ageing Singaporeans, whether now among the Merdekas or in subsequent generations, who will not have enough savings and who do not own housing assets. These Singaporeans will not be working because they want and can, but because they have to in order to survive. For these Singaporeans, WIS is important, and they may also seek ComCare help. But while ComCare assistance is a dignified option for those who are really destitute and cannot work, it is not the same for a senior who can work. Such seniors would rather age with independence and not be dependent on state handouts.
If their CPF Life payouts can start earlier for these seniors, their financial well-being will be secured with their own savings. Therefore, I would like to reiterate the Workers' Party's call to lower the CPF Payout Eligibility Age to 60, so that Singaporeans can have the option of meeting their needs with this source of supplementary income. Of course, if there is no need for CPF Life payouts to act as supplementary income, seniors should have the option and be encouraged to leave their monies in their CPF account to accumulate interest and get larger payouts later. The youngest of the MG is turning 60 years old this year. It is, therefore, an appropriate time to reconsider this.
Second, CPF can function as an insurance against crises. This is not unlike why many put their savings in fixed deposits. Fixed deposits can be withdrawn easily to meet urgent needs, compared to less liquid investments with higher returns. Major illnesses, accidents and other crises can disrupt the normal life course of an older Singaporean and erode his or her quality of life. One of the first things that many people do in such situations is to cut back on expenditure on quality food, which could worsen their health in the long run. Some may even be forced to sell their housing assets to tide over the crisis.
CPF members can currently apply to make partial withdrawals on medical grounds, if \"they are physically or mentally incapacitated to ever continuing in any employment\". The condition \"ever continuing in any employment\" is very extreme. I would like to call on the Government to allow partial withdrawals of CPF if a member is so physically or mentally incapacitated to continue in employment for a significant period of time. Such withdrawals should be determined on a case-by-case basis, with the objective being for the withdrawal to help a member tide over the crisis with their own savings so that they can return to employment.
Four, deepening ageing in place. The fourth aspect of ageing with independence is psychological well-being. The current understanding is that ageing in place is the best option for our seniors because the stability of their community environment will provide for their psychological well-being. Urban planning and public housing policies can also facilitate this by implementing renewal in ageing estates, so that our seniors are embedded in mixed environments that encourage interaction with younger families, especially if their own children's families are living close by. Neighbourhood renewal and home improvement projects have also improved accessibility and safety to encourage active ageing.
These initiatives are positive for ageing with independence. But all things being equal, it is a good policy to allow our seniors to live out their lives in the HDB flats and neighbourhoods where they raised their children in and built their community networks on. Place is more than space. Place is a locality made meaningful by memories and relationships. Ageing in place is ageing with independence. The familiarity of the neighbourhood and the neighbours, and the neighbourhood eating places and shops, provide for active seniors who know how to navigate their living spaces to support themselves.
The Merdekas are among the first beneficiaries of our HDB policy to house the nation. The majority of the MG would have started their families in HDB flats. Thus, the flats and estates they live in would very likely hold special meaning and memories for them. We should try to ensure that the Merdekas would not need to move from the flats and neighbourhoods they had raised their families and built communities in, so that they can preserve their meaning and memories of home, and age in place and with independence.
The Lease Buyback Scheme is a policy that allows Singaporeans to truly age in place and with independence. Many Merdekas will be reaching or have reached the eligibility age of 65 years old for the scheme. The MGP is a good opportunity to promote the scheme to our seniors, as there are still too many seniors who are unaware of the benefits of the scheme. The Government could build further incentives for Merdekas to take up the scheme into the Package. This way, no Merdeka-Generation Singaporean will be forced to downgrade to smaller flats or relocate to an alien neighbourhood because of financial need. They do not have to sell their flats, just the end part of the lease back to HDB.
Five, Merdeka women. The fifth aspect of ageing with independence is the need for special consideration for Merdeka women. CPF statistics suggest that women in the MG need extra help. In 2006, for CPF members aged 51-54, male members' Ordinary Account and Special Account balances comprised 63% of the total balances of all members, leaving female members with 37%. This is a substantial gender gap that also suggests Merdeka women earned less from paid work in their lifetime and, therefore, have less savings beyond their CPF.
While the gender gap is being closed with each generation, there is an urgent need to provide extra help for Merdeka women. We continue to call for gender-equal premiums for CareShield Life. However, since CareShield Life premiums are currently gender differentiated, I would like to call for the participation incentive for female seniors to enrol in CareShield Life to be raised in proportion to the gender gap in CPF savings for their generation.
The MediSave top-ups for Merdeka women should also be calibrated to plug the gender gap. I would also like to call for more generous provisions for Merdeka women who are still caregivers for their aged parents or siblings. Subsidies for long-term home and centre-based care should be increased for them.
Merdeka women should have a special place in our honouring of the MG. The far majority of caregivers who have performed the work of childcare and eldercare for decades have been women. This work has been essential for functioning of our society, but this work has gone unpaid. We should honour these women for their sacrifices.
It would be a perverse outcome that if, with the additional participation incentive in the Package, more Merdeka men than Merdeka women sign up for CareShield Life because of the gender gap. Merdeka women have given much of their lives caring for their families and others in society. Now that they need care themselves, they may not be able to afford it because they have suffered the opportunity cost of sacrificing full-time work to care for others.
Ageing with independence is ageing with dignity. I believe all our seniors want to age with independence. This is not because they are self-centred and individualistic, but it is because we are Asians who care for family and community. Many of us would have heard stories of, or experienced first-hand, seniors telling their children to let them die if they were to become critically ill, so that they would not be a financial or practical burden. Our seniors want to age with independence so that they do not become burdens for the younger generation. This is a natural extension of the spirit of sacrifice they embody, for which we are honouring them with the PGP and MGP.
We need and we should calibrate our healthcare, manpower, social pension, housing and gender policies to make sure our seniors age with independence. I have made the case that: one, CHAS auto-enrollment and outpatient subsidies should kick in for all Singaporeans who turn 60 years old to plug the primary care gap in our universal healthcare system; two, the retirement age be removed, the redefined re-employment age raised to 70 years old and the CPF contribution for older workers restored so that our seniors can continue working as long as they can and want; three, CPF be transformed into a safety net for seniors, that payout eligibility age be lowered to 60 years old and members be allowed to make partial withdrawals if incapacitated to work for a period of time; four, ageing in place be deepened by promoting the Lease Buyback Scheme to the Merdekas; and five, close the gender gap in CPF and other savings for our senior women by increasing the MediSave top-ups for them and the participation incentive for them to enrol in CareShield Life.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, ageing with independence is ageing with dignity for our seniors. If we have missed our chances with the Pioneers, we should not miss this opportunity with the Merdekas. The MG represents the very spirit, idea and realisation of independence. We owe it to the Merdekas that they age with independence.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak on three areas. First, the strategic direction of the Budget; second, an assessment on the schemes currently in place to help enterprises transform; and last, the implication of the increased social expenditure.
On the strategic direction of the Budget, the hon Member, Mr Pritam Singh, in his speech shared some ground feedback that he had obtained, suggesting this Budget Statement is tied with the election cycle, rather than being a strategic Budget. Respectfully, I feel that it is important for Members of this House to deal emphatically with such soundings as they may give rise to cynicism. If left unchecked, it may well undermine the stated objectives of this year's Budget, which is to build a strong and united Singapore.
To understand the strategic direction of this year's Budget, I found it useful to juxtapose this year's Budget Statement against the backdrop of previous Budget Statements, especially from the first year of the current term of Government, so that we, as Members of this House, can better appreciate where the Government intends to take our country to, to overcome the challenges we face as a country.
Members may recall the slogans for the past three years' Budgets. Budget 2016 was \"Partnering for the Future\"; 2017 was \"Moving Forward Together\"; 2018 was \"Together a Better Future\". The broad themes for each year, including this year, are similar.
On the economic front, there is an emphasis on the need to transform our economy to a lean technology-based and innovation-driven economy that will ensure our enterprises will continue to capture their fair share of opportunities here and overseas. A lot of support is given for such transformation efforts.
On our people front, focus falls on training, deepening our capabilities, ensuring we are productive, possess skills that make us relevant to the world and earn a decent living.
On the social front, the focus remains on dealing with social inequality, social mobility and access to critical needs, be it healthcare, education and so on, and also to build, ultimately, a caring and united society.
In addition, while we spend more on the social front, financial prudence is maintained always. So, as I see, there is no change in the general direction of strategies employed over these years.
Those who described this year's Budget as a pre-elections sweetener Budget make reference to the Bicentennial Bonus and the MGP. I have considered these viewpoints. My view is that such a characterisation does not take into account what happened in the previous years, as well as the entirety of what Minister Heng Swee Keat announced this year.
Every year, there has always been a slew of short-term measures announced in the Budget Statements together with long-term measures. For example, in 2016 and 2017, the Minister announced a one-off GST Voucher (GSTV) – Cash Special Payment; and last year, we had the SG Bonus.
There are also pain points introduced this year, running contrary to the suggestion that this is an artificial feel-good Budget. For example, the doubling of the diesel tax, introduced much to the chagrin of my colleague, Mr Ang Hin Kee, to ensure a sustainable environment; and reducing foreign-worker dependence to encourage higher productivity
On the $8-billion MGP, there seems to be a misunderstanding on the purpose behind it. As I heard Minister Heng Swee Keat, the MGP is not for the purpose of plugging the healthcare or affordability need gaps. The existing systems and Budget allocation have already done that and, as I understand, we are spending more and more on healthcare, year on year. Such gaps have to be dealt with across the board, irrespective of the age of fellow Singaporeans.
I understand that the objective behind the MGP is to acknowledge the contributions of the generation that contributed much to the economic development of Singapore. And in the words of Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, the MG taught him independence. So, there is much to be recognised.
It is analogous to PGP, or rather, the PG, who are credited for the very existence of Singapore.
No one in this House can hardly argue against the fact that the MG Singaporeans – defined not just by age, but the depth of their roots in Singapore – did, indeed, strengthen the economic foundations of Singapore against the prevailing odds then. So, the case for acknowledging their contributions is, therefore, strong.
Importantly, it is funded by current Reserves. Now, it seems to me that we are in a fortunate situation to be able to fund MGP through the current Reserves because we have higher than expected contributions from stamp duty, as well as from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).
Members of this House sometimes forget that whatever we budget for in this House does not define what will happen for the financial year. The spiritual amongst us may say, \"Man proposes; God disposes\". But really, it is the market circumstances that would dictate whether or not we would have sufficient resources for these packages.
So, to ascribe a political motive to say that MGP is timed for the elections, really kind of elevates the Government to the position of being a fortune-teller. I am not sure if that is an accurate way of describing the timing and, indeed, the position of the Government.
From the feedback that I have received, generally, the MGP is well-received by both by the MG as well as their children. It is well designed to promote an active lifestyle, in addition to providing for further healthcare subsidies.
I do have a query on the funding quantum, though: $6.1 billion is being set aside for an expected $8-billion expenditure. As a comparison, for the PGP, $8 billion was set aside for an expected $9-billion expenditure.
I would like to ask the hon Minister how did he arrive at the $6.1 billion figure and how he will ensure that future governments will not inherit the task of funding the MGP.
I did note the next generation, those born in the 1960s, seem to have an expectation that they should be beneficiaries of a package, too, and I think Assoc Prof Daniel Goh made a call along these lines.
I am a member of the 1960s generation, but I am not raising this out of personal interest. There are some bets going on outside this House as to how we would be labelled – the strongest horse seems to be \"Majulah Generation\". I do not have a suggestion for Assoc Prof Goh's generation, however.
It is important that while we honour the MG's contributions through the MGP, we in this House also take the opportunity to disabuse the notion that each succeeding generation would be automatically entitled to a package, over and above the needs that have to be taken care of by the Budget.
Much depends on the extent and outcome of the generation's contributions. This is where the strategic direction that the Government intends to steer Singapore, too, becomes relevant. This is where the call to unity to deliver sound economic and social outcomes becomes key.
And hon Minister Heng Swee Keat candidly acknowledged in his Statement that \"financial resources alone do not get us there\".
I also think that any acknowledgement should be done by the succeeding generation, just like how the MGP is formulated by the 4G Leaders and the details provided in this House by Minister Heng Swee Keat on behalf of the 4G Leaders.
Finally, like the PGP and MGP, there should not be any financial burden placed on future generations nor any drawdowns on past Reserves. Otherwise, it would not be right. As I have said before, the package is not meant to plug a needs gap.
Next, on the efforts to transform enterprises. Year on year, much resources have been devoted to transform businesses of our 200,000-plus enterprises and skilling up our people. As advisor to the Port Officers' Union (POU), I am personally aware of the great strides made by the Port officers to be ready for the automated mega ports by upskilling themselves.
I note that the hon Minister intends to provide more support and, in some instances, refinements to current programmes, such as the SME Go Digital programme and the Enterprise Financing Scheme. May I please ask: what is the Minister's assessment of the current schemes to date? Is he satisfied with the progress that has been made?
At the same time, the hon Minister announced adjusting downwards of the workforce quota for the services sector which generates about 70% of our GDP. It is meant to deal with sluggish productivity growth in this sector, which is admittedly uneven.
Would the hon Minister, however, not agree that the services sector is a kind of a \"broad church\" which includes industries where it is not easy to automate and digitise for the purpose of increasing productivity? For example, the logistics business, they would still need human drivers – the framework for autonomous vehicles will only be in place by 2030, if at all. Could there not be a more granular assessment of industries to see if, indeed, they have been laggards on the productivity front before placing a foreign manpower quota on them?
Next, we need to be mindful that in the drive for enterprises to become cost-efficient and productive, we do not create a situation where full-time jobs are cut down in favour of engaging freelancers whose pay is variable. What strategy do we have to ensure that this would not happen as SMEs tap on Government grants and programmes?
I would like to make a call for financial resources to be channelled to build a strong Singapore brand that enterprises can leverage. Deputy Prime Minister Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam recently mentioned this outside this House that Singapore has gained a strong international reputation for trust.
Minister Heng Swee Keat as well as hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa referred to Switzerland in their speeches. The Swiss have successfully carved a well-earned reputation for quality, punctuality and reliability. We would have heard the phrase \"Swiss precision\" where \"Swiss\" is used as an adjective. This is as a result of a national marketing effort. Much has been written on this.
Would the hon Minister agree that more can be done to strengthen the Singapore brand so that enterprises here can also leverage this? This particularly dovetails with the Minister’s call that enterprises build deeper partnerships across the world. What steps can he identify to support these brand-building efforts? Hopefully, one day, the word \"Singaporean\" will be become synonymous all over the world with \"dependability\".
On social spending and prudence, I note that social expenditure is up. The hon Minister mentioned that the social Ministries' spending has doubled to $30 billion within a nine-year period.
As in previous Government terms, when our economy grows, we also have an obligation to contribute to the Reserves to be used for the uncertainties of the future. It is a big part of our responsibility to ensure a bright future for our children and our progeny.
Does the Minister anticipate that the Government will be able to follow the same practice in this term, notwithstanding his decision to set aside big sums for the various programmes, which were helpfully identified by hon Member Ms Foo Mee Har in her speech?
Finally, I would like to applaud the initiatives to strengthen the involvement of the community corporations, as well as the better-off amongst us to help less fortunate families to level up. To me, this captures the essence of what the hon Minister meant when he referred to building a united Singapore. The potential multiplier effect that will arise by facilitating involvement of private individuals and corporations in helping less-advantaged families is very significant. This effort should not be the sole responsibility of our Government. This also ensures that through this, we will prudently manage our social expenditure.
I fully support the strengthening of the SG Cares movement. The steps to enhance the spirit of volunteerism in our youths, seniors and public officers, as well as the setting up of the Bicentennial Community Fund providing dollar-for-dollar matching and tax incentives. These efforts will help to address issues of social mobility and inequality that Members in this House debated passionately on not too long ago. In conclusion, I express my support for Budget 2019.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Douglas Foo.
Mr Douglas Foo (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would first like to declare my interest as the President of the Singapore Manufacturing Federation (SMF), Vice-Chairman of the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) and the Vice-President of the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF). I rise to affirm my support for the recently delivered Singapore Budget 2019 and to provide a response from the business community.
On behalf of the manufacturing community in Singapore, I applaud the Government's recognition of the contributions of the manufacturing sector to our economy. In addition, the three TACs that I represent are also pleased that the Government has also recognised the important role played by TACs.
I wish to affirm that TACs, as partners in nation-building, remain committed to the cause of enhancing the business community’s capabilities and look forward to continuing its stellar collaborative relationships with our members, government agencies both local and overseas, as well as our Labour Movement, NTUC.
Minister Heng Swee Keat's speech on enterprise and workforce transformation lends Government support to the beliefs that TACs have been advancing to our members and to the work we do over the last few years. For example, SMF has programmes to actively assist the manufacturing community in the three thrusts defined in the Budget for moving the Singapore economy forward.
Some of these programmes are:
Deep Enterprise Capabilities. Our SMECentres@SMF have proven to be an effective partner to SMEs seeking customised advice and guidance on the latest Government grants, to give our SMEs better opportunities of success. We, therefore, eagerly await the additional $200 million in funding for SMEs expected to be brought in by the SME Co-Investment Fund III.
Deep Worker Capabilities. SMF currently administers two types of PCPs – PCP Broad-based manufacturing and PCP-Overseas. I am pleased to report that under these two programmes, SMF has assisted close to 1,200 workers on their professional conversion journey as at January 2019. SMF is, therefore, excited with the announcement of two further PCP programmes and stand ready to collaborate with Government agencies on them.
Practising Management Consultants (PMCs). As the leading certification body for PMCs, SMF provides a certification process to train and enable workers, especially PMETs undergoing a career change, to be professionally certified as consultants. The total number of PMCs certified by the SMF Singapore PMC Certification (SPMCC) currently stands at over 500. Following certification, these consultants are then better enabled to assist SMEs identify issues in business processes and the right type of support they can receive from the Government as well as to bring them on the internationalisation efforts.
SMF has signed more than 180 memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with local and overseas TACs and government agencies for better collaboration on commercial development.
The Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) representative office in Singapore, tasked with bringing local companies closer to doing business with EU companies, has between 2016 and 2018 organised 56 brokerage events and signed 25 EEN partnership agreements. It currently has 200 active businesses on the network.
SMF regularly leads member delegations to local and overseas trade exhibitions. In 2018, SMF led more than 600 enterprises to participate in 41 trade exhibitions, securing trade sales of over $222.3 million.
We welcome the support that the Government is pledging to transform the industry further under Budget 2019 towards Industry 4.0 standards. In this regard, SMF has taken the initiative to develop a Manufacturing Digital Plan to assist SMEs on their transformation journey.
In 2019, we will continue our focus on assisting companies to digitalise and sooner realise Industry 4.0. We have since launched the Go Digital Project Management Services to help SMEs that want to go digital take their first step to digitalisation. Under the programme, SMEs can tap on \"mentors\" to help them deploy technology. The support announced by Minister Heng Swee Keat will go a long way towards facilitating the process.
These are just some examples of how TACs can contribute effectively to bringing the business community in line with the Government’s vision, and thereby creating a united Singapore. SMF, SBF and SNEF have a very healthy collaborative relationship and supports one another in our respective efforts and stand strong ready to work with NTUC and the Labour Movement.
TACs are not in competition with one another and, like businesses, more can be done when acting in concert where there are greater resources to draw from. I would, therefore, like to call on TACs to further break down individual walls and work with one another to accelerate our common national interests. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tAt a regional level, myself as one of the three Singapore Appointed Representatives to the ASEAN Business Advisory Council (ASEAN-BAC), together with the business community, we are in strong agreement that the Government has, in this Budget, rightfully identified opportunities in ASEAN to be an area that our local businesses should consider expanding to.
As the strategies from the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Blueprint 2025 take shape, Singapore businesses need to better define our competitive space and to leverage the potential of ASEAN as an economic block. ASEAN is currently the fifth largest economy in the world by GDP, overtaking the UK in 2017. With the AEC Blueprint in place, ASEAN is, indeed, well-poised to be the fourth largest economy in the world by GDP in 2030.
Many factors converge in ASEAN's economic favour.
Firstly, the median age of the ASEAN population as at 2015 is 28.9 years. This is a relatively youthful workforce when compared to the median age of more advanced nations, for example, 40.8 years for the US and 36 years for China.
Secondly, increases in urbanisation rates drive economic growth. The urbanisation rate in ASEAN is expected to hit 55.8% in 2030, about 12 percentage points up from 44.5% in 2010.
Thirdly, according to estimates from the Asian Development Bank, by the year 2030, about 65% of the ASEAN population will be classified as middle-income class, up from 29% in 2010. As income rises, so will standards of living. ASEAN will, therefore, become an important market for businesses.
That these would take place within a short span of slightly over a decade presents our Singapore businesses with many opportunities at our doorstep. It is, therefore, increasingly imperative that our businesses are enabled to move up the value chain to generate higher value output and, more importantly, position ourselves as a gateway to the rest of ASEAN. Digitalisation and Industry 4.0 are the way forward and, with the different financial packages and assistance schemes, the Government is, indeed, helping our businesses along the journey.
(In English): Mr Speaker Sir, my speech today would be incomplete if I do not talk about the main concern that the business community has in relation to Budget 2019. The Foreign Workforce Policy to reduce the DRC in the services sector is definitely something that businesses are very concerned about.
Businesses can appreciate the policy reasons for such cuts, for example, with the declining birth rate in Singapore, having a continued inflow of foreign manpower at the current or increased rate may eventually result in a Singapore with more foreigners than locals. Businesses also note that the reduction is being rolled out progressively over two years to cushion the harshness of such a reduction.
However, the fears and the difficulties for businesses have already begun. Firstly, businesses already have to deal with global trading uncertainty, rapid changes in technology and business model changes, as well as changes in legislation. For example, last year, changes made to the Employment Act provided more protection and welfare for employees but incurred additional costs for businesses.
Secondly, the services industry, such as the F&B industry, relies on unique and familiar experiences to attract new customers and retain old ones. Building a relationship with customers takes time, as does training. Being able to attract new local workers with more welfare demands and higher costs is yet another aspect which these businesses have to deal with.
For these businesses, no matter how technology may alleviate operational demands, a lack of readily available human resources, which will invariably in turn drive up already increasing labour costs, will work in tandem to drive businesses out of Singapore or out of business altogether.
It is in this context that I would like to caution against an over-reliance on legislation for more and more rules. Members have, in recent debates before this House, lobbied for mandatory PWMs, eldercare leave and FWAs.
While all of these are, indeed, legitimate interests which enterprises are also concerned about, legislating them may not necessarily be the best way forward. I would like to humbly urge this House to better support the efforts of the Tripartite collaboration and MOM's efforts to promote a strong culture of shared responsibility, rather than to adopt a legalistic and prescriptive approach.
On the part of TACs, we will continue to urge companies to move towards their digitalisation journey with greater alacrity to adapt to staffing realities. However, as labour demands vary with each industry across different time periods, I would urge the Ministry to consider adopting a flexible policy of review, closer to when the cuts are to be made effective, or to allow flexibility to consider on a case-by-case basis, the labour needs of individual businesses.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, the business community is of the opinion that this Budget is a forward-looking Budget, preparing and galvanising Singapore businesses for the challenges and opportunities ahead. It is encouraging that there is increased focus at the micro level, with support to accelerate the adoption of innovative solutions, building of global partnerships, upscaling of the workforce and business transformation. It is pro-business, pro-worker, and we look forward to a strong united Singapore. With that, I affirm my support for the Budget Statement 2019.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of Budget 2019 with its focus on \"Building A Strong, United Singapore\".
We are a small country in an uncertain world. Developments in the US, China and Europe had contributed to high levels of uncertainty in the past and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. These will not go away.
In the face of such headwinds, Singaporeans would have to stay strong and united. We must be committed to solving our own problems and helping our own communities, something which this Budget aims to achieve. We must rally behind our leaders who will take us into a new Singapore era, one that our children and grandchildren will be proud of.
Many plans and schemes had already been put in place. The oft-heard ones include those relating to AI, Intelligent Automation (IA), Technology, Manpower, Digitalisation, Innovation and Globalisation. The wheels had been set in motion. To many Singaporeans though, these schemes appeared to be piecemeal. More can be done to highlight the vision for Singapore and strengthen the connections so that we can understand how all these schemes can, together, shape a new future and set us a common goal.
Driven by the rapid pace of technological advances which radically change processes and operations, many sectors are undergoing developments and changes of seismic proportions. These are critical for companies' survival, to catch up with their peers or seize opportunities to be market leaders. To automate and digitise is also to overcome the manpower challenges arising from the reduction in DRC which is expected to put an upward pressure on labour costs for companies in the services-related industry. We still hear businesses from the services sectors feedback that many of their processes cannot be automated. The challenge is how we can successfully harness AI and IA to help these companies.
Would the Minister elaborate on how successful the ITMs and the Lean Enterprise Development (LED) schemes have been in assisting companies redesign jobs and reduce reliance on manpower?
Some businesses find these restructuring steps troublesome, even counter-productive, as the time and resources required may temporarily distract them from their day-to-day operations. While they appreciate the short-term sacrifices they have to make for long-term gains, and they see the need to redesign and upgrade the types of jobs to cater to a more educated ageing workforce who want to work longer in more meaningful work, they need all possible assistance to effect these changes.
Hence, I fully support the Government’s decision to expand the Industry Digital Plans (IDPs) for SMEs and to extend the Automation Support Package (ASP) by two years.
I would like to call for IDPs to be expanded to more sectors expeditiously. Does the Government have a timeline for the implementation of IDPs for the remaining sectors?
For the seven industries where IDPs had already been rolled out, would the Minister share an update on the adoption rate of each industry so far? For companies which have yet to implement digital plans, what are the main obstacles? What measures do we have in place to help them surmount these challenges? The seven industries were prioritised as their expected productivity gains would be the highest. May I ask if their actual gains had matched expectations? If not, what are the issues involved?
As for ASP, I would like to ask if the amount budgeted to assist companies to scale up their automation projects had been fully utilised each year since it was launched in 2016. How many SMEs has ASP helped and in which sectors? Do our SMEs have enough awareness about this scheme and the necessary talents and specialists to implement the transformations? Would the Ministry share with us some of the successful cases and those which had not turned out as well? What are the lessons from those which had performed below expectations? These are important questions as we need to know how to better help these SMEs leverage technology to move ahead. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tNext, I would like to speak about the occasional unintended consequences of well-intentioned Government policies.
Take the example of the employment of older workers. They are commonly seen in our hawker centres, food courts and shopping malls clearing tables and mopping floors.
These seniors are mostly unskilled workers with little education. Hence, there is a limitation to the type of jobs they can take on. As the Government provides WIS to encourage companies to employ older workers, companies are fine with hiring them since they are paying less for their services.
In addition, employing these Singapore citizens also entitle the companies to employ more foreign workers based on DRC. With the tightening of DRC, companies are likely to employ more of these old workers, letting them do simple cleaning jobs, in order to employ more and better skilled foreign workers. We should note that this would also reduce their incentive to automate.
On one hand, WIS may boost elder employment; on the other hand, there are some concerns about these seniors in menial jobs. The sight of these seniors, as they shuffle around hunched over, tugs at our heartstrings. The work may not appear to be heavy but some of the older workers are frail and visibly tired.
These are the scenarios which led to many Singaporeans and tourists asking why our Government is not taking care of these poor senior citizens. There are comments that poor Singaporeans have to work to their deaths and so forth. Although these comments do not reflect Singapore’s reality, they are out there. While there might be some seniors who said that they worked to pass their time, due to the nature of these menial jobs, most people have concerns and reservations. We must also ask ourselves what is the perception our young children have of us as a society when they see frail senior citizens picking up after them, clearing tables and mopping toilets? Perhaps, it is timely for us to re-examine the implications arising from these policies.
(In English): I move on to assistance for workers with low CPF balances. In line with the Government's targeted mode to help the most vulnerable, I would like to reiterate my call for more help for Singaporeans with low CPF balances, such as the group with balances below the Basic Retirement Sum, through higher tiered CPF interest rates.
This is in addition to the current Budget top-up of $300-$1,000 for older Singaporeans with low CPF balances and, from time to time, when we have surpluses. The consistent returns from the higher interest rates will be of greater help to this group of Singaporeans, many of whom are likely to be freelancers, self-employed or low-wage workers.
Allow me to elaborate. On the first $60,000 of a CPF member's combined balances, with up to $20,000 from the Ordinary Account (OA), an extra 1% interest is paid. Since January 2016, CPF members aged 55 and above will also earn an additional 1% extra interest on the first $30,000 of their combined balances, including up to $20,000 from the OA. These extra interests apply on the first $60,000 and first $30,000 respectively, regardless of whether one has a combined CPF savings of $60,000 or $600,000.
I hope the Government will consider increasing the additional interest for those who have low combined CPF balances, for example, below the Basic Retirement Sum, to help them earn more in their accounts. If the funding for this means that we have to reduce or even remove the extra interests on the first $60,000 or $30,000 respectively for those with much higher CPF balances, I believe that financially secure Singaporeans will be willing to support this assistance measure.
Finally, I would like to appeal for greater efforts to boost Singapore’s food resilience.
We should step up priority and urgency to scale up food production through both the lease or acquisition of farmland overseas and the adoption of innovative processes. Besides requiring support and investments from both the public and private sectors, we have to encourage Singaporeans and residents to join in our \"Buy Singapore\" movement and help to buy local produce. Initially, buying local may mean paying a higher price. But we must continue to support local suppliers and vendors so that when volume picks up, prices would drop correspondingly.
\"Buy Singapore\" will not only help ensure the sustainability of producing local food but also reduce our carbon footprint, contributing to environmental sustainability. By supporting our Singapore food producers and companies, eventually, they will be able to scale up and go regional or global.
With the global pivot to Asia, now the fastest growing region in the world, the time is ripe for Singapore companies to tap into new opportunities and new markets. We need to work together to achieve that. I would like to conclude with my support for the Budget.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Teo Ho Pin.
Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget. Sir, globalisation has caused fundamental transformations in our economy and has necessitated certain paradigm shifts. Just as Singapore has welcomed firms from all over the world to partake in our economy, many of our firms have taken a leap of faith and ventured overseas. Through this, Singapore has become strongly embedded in the global economic order.
Sir, globalisation is not simply marked by the movement of goods and services. Ideas and paradigms are transported beyond borders. Economic growth driven by globalisation has enriched our lives. We enjoy ever-improving technologies that we would have never deigned to imagine. You can now have a face-to-face video conversation with someone residing overseas. This was unthinkable 20 years ago.
Yet, against the backdrop of these benefits, the need for sustainability is clear. The world's appetite for consumption far exceeds the rate at which resources can be replenished.
Sir, it is on this note that I wish to speak about how Singapore may position itself to become a sustainable global economic hub of tomorrow. I shall speak on three areas. First, the continuation of our economic prosperity through the uplifting of our SMEs. Second, the development of a sustainable built-environment. Third, the perpetuation of Singapore's position as a global city.
Sir, the Government has been supportive of our SMEs. In the Budget speech delivered by the Finance Minister, it is clear that many of our policies are aimed to help SMEs in expanding and thriving. However, I have received feedback on two issues faced by SMEs.
First, their ability to compete effectively against large-scale enterprises, due to being unable to match their economies of scale. Second, their abilities to attract and retain talent.
Sir, I believe that the first concern may be addressed through the nurturing of a culture which places more emphasis on the quality of goods and services, as opposed to seeing price as the sole determining factor. SMEs have the distinct advantage of being more flexible and adaptable to the needs of customers. By encouraging them to find gaps in the market and providing the right goods and services to fill these gaps, our SMEs can find respite in competing against their larger counterparts, while developing capabilities in these niche sectors.
A case in point is a cider company known as Orchard Pig. Orchard Pig penetrated the UK cider market in 2007 at a time when the market was highly saturated and dominated by large corporations. Orchard Pig provided a product which was more expensive but was more artisan, mischievous and just generally fun. Orchard Pig’s success led to a £6 million turnover in 2018. Sir, I believe that with the right motivation, our entrepreneurs can find similar success.
Sir, regarding the second concern, the Government's support is evident in the multitude of schemes aimed at helping SMEs employ local talent, such as PCP and CSP. In addition, initiatives, such as SkillsFuture, encourage Singaporeans to equip themselves with skills to cope with a changing economy.
Sir, I believe that the next step forward should involve effecting a change in mentality. There are industries which are rife with opportunities. Yet, these industries have negative stigmas attached to them which have prevented employment of Singaporeans.
Sir, I believe that these perceptions can be changed. We can learn from Germany which spares no effort in training its people for blue-collar jobs. In fact, they are so respected that a German political scientist has coined this phenomenon as \"blue-collar aristocracy\". This has allowed the German economy to thrive in terms of quality and has allowed them to compete in the global market on their own terms, not one of lowest cost, but of highest quality.
Sir, by learning from them, we can effect a change wherein Singaporeans are happy to work in once-shunned industries, no longer being subject to ridicule or low salaries, allowing us to develop Singapore talent in these fields, increase employment, and the number of good jobs, while our goods and services become more attractive by merit of their qualities.
Sir, in pursuit of economic success, we must not forget the need for sustainability. We have an obligation to meet our needs of today without compromising the ability of Singaporeans of tomorrow to meet theirs. One avenue that we can achieve sustainability in, is the built environment. There are frameworks that assess the eco-friendliness of buildings, such as the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) Green Mark Scheme. I believe eco-friendliness can be promoted by introducing tax rebates for compliance with eco-friendly building standards, use of eco-friendly building materials, and efficient consumption of utilities. Other cities around the world have introduced policies to incentivise the creation of sustainable built environments.
Sir, Mexico City has introduced tax reductions, discounts to utility bills, greater access to financing and expedited permitting procedures when green building standards are met. Interested participants are subjected to third-party independent audits. They then execute the recommendations outlined in the audit report. Upon the implementation of these recommendations, a Sustainable Building Certificate of varying levels of achievement is issued and successful participants become eligible for the aforementioned benefits and can obtain up to a 20% reduction in property taxes.
The results are impressive: seven years since its inception, 40 buildings certified under this scheme contributed to reduced electricity consumption of 20.1 million kilowatt-hours (kWh), and reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of 66,120 tonnes.
Sir, I wish to declare my interest as a board member and Vice-Chairman of the Singapore Environment Council (SEC), which is a non-government, non-profit organisation. I urge the Government to adopt the SEC's Green Labelling Scheme and engage independent third-party auditors to assess the BCA's Green Mark Building certification. The SEC’s green labelling scheme is internationally recognised under the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17065 and ISO 14024 for certifying products which meet stringent environmental standards and is accepted in 43 countries.
Sir, to promote a sustainable built environment, all stakeholders must adopt a common set of standards pertaining to sustainable development. This can be further reinforced by introducing pro-sustainability legislation.
Sir, I support the use of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Integrated Digital Delivery for construction projects. I understand that BIM is not seamlessly integrated among developers, consultants, contractors, suppliers and the authorities. This has resulted in the benefits of BIM not being fully reaped, resulting in stakeholders of construction projects suffering from redundancy. Furthermore, SMEs face difficulties in adopting BIM due to cost and manpower barriers. I urge BCA to consider shared integrated BIM services to support the industry.
Sir, my final point is in regard to the perpetuation of our status as a global city. Singapore enjoys her current levels of success due to us positioning ourselves as a global city and acting as a node by which the world may become more connected. To remain a global city, it is imperative that we pay attention to both our hardware and software. Singapore must continue to upgrade its hardware through ensuring a world-class infrastructure, high levels of security and a beautiful green environment.
Concurrently, we must ensure that our software, our people, become international, so as to be the means by which we reach out to the world and vice versa.
To maintain our position as a global city, we can learn from fellow global city, Tokyo. The Tokyo Government formulated a plan in 2014 with the explicit aim of making Tokyo the world's best city known as \"The Tokyo Vision\". One of their strategies involves the use of the Olympics as the platform by which Tokyo may become world-renowned for arts and culture, which, in turn, set Tokyo on the path to becoming a world-leading cultural city. They intend to use the entire city as a stage showcasing Japanese culture.
Sir, part of being a global city involves having a developed cultural scene, ready to be exported to the world. The recent Chingay parade is testament to our cultural strength and legacy. We have a rich culture that can, and should be, showcased to the world. We should learn from Tokyo and utilise international events as platforms by which we promote our culture, and cement our position as a global city.
Another area in which we can learn from Tokyo is extensive and in-depth collaboration with other cities. As part of The Tokyo Vision, the Tokyo government will develop relations with 30 foreign cities. Sir, Singapore is unique in that it is a city-state. This has resulted in the blurring of lines between federal and city governance. We have strong ties with other federal Governments, and learnt and shared much with them. We should expand our networks with city and municipal governments so that our 3P sectors can learn and share their respective experiences.
Sir, I would like to reiterate my call to the House to support Singapore in transforming into a sustainable global economic hub of tomorrow.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, on 15 February 1942, General Percival met his fellow generals at Fort Canning. Bukit Timah had fallen, along with crucial military supplies. The water supply was on the verge of collapse. Thousands of soldiers wandered aimlessly through the city, dazed and confused. Collectively, the generals decided that counterattack was impossible. They went against their orders, to fight to the last man. They decided to surrender. The surrender marked one of the biggest military defeats in British history and a big military mystery. How could the British, after 20 years of planning for Singapore's defence, with an army of 130,000 troops, be defeated by a Japanese army of roughly one third its size? As we commemorate our Bicentennial, it is a good time to reflect on history.
A close reading of history showed that Singapore was lost not on the defence in the battles of 1941. Singapore was lost on the planning tables since 1921. After World War One (WWI), the British Empire was stretched financially. The British returned to the gold standard at a high exchange rate, which triggered deflationary monetary and fiscal policies. Wage did not adjust downwards due to union pressure, and British exports became expensive. For most of the 1920s, the British suffered a depression. The British military defence budget was cut very deeply until 1935, and her military failed to modernise. And after WWI, America and Japan competed for dominance in Asia. In 1922, America forced the British to choose a side. Britain chose to side with America over Japan, its former ally. With that, Britain faced a dangerous Japan with a formidable navy.
Despite her military weakness, the British must convince Australia and India, then part of the British Empire, that the Far East can be secured, especially so since Australian and Indian troops were needed to protect their Empire's interest in Europe and the Middle East. Yet, the British could not afford a Far East navy to counter Japan. To make the impossible possible, the British came up with the \"Singapore Strategy\". In the event of a future world war, Britain will concentrate its entire navy to defeat its European enemies, and then sail the main fleet down to Singapore to counter the Japanese. Therefore, in 1921, the British cabinet approved the building of a new naval base out of Singapore to host its main fleet. And Singapore must be defended until the arrival of that fleet.
The idea was sound. But the implementation of the Singapore Strategy over the next two decades can only be described as fundamentally unsound, as a 20-year sleepwalk towards disaster. First, according to historian Brian Farrell, the British never found the money to build a big naval base. The British knew they need most, if not all, of their fleet to contend with the Japanese. But surprisingly, the naval base in Singapore was never designed to hold more than 20% of its fleet.
Secondly, knowing no fleet in the Far East, and knowing that they needed to defend Malaya and Singapore from a land invasion from the north in 1936, the British turned to their air force. Unfortunately, the British air defence plan was fundamentally unsound as well. The British air force built a string of airbases to the north without consulting their army. While these air bases were close to the South China Sea and the Thai border – areas that they expected the Japanese to invade from – they were situated in indefensible terrain. And after all this hassle, the British incredibly never found the money to deploy an air force large or sophisticated enough. All these meant that the under-strength British Army now had to defend not just the empty naval base in Singapore in the south, but also the under-equipped airbases in the north.
In short, the Singapore Strategy was nothing more than a \"Strategic Illusion\", a plan that could never work against a determined enemy, a plan one hopes will never be tested. But hope is not a strategy. After the attack on Pearl Harbour, the British stood alone in Malaya and Singapore.
In the final years before the Japanese invasion, the British did build up the Malayan army to almost three times the size of the invading Japanese army. But decades are needed to build and sustain a strong defence. Many historians, including Frank Pike, concluded that the large British Malayan army was only capable of fighting fixed-piece battles of WWI, and while there were some good units, even the British official historian Woodburn Kirby concluded that most of these units were raw and unfamiliar with how to fight in the tropics. Lastly, the British army lacked comprehensive intelligence on the Japanese and, therefore, were complacent.
In December 1941, when the Japanese swept down from the north, they destroyed the small obsolete British air force in the north within 100 hours and sank the only two major British ships in the Far East. They then proceeded to destroy the British Army dispersed throughout Malaya, piecemeal. They defeated the British at Jitra to win Northern Malaya, overran and dispersed the British at Slim River, outmaneuvered the British at Muar to win the crucial fight for Johor, and reached the gates of Singapore, all within 55 days. After a seven-day fight for Singapore, the divided and demoralised British army, still 100,000 men strong, chose to surrender.
So, what can we learn from the Fall of Singapore? The obvious answer is that we can only count on ourselves to defend Singapore, regardless of security arrangements with others. But there are at least three other lessons.
The first lesson is sustained and sufficient defence spending is necessary. In the case of the British Empire after WWI, they faced a rapidly changing world order with the rise of Japan and Germany. The rise of air power, use of combined arms, shift from battleships to carriers, all required major investments. When the British woke up to the reality in the mid-1930s, it was too late to reverse two decades of military neglect.
The situation for Singapore today is vastly different, but some lessons are still worth noting. The most advanced militaries today grapple with major challenges, such as adapting to fifth generation aerial warfare, contending with cyber and hybrid warfare, dealing with disruptive innovations from drones to AI. These reserves require major and sustained investments. Therefore, I am heartened that 30% of our Budget this year goes to defence, security and diplomacy, because history shows there is no substitute to deterrence.
The second lesson is that a nation's security depends on a strong economy and ample fiscal resources to deal with the changing world. In the case of the British Empire, while it thrived in the First Industrial Revolution of steam engines and weaving looms, it failed to transform its economy and fell behind America and Germany in the Second Industrial Revolution of chemicals and cars. Its misguided monetary and fiscal policy led to deflation and depression. It accumulated significant debts because of WWI. For an empire where the sun never sets, it never built a diverse and sustainable tax base to pay for its defence.
In short, the world changed dramatically for the British Empire, but it ran out of money to adapt to the changing world. That was then. How about our world today? Henry Kissinger recently said, \"We are in a very, very grave period for the world\", and the current times can only be marked as an \"end of an era\". I am more optimistic. While there are major global uncertainties ahead, there are ample opportunities for a nimble Singapore. But this requires us to sustain our economy and maintain our fiscal discipline. We are in good shape today. The past year's GDP growth is strong, unemployment and inflation are both low, and median wage increases are high. But what about our economy in 10 years' time? No one can guarantee that our companies can continue to thrive in the face of technology disruption and global competition. Therefore, our companies and people must tap on various programmes and grants, and press on relentlessly to transform.
On maintaining our fiscal discipline, there are many voices asking for more Government spending, and to dig deeper into our Reserve income. Many of them are for deserving causes. But our Reserves must anchor our economy through turbulent times. If we fail to grow our savings over time, when a major storm hits Singapore a decade or two down the road, we may find our financial anchor insufficient to stabilise our economy, which would have grown larger by then.
At the same time, in this House, we frequently say that we are not done building Singapore. But as non-discretionary spending forms a larger percentage of our Budget, there is less room for major shifts to respond to a changing world, less room to build a better Singapore across generations.
The third and final lesson is that a successful society requires its people to have shared beliefs rooted firmly in reality. The British Empire had an unworkable defence plan. Over two decades, her electorate and leaders failed to robustly debate on whether it was realistic and whether there were sufficient resources to backstop the plan. Singapore's success to date depends on our people's consensus on what it takes for Singapore to succeed. But the world is increasingly diverse and our people's views mirror this increasing diversity.
To meet tomorrow's challenges, we need to strengthen our shared beliefs in many areas. For example, how can we balance giving our youths with the best we can afford, while ensuring that they remain hungry and curious for new opportunities? How can we persuade our people that keeping Singapore open to the world is to our best collective interest? How can we continue the unfinished business of tackling inequality while maintaining the core promise of meritocracy? How can we best represent the causes and values of some, while enlarging the common space for all?
The answer lies in more robust conversations not just between the Government and the people, but also among people of differing viewpoints.
I hope our Government can foster more conversations for our people to air their views, listen to differing opinions, understand the realities that constrain Singapore and achieve a nuanced and shared understanding of our common future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, the commemoration of our Bicentennial allows us to reflect on the Fall of Singapore in 1942. Singapore today is safe and prosperous. Nevertheless, there is a Chinese saying \"居安思危\". Even in peace and prosperity, it is essential to plan for and act on, the turbulence and uncertainty ahead.
Budget 2019 is best described by the same phrase, \"居安思危\". With that, I stand in support of the Budget.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, I will deliver my speech in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tSir, the MGP has become one of the focal points of this year's Budget. This generation is certainly deserving of being called the MG, not only because they were born in the 1950s, which was the time when Singapore fought for and achieved Merdeka, followed by self-rule in 1959, but it was because this generation was imbued with the values and spirit of Merdeka. These values and spirit then cascaded down and were inherited by the generations after them. As a generation shaped by the values and spirit of Merdeka, this generation should have been prepared to enjoy their golden years, the Merdeka way. In other words, independently and not having many dependencies.
The process of ageing independently happens when our seniors can retire without depending too much on financial support from their children, siblings and other relatives, and also without depending on assistance from Government bodies and welfare organisations.
Apart from seniors who face difficulties because they are burdened by serious diseases and misfortunes, seniors who undergo ageing independently should be able to take care of themselves or be able to support their own daily expenses in order to live their golden years meaningfully.
We must make changes and adaptations to aspects of healthcare, manpower, social pension, housing policies and policies that are based on gender in order to ensure that our seniors can undergo ageing independently.
Sir, the Workers' Party has five proposals to enable our seniors to achieve this objective.
First, automatic registration for CHAS subsidies and also outpatient treatment for all Singaporeans once they reach 60 years old. This is an effort to further address the present gaps in our universal healthcare system.
Second, abolish the retirement age, increase the re-employment age to 70 and restore the CPF contributions for older workers so that our seniors can continue to work as long as they wish to and are able to.
Third, transform the CPF into a safety net for seniors whereby the eligible withdrawal age, or the age when they are eligible to receive payouts, is lowered to 60 and members are allowed to make partial withdrawals from the available sum if they are unable to work for a certain period of time due to health issues.
Fourth, strengthen ageing further by promoting HDB's Lease Buyback Scheme to the Merdeka Generation.
Fifth and finally, address the gender gap for CPF and other savings for our female seniors by increasing the amount of MediSave top-ups for this group and also provide incentives for participation so that they will register for CareShield Life.
Sir, ageing independently is all about ageing with dignity and meaningfully for our seniors.
If we missed the chance to do so for PG, let us not lose this opportunity to do so for MG.
The MG possesses the values, spirit, concept and realisation of Merdeka. We can still do something better for MG so that they can be more independent, instead of having many dependencies while living out their golden years.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Prof Lim Sun Sun.
Prof Lim Sun Sun (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, the hon Minister for Finance has announced a Budget that charts strategic paths for Singapore in the face of formidable headwinds. In particular, this Budget will help us to confront and harness the forces of digital disruption as they interact with demographic shifts, Asia's growing ascendancy in the world economy and subsiding support for globalisation.
Indeed, even as the Budget takes into account the critical needs of lower-income households, it also seeks to boost the capabilities of our people and the companies that power our economic transformation. Hence, different schemes for companies, such as Innovation Agents, SMEs Go Digital and the Automation Support Package are especially welcome. Minister Heng Swee Keat also spoke of the need for our people to have the skills, knowledge and aptitude to flourish in our fast-changing and technologising world.
In this regard, I would like to highlight three critical literacies we must seek to nurture in our people, to help us all better adapt to our rapidly evolving environment. If the Annual Budget starts with A and B, I would like to speak today about literacies beginning with C, D and E. These are cross-cultural literacy, digital literacy and ethical literacy.
The Minister had, in fact, raised the need to cultivate cross-cultural literacy among our young so as to broaden our regional and international connections. Allow me, therefore, to unpack the concept of cross-cultural literacy and how it is more crucial today than ever before.
Cross-cultural literacy is the ability to understand and interact across different cultures in a manner that is sensitive to differences, yet respectful of diversity. To fortify our rich multicultural heritage, we must create more spaces and opportunities for meaningful cross-cultural understanding. Rather than simply trading in essentialist and simplistic caricatures of different cultures, we need to create forums where people are unafraid to ask tough questions of one another, confront their unconscious biases and dispel long-held misconceptions.
Cross-cultural interactions should be well developed, organised and supported by facilitators, failing which these encounters may create confusion, trigger misunderstandings and, at worst, reinforce stereotypes and prejudices. Greater cross-cultural literacy can help to forge a more inclusive society where diversity is valued rather than frowned upon. Efforts to enhance cross-cultural literacy should be introduced not only in schools, but also in community and corporate events so that working adults can benefit as well.
Ultimately, social ties that are undergirded by greater cross-cultural literacy will be more enduring and resilient. They can serve as a bulwark against threats, such as online disinformation campaigns, that seek to foment inter-ethnic discord.
Beyond Singapore, our people must also inculcate a deeper understanding of our neighbours.
Our region boasts of a rich cultural heritage and tremendous growth potential. And yet, many young Singaporeans view our regional neighbours as nothing more than holiday destinations. Many industry leaders I meet increasingly lament that Singaporeans are averse to job postings in the region as they view them as being less glamourous and rewarding than those further afield. And yet our region is home to fast-growing markets where there are many inroads to make significant impact. To better develop Singapore into a node both within Asia and globally and ensure that our citizens are well placed to tap on such opportunities, our schools from primary through to tertiary levels should make greater efforts to strengthen and deepen our students' appreciation of the region.
Moving on to D for digital literacy. Singapore has done well in terms of providing access to digital devices and services. Schemes, such as the National Education University (NEU) Personal Computer (PC) Plus and Home Access programmes for low-income households, and Enable information technology (IT) for persons with disabilities, have helped to make sure that all Singaporeans have basic access to digital technology. Fortunately, we do not face a significant issue of a digital access divide. However, we must be vigilant about any emerging digital skills divides that may find certain segments of our population less advantaged and less able to benefit from our digitalisation push.
I, therefore, welcome the Ministry of Communications and Information's Digital Readiness Blueprint and its recommendation that all citizens be equipped with a foundational set of digital skills. These pertain to managing information, communicating, transacting and maintaining cyber safety. Going beyond the Basic Digital Skills Curriculum, however, we need to pay particular attention to providing support for specific demographic groups that may require more targeted assistance. For instance, how do we ensure that emerging adults from across the socio-economic spectrum are prepared for the job market in terms of knowing how to profile their competencies, utilise job portals, seek online career mentoring and access skills upgrading programmes?
At the same time, we may wish to offer digital roadmaps for critical issues that everyone has to deal with. For example, how can individuals seek reliable health information online and how can families obtain sound advice on managing household finances? In my research on parents with school-going children, I found that some parents were daunted by the online homework their children were given and felt deeply insecure about their inability to help their children. Indeed, our digitally-connected world is constantly expanding in complex ways, with an ever-proliferating range of apps, portals, platforms and content. As far as possible, we must offer signposts to help people navigate their way online and make sense of the deluge of information they encounter.
The final literacy I wish to speak on is ethical literacy. Because our society is becoming more digitalised, with a growing embrace of the Internet of Things, Big Data, AI, machine learning and automation, we must enhance the ethical literacy of our workforce to ensure that these technologies are deployed in the best interests of our society. Whether the solutions to our wicked problems are technologically or socially engineered, they must accord with our values and align with the ethical principles we collectively subscribe to.
In this regard, we must vest our workforce with the competencies to recognise ethical issues where and when they present themselves, understand different ethical perspectives and to apply these perspectives to help resolve ethical conundrums. Who should be given access to information about whom and for what purpose? How do we draw the line between customer-orientation and surveillance? When should automated decision-making yield to human judgement?
Controversies in Big Tech have shown how inattention to ethical considerations can lead to issues, such as Facebook's Cambridge Analytica debacle and Uber using its technology to track users’ locations against their will. In this regard, the Proposed Model AI Governance Framework launched in January is both farsighted and commendable. I look forward to it being disseminated across the relevant industry and education sectors. I would like to further suggest that ethical literacy be systematically phased into young Singaporeans’ educational journeys, where we could consider refreshing and updating our civics and moral education curriculum to take into account emerging ethical dilemmas that are fast arising in Industry 4.0.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe the proposed Budget will advance our Smart Nation drive, but we should also complement it by inculcating in our people cross-cultural literacy, digital literacy and ethical literacy.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Budget 2019 is a broadly inclusive, caring and positive Budget for all. There is generous healthcare support for Singaporeans with chronic illnesses. MG gets additional healthcare benefits among other perks. Low-income salary workers have an increased income cap and enhanced workfare bonus. The Bicentennial Bonus brings additional monetary perks for the different groups of Singaporeans, and there are tax rebates for all.
It is also a Budget to chart a steady course in uncertain times and prepare for the future. Indeed, restructuring is the key to doing well in the future economy, and this Budget builds on the principles and key features of past Budgets to improve the lives of all Singaporeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a short speech in Malay, in response to what Mr Faisal Manap mentioned about ageing.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tOn the issue of ageing in Singapore, with reference to MG, apart from the proposals mentioned by Mr Faisal Manap, our Budget for 2019 has also provided various packages for senior citizens as well as MG and the families of these seniors. These include PAssion card top-ups that were provided in the Budget.
So, there are already various packages in this Budget for those who have reached their golden years, other than those proposed by Mr Faisal Manap. So, for this Budget, besides the MGP that we have put forward, there are also active ageing activities for seniors that have been established by the Government for the long term.
(In English): In English, please, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the last decade, our expenditure has grown correspondingly to the population's needs and it will only keep growing. We will have to fund our needs in a fiscally sustainable way to achieve all our objectives. Otherwise, future generations of Singaporeans will suffer.
The best way to go about this is to continue growing the economy, keep a broad-based tax, have a diverse source of revenue and maintain fiscal prudence. I note that for this year's Budget, the Government has taken a counter-cyclical approach by introducing multifaceted measures to boost competitiveness, productivity and to upskill and reskill and rightskill workers, despite going from a surplus of $2.1 billion, or 0.4% of GDP in FY2018, to a deficit of $3.5 billion, or 0.7% of GDP in FY2019.
It is, indeed, a generous and ambitious Budget, in my opinion, with special transfers rising to $15.3 billion, up from $9 billion in FY2018. This is the highest special transfer on record above the $12.4 billion in Budget FY2014 when the PG package was unveiled.
Certainly, we have to be ambitious in the face of many challenges. Arguably, the most ambitious dimension that this Budget, and many to follow, has to address pertains to the daunting socio-economic challenges derived from rapidly greying demographics and inequality. Of the two, inequality is a multidimensional and complex problem that needs to be examined more closely. The Finance Minister's allusion to social mobility is a critical precondition to tackling this problem.
To be sure, by definition, one of the main purposes of the Budget is clearly redistribution. This means that in recognising the economic realities of uneven distribution of resources, fiscal policy is meant to facilitate a slightly more equitable redistribution of resources across the economy. So, we are seeing further enhancements to fiscal transfer packages, such as the ComCare Long-term Assistance, and WIS, alongside longer-term commitments, such as the $6.1 billion MGP and $5.1 billion in long-term care support initiatives, to form a vital safety net.
But we must go beyond to address the true underlying causes of inequality. Short-term redistribution of wealth is not only unhelpful for the future generations, but it inadvertently increases social tensions when it devolves into a zero-sum game tug-of-war between the haves and have-nots. Already, some people are asking, \"Can you do more for the middle-income group?\" \"What about those who don't have jobs? They can't even benefit from WIS.\"
These are perfectly valid concerns, but there are other long-term measures to address these. After all, the ultimate goal of inclusive fiscal policies is not merely some variant of Robin Hood-type of social transfers. Instead, a holistic approach to inequality is incomplete without an ecosystem of measures and programmes to improve social mobility, which is a far more potent catalyst of socio-economic progress than welfare.
To this end, there is a repletion of programmes to serve every need, from individuals to businesses, children to elderly. KidSTART, Global Ready Infrastructure Talent, SkillsFuture, Adapt and Grow, PCPs, career guidance and counselling are just a few of the available programmes one can tap on. Built upon the pre-existing system of high-quality, heavily subsidised public education, these will improve one's chances of climbing up the career or economic ladder.
But these schemes are merely the start of a long journey on battling inequality, a pervasive problem across many developed countries. One can reasonably expect that further enhancements in coming Budgets will be inevitable.
Most of the time, focus has been on the vertical dimension of inequality – between the rich and the poor – and the Budget is one good example where we tax the better off ones and we distribute to the needy segments, hopefully, well-distributed. But there are important horizontal dimensions as well.
In the Gini coefficient or the top 1% income share, people appear anonymously, but we may be concerned with how unequal income is across various groups, such as by gender, location or even ethnicity. This Budget and previous Budgets have aimed to address these horizontal dimensions in various ways. But I feel more can be done to address some of these horizontal dimensions – earlier, in terms of generational, but now, in terms of social and educational dimensions to narrow gaps as much as we can.
One way to narrow gaps in terms of social and educational dimensions is to increase spending on the ITE segment of the student population. We already have a very established system for the conventional post-secondary route consisting of junior colleges and polytechnics. Enhancements in the ITE education programme is something more recent. So, we will have to focus more to continue enhancing it. This segment constitutes 25%-30% of the post-secondary cohort each year and is a significant future labour force with key skillsets for us to be future-ready.
I note that despite the myriad of financial assistance programmes available for ITE students, poor time management and prioritising of resources are one reason for some students to fall behind in their studies. For example, I know of a young boy who worked two jobs while studying because of financial woes in the family. He does not blame his lack of finances, but he regrets his poor time management which has effectively rendered his two years in ITE a waste of time because he skipped classes. Last I am aware, he was working hard on his internship, hoping to do well enough to improve his Grade Point Average and qualify for entry into the polytechnic.
I think there are many such students who, at their young age, feel lost, and entered ITE as a last resort and squandered away their time and resources. By the time they recognise the opportunities and potential provided by the school, it is a bit late. I hope a proactive approach can be taken to counsel students, particularly new admissions. Teach them how to manage their resources, help them to apply for the necessary financial help, and follow up on their progress. This hands-on approach would need extra manpower resources and skilled ones at that.
I have also heard anecdotally that a rising number of special needs students are admitted to IHLs, in particular ITEs, to further their education and obtain gainful employment upon graduation. This is a good sign and trend. But can we allocate more resources to the ITE to help enhance the Special Educational Needs (SEN) support office? These students account for about 4% of ITE's enrolment.
On average, over the last three decades, about 2,500 students with SEN were enrolled in IHLs. How many of these students were able to graduate and take on fulfilling work on their own terms? Can we do more to increase SEN student enrolment in IHLs, particularly in ITEs, as some have demonstrated potential for vocational studies? Every student matters in a country where labour force growth is low. In Malay, Mr Deputy Speaker.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tSingapore is a small nation with a small market. But we are well-positioned for research, innovation and enterprise opportunities on a regional and global level. We have many global and regional partnerships, and we also have a good reputation for efficient and reliable services. It makes sense for Singaporeans to venture overseas to find success. In doing so, they may also create more jobs and opportunities for other Singaporeans. I am also pleased to note that the Minister has promised that more will be done to prepare and develop Singaporeans to seize opportunities for international collaboration and to provide more opportunities for Singaporeans to gain overseas working experience.
There is the Global-Ready Infrastructure Talent Programme (GRIT) under the PCP, which seeks to reskill local mid-career switchers and displaced professionals to embark on job functions required for global infrastructure projects in areas like Transaction Advisory, Project Financing, Legal Advisory and Infrastructure Engineering. The Minister has revealed plans for more funding for students at IHLs who plan to intern overseas with Singaporean firms through the new Global Ready Talent Programme (GRTP). This also benefits the high-growth Singapore firms which will receive support to send their local employees for overseas postings. Hence, this Global Ready programme has a good premise, and I hope that it can be expanded to include regional placements in a wider variety of sectors and to include mid-career switchers who may not want to leave their industry entirely but would like to try a different market.
By encouraging Singaporeans to seize opportunities to explore, especially in the ASEAN region, this will also help facilitate collaborations within ASEAN which are beneficial for the economy. With great pleasure, I would like to share about some of our Malay/Muslim businesses which have found success in the region. Positano Risto came up with the unique proposition for a halal Italian restaurant in Singapore in 2017, and they have since opened an additional outlet in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Adrianna Yariqa has been selling modest attire fused with modern and traditional elements for Malay men and women since 2014, and they have expanded to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Another firm, Enercon Engineering Pte Ltd, which specialises in power control solutions, has offices in Singapore and the Philippines, and supports businesses in Malaysia and Taiwan. There are many others. For instance, JumainSataysfaction has spread its wings to Japan in halal food manufacturing, as did Versafleet in the technological transport management solutions sector in the region.
Malaysia, as Members can see, is a popular choice for expansion, because not only are they close by and have a large population of Muslims, but also because when local businesses make headway in one country, they pave the way for other Singaporean businesses. Through networking and sharing of experiences among businesses expanding to the same countries, they can help one another to grow.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, next, I want to talk about helping small savers to grow their income. The debate about distribution of wealth and inequality tends to focus on large fortunes at the top. But the redistribution of wealth is as much about encouragement of small savings at the bottom as it is about the restriction of the excesses at the top. So, it is just as important to encourage small savings at the bottom, rather than harping on restriction of excesses at the top. The rich get richer because they have ample funds to invest, benefit from high interest rates and grow their portfolios and assets. The low-income has less money to risk, and some also lack the financial savviness.
One suggestion is to address the current low interest rate environment. CPF offers relatively high interest rates for members, but not all have sufficient money in their accounts to take advantage of it. Moreover, this money is not to be freely withdrawn, so hesitation to deposit more money in the accounts is to be expected.
I hope the Government will in future consider offering a national savings bond, with a guaranteed positive real rate of interest on savings, with a maximum holding per person. The Government could consider allocating a minimum $500 allocation of the existing Singapore Savings Bond to every Singaporean adult. The high interest rates would motivate people to save up, without restricting the use of the funds in times of need. This could also raise the awareness about the positive characteristics of the Singapore Savings Bond to the general public.
Even as we discuss the possible enhancements for the various schemes and future Budgets, we cannot avoid the increasingly urgent question of how to sustainably fund all these efforts. I note that the Minister has plans for huge infrastructure projects and other infrastructure investments to be partly funded through borrowing and embedded Government guarantees. I applaud this approach as I have expressed my suggestions on this in my previous Budget response last year, to ensure intergenerational equity. It is important to make sure that intergenerational burden is allocated properly to the generation benefiting from the large infrastructure projects.
However, when planning a long-term project, be it infrastructure or social, it is important to follow individual lifetimes. The future is unpredictable, and there may be significant inequality between generations. Just because the real incomes are rising over time does not necessarily mean that those born later enjoy higher lifetime incomes. Inflation, increased costs of living and so on could have a major impact on livelihoods. In fact, researchers from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), along with economists from Stanford University, Harvard University and the University of California at Berkeley, presented financial reports and comparisons indicating that millennials are doing worse off than their parents. In the UK and the US, there is growing observation of millennials living with their parents because they cannot afford their own homes. This appears to be a trend in developed economies. Thankfully, we do not have such issues here in Singapore.
Governments have the tendency to apply a social discount rate to long-term projects. Part of it reflects the expectation that future generations will be better off, and so a lower valuation is attached to the better off when measuring inequality at a point in time. So, as the economic situation in various developed economies has reflected, this is a dangerous mindset we have to steer clear of. We risk increasing income inequality for the future generations otherwise.
The matter of taxes is also something to contemplate while on the topic of intergenerational equity. As an ageing population that is gearing towards automation, the amount of income taxes collected is expected to decrease along with the number of people in the workforce. What happens if the taxable population remains low? Do we keep increasing the taxes? That is a huge burden for future generations to bear, especially if they are not doing so well.
So, it is important that we examine whether these additional taxes will enhance or deteriorate the progressivity of the overall tax framework, especially for the lowest income households. Some sort of wealth-based tax may be more pertinent, and we could have different tiers of taxes. For example, impose a 10% tax on purchase of goods in the luxury tier or fine dining at a restaurant, and a much lower tax like 3% on basic necessities like rice. So, increase tax rebates for social causes, and instead of paying taxes, the wealthy may choose to donate to causes they care about.
To sum up, Mr Deputy Speaker, Budget 2019 manages the tough and delicate balancing act of being sufficiently counter-cyclical, appropriately strategic and unwaveringly committed to tackling structural challenges posed by ageing and economic transformation. Looking forward, we should continue focusing on increasing social mobility and measured tax solutions to resolve the inequality problem. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Budget.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":"Business motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order No 2(5)(d), I propose to extend the time for today's Sitting beyond the moment of interruption for period of up to 30 minutes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Debate on Annual Budget Statement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, in these uncertain times, we need to build resilience in many ways. Does the Budget this year help to build that resiliency? I would like to touch on a few points in the Budget where it seems our resilience is being tested as we speak.
Mr Deputy Speaker, environmental resiliency is a big concern in a world where climate change is increasingly front and centre of policy agendas everywhere. We see elements of this in Budget 2019 where Minister Heng Swee Keat announced that the excise duty on diesel fuel has been increased from $0.10 to $0.20 per litre with immediate effect. While there were positive results, my concerns have remained unchanged from 2017 when the diesel excise tax was introduced. Indeed, my concern is that while we care about environmental resiliency, we may be doing this at the expense of economic resiliency.
Diesel is the common fuel for most taxis, public and private buses, delivery vans, pickups, lorries and many other different types of heavy vehicles. The announced road tax rebates for commercial diesel vehicles are not going to completely offset the excise tax payable according to usage. Taxi drivers are already complaining about this. Moreover, such rebates are really short-term measures and, ultimately, operators and owners will face the full effect of the price increase for their businesses. They will have to pass the increases to their customers downstream sooner or later.
In short, this diesel tax increase will mean an increase in transportation expenses, which will translate to higher costs for all kinds of businesses in Singapore requiring directly or indirectly transportation.
Until all public buses are converted to electric ones, diesel tax increase will raise the operating costs of our Public Transport Operators (PTOs). Is this really necessary? Will that lead to fare increase again at some point? Why penalise taxi drivers who do not own the taxis they drive? How soon can the taxi fleet be converted to hybrids or even to the use of fully electric cars for taxis?
While environmental concerns are understandable, and while the Minister can talk about some car owners and taxi companies switching to hybrids, the vast majority of existing vehicles using diesel have no other options for an immediate switch at the moment. If the message that the Government wants to send is that diesel is bad for our environment, what are the hybrid or fully electric options that the Government is providing at this moment for users to switch to non-diesel vehicles, especially beyond cars and taxis? If electric or hybrid options are not realistically available en masse now, the tax will just perpetuate the continuing operation of diesel vehicles with the owners paying more into the state coffers. And that does not really help the environment either.
The increase in diesel tax will only increase the cost for businesses, especially our SMEs, in an economic climate that is not rosy at all. Whether we are talking about commuters taking public buses, workers or students taking chartered buses to work or school, delivery vehicles sending goods and food, and so on, ultimately, the diesel tax raise will just increase our cost of living, diminishing our economic resiliency at a time where we may ill-afford to.
Another part where our resiliency is being tested is in our aerospace industry. In his Budget speech last week, Minister Heng Swee Keat mentioned that for the development of Changi East, where the new Terminal 5 (T5) will be built, the Changi Airport Group will be taking loans to fund its share of the infrastructure and the Government will provide a guarantee for the Changi East borrowings in order to reduce the cost of borrowing.
In last year’s Ministry of Transport's (MOT’s) Committee of Supply (COS) speech, the then Second Minister for Transport Ng Chee Meng shared with this House exciting plans for the proposed building of Changi Airport T5 and the development of Changi East. The Minister spoke of it being, I quote, \"a bold move to cement Changi Airport’s position as a premier air hub for the future\" and that \"it is critical our aviation sector can continue to grow and support the growing needs of our economy\".
We are told that the scale and complexity of the project are unprecedented: new runways, new terminals, network of tunnels and systems, in short, \"a game changer\" and \"a mega terminal with satellite terminals\". The Government even decided that it would foot the majority of the costs of building which will be expected to cost tens of billions of dollars. As of last year, $9 billion has been spent.
I cannot agree more that these are exciting developments for our Changi Airport, for Singapore as an international as well as regional air hub, and with good prospects. However, I am concerned whether recent announcements from Malaysia will affect our plans and, more importantly, the future of our air hub.
On 4 December 2018, Malaysia announced its intentions to take back its delegated airspace in southern Johor. This means that it will take back its air traffic control service arrangements over Southern Johor. Currently, Singapore has been providing air traffic control services over southern Johor through the Operational Letter of Agreement Between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore Area Control Centres Concerning Singapore Arrivals, Departures and Overflight since 1974.
Over our southern border, there has also been media reports of Indonesia demanding to take back its delegated airspace over the Riau Islands Flight Information Region.
I am certainly concerned with the possible effects of our neighbours taking back their delegated airspaces on: one, Singapore as a major air hub; two, Singapore’s aerospace industry; and three, the development and future viability of Changi T5 and Changi East.
Are our aerospace ambitions sufficiently resilient against such uncertainties and potential shocks?
The tests of resilience also extend to our port and maritime sectors. Minister Heng Swee Keat mentioned in his speech that the British decision to declare Singapore a free port plugged us into an emerging network of global trade. Indeed, this is also the bicentennial of the modern port of Singapore. In this bicentennial year, it is noteworthy that over the last 200 years, as different businesses and industries rose and fell, our port has remained one constant key to Singapore's survival and prosperity. It has, in fact, grown from strength to strength, thanks to our strategic location and those who have worked hard over 200 years to keep Singapore port in its position today.
Last year, in my Budget Debate speech, I spoke of the challenges to our port and asked how long we can continue to enjoy our advantages. I mentioned of challenges from the Arctic or Northern Sea Route and the Malacca Port. There are other challenges, too. At MOT's COS Debate last year, the long talked about possibility of a canal across the Kra Isthmus in Thailand was brought up briefly. Indeed, this will be another threat, too. In face of changing leadership in Thailand and the new Asian political landscape, it is uncertain whether the long talked about project can be resisted indefinitely. Besides monitoring developments, are we doing any forward scenario planning and how are we going to deal with such a possibility?
In November last year, Malaysia unilaterally attempted to draw a new port limit boundary off Tuas, encroaching on the waters which have long been under the jurisdiction and control of Singapore. The standoff has continued since November 2018, and the Malaysian government vessels have remained in our port waters since. We have not attempted to dislodge them.
There was even a collision in those waters between a Malaysian government vessel and a tanker, bringing with it awkward issues of jurisdiction exercised by both port authorities for the investigation of liability.
Our port waters, being filled with so many visiting and passing vessels, are already bursting at its seams and being sandwiched between the Malaysian and Indonesian waters. I am concerned how the latest developments may affect our port or ancillary maritime businesses, whether in the short or longer run, if this is not managed and resolved appropriately by our Government in our negotiations with Malaysia.
In January this year, Mr Andreas Sohmen-Pao, Chairman, Singapore Maritime Foundation, said at the Singapore Maritime Foundation (SMF) New Year Cocktail Reception that \"just as shipping fundamentals are starting to look a little better, we see new issues around geopolitics, trade policies, energy and equity market volatility which have us wondering whether the long-awaited improvements will materialise after all.\"
In my Budget Debate speech last year, I said that while I support the push for digitalisation and innovation under the Sea Transport ITM, we must not forget those who may not be able to benefit from this development. Similarly, I asked how many of our SMEs are in a position to compete in the liquified natural gas and offshore renewables identified in the ITM for marine and offshore engineering? Besides these areas, what are the future options they should be prepared for? In these still difficult market conditions, how are our ITMS helping our maritime SMEs beyond the categories which have already been talked about? I hope we can receive an update on these either here or at the COS debate later.
There is a saying in Mandarin, \"有国才有家\". Overcoming tests of economic resiliency may not ultimately help our citizenry if there is no country to begin with. This underlines the importance of our security resiliency.
Minister Heng Swee Keat stressed in his speech the importance of keeping safe and secure and justifying that our spending is significant but indispensable. He mentioned that a strong Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) remains a bulwark against threats to our way of life.
While our spending on SAF's military equipment and hardware may be important to keep our potential adversaries at bay, our SAF, though led at the highest levels by full-time regulars, is largely a conscript force. While equipment, hardware and spending may be important, for SAF to succeed in its defence objectives, the buy-in from our Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) and NSmen is absolutely critical.
The Minister has said that National Service has forged a deep understanding in our people that each and every one of us has the duty to defend our nation. This ought to be the case, but it is something we can ill afford to assume or take for granted. It is something we must always continue to strive to achieve and maintain. In my view, it is a constant work-in-progress.
If we expect our NSFs and NSmen to take their NS training and call-ups seriously and do their utmost, they will need to be convinced that the training they do is necessary and that both the SAF as well as their commanders, especially senior commanders, not just their NSmen commanders, must be able to command their confidence and respect. Equally, our NSFs and NSmen and, indeed, their families, too, must have absolute confidence in both the SAF and their commanders taking responsibility for their men's welfare and training safety while balancing the equally important objective of operational readiness. This buy-in may be easier said than done and we need to enhance our current efforts.
As we are at our Bicentennial, I look to our forefathers over the last 200 years who have displayed tremendous resilience to recover from adversity and build Singapore to what it is today. The hope is that we can continue to ace the tests of resiliency that come our way as a people. Mr Deputy Speaker, may I end my speech in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tMr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the MGP appears to be the highlight of this Budget.
The generation being honoured truly deserves to be named MG. Not because they happened to be born in the 1950s, just as Singapore fought and got its Independence, beginning with self-rule in 1959, but because this generation was imbued with the spirit of independence and imparted the spirit of independence to future generations.
As a generation who embodied and imparted the spirit of independence, the Merdekas should be enabled to age with independence. Ageing with independence is the ability of our seniors to retire on their own, with as little financial dependence as possible on their children, siblings and other family members, and also on the Government and welfare organisations. Except for incidents of serious illness and accidents, seniors ageing with independence will be able to care for themselves or pay for the care that they require to lead purposeful golden years. Indeed, we should work towards this goal for all our seniors, both now and in future.
We need and we should calibrate our healthcare, manpower, social pension, housing and gender policies to make sure all our seniors, both now and in future, age with independence. The Workers’ Party has five proposals to enable our seniors to age with independence.
First, CHAS auto-enrolment and outpatient subsidies should kick in for all Singaporeans who turn 60 years old to plug the primary care gap in our universal healthcare system.
Second, the retirement age be removed, re-employment age raised to 70 and CPF contribution for older workers restored so that our seniors can continue working as long as they can and want to.
Third, CPF be transformed into a safety net for seniors, that payout eligibility age be lowered to 60 and members be allowed to make partial withdrawals if incapacitated to work for a period of time.
Fourth, ageing in place be deepened by promoting the Lease Buyback Scheme to the Merdekas.
Fifth, close the gender gap in CPF and other savings for our senior women by increasing the MediSave top-ups for them and the participation incentive for them to enrol in CareShield Life.
Ageing with independence is ageing with dignity for our seniors. If we have missed our chances with the Pioneers, we should not miss this opportunity with the Merdekas and all future generations of seniors.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat.
The Senior Minister of State for Education and Trade and Industry (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for their speeches on the economy, workers and jobs. It is important that we focus on economic growth as this is linked to our ability to create good jobs for Singaporeans, generate resources for our social and security needs, and provide opportunities for future generations. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and MOM will address these issues more fully during our COS debates.
Today, I will explain why the Government had to make the difficult decision of tightening the Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) and the S Pass sub-DRC for the Services sector in 2020 and 2021. This will impact industries like accommodation, information and communications, food services, retail and professional services. I will also discuss how the Government, employers and workers can jointly tackle the challenges going forward.
Let me start by commending our mainstream media for their insightful and balanced pieces on the DRC issue. In particular, I want to highlight a well-written editorial by Zaobao on 22 February, which presented the tradeoffs clearly and explained why the tightening is necessary.
The number of S Pass and Work Permit holders in the Services sector has increased by 34,000 in the last three years. In fact, the S Pass numbers are the highest we have seen in the last five years. The editorial hit the nail on the head by observing that if the total number of foreign workers rises too quickly, it will affect the employment outcomes of local workers and lead to sociopolitical problems in Singapore. We have seen this happen in other countries.
Indeed, this is the key reason why the Government proceeded with the DRC tightening. We knew it would be painful for the affected companies, and we agonised over this difficult decision during our many rounds of inter-Ministry discussions. On balance, we decided that it was better to make a move now to moderate the overall number of foreign workers in Singapore before the problem gets out of hand. As the Zaobao editorial said, the DRC tightening is necessary bitter medicine, \"治本的苦口良药\".
We are aware that many companies in the Services sector are facing labour constraints, and some have started to invest in productivity improvements by adopting technology and re-engineering their processes. Ms Denise Phua and Mr Douglas Foo spoke about this. Our economic agencies like ESG and the Singapore Tourism Board have been working closely with the companies and industry associations. I attend regular dialogues with our companies, including sessions organised by NTUC in my capacity as Adviser to U-SME. My colleagues and I also visit Services sector companies and witness first-hand how they have been working hard to implement productivity measures and upskill their workers through SkillsFuture training.
The hard work is starting to bear fruit and we need to keep it up. If we look at the real value-added per actual hour worked from 2013 to 2018, which is one measure of productivity, it has increased by 4.4% per annum for the accommodation industry, 3.2% per annum for retail trade and 1.4% per annum for food services. In the accommodation industry, for example, total manpower declined by about 1% between 2013 to 2018, even though total room stock increased by 4% during the same period. These positive results were due to our companies’ efforts to innovate, upskill their workers and adopt progressive work practices.
What I shared above are the average numbers for each industry. We can expect some companies to be above and some companies to be below these averages. But the outcomes show that our productivity measures are producing results. The key now is how to spread these efforts and benefit more companies, and for the more successful ones to eventually scale up and expand overseas.
I agree with business leaders and Members like Mr Seah Kian Peng and Ms Jessica Tan who cautioned that technology is not a silver bullet and cannot completely replace the need for human workers, especially in customer service roles. Technology is a tool and an enabler, and what results we achieve ultimately depends on how well we use the tool. But we also know that in the current operating environment, it is important for all companies – big or small, traditional or modern – to have a good understanding of technology and what it can do to improve their products, reduce costs and enhance service quality. Otherwise, you risk being overtaken by your competitors. To paraphrase a Chinese saying, \"科技不是万能，但不懂得用科技就万万不能\". Technology is not everything, but if you do not make good use of technology, there are many things you cannot achieve.
Sir, the Government will continue to help our companies and we will increase our efforts in these areas. I thank Mr Douglas Foo and our TACs for their partnership. We will work with industry associations to reach out to their members and enhance the support we provide to companies that want to transform their operations. For example, we will be enhancing the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) to include a new subsidy of up to $10,000 for employer-led training. We will also extend enhanced support under the PSG and EDG, keeping the maximum co-funding by the Government at 70% to support enterprise transformation.
Under MTI’s Pro-Enterprise Panel, we work with industry associations and companies to review Government rules and regulations, to support new business ideas and look for ways to reduce licensing costs.
Using this approach, we made several rule changes over the past months which have been welcomed by our enterprises. There are more changes in the pipeline, including a project to simplify the licensing requirements for food services companies. We will be launching the pilot system for beta-testing in May. So far, we have managed to consolidate the number of forms that businesses need to submit from 14 to 1, reduced the number of data fields required from 845 to 130, slashed licensing fees by up to $500, and shortened the processing time by two weeks.
My colleagues and I are working hard on rules review because we believe it supports entrepreneurship and innovation, which are critical elements to achieve our economic transformation goals.
We understand that the transformation journey for our companies can be a daunting and difficult challenge. Government agencies and industry associations will walk this journey together with you – this is our commitment to our companies. If you want to transform and you are willing to put in the effort to do so, we will help you.
Let us work together to have a pro-enterprise, pro-worker economy, where we can continue to achieve economic growth to provide good jobs for our workers and a good life for our people. Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I am heartened that business owners and workers across various sectors have been working hard to raise productivity and transform their enterprises. Take our homegrown F&B company Jumbo Group as an example. Last year, I went on a tour of Jumbo's new central kitchen facility and saw how the company has automated its production of sauces and soup bases. Besides reducing Jumbo's labour requirements, this has allowed for better quality control in the production process. Jumbo also developed a mobile app to facilitate short-term job placements, which has helped to alleviate manpower shortages during peak periods.
Heartland shops can also adopt technology solutions with support from ESG. Ngee Soon Jewellery is an example of a company that has managed to do so successfully. In 2014, Ngee Soon implemented a Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) system, which allowed them to reduce the amount of time taken for daily stocktaking by more than 50%. The system also minimises human error and improves the accuracy of stocktaking. Ngee Soon’s staff can, therefore, devote more time and attention to serving customers and generating sales.
All companies, no matter big or small, modern or traditional, have to transform to increase their competitiveness. The Government and industry associations will walk this journey together with our companies. This is our commitment to the business community. Let us stand united, press on in the face of any challenges and work together to build a pro-enterprise, pro-worker Singapore.
(In English): Sir, I would now like to respond to some of the points from the Workers' Party Members of Parliament. I may need a little bit more time, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay. Leader of the House.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today beyond the time extended by Mr Deputy Speaker.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Debate on Annual Budget Statement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State, please proceed.
The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Thank you, Sir. Sir, Mr Pritam Singh and several of the Workers' Party Members of Parliament spoke about universal healthcare subsidies for all seniors. I would like to share with the House that today, we already have quite a number of healthcare subsidies that are structural. So, it is not cohort-based. In fact, polyclinic subsidies are universal. Seniors who go to polyclinics get additional subsidies compared to other patients. This is part of the primary care network that Mr Pritam Singh and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh spoke about.
MediShield Life – for all, for life. This is a universal healthcare insurance that protects Singaporeans against large hospital bills, with premium subsidies and additional premium support from Government to help low-income Singaporeans and middle-income Singaporeans pay for their premiums. So, it is not quite accurate for Assoc Prof Daniel Goh to describe it as Singaporeans pay for one another, Government saves money. Actually, Government pays quite a bit of the premiums through premium subsidies and additional premium support. This is part of the sharing.
The same principle is applied for CareShield Life. There are premium subsidies, there is also additional premium support, and these are part of the design of the scheme. It is not cohort-based. It is structural.
The Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). We will be enhancing the coverage of CHAS to benefit even more Singaporeans, especially for chronic care. In 2017 – and this is before the enhancement – more than 650,000 Singaporeans benefited from $154 million of CHAS subsidies. And we will enhance the coverage, we will enhance the help that Singaporeans can get, the benefits that Singaporeans can get under CHAS, as part of enhancing primary care, and giving Singaporeans greater peace of mind.
In our hospitals, in our Specialist Outpatient Clinics (SOCs), in our nursing homes, there are also structural subsidies. These are means-tested because we want to give more help to lower- and middle-income Singaporeans. When we introduce packages that are cohort-based, like the PGP and MGP, these are on top of the structural subsidies that are already provided in the system for all Singaporeans.
Mr Pritam Singh claimed that the MGP gives off a pungent odour of an unfair advantage for the electoral prospects of the People's Action Party. I hope I heard him correctly. Now, I wonder why the Workers' Party chose to use such an unpleasant description and to focus on politicising this tribute to our MGs. The Opposition calls for the Government to give more, and yet when the Government gives more to help Singaporeans, the Workers' Party criticises the move as an election tactic. You cannot have it both ways. Please make up your mind and decide where you stand.
As previously explained, we are setting aside funds from current Budget surpluses to give our MGs greater peace of mind and encourage them to stay active and stay healthy. It is also to show our heartfelt appreciation to our MGs for their sacrifices and contributions to Singapore during the early years of our nation-building. So, let us not diminish the significance of the PGP and MGP.
It is misleading to link these packages to election cycles. We have explained this point before in the House, but let me say it again, because Mr Pritam Singh brought it up. The way we derive the surpluses is that you have to earn these surpluses during the term of Government. And then you set them aside, the surpluses that you have accumulated, to fund the PGP and MGP. You cannot do this at the start of the term because you do not know at that point how much surpluses you are going to have and how much surpluses you can set aside to fund these packages. These have been explained before. It is part of the design of our system for financial prudence and sustainability.
To look after our current generation as well as future generations, we must plan for the long term. And this is what a responsible Government needs to do, to ensure that our policies and programmes are financially sustainable for the current and future generations. What is the size of the bill, where are the funds coming from, how do we achieve maximum value for money, these are important questions.
What we can provide for future cohorts of Singaporeans and how much resources we have to invest in our people and to continue to rejuvenate our communities, our infrastructure, these will depend on whether Singapore continues to have constructive politics, good Government, strong economy and a cohesive society. Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader of the House.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 1.00 pm tomorrow.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.35 pm.
1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) in each year of the past five years, how much plastic waste did Singapore produce; and (b) of this amount, how much were (i) incinerated, (ii) recycled locally and (iii) exported to recyclers overseas respectively.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Singapore generated 832,200 tonnes of plastic waste in 2013, 869,000 tonnes in 2014, 824,600 tonnes in 2015, 822,200 tonnes in 2016 and 815,200 tonnes in 2017.
Of the plastic waste generated, Singapore recycled 6% to 11% of it across the different years, with the rest being incinerated.
In 2017, about 4% of the plastics collected for recycling were processed in our local plastic recycling facilities. The rest were sorted and exported for recycling.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Claims under Work Injury Compensation Act by S Pass and Work Permit Holders in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower in the last three years, what percentage of claims under the Work Injury Compensation Act made by S Pass and Work Permit holders are determined to be valid or invalid within (i) one month, (ii) three months, (iii) six months and (iv) longer than six months from the accident respectively.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Investigation on the validity of a work injury claim starts after we have received an incident report from the employee or his representatives.
In 2018, 70% of the claims by S Pass and Work Permit holders were determined to be valid or not, within one month. For the remaining claims, determining validity took a longer time because of delays due to various parties.
Common reasons for delays include incomplete information provided by the injured employee, difficulty in locating and getting witnesses to come forward, and having to wait for medical assessments of whether an injury occurred or not, in cases where injuries were not visible.
For cases that took more than six months, they are mainly due to fraudulent claims investigation. These cases are complex and we want to conclusively establish whether they were work injuries, rather than prematurely ruling them as valid or invalid.