1 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with regard to the upcoming Sungei Kadut Eco-district (a) whether JTC has performed any environmental baseline study (EBS) or environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the development; (b) if so, whether the outcome of the study/assessment can be made public; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider mandating all future similar industrial park developments to have EIA or EBS conducted with public consultations with various stakeholders.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, the Minister for National Development will also be replying to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the same issue. May I seek your permission for us to take the supplementary questions after he delivers his reply?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Members have filed several PQs on the land clearing activities at the Kranji Close/Kranji Road site. These include PQs filed by Members Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong1,2, Ms He Ting Ru3, Mr Xie Yao Quan4, Mr Seah Kian Peng5 and Mr Alex Yam Ziming6 for subsequent Sittings. I will address all of these questions together today. [Please refer to “Clarification by Minister for Education”, Official Report, 10 March 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 58, Clarification section.]
With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the handouts to Members.
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, if I may continue. Let me start by explaining the background of the site and development. The former Keretapi Tanah Melayu (KTM) railway line used to run through the Kranji Road/Kranji Close site. When the KTM land was returned to Singapore in 2011, the said site comprised mainly disused scrubland. This is shown on page 3 of the handout.
As the site was earmarked for future development works, it was left vacant. More non-native Albizia trees then sprouted over the years. In 2015, following the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA’s) review of the plans for the KTM land parcels, the Rail Corridor was realigned out of the Kranji parcel so that the site could be redeveloped for industrial use. The plan was publicly exhibited, and community stakeholders were generally receptive to the proposal. This is shown in page 6 of the handout.
The site was later earmarked for the development of the Agri-Food Innovation Park (AFIP) as part of the larger Sungei Kadut Eco-District (SKED) development, which will support Singapore’s 30-by-30 food security goals. In its development plans for the AFIP, JTC recognised the importance of retaining greenery, and therefore proposed to preserve the original alignment of the former KTM railway line within AFIP as a green corridor with additional green buffers on each side. JTC’s development plans for AFIP with the green corridor were publicly exhibited in URA’s Draft Master Plan 2019 and the SKED Master Plan exhibition in February 2020.
I will now go through the development works at the Kranji site. In response to Ms He Ting Ru’s question, page 9 of the handout provides a background on the roles and responsibilities of the various parties involved in a typical development project, including that of AFIP. Besides the contractor, an important party is the consultant, who acts as the Qualified Person (QP). In particular, the QP is responsible for ensuring that the project’s design meet the statutory requirements, and obtaining approvals from the authorities for the design.
Mr Seah Kian Peng, Mr Xie Yao Quan and Mr Dennis Tan have asked about the sequence of land clearing activities. JTC’s chronology has been reported widely in the media, and Members may refer to pages 10 to 15 of the handout for the chronology. I will therefore just highlight a few key points.
In 2019, JTC appointed CPG as its consultant to carry out planning and design works for the site. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was not required then, given that the site was previously dominated by scrubland vegetation and later non-native Albizia trees as I had explained earlier. The site is also not close to sensitive nature areas.
Thereafter, CPG submitted building plans for AFIP to NParks, including proposals to fell trees. On 29 August 2019, NParks issued a Written Direction to approve the tree-felling for three plots within the site, namely Plots 4, 5 and 9 indicated on page 11 of the handout. Following this, tree felling for Plot 9 started in March 2020.
In August 2020, CPG submitted updated building plans to NParks, which included a new drain with discharge and flow into Sungei Pang Sua.
As the drain could potentially cause sediments from the site to flow into Sungei Pang Sua and impact wildlife in the vicinity, NParks instructed JTC and CPG to conduct a fauna baseline study and Environmental Monitoring and Management Programme (EMMP). The consultant for the fauna study and EMMP was engaged in December 2020.
Between end December 2020 and 13 January 2021, the contractor conducted further clearing without approval. These areas are edged red in page 14 of the handout and amount to a total of 4.5 hectares.
There are on-going investigations on why the contractor did so, since there was no approval. I seek the House’s understanding that I cannot say more at this point in time, pending the outcome of these investigations.
The further land clearing by the contractor was discovered by JTC’s project manager on 13 January 2021 during his site visit. All clearance works onsite were suspended immediately and remain suspended today.
Mr Xie Yao Quan and Ms He Ting Ru asked how we will ensure such incidents do not recur. JTC has commenced an internal investigation to ascertain what had happened and why. The investigation will be led by JTC’s Senior Management who are not involved in the project. It will check if JTC’s current processes for land clearance works were followed by both the public officers and private contractors involved. JTC will also review how it can better supervise the various personnel involved in its development projects. NParks is separately investigating whether there were breaches to the Parks and Trees Act and the Wildlife Act. We will not comment further on the respective investigations at this point to not prejudice the outcomes.
Till today, all clearance works on the Kranji Close/Kranji Road site remain suspended. After the fauna baseline study and EMMP are completed around April 2021, JTC will engage key stakeholders, including nature interest groups, to discuss its development plans. Findings of the studies will be made publicly available when ready.
We can and must do better. As Minister-in-charge of the Public Service, I have instructed all agencies involved in land clearance projects to conduct an immediate check to ensure their project supervision and implementation processes are in order. Minister Desmond Lee and I have also asked Permanent Secretary Joseph Leong, who is not involved in this matter, to lead a review of the lessons arising from this development at Kranji. In the course of his review, he will consult representatives from the public, private and people sectors. The outcomes from the various investigations and review will be shared with the public when ready.
Mr Speaker, let me conclude by summarising the key points: the said piece of land was meant for industrial development. It was scrubland that has become overgrown in recent years. In developing this piece of land to strengthen our food supply chain resilience, JTC and NParks had on their own accord proposed retaining the original alignment of the former railway line to preserve its heritage, with a green corridor that would provide an ecological connection between Sungei Pang Sua and Sungei Mandai. The project was carefully planned, incorporating and balancing the considerations of economic development, job creation and environmental protection.
The execution of the land clearing could be improved. That is the subject of on-going investigations. We should not speculate or prematurely apportion blame without a full understanding of the timeline of events, scope of responsibilities of the various parties involved and the motivations of various parties or pressures faced that could have contributed to the outcome. We will investigate the pertinent issues thoroughly, share the lessons learnt and improve as a system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry why was the appointment of environmental specialists for creating an environmental monitoring and management plan for the Kranji Woodland area not done in tandem with the awarding of the tender for Proposed Earthworks and Construction of Infrastructure at Kranji Close and Kranji Road AFIP (Phase 1) on 25 March 2020.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry with regard to the Kranji Woodland clearing incident (a) when did Huationg begin the clearing of the site; (b) whether any person at JTC gave instructions to Huationg to start clearing the site based on contractual obligations or otherwise; and (c) why did JTC not disclose the situation to the public when it found out the situation on 13 January 2021.","3 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry in relation to the clearing of land in the Sungei Kadut Eco-District (a) whether JTC was supposed to have oversight over the contractor; (b) whether there will be an investigation into JTC’s internal processes relating to such oversight; (c) what other measures can be put in place to ensure this does not occur again for future developments; and (d) whether the full investigation and its findings will be made public for accountability.","4 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how the erroneous clearing of a significant area of greenery by JTC Corporation's contractor at the land earmarked for the Agri-Food Innovation Park in Kranji could have occurred; (b) how was the error discovered on 13 January 2021; and (c) what steps will JTC Corporation take to prevent another occurrence in future.","5 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he can provide an account on how the erroneous clearing of the forested land at Kranji occurred and an assessment of the impact to the environment.","6 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry with regard to the clearance of parts of the Kranji woodland by a JTC contractor (a) when was the environment impact assessment (EIA) comissioned for the site; (b) when was the clearing contract awarded to the contractor; and (c) whether there was a lapse of supervision that led to the clearance of the woodland before the completion of the EIA."],"footNoteQuestions":["1"],"questionNo":"1"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Environmental Impact Assessments for Industrial Developments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development whether environmental baseline studies or environmental impact assessments are currently done for all industrial developments.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to address the House comprehensively on the issue of the site clearance at the Kranji site, my response today will also cover issues raised by Members who had filed related Parliamentary Questions (PQs) for subsequent Sittings. To be specific, this includes PQs filed by Members Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Louis Ng1, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song2, Ms He Ting Ru3, Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling4, Dr Tan Wu Meng5, Dr Lim Wee Kiak6, Ms Nadia Samdin7, Mr Gan Thiam Poh8, Mr Leong Mun Wai9, Mr Alex Yam Ziming10, Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong11, Mr Vikram Nair12, Mr Yip Hon Weng13 and Miss Rachel Ong14. I seek your understanding on this approach.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Desmond Lee: As the details of the site clearance at the Kranji site have been shared publicly by JTC at a press conference on 22 February, I will focus my response today on: one, environmental considerations in the planning process; two, on-going investigations into the incident at the Kranji site; and three, steps that we plan to take to strengthen our processes, including the environmental impact assessment (EIA) framework.
Let me start with the planning process.
Under the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA’s) Planning Act, development proposals require planning permission from URA before they are allowed to proceed. As part of this process, every development proposal goes through a thorough screening process, which reviews not only its potential environmental impact, but also other aspects such as its impact on traffic, public health and heritage.
Developments projects that: one, are near sensitive areas such as Nature Reserves, Nature Areas and other areas with significant biodiversity; or two, which are in marine and coastal areas; or three, which have potential trans-boundary impact, are subject to greater scrutiny. The developers of such projects will be required to undergo an in-depth consultation process with relevant technical agencies, namely NParks, National Environment Agency (NEA), the Maritime Port Authority (MPA) and the Singapore Food Agency (SFA).
Depending on the context of the site, the scope of the project works, and its potential impact on the environment, more detailed studies may be required. This can be an Environmental Baseline Study (EBS), or in some cases, a more detailed Environmental Impact Study (EIS), which sets out the environmental baseline, expected impact and mitigation measures.
\tThe studies enable agencies to better assess the possible environmental impact of the development plans and the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures, to guide the planning and potential development of the site. For instance, NEA assesses the potential for noise, water or air pollution, MPA assesses impacts on navigation and SFA on sea-based farms, NParks assesses impacts on terrestrial and marine biodiversity, covering both flora and fauna.
We adopt this calibrated approach across all development projects, whether they are for industrial or other uses.
While developers can call tenders for works while the environmental studies are on-going, activities on site can only proceed when the developer has received the necessary approvals from relevant agencies. This applies for both private and public projects.
Let me give an example of site clearance which involves the felling of trees. Under the Parks and Trees Act, the felling of any tree more than one metre in girth either on vacant land or in Tree Conservation areas can only proceed with the Commissioner's approval. NParks will require a tree survey, in order to assess the potential impact of the tree felling plan. If NParks assesses that conducting a further environmental baseline, or other forms of study, is not required, it may allow for some types of works to begin. However, NParks may require mitigation measures, such as the installation of hoarding or an Environmental Monitoring and Management Programme (EMMP) to be in place.
For past incidents of tree felling without prior approval, NParks had conducted investigations and penalties ensued. The environmental impact of such incidents varies depending on the site context and the extent of works undertaken.
Planning permission for the project to go ahead is only granted after a project has met the requirements imposed by the respective regulatory agencies. These include completing necessary detailed technical studies, such as environmental and traffic impact assessments, as well as putting in place mitigating measures.
Let me move on to the clearance of this Kranji site. Many Members have asked for updates on the investigations and the possible penalties on the site clearance at Kranji site.
As I have said on 22 February, in the press conference, NParks is currently investigating whether there had been breaches of the Wildlife Act and/or the Parks and Trees Act. We therefore cannot go into more detail at this point, and we ask that Members not speculate further. After investigations are complete, NParks will refer the case to the Public Prosecutor for directions, before sharing the findings with the public.
There are penalties for breaches of the Parks and Trees Act and the Wildlife Act. For instance, infringement of the Wildlife Act that came into force in June last year, may attract a fine not exceeding $50,000 or imprisonment up to six months, or both.
Members have also asked if the site clearance at the Kranji Road/Kranji Close site had affected the fauna baseline study. Thirteen hectares of vegetated areas, which includes the safeguarded green corridor and vegetated buffers along Sungei Pang Sua, remain. All clearance works onsite are currently suspended, while the study is underway. The results of the study will be made public when ready. Thereafter, JTC will engage relevant stakeholders on the findings, including the measures to enhance the greenery and connectivity of the site and its surrounding environs. The study findings will be used to design measures such as enhanced habitats, buffers and connectivity for wildlife.
Now, I move on to the third part of the presentation which is on steps to strengthen processes. Members have asked how we will seek to prevent such incidents from happening again. As Minister Chan Chun Sing had announced on Monday, a review will be undertaken of this incident, to identify gaps and learning points for project management, supervision and execution, as well as inter-agency coordination. Agencies involved in site clearance projects are conducting checks to ensure that their project supervision and implementation processes are in order.
In parallel, MND will continue our efforts to strengthen the Environmental Impact Assessment, or EIA, framework, in close consultation with the nature community and partner agencies. We are currently working to implement the following enhancements which we had announced publicly last October, namely: (a) increase the vigour or rigour of our environmental studies through a set of Biodiversity Impact Assessment Guidelines; (b) strengthen our enforcement regime through the amended Wildlife Act; (c) build up local expertise on ecological matters; and (d) make all environmental study reports publicly available, unless there are security considerations.
In our discussions with the nature community last year, we had identified several other ways to further strengthen the EIA process beyond what we had just rolled out in October. We will develop a more comprehensive picture of the islandwide eco-system and connectivity, so that we can better consider how the specific sites connect to our nature cores, buffers and corridors. We will do this in a science-based manner, on an islandwide scale, and we will conduct baseline studies for specific sites to understand their ecological profile and role in ecological connectivity. Members of the nature community will be invited to join us in this upstream work. The findings from these studies will add to the data and connectivity models that NParks has built up over the years, and help guide Government in carrying out longer term planning.
In addition, we have been reviewing whether it would be better to centralise the management of EIA consultants, instead of having individual developers or agencies manage their own. We are still studying this. Separately, we will explore how we can make better use of technology to strengthen project management.
Sir, Members may recall that we had negotiated for the return of the KTM railway line to Singapore in 2011, to meet, among other things, our land use needs. The land that we got back included the 24-km railway line, from North all the way South to Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, as well as adjacent parcels of land at various points along the track. These parcels of land were used by the railway for storage, for housing and for other purposes.
We struck a careful balance between conservation and development in our land use planning for the land that was returned, as follows.
First, by conserving the entire 24-km Rail Corridor from Woodlands all the way down South to Tanjong Pagar for recreation, community activities and for nature.
Second, by conserving the railway station building in Tanjong Pagar and the old Bukit Timah Railway Station, or BTRS, as part of our heritage and history.
And thirdly, by zoning the adjacent land parcels along the railway tracks, including the Kranji site, for development, to meet our people's needs for homes, jobs and amenities and so on.
So, we struck balance in three ways, and if Members may recall in the last Parliamentary Question (PQ) over Ulu Pandan Forest, as I sought to provide the broad outline of how we steward our land to meet various needs, including that for nature, for housing, for jobs and so on and so forth, we include a strategy of big moves – for example, Greater Southern Waterfront, Paya Lebar air base relocation and, of course, this KTM line that we brought back, including the land parcels adjacent, along the way – was one of those moves as well.
For the Kranji site, as Minister Chan Chun Sing had explained earlier, it comprised mostly scrubland scattered with trees when it was returned to Singapore in 2011. Until the detailed plans were finalised and works begun, the site was left vacant, with vegetation and trees allowed to grow to provide green cover until the time of development. Non-native Albizia trees sprouted in recent years – and biologists would know that Albizia trees grow at a very quick rate, they self-sow and they grow as fast as four to five metres a year and can mature in as fast as five years or less – and in Singapore's hot and humid climate, progressively dominated the site within a few years.
So, sites that have been cleared and with intention for some form of development, even as they are left fallow and bare, we allowed vegetation, green cover, so we enjoy that for the few years.
As I have explained in this House recently, we adopt a science-based approach to identify which areas of significant biodiversity to conserve. For instance, the Mandai Mangrove and Mudflat, just further north of the Kranji site, was once a fishing village. It had initially been planned for industrial use, for factories. Yet, after careful study through biodiversity surveys and ecological modelling, we decided to keep it as a Nature Park given its high ecological value, both domestically as well as internationally as part of a flyway. Agencies, therefore, had to forego development plans for the area.
For sites to be developed, we seek to preserve and integrate natural elements within the development where possible, to facilitate ecological connectivity. In JTC's masterplan for Sungei Kadut Eco-district, or SKED, 25 hectares out of 500 hectares was set aside for the first phase of the Agri-Food Innovation Park, or AFIP. This is the Kranji site in question.
For the Kranji site, while a portion of the KTM railway line was re-routed along Woodlands Road in 2015 to allow the entire site to be comprehensively developed, JTC worked with NParks to relook these plans. In 2019, they decided to retain the original alignment as a green corridor within the AFIP, even though this meant for JTC that land parcellation for industry would be more challenging.
This effort to retain the original railway line alignment, with additional green buffers on each side amounting to six hectares, along with a linear park along Sungei Pang Sua, is an example of our on-going efforts to balance nature conservation with land planning and development.
We are very encouraged by the growing nature consciousness among Singaporeans. This is part of City in Nature – not just quantitative or qualitative or ecological, but also the DNA mainstreamed in Singaporeans. We will be engaging Singaporeans more deeply on this issue as part of our national conversations on long-term land use planning later this year. We will continue to partner the community as stewards of our City in Nature, and we look forward to working together to achieve this vision.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): I thank Minister Chan and Minister Desmond Lee for the answers. I think this incident has certainly shocked and disappointed many of us when we learn of it. Also, I can imagine that our staff at NParks feel the same; I know they take great pains to strengthen and improve the green cover and green space for the country.
I have three supplementary questions for Minister Chan. Minister Chan mentioned that JTC —
\tMr Speaker: Mr Seah, if you can keep it to two supplementary questions, then more Members can ask.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng: Yes, three very short ones. JTC's project manager found the wrongful clearance works on 13 January. So, my first supplementary question is, is there a schedule for the frequency of site visits by the project manager? Is it meant to be daily, weekly, or monthly? Because he discovered this on 13 January.
Second supplementary question, the internal investigation by JTC, I would like to ask will this be complemented with an investigation by an external party?
And my third supplementary question is, it has been mentioned that stern warning has been issued to the contractor. Stern warning appears to me to be quite light. What does \"stern warning\" mean and what are the consequences?
The Ministry for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, three quick replies to Mr Seah Kian Peng's three supplementary questions.
Is there a schedule? Yes, there is a schedule where JTC officers are required to regularly visit the site. Whether that schedule has been adhered to, is the subject of an on-going investigation at this point in time and I will not further comment on this.
Second, on the nature of the investigations, as I have laid out on Monday, there are the internal NParks and JTC investigations as to whether the current processes have been followed. And I expect the respective agencies will want to do a thorough review to see whether the processes have been followed. In addition to that, we have appointed Permanent Secretary Joseph Leong to look at how these processes can be tightened, especially the inter-agency processes. Joseph will have access to both the views from the public sector, the people sector and also the private sector.
On the third question about the stern warning that was issued by JTC immediately to the contractor involved, at this point in time, NParks and JTC will do their investigations and subsequent to that, if there are any other wrongdoings uncovered by NParks' investigations, NParks will have the statutory powers to take the responsible parties to task. The penalties for those are laid out in the respective Acts. So, it does not mean that the stern warning is the end of all there is to be.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister for National Development and one supplementary question for the Minister for Trade and Industry. I thank both Ministers for the answers.
For the Minister for National Development, I would like to ask the Minister whether he thinks that it is now time to consider codifying Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and other similar assessments like the Environmental Baseline Study (EBS) into our legislative framework. That means to have a law that codifies all these assessments, quite akin to what they have in the UK, where it prescribes when the EIA must be done, and when it does not have to be done, the legislation will state that it is because it is provided for in a differently scheduled provision under a separate area of law.
Related to this, under such a proposed framework, I would like to ask the Minister for National Development whether or not, in the proposed review that he is looking into, to consider a more holistic approach in assessment. At the moment, it is different types of assessment that we are doing – EBS, EIA, and the assessment that Minister Chan has mentioned because of the different conditions. So, I wonder if we can have a more holistic approach. And I say this because, for example, in this case, both Ministers mentioned about scrubland, that this Kranji woodlands being scrubland —
\tMr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan, if you could keep your supplementary questions short. There is a number of Members who would like to ask supplementary questions.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Sorry, Mr Speaker. There is some value in scrubland. Currently, it provides for our biodiversity – there is wildlife, there is floral and fauna. But eventually, it can also develop into something even better over time. So, if we have a holistic approach that can look into land of such a nature, it is in-between, it may not be secondary forest, but nonetheless, it is important biodiversity.
Next, I would like to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Minister can confirm that Huationg has been paid for the land clearance that it carried out in December last year and January this year.
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for the questions. I will address the questions he has asked about the EIA framework, and then, my colleague Minister Chan will respond.
The first is whether we want or need to codify the Environmental Impact Assessment framework into legislation. I think we need to see what the framework is in place, currently, today, as augmented by recent developments, both in June last year and October last year; as well as the plans we have going forward. We look at EIA framework as a whole; and legislation is a tool as are other levers such as guidelines, incentives, processes, standards. They all are different tools with which we use to ensure that the framework is holistic, rigorous and comprehensive.
I said previously, no development, public or private, may take place without planning permission. URA is the gatekeeper with the Planning Act and related planning legislation, as that legislative gateway. As I said earlier, there is not only a masterplanning process in which multiple agencies representing the diversity of needs of Singaporeans, both present and future, but also representing the different constituencies and causes and concerns out there, come together regularly as part of the masterplanning process to look at our land use needs, including sites that we may need for connectivity, for biodiversity, for nature, for recreation. But also, when development plans are surfaced, way in advance of even the first works beginning onsite, there is a screening process.
So, URA acts as a gateway; the Planning Act and related planning legislation are the legislative tools which URA uses to provide that gatekeeping role. And a variety of technical agencies will then scrutinise the plans specifically. Each site will have its own variances, its own habitat, its own set of issues. Some of it could be traffic, some of it could be hydrology, some of it could be water quality, some of it could be issues of sedimentation, some about noise, some about biodiversity.
Where nature and biodiversity are concerned, NParks together with the professionals and scientists and arborists and horticulturalists and conservationists, with the support of the nature community whom we consult regularly, we will look at those sites. We will look at those sites for which a development plan is put forward for approval, and then, make an assessment and screen it – notwithstanding the upstream masterplanning phase when plans arrive.
The different agencies, depending on the specific context of the site, impose or require the necessary consultations, studies, which are then pegged onto that planning approval legislative framework.
This kind of approach allows for greater dexterity, greater responsiveness to the site in question. And so, it is a professional assessment, involves specific understanding of the site and the different considerations, both environmental and human.
And then, in June last year, in a Private Member's Motion by Member Louis Ng, together with agencies, the Wildlife Act was brought into force. And if Members may recall, some time back there was some question about whether there is legislative teeth for NParks to enforce in relation to biodiversity environmental management and monitoring. And so, now under section 10 of the Act, there is significant legislative power for the Commissioner to impose the requisite studies, to impose the requisite measures, and penalties are as I have articulated earlier in my speech.
And of course, there are other legislation involving, say, the pollution of waterways, pollution of water bodies, rivers, earth streams, so and so forth. And so, there is a legislative framework and they all come together, not just codified, and frozen in time, but responsive, allowing gatekeeping roles, allowing agencies to come in to making impositions, to impose studies, to then look at those studies and impose the EMMP and other plants.
So, the approach is holistic having said that last October last year, we sought to strengthen the capability of the sector, strengthen the capability that we have locally, strengthen both the understanding of developing agencies as well as EIA consultants. Our nature community tells us that actually what needs to be done is we need to bootstrap, up the standards and ensure consistency in our biodiversity impact assessment capability.
And hence, a very comprehensive approach in our new BIA guidelines which were launched in October last year. I am not quite sure how you can codify something like the BIA guidelines which will be used across different agencies, because it is very comprehensive from a scientific basis, looking at different habitats. So, when there is a mangrove habitat, whether it is intertidal, whether it is whether it is a secondary forest, whether it is scrubland, whether it is a mature forest, whether you look at the benthic habitats. All these are specifically set out in very detailed guidelines, put together by conservationists and in deep consultation with our nature community.
And of course, when development is about to begin and is in progress, there are powers under the Parks and Trees Act, powers to require a tree and flora survey, for which then you can decide whether to grant approval for the clearance of trees or the salvage or the conservation intitule of trees onsite that are of significance. As well as under the Wildlife Act, the imposition of EMMPs, as well as fauna surveys.
\tMr Speaker: Can I also request that the Ministers keep their responses as succinct as possible? Thank you.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to Mr Dennis Tan's question is, no. Huationg has not been paid for the over clearance in January and December.
\tMr Speaker: Thank you. Mr Xie Yao Quan.
\tMr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions for Minister Chan. The first is in terms of the timing of the announcement by JTC on 16 February, can the Minister provide an explanation on that timeline? The discovery of the erroneous clearance was on 13 January and it would seem the announcement came after a member of the public – a private citizen – first shared about this on social media.
The second question is to just pay recognition to the fact that this land is ultimately for agri-technology. And so, does the Minister have any assessment of whether the delivery of this capacity and industrial development will be delayed as a result of this incident?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, in answer to the first supplementary question, the error was discovered on 13 January, and immediately, the stop work order was given to the contractor on the ground. Internal investigations commenced immediately within JTC. We made the information public in February, on 16 February as Mr Xie Yao Quan said, because there was public interest in this.
As a general rule as to when we make investigations public, a few considerations will have to be taken into account. First, will it affect the course of the investigations, will it prejudice the course of the investigations? Second, the nature of the incident and which aspect of it will be of public interest.
Our focus from January to February, within JTC, was to make sure that they can conduct the investigation thoroughly and fairly, without prejudice to the parties concerned. And we can all understand that once things come out to the public, certain evidence or certain investigations might be prejudiced. So, that is why we have not made public earlier the investigations.
But when there was public interest in this, we were also careful to make sure that we come out quickly with the facts that we have established, so that the public does not need to speculate, so that we can proceed with the investigations.
On the second point as whether there will be a delay in the execution of the project, there will already be a delay in execution of the project because of COVID-19. Now, we will complete the EMMP study, and then, we will consult the necessary stakeholders, and then, we will try to progress the project as originally planned in order to deliver, not just the economic benefits, the jobs, the food resilience, but also to deliver as part of the masterplan, the environmental enhancement in the area that will allow us to enjoy the place, live in the place, work in the place and play in the place.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Ministers for their reply. I have one supplementary question. Many agencies are involved in land clearance works involving greenery. This includes LTA, HDB, PUB, JTC, SLA and so on. As part of the follow-ups, will the Government consider appointing a lead agency to oversee and overall coordinate land clearance activities, such that we can minimise the possibility of such an incident from happening again?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Yip Hon Weng for his observations and suggestion. Indeed, it is true. Often, in a complex project, there will be many agencies involved and this is the reason why both Minister Desmond Lee and myself have asked Permanent Secretary Joseph Leong to look into the inter-agency process to see how we can strengthen this.
At this point in time, I want to qualify. When we say strengthen the process, we mean to make it better, we mean to streamline it, and it does not necessarily mean that we must add on more processes.
If I may seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker. I grew up in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). And in the SAF, once in a while, sometimes, accidents happen. And very often when accidents happen, we ask ourselves how we can do better. And very often, sometimes, we will come to a quick conclusion that we need more supervision.
I have grown up learning that, that may not necessarily be the best solution. Because when more parties get involved, ultimately, who is responsible? If a soldier did not do his job well, we ask whether there were factors that affected his concentration, whether his training was adequate or whether there were other complicating factors. When a supervisor did not do his job well, we ask the same questions and at the end of the day, we want a streamlined process whereby there are clear lines of responsibilities for each of the parties involved in any complex project. And that is what Permanent Secretary Joseph Leong will help us look into.
I thank Mr Yip Hon Weng for the observations. And that, indeed, we should be careful that in trying to improve the processes and streamline the processes, we do not unnecessarily add on processes that might either diffuse the responsibility or make project coordination even more difficult going forward.
As we know, the contractors currently working on the ground are already facing various kinds of challenges from adhering to regulations to the challenges posed by COVID-19. And we should all try to come together to see how we can streamline the processes to improve the processes so that everyone is clear about their lines of accountability.
If I may just add, there will be many diverse interests in a complex project like this. There are developmental interests, there are contractors' interests, there are environmental groups' interests. And in all that we do, we seek to find a balance amongst all these interests, so that as much of the interest can be accommodated as possible. And that is how we will move forward. So, it is not either one or the other, it is not binary. It is always about working together to find the best way forward, so that we can achieve multiple objectives from environmental protection to development. They are not mutually exclusive.
\tMr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
\tMiss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have this question for the Minister for National Development. I would like to ask if Minister can share from an urban planning perspective. Have there been plots of land that was earmarked earlier for industrial or housing development, that is under the masterplan, and was actually traded off in the interest of nature and also environmental protection over the years.
\tMr Desmond Lee: The answer is yes. You know that as part of the concept plan or now what we call the long-term planning process, we identify the broad strategies for Singapore and therefore, flow through the land use requirements into the masterplan. Agencies come together to look at the different sites, look at the needs that they have for housing, recreation, healthcare, nature, conservation, for heritage, so on and so forth. And then, they work out the masterplan, which is then exhibited and publicly consulted on, including by specific stakeholders and interest groups.
But having said that, over the years, this is not a static process. It is an iterative process, a dynamic one. Because our land use needs, population needs, our natural spaces also evolve and change, and therefore we have to be flexible and nimble and agile, and continuously relook at our masterplan.
Therefore, as I have said in my presentation earlier, there have been sites which have been zoned for other uses, but which, after discussion between agencies, after the use of scientific approaches, have had their plans changed and agencies forgo their initial intentions for that land. For example, where the Kranji site is, it was once railway land. The parcel was made complete by agreed re-routing of the rail corridor, but then, JTC then decided to put it back in again, because they felt that it was important to have that within an Agri-food Innovation Park, in consultation with NParks.
But just further north, is the Mandai Mangrove and Mudflat, which is a key habitat; it is ecologically linked to Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve and also important as part of the East-Asian Australasian Flyway for migratory birds. What was therefore originally planned for industrial purposes has been changed to Nature Park. Likewise, a little further east would be Sungei Khatib Bongsu. Once, it was for prawn farming and fish farming as well as housing, kampong and some human use; subsequently, kept fallow for future development, specifically housing; and those plans were forgone after we evaluated the site and decided to keep it for nature areas.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I have two quick questions. One for the Minister for Trade and Industry and one for Minister for National Development.
For the Minister for Trade and Industry, was this erroneously cleared 4.5 hectares of land, would it have been eventually cleared anyway and if so, when would that have been done?
And for the Minister for National Development, the Minister, I believe, said that the developers can start planning works while environmental studies are on-going but they have to wait for approval before proceeding. However, if detailed requirements for developments are drawn out and multimillion-dollar tenders are issued before the studies are completed, is there a risk that the clearance of natural vegetation becoming a fait accompli by the time the environmental studies are completed?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to Mr Gerald Giam's question is that if you refer to the slide, there is a plan for the Agri-Food Innovation Park (AFIP). If all the necessary environmental considerations had been addressed, then the plan will be executed in full, as per what is shown in the slide.
\tMr Desmond Lee: I think the Member makes a very good point. Our position from a regulatory and planning point of view is that works cannot begin until necessary approvals have been obtained; and this may require detailed studies. But ultimately, the developer has to make a call whether they wish to proceed to call those tenders, and if so, then they run the risk of having to make major adjustments along the way.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. Just two quick questions for Minister Desmond Lee. One, I think Minister mentioned about the BIA guidelines earlier. Could I just ask, whether these are just guidelines or are they mandatory for developers to follow? Two, I do hope we can codify the current EIA framework into law because I think that will send a strong signal that we take the protection of forests seriously here in Singapore.
\tMr Desmond Lee: I recognise the Member's longstanding advocacy for the legislative codification of the EIA process. As I said previously, there is legislative gatekeeping and legislative empowerment in the entire process, but this is not just a legal process. It is an environmental process, a conservation process, a scientific process and it requires flexibility depending on the habitats and on the ecology of the area. And therefore, I think what we have today is an evolving system with recent enhancements. So, let us work on that and continue to study how we can improve.
As for the Biodiversity Impact Assessment (BIA) guidelines, if Member has gone through them, they are very, very comprehensive. We hope through this process for developing agencies, including public developing agencies, to have a consistent baseline standard in carrying out these processes. Let us see how it is put into process and then decide what next steps to take.
\tMr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): The site in question is in my constituency and I have observed first-hand the change to the site on many walks with my residents. By equal measure, my residents also look forward to the transformation of Sungei Kadut to bring more jobs and residential opportunities for them.
I have two quick supplementary questions – one to the Minister for National Development; it is more factual. It relates to part of my question on how many such unauthorised clearances have occurred in the last 12 months and what were the actions taken to them?
The second is for the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service. As mentioned by a number of Members, many public officers are involved in any large scale and complex project, and often resulting in cross responsibilities. How does the Minister-in-charge of the Public Service plan to look into the processes and into this incident as a learning point, so that such unauthorised actions do not occur again? The Minister shared earlier that Permanent Secretary Joseph Leong will be looking into this. Could the Minister share if there are specific areas that the Permanent Secretary will be directed to look at so that we can improve on processes?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Over the last 12 months, NParks did not take action or did not have to take action for unauthorised tree clearances as part of development works. The last case that NParks pursued was in 2019.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two parts to Mr Alex Yam's questions. What would Permanent Secretary Joseph Leong do and then a second part is how do we approach this issue going forward?
The first, as I have mentioned in my response to Mr Yip Hon Weng's question, indeed, there are many parties involved in a complex project like this, including many parties within the Public Service and of course the private contractors, the consultants and so forth. Indeed, one of the things that I have asked Joseph to look into is how we can streamline the processes with clearer lines of accountability and responsibility, and this does not necessarily mean adding additional layers.
In fact, we should always look for ways to simplify and streamline the processes so that everyone is clear of their respective areas of responsibilities and there can be no doubt. If people are not up to the task, we have to ask ourselves how do we equip them, train them to do their job better. So, that is the first part.
\tMr Speaker, Sir, if I may just round up this session. Ultimately, at the end of the day, at the heart of it all, no matter how many rules we have for all the agencies, for all the parties involved, ultimately, at the heart of it, we need people with the right values. I say this particularly for the Public Service – people with the right values who are conscious of their duties, determined to execute it well and constantly find areas to improve when the need arises.
I have every confidence that I have such a Public Service, in service of Singapore.
If we look at how the Public Service has done over the last one year through the COVID-19 pandemic, everyone not only doing what they are supposed to do but going above and beyond their call of duty when called upon to do well for Singapore. I have confidence that they will look at this thoroughly, learn the lessons and improve.
Because when I speak to the officers in JTC and NParks and when I look at them in the eye, I know. I see in their eyes the fire in their belly that they want to put this right. I am sure that even if I have not tasked them to do so, they themselves would want to get it right and improve.
This is the kind of Public Service that has brought Singapore to where it is today. This is the kind of Public Service that we can entrust our future together.
I thank Members of the House and the public for your support of our Public Service to keep doing what they have been doing for Singapore and to keep improving. Thank you very much.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the order of the day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 6, 9-11 and 13-16 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 3-5, 7-8, 12 and 17-18 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 1 Mar 2021.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry is investigating how a forested area in Kranji was cleared before a biodiversity baseline study was completed; and (b) whether it will be strengthening the environmental impact assessment framework further to ensure that such mistakes do not happen again.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) whether environmental baseline studies (EBS) and environmental impact assessments (EIA) are always completed before tenders are issued for development projects at or near sensitive nature areas; (b) at which stage of development projects are the EBS and EIA conducted.","3 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development whether the clearing of the land in the Sungei Kadut Eco-District constitutes a breach of Section 14(1) of the Parks and Trees Act.","4 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) whether the same guidelines apply on approval for clearance of trees or forested areas in public versus private projects; and (b) what is the frequency of checks conducted by NParks during site clearance of construction projects to ensure no preserved or heritage trees are felled.","5 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) what is the assessed biodiversity impact arising from the mistaken clearing of a forested area in Kranji; (b) whether there were checks and failsafes to prevent this error and, if so, what went wrong; (c) whether the contractor responsible is participating in or tendering for any other projects where forested areas may be under its purview; and (d) how many mistaken clearings have occurred in the past decade.","6 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development in respect of the unauthorised clearance of the greenery which is part of the Sungei Kadut Eco-District (a) why was work carried out without proper approval from various authorities; (b) why was this unauthorised clearance not made public by JTC Corporation until the matter was highlighted in the social media; and (c) what steps have been taken to tighten gaps in the approval process to prevent a recurrence.","7 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) whether he can provide an update on NParks’ investigation into the clearing of the 70-hectare green patch in Kranji Woodlands; (b) what are the regulations and guidelines to hold parties accountable for such incidents; and (c) what steps will be taken to prevent this from happening again.","8 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) what steps and measures have been taken to reinstate the forest that has been wrongly cleared by the contractor in the Sungei Kadut Eco-Distict; (b) whether such steps and measures will be able to reinstate the biodiversity of the original forest.","9 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development with regard to the “erroneous” clearing of forested land in Kranji by JTC’s contractor (a) whether formal legal action will be taken against JTC and the contractor; (b) what punishments can be meted out to those who accidentally or deliberately damage our natural ecosystems, including terrestrial and marine; and (c) what mitigation or restoration actions will they be required to take.","10 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development with regard to the investigations into the unauthorised clearance of swathes of the Kranji woodland by a JTC contractor (a) whether there is an approval process involving NParks for development projects near sensitive nature areas before work commences; (b) how many similar unauthorised clearances have occurred in the last 12 months; and (c) what more can be done to ensure that such occurrences do not happen again.","11 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development whether the Kranji woodland that has been errorenously cleared can become a site for a new \"Mircoforest Project\" to create a renewed urban forest that can trial and validate rapid reforesting solutions to regenerate a richer biodiversity.","12 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development whether he can provide an update on NParks' investigation into the unauthorised clearance of Kranji woodland and for an explanation as to why the error was only recently discovered even though clearance seems to have started as early as March 2020.","13 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) what are the circumstances that led to the error in the clearing of the land at Kranji Road/Kranji Close by the JTC contractor without proper prior approval; (b) what is the standard operating procedure (SOP) for such works before they are carried out by a contractor; and (c) what action is being taken against individuals who do not follow the SOP.","14 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development whether the submission of an environmental monitoring and management plan (EMMP) or other documents relating to environmental and biodiversity impact is a requirement for the authorisation of clearance of forested areas."],"footNoteQuestions":["2"],"questionNo":"2"},{"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 [16 February 2021] [3rd Allotted Day], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022.\" – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I will focus on two topics in my speech: climate change and COVID-19. One is the most important long-term threat the world faces; and the other, the most immediate threat that is on the minds of world leaders and people around the world. The one thing they have in common is that both address concerns that can only be addressed by concerted effort on the global scale. These problems must be addressed collectively and individual efforts are not going to be enough.
Climate change is getting more and more attention. There is broad consensus that climate change is caused by carbon emissions. As more carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses are emitted, the faster global temperatures rise. The drivers of carbon emission include the industrial development and agriculture, which are in turn driven by consumption. On the other end of the equation, carbon sinks, which are largely forest and plants that absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, are being increasingly destroyed as forests are cleared to make way for development.
The effects of climate change are going to be felt by everyone. As global temperatures rise, the arctic ice caps will start to melt and sea levels will rise. Singapore has already started to make plans for dealing with this in the previous Budgets. At the same time, there will be increased desertification as temperatures rise, and more and more eco-systems and species face the risk of dying out as temperatures rise. There will be extremes of weather, droughts and floods. While people may continue to make adjustments to survive, quality of life will definitely get more harsh and difficult.
Another casualty in this process is the natural world. I was very much moved by Sir David Attenborough’s documentary \"A Life on Our Planet\", which is really a sad reminder of what we have lost in the course of just one lifetime. Some of the frightening figures there include 15 billion trees are being cut down each year and that more than half our rainforests are gone. Coral reefs, which also absorb heat, are dying at an alarming rate because of rising water temperatures and pollution. There are also reports that 60% of invertebrates have been wiped out since 1970. There are large numbers of species going extinct and the current age is being referred to as the Sixth Great Extinction.
Yet, our journey down this path has been paved with good intentions. People want better quality lives and development generally entails clearing land and development. We had a microcosm of this discussion just earlier. This is also why the greatest carbon emitters are the biggest economies, namely the US and China. The greatest carbon sinks are in the developing world. The developing world wants to develop and be more like the developed world, and this entails clearing land.
One area where this is being very publicly debated is the clearing of the Amazon rainforests in Brazil, where land is being cleared at one of its fastest rates. President Jair Bolsanaro has publicly defended his country’s right to clear land for development, while the rest of the world insists it should not.
Brazil's view is understandable. Brazil does not see why it has to forgo its own development for the benefit of the rest of the world. On the flipside, it views the developed world, where countries already benefited from deforestation, are not being fair in telling the developing countries not to develop. Not only that, but the developed world still continues to have a significantly higher carbon footprint than the developing world.
In my view, the only sensible solution to this is that we have to pay countries to conserve their forests. And in order to make this payment, there must be a price on pollution and carbon emissions. These ideas are not new; they have been developed in various international treaties like the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol.
Ideally, if we can have a global carbon trading market, we may be able to have a fair system where countries that create carbon sinks to absorb carbon get payments for doing so, and countries that emit carbon pay for the same. This way, countries will be incentivised to reduce emissions, in which case they pay less. And countries that may be engaged in reforestation and absorb more carbon can get paid more. This will hopefully create a virtual cycle where countries can be incentivised to reduce emissions and, if possible, even to engage in reforestation.
Of course, this is ideal. In order for this to work, the countries emitting carbon have to acknowledge they have a problem.
So, what can Singapore do? Singapore is a small country. We cannot really move the meter very much on the global scale. Our own emissions are probably a drop in the ocean. But I think our Budget measures show a clear commitment to reduce our own carbon footprint and to maintain and manage our own development in a sustainable way.
We had a very long discussion earlier on on the clearing of land in Kranji. The fact that land clearing gets so much attention in this House, to me, is a good sign of how seriously we take this commitment. We recognise the need for development but we also recognise the need to do so sustainably.
I think what we also could do is to lend our voice and continue to do so on the international sphere, and to the extent we can aid in the assistance of working out global solutions.
The two most important players in this space are the US and China. While they are rivals on some fronts, hopefully, on this front, there is an opportunity for them to take the lead in unison. Both President Xi and President Biden have publicly voiced their commitments to reducing emissions, have taken measures, and the next step is to do so in the international scene.
If we reduce emissions and ideally, incentivise and promote reforestation, the effects of climate change may be reversible, but we must work collectively to take effort.
The second topic I will discuss is COVID-19. Just a little over a year ago, in the beginning of 2020, COVID-19 was a little known virus which had been spreading in China in the province of Wuhan, but had little footprint elsewhere. Singapore anticipated the seriousness of this threat and set up its Ministerial taskforce as early as January 2020 with both strategy and tactics coordinated at a high level. We have had our ups and downs in dealing with this virus, the most difficult stretch being the two-month circuit breaker, the period when the virus was spreading rapidly in our foreign worker dormitories.
Notwithstanding the challenges, we have generally managed well and kept our fatality rate amongst the lowest in the world. We have also managed to absorb a large part of the economic impact because of the emergency financial measures we put in place – companies were supported in their payroll, rentals were reduced and managed, and workers who lost jobs or lost income were given compensation.
Many people played a part in this process. Frontline workers kept essential services like hospitals, food supplies and transport running, parents and teachers played their part in helping with home-schooling and later the opening of schools. Today, the situation is under control again, and our journey here was enabled because of collective effort and cooperation. But the situation can change rapidly. All it takes is one or two clusters and it will spread again.
The most important next step in this battle is the vaccination. Happily, Singapore is in a position where we have adequate supply of the vaccines coming in the course of the year.
According to the BBC, vaccine efficacy based on data coming in is actually quite strong, with Pfizer, Modena, even Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine all having efficacy levels of above 90%, which is a measure of how much they reduce the risk of coming down with symptoms of COVID-19. Although no vaccine has 100% efficacy, even for those people who do come down with COVID-19 symptoms after taking the vaccine, it had generally not been fatal. So, the symptoms are usually more mild. So, what this means is there is close to 100% protection against serious effects of COVID-19.
The benefits are definitely there to the individual for taking the vaccine. But we have a slight problem in Singapore. The slight problem we have is that our community spread rates are low and most people are less afraid of getting the virus. So, a number of the people I have spoken to have suggested they would prefer to take a wait-and-see approach; there is no urgency to take it, so let other people take it first. Of course, if everyone does this, there will be a risk that our vaccination rates do not go up as quickly as we would like them to.
Other Members in this House have spoken on how we should incentivise people to take vaccines, with Dr Lim Wee Kiak suggesting that vouchers be given out, and Mr Alex Yam suggesting it be made mandatory.
My suggestion is a variation on the scheme but I would suggest that what we should do is give incentives to people who take the vaccine but not monetary incentives. We should give them more liberties. So, for example, if you have a group of people who are all vaccinated, they may be allowed to meet in groups of larger than eight. Workplaces may be allowed to operate at higher than 50% occupancy if everyone who is attending in the office has taken the vaccination. So, these are sort of gentle ways to, I think, nudge people into taking the vaccine, to give them very tangible, immediate benefits.
Ultimately, it is my hope that we will be able to get all people vaccinated as soon as possible. Vaccines can remain optional but I think if benefits are linked to it, liberties are linked to it, people will take it up more.
It is my hope that all eligible people will take the vaccine soonest, as this will probably have the greatest impact in getting back to as close to normal as possible. Mr Speaker, in Tamil.
(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the past year has been a difficult one for all of us because of COVID-19. Some of you or your loved ones may have been infected by the virus. Many more would have experienced loss of income, loss of jobs and big changes in lifestyle.
The Government provided significant support last year, providing companies with help like JSS, which provided support for up to 75% of Singaporean’s salaries which helped keep many people in jobs. Those who lost jobs or had significant loss of income were given financial support. The self-employed were also supported, in particular, those in the affected transport sector like taxi drivers.
During the lockdown period, many of us were wishing for a vaccine. This vaccine is now here and being rolled out. I would thus strongly encourage everyone to take it. These vaccines have gone through extensive clinical testing and are generally safe to be taken.
For those with serious medical conditions or concerns, you may check with your doctors to be sure. If we are able to get a large part of our population vaccinated, then it will be harder for the virus to spread, protecting even those amongst us who are unable to take it.
We have put up with a lot of challenges in the last year – the next step, to take the vaccine, should be a lot easier and it is my hope that everyone who is able to will take it as soon as they can.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, last year has been a difficult year for many Singaporeans due to COVID-19. Fortunately, due to Singapore’s strong fiscal position and our reserves, we were able to turn the situation around. The five Budgets announced by Finance Minister last year has helped many of our workers stay employed and helped many businesses stave off insolvency.
Many of my friends who are employers expressed their appreciation for the Jobs Support Scheme which has helped them to keep paying their staff. I also met many residents who were able to receive the Self-employed Income Relief Scheme or SIRS because this gave them much support for the leaner months due to the circuit breaker. There was also substantial support given by the Government for families to help build a caring and inclusive home and plans to transform and grow the economy. Compared with many other countries, Singapore has done relatively well in managing the negative impact on the economy.
For that, I think it is appropriate to give credit to Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues from the Finance Ministry as well as to thank the Multi-Ministry Task Force and the many frontline workers for their efforts in keeping Singapore strong economically and for keeping Singapore safe.
The Deputy Prime Minister has said that the Government will enhance the salaries of nurses and other healthcare workers. I fully agree. Like several other Members of Parliament before me, I also urge the Government to consider enhancing the salaries of our other essential workers as well. The COVID-19 crisis has shown us that during a health crisis of this nature, our essential workers, like our cleaners and those who clear our rubbish on a regular basis, they play an important role in our daily lives.
I submit that we must also give credit to Singaporeans who gave their full-hearted support for the efforts of the Government. Singaporeans wore face masks when it was mandated, they used sanitisers regularly, stayed at home where necessary during the circuit breaker and coped with safe distancing measures. Our citizens did their part to help manage this pandemic.
Although the impact of the past five Budgets have made a great difference to many workers and businesses, the question is what next.
As a country with no natural resources, we must always be mindful of digging into our reserves which is finite. The last five Budgets with all the additional COVID-19 support measures have cost Singapore almost $100 billion. This year, our expenditure for Health has shot up to $18.8 billion. Defence will cost $15.4 billion and Education will cost $13.6 billion. Our deficit for this year is projected at $11 billion.
Members may also recall that during the National Day Rally in 2019, the Prime Minister said that it will cost $100 billion or more to protect Singapore against rising sea levels. Will we ever be able to put back the $100 billion withdrawn from our reserves for this COVID-19 support measures?
I recall in 2011 that the Government returned the $4 billion which was withdrawn from the reserves for Jobs Credit Scheme. How will we be able to pay for the huge expenditure required for future development projects?
Over the next week, during the Committee of Supply debate, we will hear many Members of Parliament asking the Government to do more and more for our citizens. And I hope that we will all exercise prudence and remember that the Government is but the trustee of all the taxes paid by all tax payers. Every additional tax relief or subsidy that Members ask for would mean that taxpayers would have to pay for those measures. No one likes to pay more taxes but yet, if we do not project for more tax revenue, we will not be able to fund those expenses which are necessary. We may not be able to help those who truly need additional help from the Government's measures.
Sir, Budget 2021 contains various measures to help Singapore to emerge stronger as a nation. I agree with the general direction set by this Government to emerge stronger together. I think it is important for the Government to help our businesses transform so that they can create good jobs for our citizens and opportunities for all the businesses. We must be ready for a post-COVID future and build a stronger Singapore.
Our citizens must also be equipped and upskilled to take up jobs which may be different from the current jobs that they are used to. We must never be complacent and think that our place in this world is guaranteed because Singapore had been successful in our earlier years. If our Singapore workers lose their desire to work hard, lose their hunger to be successful, other countries whose citizens are more hungry will step up to meet the challenge.
Sir, I wish to sound a word of caution to my fellow Singaporeans. Last year was described to be an unprecedented year in which Singapore suffered one of the worst recessions in our nation’s history. However, when I read the real estate statistics shared by URA in January this year, I was surprised to find that prices of private properties still managed to increase by 2.2% last year. Sale of private properties by developers and in the resale market did not slow down at all despite this recession. And despite the fact that there are many unsold properties in the market, URA tells me that there are 52,783 unsold units in the market which have already obtained planning approval. Despite so many unsold units, residential property prices remain high as developers did not reduce their prices. In fact, agents tell me that some new developments which were launched recently in my constituency are priced at between $2,100 and $2,800 per square foot.
Friends in the car industry also told me that there were visibly more people in the car showrooms looking to buy cars. It was as if there was no recession at all, much less the worst recession in Singapore’s history.
So, I urge the Government to continue to be fiscally prudent in its Budget. We need to save for another rainy day because we really have no other natural resources except our reserves. I also urge Singaporeans to be mindful that we must all exercise financial prudence to prepare for uncertain times ahead of us.
COVID-19 has changed the way many businesses operate and many businesses have realised that they can operate their business from anywhere in the world without having to come to Singapore. Thus, we must never take Singapore’s continued success for granted. Sir, I support the Budget Statement by the Finance Minister.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to first declare my interest as the CEO of ComfortDelGro Taxi.
In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, we were like A&E, quickly reacting to where the blood flowed. We had an unprecedented four Budgets, where we swiftly came up with ways to help people and businesses cope with the loss of jobs and livelihoods.
As we moved into our second year of the COVID-19, many of us learned to live in the new normal. It is no longer just an emergency. Instead of only viewing COVID as a crisis, we are now better able to re-orientate ourselves to seek out the opportunities, to boost Singapore’s future health status.
As someone who is involved in the transport sector, I feel that COVID-19 gives us the chance to put in a place a more environmentally friendly and sustainable model of public transport which is also a better use of public resources.
The key reason for this is how working from home has taken hold around the world, and in Singapore.
I must confess I was not a fan of working from home. I did not believe that people could be as productive when they are in the comfort of their home, and surrounded by distractions. But what I saw during the circuit breaker period made me a convert. More importantly, I observed that for the first time in my life, the roads were empty and public transport was not crowded during the usual morning and evening peak hours, which is what we call the devil horns of public transport. The morning/evening peaks are the devil horns of public transport.
Will working from home be a permanent feature of our working life?
Even though cases in the community are low and we have started our mass vaccination exercise, MOM still advises companies to adopt working from home policies as a default option. Meanwhile, Chinese newspaper Lianhe Zaobao reported that more than 40% of Singaporeans would like to continue working from home after the pandemic.
To get a sense from actual businesses on the ground whether working from home is here to stay, I conducted a survey of over 30 of my fellow CEOs in the private sector, ranging from large companies to SMEs. They include MNCs, law firms, architectural firms, financial institutions and manufacturing companies and so on. I asked them if working from home would be a permanent feature at their companies after the pandemic. About 58% said it would not and citing reasons such as lower productivity, majority of the staff are operational staff, lack of opportunities for building camaraderie, for not endorsing working from home. The bright spot is that the remaining 42% said they would embrace working from home in the long run and they said about 20% of their staff would likely be working from home at any one time.
If this is representative of the majority of companies in Singapore, we could take the opportunity to re-shape our public transport system.
I would go further and suggest that we actively work toward having about 40% of organisations in Singapore commit to having about 20% of their staff to work from home at any one time. One way we could go about this is for the Civil Service, which is the largest employer in Singapore, to weigh in and implement longer term working from home policies especially for the back-end and support staff.
I remember when all sorts of incentives, like free travel on certain peak hour periods, were introduced to try to change commuter travel patterns, it took months, if not years, to take effect. COVID-19 achieved that in a matter of days. Without the devil horns, everybody has a more comfortable ride and it also benefits the environment. We should work to stop the horns from growing back.
Indeed a report from the International Energy Agency states: “Research has shown that disruptions can be a catalyst for shifts towards more sustainable transport behaviours but avoiding a return to pre-crisis behaviours requires governments to take decisive action.”
In the same report, it notes that most people are shifting to cycling, in order to avoid potentially crowded buses and trains. The same is happening in Singapore, though to a lesser extent, as sales of personal bicycles go up and bike-sharing companies report an increase in ridership. An example of the Government taking decisive action would be to invest in new and improved cycling networks to make sustainable transport more attractive and safer.
On sustainability, I would like to move on to the topic of whether our bus services are sustainable. Currently, there are many bus services running alongside and duplicating MRT routes, which are costing too much money, according to Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat.
Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat also informed us that out of the 356 bus services in Singapore, only 11 services were profitable in 2019. The Government had to subsidise $1 billion to operate the remaining 345 services. In 2020, only two bus services were profitable as bus ridership plunged during the pandemic. I could not be sure how much subsidy was given out in 2020, but logically, it would be over $1 billion.
At the same time, we have made a huge investment into the MRT network. Our current MRT network is about 230 km and MOT plans to increase the network to 360 km by 2030. In the last Budget, it was already announced that the Government would be spending more than $60 billion this decade to expand and renew the rail network. After spending so much money, it is natural to encourage more people to use the MRT for longer distance travel, which are more comfortable and efficient, instead of taking buses running parallel to the MRT lines. What do I mean?
The three longest bus routes in Singapore are service numbers 30, 51 and 61. Let me us service number 61 to illustrate. For service 61, the bus ride from Bukit Batok takes more than two hours, calling on 19 MRT stations in between. If you take a train from Bukit Batok to Eunos, the travelling time is only 46 minutes – 120 minutes bus ride as compared to 46 minutes train ride.
The above example shows that it is better for bus services to connect people to the train stations within a town, and that is for the first and last mile connection. It is more efficient to travel between towns using MRT. Thus, I would like to propose a radical idea.
Currently, many duplicate bus services ply through the Central Business District or CBD. And yet, the CBD is well-served by the MRT. Most buildings in the CBD are within 400 metres of an MRT station. Hence, I propose that LTA consider having bus services terminate at MRT station bus stops just outside the CBD and have dedicated feeder bus services to ply within CBD, connecting all the interchange MRT stations. There are many benefits associated with this proposal.
Firstly, we can drastically cut the number of duplicate bus services and number of buses plying within the CBD, without compromising the service level. We can even allow only electric buses to ply within CBD. This will help to reduce air pollution within the CBD and contribute to the Green Plan 2030.
Secondly, having all existing cross-town trunk services to terminate just outside the CBD will naturally cut short the trunk services, making bus services more reliable and cheaper to run. The resources saved can be used to improve bus connectivity within each HDB town.
I am sure many Members in this House have received feedback from their residents on the need to enhance bus connectivity within their respective divisions. The most common grouses among my Nanyang residents is the inconvenience of getting to the polyclinic and back home. It is not uncommon that residents have to walk a total of 700 metres plus a bus ride or change bus services to reach the polyclinic. When one is unwell, a 700-metre walk is not pleasant.
Reforming bus routes is not new. Seoul has done it successfully, by re-organising its bus system to create safer, more comfortable and efficient rides. I am not advocating we reduce the $1 billion subsidies for the bus services. I think it is necessary to subsidise public transport just like we subsidise healthcare. I am advocating making bus services more efficient, complementing the train network and adjust to changes in transport behaviour, including the trend of working from home. The worst option is to raise public transport fares significantly to cover costs if ridership remains low.
The COVID-19 pandemic has its perils but it has also provided us the golden opportunity to keep the devil horns away and create a more environmentally friendly and sustainable bus system that does not compete with the MRT, but is in synergy.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my last topic is pertaining to the Budget measures in relation to the incentives to promote electric cars. When similar measures were announced last year, it electrified the debate. This year, it has done the same trick again. Let me elaborate in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many car owners are wondering, why is the Government so eager to raise the petrol tax this year while the new incentive measures for electric vehicles will only be implemented next year?
Moreover, there are few charging points for electric vehicles today and they can barely satisfy the existing 1,000 or so electric vehicles. This is not enough to encourage Singaporeans to buy electric vehicles. URA and LTA have already put up tenders to invite operators to install charging points to cater for 600-odd electric vehicles at more than 200 public carparks island wide. Most of the charging points will only be installed next year, in other words, water from afar cannot put out fires nearby.
For taxi drivers and private hire drivers, the pandemic has significantly reduced their income. The increase in petrol tax at this time is like adding frost to snow. As the Government has said, taxi and private car hire car owners will enjoy a 15% road tax rebate of up to one year and an additional $360 in a four-month period. The total rebate for these two types of rebates is about $513. For taxis that travel 400 km a day, the additional $1 per litre of petrol tax amounts to $663 additional cost a year. The rebate of $513 is not enough. Fortunately, the Government has heard the taxi drivers' appeal and announced yesterday that full-time relief taxi drivers will also enjoy the additional $360 petrol tax rebate to further reduce the impact of the petrol tax hike.
As far as taxi drivers and private hire drivers are concerned, I would also like to mention that it is unlikely that their income will improve before the end of this year. It is because it is unlikely that tourism will recover and nightclubs will reopen within this year. The trend of working from home will continue. Hence, I urge LTA to consider extending the COVID-19 Driver Relief Fund to the end of the year.
(In English): Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the issues raised above, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic may have caused a huge impact on economies around the world but this crisis has provided us with an inescapable fortuity to reassess the way we work and play. We need to reset.
Before this pandemic, many of us were guilty of not exploiting digital technologies in our everyday life in purposeful ways.
The pandemic has forced us to take an extraordinary digital leap in our daily practices. In a flash, an entire generation started to grasp digital tools in order to adjust to the new norm. Despite social distancing and self-isolation, we are all finding ways to connect with one another. Twenty-twenty was a year of disruptions and we had to disconnect to reconnect.
COVID-19 is a game changer and has taught many of us about the importance of adapting and advancing. Just like a quote by Charles Darwin, \"It is not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones who are most responsive to change.\"
The pandemic has impacted different businesses and industries very unevenly. Inevitably, the pandemic will bring about new rising enterprises while traditional big wigs may be brought down to their knees.
To help the new rising companies and try to avoid the downfall of some big wigs, the Government has announced four additional Budgets with a supplement of nearly $100 billion.
This Budget will: one, help certain sectors to retain, retrain and prepare workers to be ready to spring back right away after recovery; two, help companies transform themselves for the future digital economy; three, support the core and the worst hit sectors, such as aviation, land transport, arts and sports; four, co-fund new ventures in the areas of creative ideas; and five, help the high-growth enterprises and the startups to have continued access into financial capital.
The Government stands in solidarity with Singaporeans and will try to assist companies to adapt to the economic debacle that we are facing and there will be various assistance and grants. However, our workers and businesses must have the resilience to build their own muscles to innovate, have a creative mindset to reinvent themselves, be adaptable and be forward-thinking to compete against the best on the global stage. And we need to have the gumption and fortitude to succeed in spite of the risk of failure. In unity, we can emerge stronger.
Last month, together with several fellow members of the GPC for MSE, we filed a Motion to accelerate and deepen efforts to combat climate change. And I am heartened to read about the Singapore Green Plan 2030 and the goals outlined by the five Ministries.
The green bonds on selected public sector infrastructure projects is a welcomed financing tool to catalyse the flow of capital towards sustainable development and to anchor Singapore as a green finance hub. This will ensure that the access to capital for a large scale critical infrastructure is available to serve our next generations of Singaporeans.
Deputy Prime Minister Heng has announced that up to $19 billion of projects will be allocated towards developing our green economy. So I hope MOF and MSE will expand the scope for such green infrastructure projects so as to accelerate the pace of achieving the targets set out in the Singapore Green Plan 2030.
Budget 2021 is committed towards our long-term goals and sustainability and has given many Singaporeans renewed hopes after an uncertain 2020. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support Budget 2021.
Mr Speaker: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, after a year of combating COVID-19 and dealing with its unprecedented impact on so many aspects of our country, it is time for us to embark on the road to recovery.
The world has been profoundly changed by this pandemic. It has pushed us to re-assess our priorities and forced us to adapt to new ways of doing things. For example, this crisis has accelerated digitalisation and flexible work arrangements.
The crisis also presents opportunities in certain sectors and provides the impetus for new approaches.
This Budget has some bold initiatives, particularly green ones, which I am delighted will be implemented.
Like water, food security is a critical national issue. I have always felt strongly about ensuring food security for Singapore, so much so that I had urged the Government for more sector support in this House a few times in the past.
Hence, I welcome the decision to commit $60 million to a new Agri-Food Cluster Transformation Fund. The Fund will help us move towards the 30-by-30 goal of producing 30% of our food through local farms by 2030. This will be no mean feat, considering that we are at less than 10% today.
I understand the COVID-19 crisis has placed an enormous strain on our financial resources. Nonetheless, I seek the Minister's assurance that funding will be increased when our economy recovers.
I would also like to ask the Minister if the Agri-Food Cluster Transformation Fund is in addition to the $63 million Agriculture Productivity Fund (APF) launched in 2014. Would the Minister share with us how much of the APF has been utilised to-date and provide a summary of the projects it supported, such as the type of farming projects and food production?
It is important that we continue to develop this sector and ensure its viability, as this industry is perceived to be less profitable than other industries, such as manufacturing and financial services.
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of locally produced food. We are fortunate to have adequate national food reserves and have been able to work well with our regional and global partners to keep borders open for goods to flow between countries so far. However, we should not take these arrangements for granted.
We must be prepared for other crises in the future and the more local food production sources we have, the less vulnerable we are to supply disruptions.
I am heartened to note that we are exploring and tapping upon available technologies to overcome our land constraints for food production, whether these are for fruits, plants, livestock, or new types of production, such as lab-grown meat. These are capital intensive but necessary for food security.
To strengthen food security, besides sector-friendly Government policies and financial support, we need to develop a whole eco-system to make the agri-food sector a significant economic sector. We need to nurture a new generation of local expertise, while consulting with leading agri-food practitioners and researchers locally and internationally. We need new faculties in our ITEs, Polytechnics and Universities to prepare our people for jobs and careers in this sector.
We should continue to support small local household and community farming endeavors too. The output from household and community farms may be small but every effort to contribute to our food security and resilience is important. As the saying goes, many little drops make an ocean.
In his Budget speech, Deputy Prime Minister Heng mentioned, we need a whole-of-society approach to succeed in realising our sustainability goals.
As the efforts to support supply side factors continue to strengthen, it is also important to increase consumer awareness and confidence in local produce to build up demand from our local population.
As I have raised in one of my previous speeches, we should encourage a \"Buy Singapore\" mentality where Singaporeans choose local brands and products in an informed manner. \"Buy Singapore\" will not only help ensure the sustainability of producing local food but also reduce our carbon footprint, as transportation and refrigeration required to move and store food over long distances are reduced.
In fact, \"Buy Singapore\" can also be expanded to include goods and services beyond the agri-food sector. There are other local industries that may potentially have an advantage in serving our domestic market. These should be supported and better funded to help them grow. Buying products using materials that are preferably locally sourced and made here is another way of reducing one's carbon footprint.
I full-heartedly support the Ministry's decision to issue green bonds to fund select public infrastructure projects.
Three years ago, I had suggested that we designate a proportion of our borrowings for green projects to be in green bonds issuance. Not only will this support the Monetary Authority of Singapore's aim of growing the green bond market in Singapore, Government issues will help develop a green bond market of a significant size. As ASEAN's largest green finance market, we account for about half of the cumulative ASEAN green bond and loan issuances. We can look forward to a more dynamic bond market with a greater variety of products to offer different investors.
The bonds are expected to finance a wide range of green projects and I hope that the Government will include agri-food developments in these issues and its distribution can be sized such that even small investors can participate and do their part to support the growth of Singapore's agri-food sector.
Many green and sustainability-linked projects will be pioneering initiatives and do not have track records. To enable current and new enterprises in these endeavours, I hope the Government will consider more risk co-sharing with investors and banks so that green start-ups will have higher chances of bringing their visions to fruition.
Lastly, I would like to appeal on behalf of motorcyclists, taxi and private-hire-car drivers for more support to defray their increased cost of operations due to the increase in petrol duty rates.
While there are various measures to ease the transition, such as road tax rebates, cash handouts and petrol duty rebates, many of the users who depend on their vehicles for their livelihoods have shared with me their hardships and made their calculations. The rebates will not be enough to offset the higher duty rates.
The intention of the rate hikes is to encourage more green behaviour and reduce the purchase and use of vehicles using internal combustion engines.
However, at this point in time, these users have no other alternatives but to use their current vehicles to earn a living. Many of them deliver goods with the proliferation of online orders. They are not able yet to switch to electric vehicles due to sunk costs or infrastructural constraints. They, however, are faced with the immediate reality that the hike will increase their costs and cut their take-home pay.
I appeal to the Minister to consider providing more financial subsidies or rebates to help them tide over this difficult period or until they have time to switch over to electric vehicles.
With this, I would like to conclude with my support for the Budget.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, Happy Chap Goh Meh! Second, I would like to declare my interest as managing director and partner of a management consulting firm that does work in the area of sustainability and climate change consulting.
COVID-19 has given us a unique opportunity – to \"build back better\".
Mr Speaker, I am proud of the public commitments in the Green Plan, from planting one million trees to phasing out internal combustion engines by 2030. Climate change is absolutely the biggest existential problem of the 21st century, for the world, for Singapore.
I am particularly proud that we are forging a brave new green economy, with new green jobs in green technology, including agri-tech, alternative fuels, the circular economy and also green financing and carbon markets and services. This is the big unlock. The idea that we can grow our environmental sustainability and our economy, both together.
So, I was perturbed when a young resident, Brian, said to me that he was ashamed to be Singaporean, because we are not doing enough; that Singapore's emissions are still rising at 2% to 3%; that we are among the worst in the world in terms of emissions per capita; that on the Climate Action Tracker website, we are squarely in the Red zone, indicating that our policies and commitments are, I quote, \"outside of (a country's) fair-share range and are not at all consistent with holding warming to below two degrees Celsius, let alone with the Paris Agreement's stronger 1.5 degree Celsius\".
Mr Speaker, I am not an activist. I am a consultant who works with businesses and Government. But I am also a lover of Nature and a global citizen who is deeply concerned about the world we leave behind for our future generations. And I think, it is important to look at things from all sides so that we can carve the best pathway to fit our needs and our aspirations and bring everyone along.
Where do we stand today? Singapore accounts for only 0.1% of global emissions. In reducing emissions, we face constraints in our size and our geography. A complete shift to renewables is probably not on the cards. While in our CBD, the \"urban canyon\" effect affects temperatures at the micro level.
It is true Singapore ranks 27th highest out of 142 countries in emissions per capita. But it is not surprising; we are a hub economy. Our status as a manufacturing hub, a trade hub, is the envy of the world. Take Jurong Island – home to more than 100 oil and gas companies, and petrochemical companies, and investments of more than $50 billion.
Mr Speaker, you and I, and I am sure every one of our colleagues in this House, have residents who work on Jurong Island, or Changi Airport, or the Port of Singapore. Oil and gas, petrochemicals, aviation and shipping – these are all hard-to-abate sectors where direct electrification or shift to renewables is technically not yet viable or too expensive, but they are also a significant share of our GDP.
For a hub like us, a better metric is emissions per GDP dollar, or emissions intensity, where we are in the best 20. As a hub, we provide goods and services to the world, and as a hub, we are already doing this more cleanly than most.
Mr Speaker, the climate change space is fast developing. According to the International Energy Agency, 50% of global emissions reduction to reach net zero needs to come from technology that is still in the demo stage. Yet, we cannot underestimate the progress of technology, nor the power of the people, especially young people. There is a gathering momentum on carbon reductions from the demand side, from businesses, investors and government. I know because my clients are asking for advice.
What if our trading partners introduce carbon border taxes – which Europe is already planning? What if pressure on net zero shipping cripples long distance shipping? Now, if that is not an existential crisis of epic proportions for Singapore, I do not know what is! In some sectors, a wait-and-see approach could be more risky than getting ahead of the curve.
Mr Speaker, it does not look likely that we will meet the two-degree goal. We are unlikely to get to carbon negative by 2030 which is what it would take.
But let us not be discouraged. Singapore has the potential to lead the technological innovations, the business model innovation, the necessary eco-system collaborations in order to push the techno-commercial limits around decarbonisation, and then turn all of it into our new exports. We did it before with water. We can do it again.
Our economy will be more competitive, more resilient and we will be enabling, empowering the rest of the world to reach the two-degree goal. In short, we can lead the world. Surely, that is something to be proud of.
Pragmatic problem-solving, innovation, execution – that has always been the Singapore way. We aim for best in class, but we know that this will evolve over time, so our approach must be a humble, learning approach – learning from the past, learning from others – as we position ourselves to lead in policy, technology, collaboration and advocacy.
As we build and learn, I call for the Government to stay open to revisit our commitments and put in more aggressive targets over time because a bigger ambition drives the pace of innovation, gives businesses and investors the confidence to invest, and gives us the licence to engage more broadly – to lead the world.
Mr Speaker, I would like to propose three ideas where I think there is scope for us to invest more so that we might lead the world. I will focus on decarbonisation, leaving the also important restoration of our natural habitats and nature-based solutions to others.
First, double down on the sectors for which Singapore can be the world's most sustainable hub; in doing so, increase our value-add and our competitiveness. There are sectors where because we are a hub, Singapore has an opportunity, and indeed, some might say, an obligation to define the 21st century vision for the sector. I highlight two today: petrochemicals and shipping.
There are more than 100 petrochemical companies with major operations in Singapore, mostly on Jurong Island. This manufacturing base and our position as a trade and logistics hub for petrochemicals make us uniquely positioned to incubate and scale technology, solutions and services to enable a green petrochemical supply chain. With best-in-class sustainable assets, and symbiotic relationships across the eco-system to unlock collective benefits and drive resilience in the face of externality pricing.
Now shipping. Normally shipping generates 2% of global greenhouse emissions. As a country it will be the sixth largest. There is growing policy and social pressure to decarbonise shipping. The Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping is a coalition that has been established to drive the maturity of decarbonisation technologies in shipping, with seven founding partners. But it is European-centric. An Asian platform is lacking. Singapore can set up or enable a similar coalition in Asia.
Mr Speaker, many green economy jobs will be technical and engineering work. Thanks to our development history, we have a strong local core in areas like process engineering, energy management, control systems, from the vocational level to advanced engineering. We can be optimistic that this time, with some training, it is our Singaporean workforce who will benefit most from the transition.
My second proposal is to push forward on international and regional engagement, coordination and leadership, starting with ASEAN. The 10 ASEAN economies contribute 7.5% of global emissions. Four of them are in the top 10 countries in the world most at risk from climate change. Singapore is not one of the four. The countries have very different carbon intensities, with Indonesia accounting for more than 60%. Indonesia emissions from land use, land use change and forestry – or what we call LULUCF in the industry – are higher than their forest carbon sinks while Malaysia and the Philippines have net negative emissions from their carbon sinks. There is scope for collaboration – things that can be done at scale.
Carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS), expensive in Singapore, but, with cross-border carbon sinks, we may be able to get the economics to work. Singapore could tap on regional renewable energy grids while providing carbon offset markets and green financing to complement our neigbours’ green efforts. We can lead the region down a collective 2-degree path; an ASEAN 2-degree path that plays to our individual strengths.
My third proposal is to be innovative in encouraging individual actions. Many of us in this House have made our green resolutions – from metal straws to collecting rainwater to planting trees. In the Budget, the Government will partner Singaporeans and support ground-up projects. I hope, I know, our wonderful youths will pick up the baton and push the boundaries. But we cannot just preach to the converted. For the ambivalent or the sceptical, it can be hard to make climate change relevant. It can be harder still to get Singaporeans and Singapore companies to pay more to go green. We cannot simply tout statistics. We cannot simply tell people they must pay more, we cannot simply tell them to stop doing something. But we can provide a vision of a sustainable Singapore in a way that appeals to both reason and emotion. I believe that one way is through stories, poetry and literature. So, let us bring our creative arts community into this campaign. Then let us encourage all who have a stake in Singapore – individuals, families, communities, SMEs, corporates, to commit to climate change action.
An inclusive transition. We all hope for an inclusive transition, one where the disadvantaged are not further left behind. One that is free from the hypocrisy and power plays that, I hate to say, are often thinly veiled in their space.
An inclusive transition means advocating to support developing countries to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Developing countries suffer the brunt of the impact of climate change, physically through flash floods, the destruction of flora and fauna, disease outbreaks and whole islands sinking, as well as economically through lower crop yields, for example. At the same time, many emerging countries exhibit high emissions intensities.
The developed nations are reducing their emissions, but it is a case of been there, done that. Many developing countries, especially in Asia, are still industrialising – iron, steel, cement will be needed for years to come. Developed countries have been able to mitigate their emissions partly because global manufacturing has migrated to emerging markets that have invested heavily in energy, in particular, coal. The average age of coal plants in Asia is only 12 years versus a useful life of 50 years. The cost to transition is, therefore, huge. China, perhaps, can do it. But many emerging markets will need help – aid, debt assistance, technical assistance. Singapore can advocate for their voices to be heard, not to give them excuses, but to get them help from the advanced economies. We ourselves must be happy to help, happy to share our expertise and platforms in technical and financing aspects because that is leadership.
An inclusive transition also means considering and mitigating the impact on the most vulnerable people, including lower income groups whose livelihoods depend on the carbon economy, for example, taxi and private car drivers and delivery riders. Many of my colleagues have talked about them today. The petrol duty hike is an immediate hit to their pockets when many are already struggling. One resident told me that he needed to drive the equivalent of an extra day to make up for it. The rebates help but, may I ask, for how long will this be extended for this particular segment? The duty hike comes when alternatives do not yet really exist, certainly not for this segment. Actually, I take that back. There is one alternative – e-bikes that many switched to after the PMD ban. But Mr Speaker, it was with despair that I learnt that e-bikes are being financed in the market at exorbitant interest rates. We have got to stop these predatory behaviours. It is just not fair. Further, as technology continues to accelerate, driverless cars will become a reality. An inclusive transition must, therefore, create new green jobs, with training and reskilling, so that the most vulnerable will directly benefit.
Mr Speaker, I would like to continue in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Climate change is going to affect all us, and more importantly, our children and our children’s children. It is a matter of life and death. Technology will play a big role, but we also need to change how we produce, consume and dispose.
The government’s Green Plan articulates a compelling vision where taking care of the environment is no longer seen as at odds with economic growth. New jobs will be created in the new Green Economy, in fields like engineering, carbon services and green financing. Many of these jobs will require a good foundation in Science, Technology and Engineering (STEM).
Although our Malay community has made progress overall in tertiary education, we remain underrepresented in STEM fields. It is already hurting us in the digital economy. Let us not miss the boat in the green economy. Instead, let us identify the root causes, the key steps where Malays fall out – be it when they choose what to study in school, or when they choose their first job, and address those.
The Government, schools and M3 must help Malay youths and Malays in the workforce to get an equal chance at developing interest, knowledge and skills in STEM, including green technologies. This exposure must come early. It means creating an environment that is attractive and conducive for Malay students to choose STEM courses and careers, for example, by ensuring that Malays are part of the faculty, providing better support systems and building confidence.
I have spoken to a Malay youth in Woodlands. Despite qualifying for Junior College, he decided to take the Polytechnic route. I found out that he had shown promise in Science and Math, but ultimately chose to go into another field. The reason was, the youth was uncomfortable, felt that he did not belong, there were few Malays. He also believed that the STEM fields will be harder and yet the returns he might get or the levels he might get to will be commensurate. Mentorship and role models are key.
Malays in the workforce should have access to and take advantage of the training and reskilling required to support the transition to the new green economy and further their careers there, as part of a broad-based workforce transition or as part of a commitment to diversity and inclusion among our companies.
At the same time our young Malays and their parents must be proactive to position themselves in the new green economy. They must hone their skills and learn, from Malays and non Malays, in the STEM fields. M3 must provide the platforms and the outreach.
Mr Speaker, as a community, we Malays love nature, which is an important element of sustainable development. We must ensure that all in our community join in this climate change discussion – not just the fortunate few.
(In English): We are all in this together. The Green Plan outlines a whole-of-nation approach to climate change. And that is what it takes, the whole nation and our partners, to unite in this fight. We are all in this together.
Mr Speaker, the world lauds our Government’s exceptional handling of the COVID-19 crisis. But good governance is only part of it. Our success has been because our people trusted that we are doing our best to keep us safe during this crisis.
Devastating as the COVID-19 crisis has been, climate change is an even bigger crisis, with even higher stakes. I hope that, again, our people, our businesses, our partners will trust that we are doing our best, not only to keep us safe, but to keep the world safe; not only today but for future generations. And that they will push together with us to lead the world.
If we do this, Mr Speaker, I am sure Brian will feel proud that we are, indeed, doing our best. I am sure he will feel proud to be Singaporean.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. I support the Budget. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, we are at an important part of our nation’s recovery from one of the deepest economic downturns ever experienced, due to COVID-19.
While we have steadied the ship, this storm is far from over. Although the wind is still not behind our sails, we are making headway. However, we face significant headwinds when, all around us, the pandemic is still raging. Turbulent times still lay ahead on the horizon.
In my maiden speech last year, I spoke about strengthening connections and the building blocks of our society in these uncertain times. Hence, I welcome this Budget which focuses on strengthening our people, our businesses and our reserves for the future as we emerge stronger together.
I will be elaborating in the Committee of Supply debates but, for now, I will broadly outline three areas that we should strengthen: first, our relations with neighbouring countries; second, our social fabric as one united Singapore; and third, sustainability for our future generations.
The first part. The Council of Foreign Relations stated in April 2020: “Singapore, one of the world’s wealthiest and most trade-dependent countries, punches above its weight in regional and global affairs”. This does not happen overnight or by chance, but by deliberate design, decisive actions and purposeful policies over the years.
Singapore’s economy depends heavily on trade. In times of crisis, however, some nations tend to look inwards, preferring protectionism over partnerships, sheer competition over collaborations. We cannot afford to do that. COVID-19 has reinforced how important it is for Singapore to continue to play an active role internationally and deepen our interactions with key stakeholders and other countries.
I think that maintaining and strengthening relations with our immediate neighbours will be more critical than ever to overcome the socio-economic impact of COVID-19, particularly in ASEAN. I have two proposals here.
First, we should look and work towards having more travel bubbles with strategic countries as the situation improves. This promotes not only more business travels and encourage more Singaporeans to take advantage of overseas opportunities, but it would also allow the flow of people and reconnection of families who have been kept apart in this pandemic.
Second, we have to invest in Singapore’s long-term infrastructure to prepare ourselves against future pandemics even after we see the end of this one, which may be another four to five years away. For instance, with Connect@Changi, quarantine-free business travel is made possible. It is hoped that aviation, tourism and retail businesses can benefit from it, thereby enabling gradual economic recovery.
The second part – strengthening our social fabric. We have started living life more normally with less restrictions, at an earlier time compared to other countries. And as we recover and adapt ourselves to a post-COVID-19 world, we have to engage and empower Singaporeans to play an even greater role in our Total Defence.
We should tap on our strengths as a multi-racial society. An SMU study had found that people living in more racially diverse neighbourhoods are more likely to lend a helping hand to others in need. Their surroundings made them appreciate that they are all members of a collective and broadened their sense of identity, enabling them to see others as their own.
I am thus happy that Budget 2021 focuses on strengthening our social compact, with the expansion of ComLink, greater support for children with special needs and assistance to lower income households through various schemes.
There are some groups, however, that still require more targeted assistance than others.
First, ex-offenders, upon prison release, face not only social stigma but real struggle to obtain and retain jobs in this already harsh economic climate.
Second, our youths are now exposed to more radicalised views and deliberate efforts of disinformation around the world. We need to actively engage them and have them invested in their stake here in Singapore.
And third, families, due to significant economic pressures, are more exposed to domestic violence. We must do what we can to protect vulnerable groups, like children under the age of 12 or those with mental and physical disabilities.
I welcome the greater resources for these vulnerable groups and those facing domestic violence. Rehabilitation and reintegration efforts for ex-offenders, especially those with drug offences, must be done in concert with their families and strategic social and business partners. We can also adopt technology to tackle recidivism. For instance, a US-based app called Pokket SM, facilitates information sharing and coordination among case workers, probation officers and ex-offenders. Through connecting justice agencies and human service providers, it encourages and sustains self-sufficiency and accountability.
The third part of my speech is on sustainability for future generations. If COVID-19 is a crisis of a generation, then climate change is a crisis for all generations. I applaud the Government’s Green Plan 2030, particularly on agri-food technology, green financing and electric vehicles.
Keat Hong is home to many of our local farms in Lim Chu Kang and Kranji. Hence, the $60 million fund to boost production in the agri-food sector is welcomed. I hope that this will spur adoption of technology and make our food security more resilient.
Next, the plan to support green financing with up to $19 billion of public sector green projects is a good start.
The green bond market is a growing and innovative market, which has grown from US$1.5 billion in 2007 to surpassing US$100 billion in 2019. Green bonds attract a new base of investors and it can advance adoption of innovative new technologies and finance projects that provide green jobs.
Last year, Keat Hong CC played host to a Sustainable Job Fair organised by South West CDC, SembCorp Industries and e2i. It was the first-of-its kind sustainable jobs discovery in the heartlands and part of the South West CDC’s efforts to aggregate jobs in the growing sustainability sector, such as the solar and clean energy. Many thanks to Mayor Low Yen Ling for this.
On green financing, I propose a public awareness campaign on the Singapore Green Plan and building strong partnerships with banks and investors in the region. Green bonds in our region, also extend to non-conventional bonds, like Green Sukuk as well.
Lastly, on electric vehicles or EVs, as stated in my previous filed Parliamentary Question, we should not only look at the infrastructure, but also the legislation and regulatory framework to mandate possibly the installation of more EV charging stations in private residential and commercial carparks. Other possible incentives can be to lower ERP rates for EVs and, with future technology, there can be a \"progressive\" road tax model that charges vehicles not only on time spent on the roads but also on actual carbon emission.
On adoption of EVs, I suggest the Public Service should lead the way by having more EVs and EV charging stations in its premises.
Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to say a few words in Malay before I conclude my speech.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Budget aims to build on last year’s efforts. We are not yet free from this pandemic. In fact, without last year's budget and support schemes, our economic situation and employment rates this year would have been much worse, unlike the current situation. So, we are not only grateful for the effort, toil and sweat of our frontline workers, but we should also thank all segments of society who have come together to pool their energies and ideas with the Government, to face and combat this pandemic together.
One of the focus areas of this Budget is to further strengthen the social compact of our country. This cannot be achieved without the help of all communities. Each of us plays an important role. Here, I share a quatrain:
This quatrain depicts a highly regarded Malay warrior who is seen as a beacon for those who are struggling to stay afloat or need support to survive.
So, let us all help those in need to stay afloat and give them support.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, in summary, we cannot let the difficulties faced by businesses to spiral downwards. Hence, I am glad that there are targeted schemes to help them. We cannot allow disappointment of laid off workers to turn to despair. Hence, we should work to reskill them. We cannot stand for vulnerable groups in our society to be devoid of hope. Hence, we should speak up for them. We cannot kick the can down the road for our children to tackle climate change. Hence, we should tackle it now for them.
I am glad that this is the spirit of Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s Budget Statement and it has underscored the actions that will be taken right here, right now.
The theme of this Budget 2021 \"Emerging Stronger Together\" resonates with me. Because if we persevere, stay the course and navigate through the storm, then we will be the ones making the waves in this ocean. Mr Speaker, I support this Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, what does one say as the last speaker – sandwiched between the second last speaker and the Deputy Prime Minister? So, I must thank the Leader of the House for giving me this unenviable task. But I will do my best.
Mr Speaker, last year, through the four Budgets, we assisted many Singaporeans in their time of need. I believe this year’s Budget is a continuation of that spirit, that is, timely aid to citizens and companies in need.
Sir, Singaporeans have risen up to the occasion and taken ownership and responsibility in this crisis, helping their neighbours and friends, and giving to those who need it more than themselves. I believe that COVID-19 has shown the world the best of Singapore and how we have stood together to overcome. The pandemic has revealed our common humanity. It is with this spirit – of a common humanity and our common identity as Singaporeans – that I wish to speak today.
My first point is how we should strive towards becoming one united Singaporean family. Multi-culturalism is a significant ingredient in our Singapore tapestry. Unity does not mean homogeneity. In fact, as we continue to embrace multi-culturalism and diversity, and the more we understand the differences and the richness of each culture, the tighter our social fabric becomes.
We do value the diversity in our ethnic heritages. The self-help groups, such as CDAC, SINDA, Mendaki and the Eurasian Association, play important roles in keeping ethnic heritages alive in modern day Singapore. It shows that we value the different cultures inherent in our society and aid each subsequent generation to become familiar with the traditions and outlook of each ethnic group. These self-help groups help their individual communities while also carrying out joint inter-racial events. This helps foster both the bonds within each individual community and also the bonds in the larger Singaporean context.
Another example is the Ethnic Integration Programme within HDB estates. I support this as it is in line with the spirit of enhancing ties between people of various ethnic backgrounds who become neighbours and who then share common environments.
I believe that as we continue to strengthen and understand different ethnic communities, and as our diverse culture and heritage become more and more a part of Singapore, race will become less and less a factor in evaluating a person. In fact, I would dare say that race matters less in the minds of Singaporeans, especially those who are younger, in comparison to their nationality, than that of being Singaporean. I think the identity marker in my age group of Singaporeans and younger is: Singaporean first, and ethnicity second.
But what does that mean for politics? I think that means that when choosing a candidate to lead the Government, the choice must be the best man for the job, regardless of race. Instead of being evaluated based on race, we can evaluate based on more robust factors, such as the person’s character, abilities, values and experience. Politics is about leadership. In my personal view, ceteris paribus, when it comes to leading the Government, I think it should be the best man for the job, regardless of race.
So, if there is a Singaporean Chinese candidate of the right age and with the right character and the right skillset making him the best man for the job, he should be chosen for the job. If there is a Singaporean of a minority race of the right age and with the right character and right skillset to be the best man for the job, I think he should be chosen for the job.
Leadership within the Government comes with years of experience and years of being an elected Member within this House. It could easily be 20 years before an elected Member becomes a Prime Minister and, by that time, the familiarity and connection that people would have with the Minister would count for more than just his race. COVID-19 has shown, more than ever, the need for good government and good leadership of and in government.
I know many people my age and younger do want the best man to lead the Government, regardless of race. Some may say I am being overly idealistic, to the discount of pragmatism. I beg to differ. Why? Because the very idea of a multiracial, multicultural Singapore was an ideal, an aspiration, born, literally, from the tears and the sweat of our founding fathers. And inch by inch, year by year, we grow closer to making it a reality. Are we there yet? I believe we have some way to go. But my wish for Singapore is that, one day – perhaps when deciding the 5G or 6G Prime Minister – race is not used as a trump card or a disqualifying criterion. We are too small a nation to discount a man based on his race. This is my view, based on my personal belief.
Mr Speaker, I hope this House can understand the point I am getting at. I am not saying race is not important. Neither am I saying race should be used to dichotomise and polarise. I am firmly of the view that multi-racial Singapore is important and we should not dilute the significance of race and what it can bring to the table. In fact, it brings such a rich tapestry such that many parts of the world can see themselves in us, in Singapore.
But when it comes to leadership of government, we should not discount anybody because of their race, but instead evaluate the candidate based on who is best for the job. I hold this belief. I know many in my age group and younger hold this belief firmly too. Maybe this will happen in 15 to 20 years' time when the party holding the majority of the House chooses the 5G or 6G Prime Minister of who the 5G or 6G Prime Minister should be. However, it being 20 years away should not deter us from having such conversations now.
I do not want any room for my speech to be misinterpreted. So, let me say categorically that I do believe that our Prime Minister is the best man for the job. And I also do believe that the 4G Ministers have chosen the best man for the job to eventually lead their team. So, nothing in my speech should distract from those conclusions.
The point I am making in this speech is that it should be the best man for the job regardless of race, or dare I say the best person for the job regardless of race, for I do not see why a woman with outstanding leadership ability should be discounted. Look at Angela Merkel – a woman leading a solid government.
Singapore is small. If we were to straightjacket our perception of talent, we could very well lose out on the best person for the job.
Being a Singaporean is the key identity marker in Singaporeans of my age group and younger. The second identity marker – that of race – comes after the first identity marker – which is, being Singaporean.
I mean this personally. It comes from deep within and I would like to share a story that speaks to the heart of these beliefs of mine. My wife and I have four children aged between one and 12 years old. Our second daughter was adopted. Her ethnic lineage is pure Chinese and we adopted her at birth in Singapore.
What happened was that there was a young Singaporean Chinese woman who found out she was pregnant. She decided to carry on with her pregnancy, delivered the baby and put the baby up for adoption. She got in touch with a Christian charity who helped place babies with adoptive families. My wife and I had put our names down with the charity as potential adoptive parents. And then, we received the phone call. My wife and I prayed about it and took the leap of faith in adopting this little Singaporean Chinese baby girl. Today, my daughter is completely part of our family. She is the younger sister to our first daughter and dotes on her two younger siblings. All our children are loved and treated equally, and are being brought up first and foremost as Singaporeans first; and secondly, as Singaporean Eurasians.
So, what then is race? If it is merely defined by virtue of blood lineage, our second daughter would be Chinese. But if it was also defined by culture, then living experience would play a part too. My second daughter put up the Chinese New Year decorations made up of hongbaos around our house this year. But during the Christmas season, she would eat all the Eurasian fare on the dining table, including sugee cake and even ask for seconds. To pre-empt her wondering why she looked a little different from her older sister, my wife and I told her when she was very young, \"You came from your tummy mummy; but you were born in our hearts.\"
It is the same way I view Singapore – we are all given life from our mother's wombs but we are all born with Singapore in our hearts.
So, when I say being Singaporean is the pre-eminent identity marker of a citizen and that race is a secondary identity marker, I believe that firmly. There is no binary lens with which one should view race such that race completely does not matter or always matters to the discount of everything else. It is a spectrum – a spectrum that is a continuum within which my daughter, of Singaporean Chinese lineage and living in a Singaporean Eurasian home, is completely comfortable. Race is an asset to make the tapestry of Singapore culture richer and our identity fuller. So, let it not divide us but unite us in always choosing the right person to lead our Government.
The next point I want to make relates to adoption, a point which I have shared, I care deeply about. If we can create an environment in which couples who are unable to have their own children but who would love to have children and want to adopt can be placed in touch with the database of prospective mothers in Singapore, wanting to offer their babies for adoption, this would benefit both parties. But for this to happen, the pregnant women must be told of this option. I have had discussions with MSF over many years and I hope they will close the loop with me and inform me how the counselling for pregnant women, to ensure that they are aware that adoption is a good and feasible option, has improved.
Mr Speaker, I return to my point about our common humanity. As I have said, the pandemic has shown the strength and depth of our community bonds, as people reached out to those around them and blessed their neighbours and helped the vulnerable.
But there is a particular group of vulnerable people who are not afforded the same protection that other citizens have. These are the stateless people living in Singapore. They do not vote but they, too, need a voice in Parliament. Many have grown up in Singapore and many were even born in Singapore. They live here, work here and have families here. Yet, because their parents failed to register their birth at the time of their birth, some are denied citizenship and live their lives as stateless people. This impacts them in their daily life as some struggle to open bank accounts, buy or rent houses and even find a job. Such difficulties present a very real challenge for them. It leaves them in the lurch and vulnerable.
Today, I have spoken a lot of what it means to be Singaporean. I believe giving stateless people living in Singapore citizenship or at least PR status would go a long way in giving them something to be rooted in – the identity of being a citizen.
Allow me to conclude, Mr Speaker. This pandemic has brought the best out of Singapore. We have something precious here in Singapore. First and foremost, our people. Secondly, our Government working with the people, like a formidable aerobatics team weathering the storm in tight formation. The pandemic has not deterred Singapore's determination to build a better future for our children. The Jewel still stands at Changi Airport. Olive trees still grow on the equator at Gardens by the Bay. And we are not done turning a mudflat into a thriving metropolis.
And inch by inch, yard by yard, we strive in this House – and out there in the streets – to become a more united country, regardless of race. And that is a future worth fighting for. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members of this House for the 15 hours of robust debate, which saw 65 Members speaking. Normally, the Round-up speech is shorter than the Budget speech but this year, it may be different.
I also want to thank Mr Christopher de Souza for his very moving and personal speech of what it means to be a Singaporean. And also let me thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Finance and Trade and Industry, for laying out the big picture and key issues clearly.
Mr Liang spoke about supporting our people through the immediate pain of the crisis and the need to take action to emerge stronger. Importantly, he did not shy away from the difficult conversation of how these important measures need to be funded and offered constructive suggestions. This sets the stage for this House to discuss the way forward.
I also thank Ms Foo Mee Har who not only spoke passionately about supporting our people and businesses, but also suggested how to do so in a prudent and sustainable manner.
Over the last few days, the passionate debate went along a few threads. Some Members elevated the debate to help Singaporeans appreciate the changing landscape and the need to act. Some Members highlighted the importance of our reserves, the bold and decisive response mounted and what it achieved. Unfortunately, some argued selectively without acknowledging the broader impact of COVID-19 and the outcomes of the Government's decisive interventions.
Before I dive into the issues raised by Members, I want to situate Budget 2021 and Singapore's future within the larger forces sweeping the world.
Singapore sits at the crossroads between the East and the West. It is a position that we have harnessed to maintain our relevance to the world amid the flux and changing tides of global political and economic developments.
But we cannot take our standing in the world for granted. It is something that we have to painstakingly maintain, as the world and region evolve, so that we remain relevant.
For some time, we have observed the gradual geopolitical and technological shifts. The world was slowly adapting to a rising China, which found its place alongside the US as an economic and military powerhouse. Inevitably, there has been some friction. Fortunately, the deep interdependence of markets and supply chains served as a stabiliser for world order, as well as international trade and commerce.
But COVID-19 disrupted this tenuous equilibrium and accelerated bifurcation and change. Overnight, this virus revealed the vulnerabilities of inter-connected supply chains. The race for vaccines and the rush for economic recovery have also surfaced nationalist tendencies.
These events will play a significant part in countries' and businesses' calculations, as they rebuild their value chains and business networks. Countries will seek for greater onshoring of their key industries for resilience. Businesses may re-think their globalisation strategy and approach, giving more weight to resilience and reliability. Singapore can capitalise on them to emerge stronger, become more competitive and remain relevant to the world.
First, nations and businesses will place a high premium on partners and locations which are reliable and predictable in their dealings. This is where we can leverage the strong Singapore brand, globally trusted for long-term planning, openness and reliability.
Second, as the flow of people pulled back because of the lockdowns, the flow of digital information and knowledge spiked. There is potential for Singapore to ride on the rise of technology adoption and digital economy.
Third, climate change is a threat for humanity. We must do our part, create new opportunities from the global interest in sustainable development.
My Budget Statement laid out our strategic plan to capitalise on our strengths and to double down on our commitment to invest in connectivity, digitalisation, the green economy, and of course, our people.
So, I will round up this Budget Debate by speaking on Members' contributions along three themes: our economic strategy to emerge stronger; a cohesive and liveable Singapore and a prudent fiscal strategy for the long term.
Last year, I committed close to $100 billion to fight this crisis. Since then, I have heard many views on the appropriateness and adequacy of our economic response. Some have called for more support, while others have asked if we are doing too much.
Let me recap the context. COVID-19 has caused the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression. Globally, real GDP is estimated to have fallen by 3.5% in 2020, equivalent to a drop of close to US$ 5 trillion dollars in economic output. Many countries experienced full-year recessions in 2020. Sectors like aviation and tourism felt the brunt of the impact, with 1 billion fewer international arrivals in 2020 – a 74% drop.
Labour markets were disrupted on an unprecedented scale, with 8.8% of global working hours lost relative to the fourth quarter of 2019. This is equivalent to 255 million full-time jobs. Economists also warn of possible scarring, with long-term GDP losses, rising public and corporate debt, higher hurdles on capital spending, and continued rise in unemployment levels.
We disbursed a total of $27.4 billion in grants to provide relief, preserve jobs and help firms build capabilities to pivot to new growth areas – more than 18 times the amount disbursed in 2019. As many Members including Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Desmond Choo thoughtfully reminded us, we narrowly averted a much deeper recession and scarring. Our fiscal and monetary policy measures are estimated to have prevented a further 6.6 percentage points in GDP contraction last year, and mitigated the rise in resident unemployment rates by two percentage points – or about 155,000 jobs.
While our economy contracted sharply in the second quarter of 2020, compared to the fourth quarter of 2019, the rebound over the next two quarters recouped about 80% of the output lost. More details of our early findings can be found in the interim assessment of the COVID-19 measures that MOF released earlier this year.
The impulses from last year's measures continue to flow through the economy to complement Budget 2021. The combined effects of the two years' Budgets imply a material support to GDP in 2021. Our calibrated strategy to support businesses and protect livelihoods has seen positive outcomes for firms and workers.
We tilted support towards the hardest-hit sectors to help them retain core capabilities and prepare for recovery. Today, some of these sectors are starting to see light at the end of the tunnel. For example, with the phased resumption of activities domestically since June 2020, the consumer-facing sectors, including retail and food services, saw a gradual recovery to around 85% of pre-COVID-19 output levels by Q4 in 2020. Many firms have made good use of the support we rolled out.
In 2020, $18 billion worth of loans to 21,000 enterprises were supported by Enterprise Singapore's financing schemes. Almost all recipients were micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs. Enterprise Singapore also supported more than 15,000 companies in raising productivity, going international and undertaking innovation projects. This is 54% more than in 2019. So, I am glad businesses were taking innovation more seriously during this COVID-19 period.
Mindful Movement was one such beneficiary. When COVID-19 struck, the yoga studio halted on-site classes. After consulting an SME Centre, Mindful Movement tapped on the Productivity Solutions Grant to transit their classes online. Today, they continue to offer both online and physical classes, to provide clients greater choice and flexibility. For sectors that remain badly affected, I will continue to provide targeted relief and support to help them transform and reposition themselves for recovery.
On the workers front, the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package has helped to cushion the labour market fall-out and preserve the livelihoods of Singaporeans. Many jobseekers joined industries with a promising growth outlook through the Jobs Growth Incentive, or JGI, and drew the same or higher wages. The Ministry of Manpower will provide more details at the COS.
Nearly 76,000 local jobseekers were placed in jobs and skills opportunities through the SGUnited Jobs and Skills package between April and December last year. Close to 80% of them were placed into jobs. Of these job placements, six in 10 were long-term jobs. Growth sectors such as InfoComm Technology or ICT, healthcare, and manufacturing, accounted for most of the placements.
We tilted support towards mature jobseekers, recognising the higher hurdles they faced with career transitions. Based on preliminary estimates, mature workers aged 40 and above accounted for about half of the first 110,000 JGI beneficiaries, and about half of the 76,000 locals placed in SGUnited jobs and skills opportunities. This includes more than 8,000 mature jobseekers placed last year on career conversion programmes, like the TechSkills Accelerator and Professional Conversion Programmes, or PCPs. These schemes enable trainees to reskill for jobs with good growth prospects. For example, about seven in 10 PCP participants earn higher wages after starting their new jobs.
Mr Goh Che Yong has been in tourism for close to 24 years, dealing in traditional sales for walk-in customers. He witnessed the digital disruption to the industry. At 55 years-young, Che Yong embarked on the Professional Conversion Programme for Digital Sales Executive with Siam Express last March. Although he was still in the same travel industry, moving from traditional to digital sales was not easy. But with the structured training, he gained confidence. Che Yong now applies his newly acquired digital skills in his job and enjoys exploring new ways of packaging holidays for a post-COVID world.
We averted a \"COVID generation\" of workers and students by preserving human capital and enhancing their employability. Compared to the 2019 cohort, although full-time permanent employment fell by about 10 percentage points, overall employment rates for this year's fresh IHL graduates remained similar to past years. In particular, 94% of autonomous university graduates in 2020 found employment or got into a traineeship within six months, compared to 91% in 2019.
The SGUnited Traineeships programme has contributed significantly to this outcome. It has placed close to 5,400 recent graduates into traineeships, to help them gain useful skills and industry experience, and prepare them for the recovery. Some have already landed full-time jobs.
Mr Chen Jiahao embarked on a traineeship last year with Taiger Singapore, an Artificial Intelligence, or AI start-up. Although he had no prior experience in AI or data science, the traineeship enabled Jiahao to pursue his dream of working in deep tech. He picked up new skills quickly and developed a Natural Language Processing model to perform information extraction. Taiger was impressed by Jiahao's strong performance and hired him as a full-time Junior Software Engineer within six months of the start of his traineeship.
In this Budget, I also extended the JGI to September 2021. I hope this encourages more employers to convert trainees to employees in a timely manner. Overall, we have managed to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on our young. While unemployment rate amongst our young increased by two percentage points from September 2019 to September 2020, it remained well below that in EU countries.
I would like to thank Members including Dr Shahira Abdullah for speaking on the importance of safeguarding the future of our youth, and I assure this House that this remains a key priority.
Looking back, the waters of 2020 have been rough. But we have kept our ship intact, with all hands on deck pulling together to navigate it out of the storm. In 2021, our suite of support measures, including the further extension to the JSS, the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package, and targeted support for the worst-hit sectors, will continue to provide a stabilising effect on our economy, amid uncertainties and risks in the global economy.
Domestically, the pace of border re-opening has slowed amid the global surge in COVID-19 cases and the emergence of new virus strains. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 situation within Singapore remains under control. Against this backdrop, the Singapore economic recovery over the course of the year is expected to be gradual and uneven across sectors. Outward-oriented sectors are expected to benefit from the pick-up in external demand, while domestic industries improve as activities safely resume. Overall, the GDP growth forecast for 2021 is estimated at 4% to 6%.
Now is the time to chart our course, position ourselves to catch the winds of opportunity and sail boldly in a reshaped world. That is the focus of this year’s Emerging Stronger Together Budget. I thank Prof Hoon Hian Teck for his insightful comments on how this Budget has struck a balance between stabilisation and transformation.
The COVID-19 Resilience Package continues to provide near-term support to safeguard lives, jobs, supply chains, and core capabilities. At the same time, we are also dedicating substantial fiscal resources towards raising the productive capacity of the economy in the medium to long term.
I also applaud our Labour Movement, led by Secretary-General Mr Ng Chee Meng, for their excellent contributions to this debate. Let me underscore three important points from our Labour Movement.
First, as Deputy Secretary-General Mr Heng Chee How mentioned, the way forward is as much about being Stronger Together, as it is about Emerging Stronger. A number of our businesses and workers will hold their own against the best in the world. But at the end of the day, we compete as one Team Singapore, not worker by worker, or enterprise by enterprise. It is the strength of our collective capabilities and connectedness, as an economy and as a society, that will determine how far we will go.
Second, several Members, including Deputy Secretary-General Dr Koh Poh Koon, highlighted the synergies between firms and workers. The fortunes of businesses and workers are inextricably linked, more so today than ever. Demand shocks caused by COVID-19 have exacerbated labour market dislocations and skills mismatches. Coupled with the structural shift of shorter technology cycles, it will be increasingly difficult for firms to find candidates with the perfect skill sets.
So, I urge businesses to look beyond hiring just \"plug-and-play\" workers, and see the potential within jobseekers to learn and grow in your firms.
I am glad to see our local banking community leading the way in grooming new fintech talent like Ms Choo Cui Ling through career conversion. After working in IT audit, Cui Ling enrolled in the Technology in Finance Immersion Programme with OCBC Bank. A few months into her attachment, she was converted into a full-time employee. She now helps to coordinate information risk management for the bank in her role as Assistant Manager.
At the same time, jobseekers should keep an open mind, be receptive to new and different job roles, and take the initiative to build new skills.
Third, I am heartened by the Labour Movement’s forward-looking approach on bringing firms and workers together to ride the waves of change and emerge stronger. Technological advancements promise new possibilities as well as challenges. As Mr Melvin Yong starkly put, \"every job is at risk\". \"Working from home\" will also mean \"Working from anywhere\" – so job competition can come from any corner of the globe with an internet link. For our businesses, while e-commerce opens them to a global pool of customers, it also opens their customers to the global pool of sellers.
As Mr Liang Eng Hwa highlighted, our $24 billion action plan over the next three years is about pursuing our medium to longer term economic imperatives, even as we tackle the immediate challenges. This seeks to give our workers and businesses a distinct advantage in the global marketplace.
We will build an eco-system that fosters a virtuous cycle of innovation and knowledge transfer. This includes $4.4 billion of the on-going $8.3 billion Transformation and Growth strategy I announced at the Unity Budget last year, to deepen enterprise capabilities and upskill workers. Another $19.6 billion of fresh funding will go toward new digitalisation measures and enhanced enterprise development support, as well as worker support measures such as the extension of the SGUnited Jobs and Skills package to support jobseekers in upskilling and accessing employment opportunities.
Together, these measures seek to stimulate private investment over a longer horizon and boost the supply-side capacity of the post-COVID economy. This will help Singapore capitalise on the post-COVID economic recovery and emerge stronger. This Emerging-Stronger component of the Budget therefore has a strong medium-term orientation through an enduring effect on supporting the level of labour productivity in the economy.
Members including Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim spoke about what the post-COVID-19 world means for Singapore’s economy. To pave the way for our next lap of growth, we must make the following moves.
First, we must remake Singapore as a Global-Asia node of technology, innovation and enterprise. This requires enhancing our connectivity, including digital connectivity, and positioning our firms and workers at the intersection of key global chains growing out of Asia and ASEAN nations.
Second, as Mr Gan Thiam Poh highlighted, we must shift to a technologically advanced, innovation-driven economy, where firms and workers are equipped with the skills to harness technology and intangible assets as a key differentiator.
Third, we must invest in economic resilience and sustainability as a source of competitive advantage.
Building on previous Budgets, Budget 2021 invests in our economic toolkit to support these moves – or as Mr Shawn Huang aptly summarised, to \"survive, pivot and develop an edge to seize opportunities of the future\". If we get this right, we can set our economy on a path of growth for the next five to 10 years.
Building a stronger Singapore Core is at the heart of our approach, as several Members including Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Abdul Samad rightly noted. The ultimate goal of economic growth is to improve the jobs and lives of Singaporeans. The only way to sustain such improvements is by raising productivity, where firms transform in ways that bring workers along.
We build from a position of strength. From 2016 to 2019, labour productivity growth, measured in terms of real value-added per actual hour worked, grew by 2.7% per year, up from 2.2% per year in the preceding three-year period. Real median income of Singaporeans increased by 3.7% per year, higher than the 3.2% per year growth in the preceding three-year period.
The crisis in 2020 interrupted this progress. Still, real median income of Singaporeans grew 1.5% year-on-year, while unemployment was higher in 2020 than in 2019. Dr Tan Wu Meng spoke about our $19 billion Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2020, or RIE 2020 plan, and its potential returns on investment.
RIE is a cornerstone of Singapore’s efforts to develop as an innovation-led economy and society with good jobs for Singaporeans. The payoffs from investments in research take time to manifest. We have nevertheless made good progress and the results are promising.
One example is in the biomedical sciences, where Singapore’s RIE investments since 2000 have helped set the foundation for the flourishing sector it is today. Since 2000, the value-added of the biomedical manufacturing sector has grown by more than three times. Today, the biomedical sector makes up almost 4% of GDP, and four of the world’s top 10 drugs by global revenue are made in Singapore.
We have also established capabilities to develop innovative solutions to national challenges, including in managing the pandemic. Our researchers have worked with local companies to develop and manufacture diagnostic test kits, such as the Fortitude 2.0 test kit, that are now used both locally and in more than 45 countries worldwide.
All of these would not have been possible without our sustained investments to build up our RIE capabilities over many years.
Members including Ms Poh Li San have underscored the importance of supporting businesses to emerge stronger. The uneven impact of COVID-19 across industries and enterprises means that each enterprise segment requires different support to recover, grow and thrive.
I agree with Mr Edward Chia on the need to adopt a differentiated, life-cycle approach to enterprise development. Our agencies offer a holistic suite of support schemes targeted at the needs of each enterprise segment, by sector and growth stage. And we approach it not just at the company-level, but at the industry-level, to achieve value-chain transformation.
I spoke about the Built Environment sector coming together to transform decisively across developers, consultants, contractors and suppliers. We will build on our Alliances for Action to enable more industries to transform together.
We will continue to invest in future engines of growth to create new opportunities for our firms and workers.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Miss Cheryl Chan spoke about the importance of nurturing and harnessing the growth of the green economy. This is an important area. The green economy is a key part of the future economy. Making bold investments now will give us a head-start and create many good jobs for Singaporeans in future.
We will work with businesses to meet the rising demand for more sustainable products and services. We committed resources to sustainability efforts under our Research, Innovation and Enterprise or RIE 2020, and will allocate even more for this in the next five years.
Helping local SMEs expand their potential remains a focus. Most of our workers are employed in SMEs, so the success of SMEs will enable our workers to have better jobs and better pay.
Budget 2021 builds on a large existing base of measures, to provide significant enhanced support for SMEs to digitalise, innovate, and transform to seize new opportunities. For example, to encourage more local SMEs to embark on transformation efforts and venture abroad, I extended the support levels of the Productivity Solutions Grant, the Enterprise Development Grant and the Market Readiness Assistance grant until March 2022.
And as several Members of Parliament and Mr Mark Chay observed, the pandemic has forced many to take an extraordinary digital leap. To help firms confidently take this leap forward, we have also introduced a suite of digitalisation support, including the Chief Technology Officer-as-a-Service initiative and the Digital Leaders Programme. The Ministry of Communications and Information will announce more details at the COS.
We have also provided substantial support to SMEs through last year’s Budgets. On a per dollar of value-added basis, smaller firms received three to seven times the amount of support given to larger firms in 2020.
As I mentioned earlier, we take an eco-system approach to economic development, to support workers and companies across all sectors to reach their full potential. Mr Leon Perera pointed to the synergy of having MNCs and SMEs work together – let me add that this synergy is not just between MNCs and SMEs, but across all companies and sectors – from Large Local Enterprises to SMEs, and even among SMEs.
Our economic agencies actively support companies in their efforts to transfer capabilities to upskill our local workers. This includes the PACT scheme to support knowledge transfer and co-innovation activities between large enterprises and their local suppliers, and initiatives on knowledge transfer and skills training, such as the SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative. The Ministry of Trade and Industry will elaborate on this at the COS.
I have covered how we will sustain a virtuous eco-system of innovative and competitive firms that support a vibrant economy. All of these efforts serve to create opportunities for our people.
To help workers capture these opportunities and enjoy the fruits of growth, we have moved into helping workers get into growth areas, and equipping them with skills to secure sustainable livelihoods.
Our immediate priority is to build upon the skills and experience that workers have accumulated, while breaking down barriers so that they can access new jobs. As Mr Abdul Samad put it, not just to equip workers with skills today, but also to prepare them for jobs of tomorrow.
Mr Vikram Nair asked about measures to support employment. We will continue to support our jobseekers’ career growth through the labour market recovery, including through the extension and recalibration of the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package.
Mr Sam Ong was amongst the 7,200 jobseekers who enrolled in the SGUnited Skills programme last year. He was retrenched from an offshore construction company in the oil and gas industry due to the impact of COVID-19 and the industry downturn. Sam recognised the importance of digital skills amid the future job market and enrolled in the Building and Construction Authority’s SGUnited Skills Diploma in Integrated Digital Delivery. He found the course useful and looks forward to securing a role in a company that would allow him to apply his new skills.
To equip workers with industry-relevant skills, we are partnering market leaders to conduct quality training at scale. For example, Google, Boston Consulting Group and Siemens are partnering SkillsFuture Singapore to offer SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways programmes in ICT, professional services and advanced manufacturing. These help local jobseekers adapt to the changing technology trends in a shifting labour market. Our company partners have collectively committed more than 6,000 training places and enrolled more than 2,500 trainees. I am confident that these efforts will put our workers in a stronger position to seize new opportunities in the recovering economy.
Mr Patrick Tay has highlighted employability and job security as top concerns of workers. These are important and closely interlinked focus areas in our medium-term jobs and skills strategy.
The employment landscape is evolving rapidly, with technology being a key driver and enabler. Some jobs are becoming redundant, while new ones are created.
Hence, job security is fundamentally about staying employable, rather than staying employed in the same job. We will thus continue to strengthen the skills eco-system, which comprises workers, businesses, unions and trade associations and chambers or TACs, through SkillsFuture. Let me touch on efforts to enhance the employability of every worker.
First, the efforts of our workers. I am heartened to see more Singaporeans making good use of our support to take ownership of learning and acquire skills, even in the midst of the pandemic. More than 188,000 Singaporeans used their SkillsFuture Credit in 2020, a 21% increase in participation from 2019.
Mr Melvin Tan is one of them. After a 23-year-long career in architecture and project management, he switched to the healthcare sector, so as to better care for his ageing parents. He became a freelance home care-giver last year to provide home-based care-giving for seniors. When the SGUnited Skills programme was launched, Melvin decided to enrol in the Therapy Assistant course at HMI Institute. Using his SkillsFuture Credits, he was fully covered for the subsidised course fee of $500. Melvin is keen to continue his journey in the healthcare industry as a Therapy Assistant when he completes the course this year and I wish him all the best!
Second, businesses playing their part, to enable workers to build skills. Our firms have come onboard to make workplace learning a priority. Since 2018, the National Centre of Excellence for Workplace Learning has helped about 180 enterprises per year implement or enhance workplace learning processes. Last year, 3,400 enterprises sent their employees for training in courses supported under the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit, and about 250 enterprises benefited from partnerships with SkillsFuture anchor companies to enhance their employee skills development and workplace learning capabilities.
Deputy Secretary-General Dr Koh Poh Koon highlighted that upskilling and job redesign must come together for pervasive transformation. By redesigning jobs and training workers to take up the new jobs, employers not only help workers stay employed, but also enable the firms to thrive.
We will continue to provide strong support to companies on this front. This includes operation and technology roadmapping, or OTR, that integrates upskilling to achieve a long-term growth strategy.
Environmental services company SembWaste, in partnership with the Building Construction and Timber Industries Employees' Union and the NTUC Training and Transformation, formed the Company Training Committee and embarked on an OTR process to develop a five-year business growth strategy to support Singapore's green targets. And to support these transformation plans, SembWaste is upskilling its workers in areas such as digital technology. It has also adopted the Progressive Wage Model to ensure sustainable wage increases tied to skills and productivity growth.
Third, our unions and TACs can reach out to more firms and promote deeper collaboration between firms and workers. For example, the Singapore Business Federation, or SBF, in partnership with Workforce Singapore, leads the Industry 4.0 Human Capital Initiative, to help companies adopt Industry 4.0 through job redesign. To-date, close to 70 companies have come on board, to potentially uplift more than 1,000 jobs and generate more than $52.5 million in cost savings. SBF aims to scale this to benefit up to 300 companies and 1,500 workers by September 2022.
I also thank the Labour Movement for their tireless efforts in supporting the lifelong employability of workers, across different segments with different needs.
NTUC Job Security Council and Company Training Committees are an important innovation for NTUC to partner companies and the Government, to achieve synergy. By pre-emptively matching at-risk workers to new employers, the Job Security Council helps workers minimise employment downtime and aids businesses to manage fluctuating manpower needs. I am heartened to hear that it has successfully placed more than 28,000 workers in new positions last year.
Ms Janet Ang and Mr Patrick Tay have spoken about the importance of ensuring fair access to employment opportunities for Singaporeans, while remaining open to global talent to complement local capabilities. I agree.
I thank Members for agreeing that harnessing complementarities among our Singaporean Core and the different talent sources is important for us to remain as a vibrant and competitive economy. MOM will elaborate on this at the COS.
As Mr Henry Kwek mentioned, our TACs can support firms and workers to emerge stronger, by helping them to transform in a pervasive and sustained way.
Over the past year, I am encouraged to see TACs rallying the business community together to fight the crisis.
The SG Together Enhancing Enterprise Resilience, or STEER fund, which I enhanced at last year's Resilience Budget, has matched more than $10 million across 10 industry-led funds to help the business community tackle challenges arising from COVID-19. Over 2,700 businesses are expected to benefit from these initiatives.
This includes the $1 million Singapore Contractors Association Limited, or SCAL COVID-19 Fund, set up to help construction sector firms cope with the increased operational requirements due to COVID-19. Some 500 member SMEs will stand to benefit from this Fund. Apart from STEER, the Fund also received contributions from BCA, over 50 SCAL members and the SBF Foundation Compassion Fund that Ms Janet Ang spoke about in her speech.
The Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry, or SMCCI, also formed a COVID-19 taskforce in March last year, to support members affected by the crisis. It set up an emergency hotline, organised individual outreach sessions to about 400 members, provided legal advice to those in need, and connected businesses to available Government support measures. SMCCI also showcased members who transformed their businesses in the wake of COVID-19 on their specially curated platform, \"Discussions @ Dewan\", so that others can learn from their successes.
The SBF has also been working closely with the National Jobs Council and 31 TACs, to conduct job matching on a business-to-business level, both within and across sectors. Since the start of the pandemic, SBF has assisted more than 600 companies and more than 100 workers have been successfully matched to 77 companies.
Through these collaborations, our firms and workers can emerge stronger in a post-COVID world. And as you can see, this is a case where really everyone is putting in their effort and working together.
Members like Mr Lim Biow Chuan spoke about how Singapore has come out relatively unscathed from COVID-19, and how we are starting from solid ground.
Looking around the world, beyond the economic impact, we also see broader health and social impacts.
One year on, some countries have not recovered from the initial wave of the outbreak. Many are still seeing new COVID-19 cases in the thousands each day, and repeated cycles of lockdowns. This has wrought havoc on their communities, disrupting livelihoods and day-to-day activities. People are putting the future on hold to focus on surviving the crisis.
In December 2020, UNESCO reported that, globally, classrooms for nearly one in five school children were closed. In some countries, healthcare services are still overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases, leaving little help for those with other needs.
In Singapore, many of us have resumed our daily activities. Jobs and opportunities to learn new skills remain available. Our young children are back in schools physically and equipped with digital devices for learning. I thank Mr Louis Ng for showing his appreciation for our teachers in our schools.
We are looking forward to the future and are working towards our dreams.
Demand for BTO flats remains strong even in these uncertain times. As we heard from Mr Lim Biow Chuan earlier, people are still looking to buy cars \"as if there was no recession at all\"!
While we should count our blessings, let us not forget that we are still in the eye of a raging global storm – there are still challenges ahead and there are still individuals and families who are under stress.
Budget 2021 focuses our efforts and resources on emerging stronger. I have shared how we are taking a long-term view and working to support transformation of our economy and workers.
But I want to assure Members that the Government has also been putting in place multiple layers of support, which will continue to provide targeted, customised relief to help Singaporeans differently affected by COVID-19 and the uneven, K-shaped recovery.
First, we have broad-based, permanent schemes to provide strong social support and safety nets that protects all Singaporeans, especially the vulnerable. When the crisis hit, we layered on temporary assistance on top of some of these permanent schemes to provide additional support to vulnerable groups. We also introduced new measures like the Solidarity Payment and Care and Support – Cash to provide quick relief for Singaporeans' day-to-day expenses, and with the lower income receiving more. Finally, for those whose livelihoods were disrupted, we stepped in to provide some bridging support as they picked themselves up, for example, through the COVID-19 Support Grant and Temporary Relief Fund.
We cushioned the vulnerable against the worst of the crisis and mitigated social inequality. As a result of these efforts, our Gini coefficient after taxes and transfers is at a record low, as this chart shows. [Please refer to Annex 2.]
Mr Pritam Singh pointed out the divergence between the data on inequality, and the lived experience on the ground. He was quoting a particular report. We are fully aware that there are families who have been deeply impacted by the pandemic, and some more than others. This is exactly why we have tilted our support significantly towards the lower income and vulnerable groups, and Government has partnered the community to reach out to those groups during this period. Mr Singh himself noted that there was and I quote, \"not-insignificant\" support. So, you have to see the support in totality – the full set of support – and not conclude from one sample because these are rigorous study of what his happening throughout Singapore.
Members, including Mr Patrick Tay, Prof Hoon Hian Teck and Mr Louis Chua suggested that we study the viability of an unemployment insurance for workers affected by involuntary employment.
In the midst of significant disruption, interim, bridging support is needed to tide workers over. The COVID-19 Recovery Grant will support our workers who need more help while they find new jobs or go for training during this period.
Longer term, while an unemployment insurance appears attractive, this would not be sustainable without longer-term structures to help our workers bounce back. This sentiment is echoed in other countries like Germany, Sweden and South Korea, where unemployment insurance schemes are linked to active labour market policy measures which seek to get the affected worker back into a job quickly and avoid skills atrophy.
An unemployment insurance would also have its complexities, as Prof Hoon and Mr Tay have pointed out. Instead, as Mr Xie Yao Quan said, a job is the best welfare. It is more sustainable to ensure that workers maintain a source of income, and to up-skill and re-skill our workers so that they can bounce back quickly from job disruptions.
But at the same time, I recognise that as the global economy goes through an even faster pace of change, the nature of jobs and skills will be changing faster too. We will partner our business leaders, Labour Movement and academics to study how to support employability and help those who falter, through measures that suit our context.
Mr Gerald Giam claimed that our middle income receive little support for their cost of living. Others like Ms Jessica Tan have raised concerns that the middle income may have been missed in the short-term support measures. I would like to remind Members of this House that the bulk of every Budget goes towards uplifting all members of our society, including the broad swathe of our middle class.
In this Budget, I have set aside a total of $42 billion for our social spending and transfers, 35% more than FY2019. This is on top of: our security spending, which ensures the safety of our people and allows property and asset prices to rise over time, in line with our economic fundamentals, our investments in the economy which ensure that our people have access to good jobs for many years to come. And we have different schemes and components in our support packages. Some target those with less means. Others, like the upcoming CDC Vouchers, are provided to all, including our middle class.
So, we should not look at each Budget in terms of \"goodies for me\", but whether the totality of the spending creates more opportunities for us and our children.
I fully understand the aspirations of our middle class earners. It is natural that we want to do better for ourselves each passing year. Like Ms Janet Ang has said, the Singapore Dream is a work-in-progress. We wish for every future generation to be better off than the last. So, let me reiterate the measures that the Government has put in place to support these.
First, we have quality housing, which is affordable to all Singaporeans.
Let me share how we are doing. Even in land-scarce Singapore, you can see in this chart [Please refer to Annex 3.], our housing prices are lower than those of many major international cities, even before accounting for grants. We provide housing subsidies to keep HDB flats affordable. The current income ceiling of $14,000 allows eight in 10 Singaporeans to buy a subsidised HDB flat. As a result of our housing policies, around 80% of new HDB flat buyers have little or no cash outlay on their mortgage payments, meaning they do not have to come up with cash, or little cash, for their mortgage payments; and nine in 10 Singaporean households own their homes. Our homes may not be the largest or the cheapest, but we definitely have well-built, affordable housing options, in a safe, secure and green environment.
Next, we have strong support for couples who want to raise a family. Miss Cheng Li Hui and Ms Hany Soh asked for more to be done to support parenthood and first-time parents. Over the years, the Government has strengthened support for families with children, to defray the cost of education and childcare, through a combination of broad-based grants, subsidies and tax benefits. Upon the birth of their child, a Singaporean family would receive up to $35,000 in cash and cash-like benefits, through the Baby Bonus and other benefits. This includes a $4,000 MediSave grant which covers the child’s MediShield Life premiums from birth till age 21. Every Singaporean child can also receive over $180,000 in education subsidies by the time he or she turns 16, including pre-school subsidies.
Even more support is available for those who come from less-privileged backgrounds. I thank Minister of State Sun Xueling, Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam and the other women Members for speaking on the different ways that the Government, businesses and the community can support women to fulfil their aspirations and help them to better support their families. These include job opportunities, support for their jobs and livelihoods, re-designing jobs for more progressive workplaces, encouraging higher technology adoption amongst women, and support for care-giving. These are good points which we can continue to work together.
Children also have access to an affordable education, supported by nurturing teachers, which ensures that our children are equipped with important knowledge and skills to perform to the best of their potential. We nurture our students’ aspirations and continue to develop multiple pathways to enable our students to learn, including through industry attachments.
Third, I assure Mr Louis Chua that we remain committed to helping all seniors retire with greater peace of mind through the CPF system. The Silver Support Scheme provides support for our seniors who had low incomes during their working years and need additional support in retirement. Over the next five years, to help more Singaporeans meet the Basic Retirement Sum, we will also be providing an additional boost through the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme. We are also in a fortunate position where most of our seniors have housing assets which they could use to support their retirement, if they choose to.
Last but not least, the Government provides good and affordable healthcare to all Singaporeans, especially our seniors. We have been investing in our healthcare system, to meet the needs of an ageing population. We have almost tripled our healthcare spending, from $3.9 billion in 2011 to $11.3 billion in FY2019. This went into expanding healthcare capacity and enhancing healthcare subsidies. We now spend more than twice the amount on patient subsidies than we did 10 years ago and expect to spend more as our population ages. On average, a Singaporean can expect to receive about $200,000 in Government healthcare subsidies throughout their lifetime.
As a result, we do well in terms of health outcomes. I thank Dr Tan Yia Swam who has registered her confidence and, I quote: \"I am confident that our healthcare system is robust and can provide adequate care for all citizens\". Indeed, Singapore ranks amongst the top for the World Bank’s Human Capital Index, which measures the ability of a child to reach his or her full potential if they had full health and complete, high-quality education. We also do well in the Bloomberg Health-Efficiency Index, which measures life expectancy as compared to medical spending. In 2019, our average life expectancy at birth was 84.9 years, with health-adjusted life expectancy of 74.5 years. Globally, Singaporeans are expected to live the longest!
Ms Hany Soh will be glad to know that we have put in strong support for young parents. A young couple buying a HDB flat near their parents could benefit from more than $134,000 in support in this year alone. Besides housing grants, the support includes pre-school subsidies to help with the education of their child, healthcare subsidies, and also offsets for expenses through the Household Support Package.
Another example is a multi-generational family that already owns their 5-room HDB flat, supporting a Pioneer Generation senior with disabilities. The family could receive over $35,000 in support this year in education and healthcare subsidies, including $1,200 from the Household Support Package. And these are over and above the housing subsidies that the family would have enjoyed when it first bought the flat. Neither family needs to pay their MediShield Life and CareShield Life premium in cash. No one will lose coverage due to inability to pay.
So, with the most important items in life well taken care of, I hope Members like Mr Leong Mun Wai will agree that his position that our support is, I quote, \"ad hoc, short-term and unpredictable\" is wrong. In fact, our support is systematic, well-structured and balanced.
Singaporeans can be assured that: they can always have a home to call their own; that they can expect their children are being well-nurtured in a world-class education system, which will prepare them well to take on good jobs and fulfil their potential; that we will provide assurance to our seniors over their retirement; and that the healthcare needs of their family will always be well taken care of.
Now, it is also natural for us to look out for \"what is new\" in every Budget. But it is important for all of us to appreciate what is already there, and to see the Budget in totality, over the years. Individual Budget measures are useful enhancements which sit on top of our already significant social spending. Over the past decade, we have been gradually tilting the tax and transfer system in favour of lower and middle income groups. On average, lower income citizen households can expect to receive benefits, net of taxes, of $6,500 per household member in 2021. Members of middle income households can expect to receive $3,500 in 2021. The highest income households instead pay about $9,500 in taxes, net of benefits, per household member.
Members of this House – Mr Darryl David and Mr Faisal Manap – have welcomed the salary increase for healthcare workers and have asked for salaries for other frontline workers and sectors to be enhanced. As I have said in the Budget Statement, there are good, meaningful jobs in healthcare for our locals, and it is important to pay them the salary that they deserve – commensurate with the work that they do. This is how we are able to attract and retain locals in the long-term, even as other markets compete for our Singaporean talents.
As Mr Saktiandi Supaat pointed out, Ms Hazel Poa’s conclusion that our workers are worse off due to lower wage share of GDP is wrong. A capital-intensive economy open to investment and trade can have lower wage shares than labour-intensive economies. For example, in the biomedical sector, the wage share of the sector’s output is less than 6% compared to over 60% in the accommodation and food services sectors. But workers in the biomedical sector earn more than twice that of the accommodation and food services sector. So, what will improve the lives of our workers are better wages and better prospects, not the aggregate share. What matters more is that the wage growth of our workers is in line with productivity so that it is sustainable.
Several Members, including Mr Raj Joshua Thomas and Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman, spoke about the need to continue boosting the incomes of lower wage workers, and the Progressive Wage Models. Indeed, there has been some progress. Citizens’ real incomes from 2016 to 2019 at the 20th percentile grew at 4.4% per annum, faster than the median at 3.7% per annum.
I thank the Labour Movement for their strong support for the Government’s vision of progressive employment, which is shared by many caring Singaporeans.
Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Desmond Choo have also called for more help for our self-employed. We have been studying for some time how best to boost protections and retirement adequacy for this group. MOM will continue working with the Labour Movement and our industry partners, through the tripartite mechanism, to uplift the incomes of all our lower wage workers and support those in the gig economy. MOM will share more on this at COS.
Helping lower wage workers and self-employed persons is a work-in-progress. I hope that, if some of the new measures lead to a modest increase in costs, caring Singaporeans will agree that this is worth doing for solidarity.
Some members, like Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Yip Hon Weng, have highlighted another group of concern – our older workers.
I thank NTUC FairPrice for its efforts to support our older workers who wish to remain active in the workforce. As Mr Seah Kian Peng has shared, this is an example of a company which has fully utilised the reservoir of talent in its mature workforce.
To build on this momentum for all sectors, we are pushing ahead with our plans to raise the retirement and re-employment ages in 2022, with the Government and the Labour Movement taking the lead by effecting this in 2021. I thank Deputy Secretary-General Mr Heng Chee How for reaffirming the need for this move.
NUH is one of the organisations taking the initiative by redesigning jobs, offering flexible working arrangements and training opportunities for their senior workers in collaboration with the Healthcare Services Employees' Union. Senior Staff Nurse Mdm Badthu Manne Doraisamy has been working with NUH for 31 years. She has benefited from NUH’s strong support for senior workers. Mr Agos Salim Sapuan is a security supervisor at NUH. He shared how everything at his job is digitalised now, and he is no longer making manual entries in logbooks! I am sure he has benefited from NUH’s many training opportunities. I hope that the Government’s Senior Worker Support Package will encourage more businesses to retain their mature workers and tap on their wealth of experience.
Ms Ng Ling Ling and Mr Eric Chua have asked the Government to do more to encourage the hiring of persons with disabilities, or PwDs. Helping every Singaporean achieve their potential is a key priority for us in building an inclusive society. We agree that more can be done, and there are plans in the pipeline. The MSF will share more about this in the coming months.
As Members have highlighted, there are specific groups of Singaporeans who have been deeply affected by COVID-19 and remain so. We have seen this all over the world. Dr Wan Rizal spoke on the issue of mental health. Ms Joan Pereira, on the support needed for care-givers. Ms Rachel Ong and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin spoke on the employment and re-integration of ex-offenders and youth-at-risk, as well as Mr Don Wee on families with children with special needs.
Ms Denise Phua and Ms Carrie Tan spoke yesterday on how the CDCs are partnering Social Service Agencies, or SSAs, to multiply their reach for the vulnerable in the community. They have also asked to rally the community to help.
BlockBox is good example of partnership. To support seniors with chronic disease management and to address issues of social isolation due to COVID-19, students from NUS and Yale University created a community space and monthly health subscription boxes to track seniors' health and keep them engaged. For the pilot, the team received seed funding from MOH and sponsorship from the private sector.
This is the spirit of SG Together.
But the Government can only do so much alone. As Ms Carrie Tan said, we must look into the, I quote, \"Sharing of Care\". I am sure that she will be glad to hear that we will continue to push ahead with our plans to develop deeper capabilities in the social sector.
I announced last year that we will partner ToteBoard to jointly commit up to $350 million to support the Community Capability Trust over the next 10 years. This will drive capability- and capacity-building efforts within the social services sector, to enhance SSAs' ability to serve the community.
Like Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Derrick Goh have said, we must do more to \"bridge the digital divide\" and \"grow our digital muscles\", especially during COVID-19.
We refreshed our plans to ensure that no one will be left behind in this digital age.
The Seniors Go Digital programme equips seniors with digital skills.
For low-income and vulnerable families with children or PwDs, MCI's NEU PC Plus programme connects them to broadband access, and laptops to support their learning.
And who best to be our ambassadors of the digital world than our young people! Under MCCY's and the National Youth Council's YouthTech Programme, youths will be deployed to businesses and organisations in diverse sectors, including the community and social sector organisations to support their digitalisation efforts.
We will also need to boost the digital and technological transformation of the social sector. Good ideas have come from the businesses who are partnering SSAs to do good and supplement the human touch with the human \"click\".
For example, Engineering Good, a non-profit organisation is working with community partners to provide digital access through refurbished laptops and Internet connectivity to low-income families, coupled with digital literacy and skills programmes as part of its Building Digitally Inclusive Communities project.
This is the spirit of Emerging Stronger Together.
Mr Christopher de Souza said we need to embrace our multi-culturalism and diversity, and spoke about what it means to be a Singaporean, regardless of race, language or religion. And indeed, we are stronger together when we look after one another, and build a society that leaves no one behind.
At the end of the day, our success is not measured in terms of GDP, but in the society and community we build together.
Besides fostering a caring and inclusive community, we must ensure our clean living environment endures for future generations to enjoy.
I thank Members like Ms Poh Li San for supporting the Government's sustainability plans. I am glad that Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, one of the youngest Members, if not the youngest Member of this House, also spoke in support of the Singapore Green Plan 2030. But we must not take our environment, whether green or blue, for granted – or for the matter, our reserves.
What we have today is a testament to the foresight and hard work put in by many to distinguish Singapore as a City in Nature over the years. We made a big effort to improve our sanitation systems and clean up the Singapore River in the 1960s to 1980s. We launched the Clean and Green Week in 1990 to encourage an environmentally conscious lifestyle. To improve our air quality, we started encouraging the adoption of cleaner vehicle alternatives as far back as 2001. Climate change and environmental sustainability did not become a priority overnight. We have been protecting our home.
Members like Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Mr Dennis Tan have questioned why the Government is raising the petrol duty expecting many drivers can and will switch to Electric Vehicles, or EV, before the infrastructure is ready.
Now, this is not the case. The petrol duty adjustments are to set price signals and change behaviour. Just like how we have made deliberate decisions to protect our environment, we want people to make conscious choices about how to drive, how much to drive, and whether to even drive at all. And EVs are not the only alternatives to driving. Mr Sharael Taha has reminded this House that hybrid vehicles are another alternative that are already widely available today.
We are also keeping public transport affordable and accessible through rail and bus subsidies and investing in public transport infrastructure.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Mr Dennis Tan asked if we are sufficiently prepared for an EV future, and on the cost-effectiveness of electric cars compared to petrol cars. The Ministry of Transport will elaborate on this at the Committee of Supply.
There will never be a good time to raise petrol duty. Some Members like Ms Mariam Jaafar and Mr Darryl David have pointed out that the petrol-duty increase would affect those who drive for work more, like our taxi and private hire car drivers, and delivery riders using motorcycles. I understand the pressure that they are facing, especially during this COVID-19 situation. I have cushioned the impact for these drivers and riders.
We expect to channel almost all of the increase in duty collections in 2021 back to petrol-vehicle owners as offsets.
On top of the road tax rebates, more support will be provided to those who drive for work through additional Petrol Duty Rebates. Taken together, the support will cover the increase in petrol duty for a year for motorcycles and taxis.
Taxi operators and Grab Rentals have agreed to pass on the road tax rebates to their drivers. Gojek will also be introducing additional incentive rebates for their drivers. With this, their drivers will receive rebates starting from next month.
Motorcycle owners will receive their additional Petrol Duty Rebates from May.
Over 50,000 of our taxi and private hire car drivers would have also benefited from COVID-19 relief measures, like the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme, and the COVID-19 Driver Relief Fund, which we have just topped up by $133 million.
I hope these measures address Members like Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Ang Wei Neng's concerns over the impact on taxi and private hire car drivers.
Our broad-based rebates will not be able to cater to every unique circumstance. They may also not reach those in more informal work arrangements. We are working with the Labour Movement to see how we can provide further help to self-employed delivery workers and limousine drivers. I thank NTUC Secretary-General Mr Ng Chee Meng, our Labour Members of Parliament and their team for their partnership.
Ultimately, protecting our environment must be our commitment to future generations of Singaporeans. This is just one of the many small but necessary steps in our whole-of-society, multi-generational effort to preserve our clean-living environment.
Let me now turn to Members' points on our fiscal strategy.
Before I address individual issues, it is important that I reiterate this Government's fiscal principles. We abide by the same two core values of our forefathers: prudence and stewardship.
First, on prudence. We spend on needs, not wants, and we seek to get the best value out of our spending. We must be prudent because these finite resources are entrusted to us by Singaporeans.
Second, on stewardship. In the Unity Budget Round-Up in 2020, I said and I quote, \"We have a duty not just to those who make their views known today, but also to the young and the future Singaporeans. They are not here today to represent their views – because they are not born yet! But we have a responsibility to them, and we have to take decisions which are difficult for us, but which will safeguard their interests.\"
In other words, we must be responsible stewards.
During a time of high economic growth in the 1980s, our leaders managed our fiscal surpluses prudently. Instead of finding ways to spend the surpluses and win popularity, they not only accumulated surpluses, but also took the bold step in 1991 to amend the Constitution, to require each term of Government to run a balanced budget.
This is to ensure that future Governments do not make unrealistic promises, dip into our savings unnecessarily, and mortgage the future of our children. They knew the temptation of squandering the easy inheritance would be too great for some to bear.
Singapore is in a new phase of development. We cannot expect the same kind of buoyant GDP growth as in the past, as our economy now matures. Our expenditure needs will grow as new needs arise, and as our population ages. At the same time, we must continue to invest to build a better Singapore for the future. We are once again confronted with hard choices. We must abide by our core values, and keep Singaporeans, now and generations to be born, at the heart of what we do.
Many Members spoke about building a fair and just society where no one is left behind. This is good, and I share this aspiration; but it is only one half of the conversation.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Alex Yam, and Mr Lim Biow Chuan have reminded this House that just as importantly, we need to consider how to pay for these.
We do not have oil gushing out from our ground, and even Saudi Arabia, a country with huge oil reserves, is carefully planning ahead. It introduced a 5% value-added tax from 2018, which it increased to 15% from 1 July 2020.
Members of this House must have the will and courage to make the same responsible choices as our forefathers did. We must be upfront – that if we want to spend more, we have to raise the revenue.
First, acknowledge that if we want more social safety nets, it comes with costs.
Second, work out sustainable resourcing. Do not make irresponsible promises which burden future generations.
If these are recurrent needs – which have to be financed year after year – we must find recurrent revenues – which we can collect year after year.
Let me reiterate why the GST-rate increase is needed.
As Mr Xie Yao Quan has rightly pointed out, we have already seen structural increases in our recurrent spending, especially in healthcare.
The share of Singaporeans aged 65 and above will increase from one in six, to one in four by 2030. Seniors are four times as likely to be hospitalised compared to younger persons. And each time our seniors are hospitalised, they stay for twice as long.
The Government heavily subsidises healthcare at our public healthcare institutions – up to 80%! Even with an efficient healthcare system, we will need to increase healthcare spending by 30% to meet the needs of our population in 2030.
These structural trends are clear – we will have to spend more. So, let me share some data and projections with this House.
This chart shows our spending, as a percentage of GDP, over the past 15 years. [Please refer to Annex 4.]
Our spending has grown by about 1.5 percentage points of GDP in every five-year period. How much is 1.5 percentage points of GDP? About $7 billion per year! This is about two-thirds of the current GST revenue.
Half of the increase in spending was for social support.
We do not have a crystal ball but let us take a reasonable look at how our spending will change. Let us start with healthcare spending.
Our demographic trends will mean higher spending, outstripping GDP growth. We estimate that healthcare spending will reach 3% of GDP by 2030. If our healthcare spending grew like those of OECD countries with a similar demographic profile, it would be even higher, 3.5% of GDP by 2030. This would be 50% more than in 2019.
Stripping out the effects of COVID-19, the next chart shows projected spending on healthcare if we took the average of the two scenarios. [Please refer to Annex 5.]
So, this means that healthcare spending alone would cause Government expenditure to grow by 0.5 percentage points of GDP for the current five-year period, and another 0.3 percentage points for the next five-year period. So, that is the chart that I just mentioned, over five-year periods.
To see the impact of healthcare on Government spending, this chart made a simplifying assumption that non-healthcare spending will remain the same as a percentage of GDP. Now, we know this is a simplifying assumption and a very conservative one.
First, on security, threats have not diminished but are now coming in different forms – cybersecurity, hybrid, information wars, food security. In Budget 2018, I mentioned that we could expect annual security spending by MINDEF and MHA to rise by 0.2 percentage points of GDP to meet rising threats.
Second, other social spending will continue to rise. We are seeing higher spending on pre-school education and lifelong learning.
Third, as I explained in my Budget Statements in this year and earlier, we will see a hump in infrastructural spending to enhance economic competitiveness, build our home, and improve connectivity across the island. Even with borrowing under the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act, or SINGA, we expect infrastructural spending to remain relatively stable as a percentage of GDP.
Mr Pritam Singh asked that we increase the scrutiny of expenditures, and to set up an independent parliamentary budget office to enhance such scrutiny. I am glad that Mr Singh agrees with the need to be prudent and accountable in our spending. In fact, it would be very helpful if each time Mr Singh or his colleagues ask the Government to spend more, to give us their estimates of how much it would cost and how they would fund it.
Instead, the Workers' Party has called on the Government to spend $20 million to set up an independent parliamentary budget office to do this job for them. Even as they call for more scrutiny on Government expenditure, we invite them to hold themselves to the same scrutiny.
As I have outlined, prudence and stewardship are core values of this Government. We hold ourselves to high standards and work hard to ensure that our spending is cost-effective, to deliver the best value for money for taxpayers.
We have achieved world-leading outcomes while running one of the leanest governments in the world. We are always looking to achieve better outcomes with less, and we will say more about this during MOF’s COS.
In addition to independent audits by the Auditor-General’s Office, we also have Parliamentary scrutiny of our spending through the Estimates and Public Accounts Committees. The Workers’ Party is represented in both of them. Such an office would be a wasteful duplication of these functions.
So, let us face the hard facts and be prepared to make difficult choices. The Government is meeting difficult trade-offs arising from our society’s growing spending needs, head on.
We have shown that current taxes are insufficient to cover our spending needs. Since 2007, we have already increased various taxes to collect more from those with more means, which are then transferred to our lower income. All this while, over the 14 years, the GST rate has remained unchanged at 7%. We would be in a budget deficit if not for the contribution from reserves, in the form of Net Investment Returns Contribution or NIRC.
Economic growth alone is not likely to raise enough revenues to meet our needs. The honest, but hard, conclusion is that we will need to raise more tax revenue.
We are not raising the GST rate now, as the economy is in the nascent stages of recovery. But we have been giving notice, since Budget 2018. The fact is that some of the structural increase in expenditures will hit us sooner rather than later.
MOH is already ramping up our public healthcare capacity. Just two months ago, the Minister for Health announced that we will build a new integrated hospital in Bedok North by 2030, to serve the growing population in the east. If we defer this spending, we risk being unable to adequately care for our people when the need comes.
Some may ask if the projections are accurate, whether we really need to raise additional revenue within this timeline. No projection is perfect. We live in a complex world, filled with uncertainties. So, we must work with the information available. For example, we could not have projected the biggest disruption of our generation, or that we would have to draw on our Past Reserves for two years in a row. This is a far cry from what Mr Pritam Singh said in February 2020, and I quote, \"the current Government has had the privilege of far more budgetary elbow room, both political and fiscal, than any previous Government in Singapore's history.\" Unquote. Unfortunately, instead of elbow room, COVID-19 has given governments around the world a very sharp elbow. Ouch – it hurts, and will continue to hurt for some time.
I also do not know how Mr Leong Mun Wai could say with such confidence, and I quote, \"for the foreseeable future, we do not see any shortage of fiscal revenues\", unquote. If Mr Leong could give me the basis of his projection, I will study it carefully. But if it is his hunch, I hope that as a responsible Member of Parliament, he would agree that we cannot be advocating national policy on the basis of personal hunches.
My caution to all is this: it will be foolhardy to underestimate the risks and uncertainties we are facing. Let us be honest, focus on the hard work that needs to be done and do not take the easy way out. That is the way to enable our people to make progress.
Several Members have expressed worries about the impact of the GST rate increase on Singaporeans. I share your concern – as I said before, as Finance Minister, I do not have any joy in raising taxes. I do it because I care for our future. Let me assure Members and all Singaporeans that we are committed to helping our people manage the impact.
We have set aside $6 billion for an Assurance Package, which will in effect delay at least five years of the GST rate increase for the majority of Singaporean households. Lower income Singaporeans will receive higher offsets of about 10 years’ worth of additional GST expenses incurred.
The Assurance Package is on top of existing benefits and transfers such as the GST Voucher scheme. These keep our overall taxes and transfers system fair and progressive.
In 2020, the top 20% of Singaporean households by income paid 56% of the taxes and received 11% of the benefits whereas the bottom 20% paid 9% of the taxes and received 27% of the benefits. And we are concerned for the broad middle income. The middle 60% of households paid 35% of taxes, while receiving 62% of the benefits, even for the broad middle.
Several Members have asked that we consider other forms of taxes. As I have said at my Round-up Speech at Budget 2018, we continually consider all options, so let me go through them again but it is a long list.
Some Members asked if we can do more on wealth taxes. Wealth taxes are not new in Singapore and we have in fact enhanced the progressivity of wealth-related taxes over the years.
I agree there is scope to further review our wealth taxes. But first, let me address the elephant in the room. Wealth taxes will not replace the need for the GST rate increase. Already, the GST rate increase alone will not yield sufficient revenue to meet our growing healthcare and social spending needs.
I will share briefly our considerations for the suggestions raised.
Ms Foo Mee Har suggested a one-off wealth tax. Argentina did this to fund higher spending for COVID-19 measures. Singapore entered COVID-19 with a strong fiscal position, and is fortunate to be able to tap on our Past Reserves. The impact of the crisis has been uneven. I believe Ms Foo’s intent is for those who came out on top of the crisis to do more for our community, and I share her sentiment. We will indeed continue to review our wealth taxes.
Mr Leon Perera suggested raising Buyer’s Stamp Duty and Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty, or ABSD, for more expensive properties.
First, I am glad that he recognised that this move will not fully cover our higher resourcing needs. Second, I want to correct a misconception. The ABSD is a property market measure, not a revenue-raising one. We calibrate the ABSD carefully to maintain a stable and sustainable property market in Singapore. But I agree that there is a role for property-related taxes. The Government will continue to review this to ensure that it remains progressive. Indeed, we made property tax and stamp duty more progressive in Budget 2010, Budget 2013 and Budget 2018. I trust that Mr Perera will give his strong support if and when we make such new moves.
We have also considered other options, including estate duty. We abolished estate duty in 2008, because the middle and upper income groups were affected disproportionately compared to the wealthy, who were better able to avoid the estate duty through tax planning.
Let me reiterate. We do tax wealth and we have been raising wealth taxes over the years. This is not the question. Rather, the practical question has always been how to design wealth taxes moves to ensure that they are effective.
First, we must ensure that the tax cannot be easily avoided, especially by those with more means. Otherwise, it will not achieve the social equity and fairness that we want.
Second, we must balance between progressivity and staying competitive to grow our economy. Singapore must remain attractive to those who work hard and those who invest to create good jobs, because growing the economy is the most sustainable way to generate revenue and raise our standards of living.
Third, the move should add to our revenue resilience and adequacy.
The Government will continue to study wealth tax options and I look forward to your support.
Several Members have also said that we could rely on other sources of revenue, other than taxes. For instance, Mr Louis Chua cited the Government’s total estimated receipts and claimed that the Government has far more surpluses than we do for spending. He must know that includes our capital receipts from land sales. So, he is really saying that we should spend our land sales proceeds directly. Mr Louis Chua also cited the increase in NIRC in 2021 as one of the reasons we should not be, and I quote, \"overzealous in strengthening our revenue position\"; and Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested that we spend 100% of the NIRC instead of 50%.
Let me address them one by one.
First on using land sales proceeds directly in the Budget.
We should treat our land as a scarce and finite asset. Selling land does not give the Government more resources and should not directly support our expenditure. Instead, we sell the land that we need to sell for urban development and invest the proceeds. This approach generates a sustainable stream of income over the long term, and has served us well. If we had decided in the past to spend the proceeds from these land sales, we would not have built up our reserves today and would surely be worse off by now.
Relying directly on land sales for fiscal revenue also has two risks.
First, land prices can be volatile. You do not want Government revenues to fluctuate wildly with property cycles because it creates too much uncertainty for the Government to plan long term.
Second, even more serious, once a Government gets used to relying on land sales to fund spending, the Government has a vested interest to keep land prices high, or to sell more land. Both options are terrible. We can see the distortionary effects on the welfare of people, in places where local governments rely on land sales for revenue.
The current approach of spending the land sales proceeds through the NIRC avoids these pitfalls and allows the Government to make land sale decisions based on what is best for the country’s development, and not because it needs to balance the Budget.
Next, on NIRC.
The NIRC framework smooths the volatility arising from sharp fluctuations in the asset base due to market cycles. This avoids a boom-bust pattern in Government spending, driven by the volatilities of the market.
However, some variation is still to be expected for the NIRC as we update the net asset base and investment income figures over the course of the year.
The global financial market remains volatile and uncertain. How the post-COVID structural changes will affect long-term returns is still being played out.
The fact is, NIRC is already the largest single source of our revenue, larger than Corporate Income Tax, Personal Income Tax or GST.
This did not happen by chance or merely because of good fortune. It is the result of years of fiscal discipline and prudence of our founding generations. If they had succumbed to the temptation to spend more, we would not have built up our reserves. And without reserves, we would not have been able to generate this stable and recurrent source of revenue today.
Mr Leong Mun Wai's suggestion of using 100% of NIRC is akin to treating our reserves as a gold mountain. If we adopt his suggestion, one day, even this mountain will be eaten up completely, like the saying in Chinese \"坐吃山空\". We have a responsibility to future generations.
Next, let me talk about the use of debt in our fiscal strategy.
Many Members have expressed support for borrowing for long-term infrastructure, as part of our fiscal strategy.
I was happy to hear that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim was \"happy as a clam\" when he heard that our fiscal strategy reflected a number of elements that he had previously outlined. But I announced that we were studying borrowing in 2019, even before he entered Parliament. But I am glad he shares our views. So, perhaps if he reads more of our past Budget Statements, he would be even happier.
Nevertheless, I must caution against the additional modifications that he has suggested to what is essentially a prudent and restrained use of borrowing.
The Government's approach to borrowing is a carefully calibrated one. As Ms Foo Mee Har said, there is good debt and there is bad debt. While we do borrow, the key difference is what we do with the debt proceeds.
The Government is currently already borrowing, under the Government Securities Act and the Local Treasury Bills Act. But instead of spending the proceeds, we invest them for long-term returns, which is used to repay our debt. The rest go back into the reserves.
The Government is going to borrow for major, long-term infrastructure. These investments will benefit and generate value over generations, but the upfront costs are hefty. Borrowing is a fair and efficient approach to spread out the lumpy costs, to ensure that we better match the timing of the benefits with the timing of spending. If we do not, I will have to raise taxes significantly to fund these major expenditures.
And Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has asked if we can borrow more to fund \"soft capital\" like education. Let me sound a word of caution. We have to refrain from the temptation to borrow for what are essentially recurrent expenditures.
In many countries, there is a tendency to expand the scope of what constitutes \"soft capital\" beyond the original intentions. So, the original intentions were good but it creeps. So, when used to fund increases to Government subsidies or social transfers, it is really more recurrent spending. Borrowing continuously for them will just lead to ever higher debts which have to be repaid by future generations.
When borrowing is not used productively, the result has often been high debt, low growth, rather than high growth, low debt. As debt level grows, interest payments can also increase, as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim himself pointed out. This can lead to an unsustainable fiscal position and spiralling debt, affecting investor confidence, raising the costs of funding for businesses and ultimately, our long-term growth. In addition, interest rates are low, in fact, ultra low for now, but this may change quickly. When it changes, existing debts would have to be refinanced and a higher rate could spiral the fiscal situation downward quickly. This usually happens in a crisis, when we can least afford it.
Borrowing is not a form of revenue. Borrowing gives us cash for liquidity planning but it does not create free monies for spending. Today's debt is paid for by tomorrow's growth and tomorrow's generation.
As I have explained earlier, our fiscal principle is that every Government must spend within its means and raise the revenue required to fund its initiatives.
Members, such as Ms Foo Mee Har and Dr Lim Wee Kiak have noted, we must borrow prudently and sustainably. So, let me now also briefly address their queries on the safeguards and how borrowing under SINGA might impact our credit rating.
We will set $90 billion as a borrowing limit and this is sized based on the expected expenditure of major, long-term infrastructure projects over the next 15 years. Any increase of this limit will require legislative amendments which is subjected to Parliamentary approval. We will also put in place other safeguards, such as a limit on the interest costs, so that the debt servicing cost will not over-burden future generations. This will address Ms Foo's concern about rising interest rates. More will be elaborated later when the Bill is presented in Parliament later this year.
Since the announcement of SINGA, credit rating agencies have also published articles affirming Singapore's strong credit standing, attributing it to Singapore's prudent and sustainable fiscal policy.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa also asked if we would consider one-off, special purpose borrowing for the economic investments under our emerging stronger strategies to help Singapore to emerge stronger. I thank Mr Liang for his suggestion.
As I have explained earlier, borrowing does not give us revenue. Instead, if the economic and fiscal outlook turn out worse than expected and we have to draw on Past Reserves for economic investments, borrowing would allow us to keep our reserves invested long term and earn good returns. Borrowing from the market also means that we will have to have the discipline to repay amounts used for these economic investments.
The key here is to use debt equitably and sustainably. We will borrow under the SINGA to spread out lumpy costs equitably across current and future generations. The Government will study Mr Liang's suggestion of a one-off, special purpose borrowing to help us emerge stronger from this long drawn out crisis.
Staying true to our core values of prudence and stewardship, we have built up significant reserves that are now our strategic assets.
Our reserves give us the confidence to forge forward, knowing that we have the wherewithal to deal with any crisis that might come our way. We have drawn on our past reserves to deal with two crises so far – $4 billion in 2009 to deal with the Global Financial Crisis; and up to $53.7 billion in 2020 and 2021 to respond decisively to the COVID-19 crisis.
Some commentators have questioned if we are dipping into the Past Reserves too readily. And yet, there are others who downplay the use of reserves, saying that these are small amounts and we can afford to use more of our reserves by spending more through the NIRC.
Let me reiterate that the Government does not take any decision on the use of reserves lightly. Our reserves serve three important roles.
First, they serve as an endowment fund, providing a key stream of revenue to supplement our annual Budget through the NIRC. Second, they provide a buffer against shocks and attacks on our financial system. Third, they serve as our bulwark against crises of an extraordinary nature.
Due to the strategic importance of our reserves, we have a two-key approach to managing and safeguarding reserves. The Elected President serves as the custodian of our reserves. The Constitution vests in the President discretionary powers to withhold her assent to budgets and expenditures proposed by the Government that may lead to a draw on Past Reserves.
On this note, I would like to address a question repeated by Ms Hazel Poa on whether the President knows the size of the reserves. I have just addressed this in June last year when I rounded up the debate for the Fortitude Budget. I shall repeat my answer here.
It is public information that, under our Constitution, the President has access to information about the size of reserves. Under Article 22F of the Constitution, in the exercise of her functions under the Constitution, the President is entitled to any information regarding the reserves. In addition, on the MOF website, it is already mentioned that the President has full information about the size of the reserves.
Ms Hazel Poa also asked about the size of our reserves. Again, it is not in our national interest to disclose the size of the reserves. As Mr Saktiandi Supaat explained very well yesterday, Singapore is vulnerable to currency speculation and large capital outflows. Revealing the size of the reserves is akin to laying bare our defence plan and will diminish the value of our reserves as a strategic defence. No responsible leader would do so.
So, I was very alarmed when I heard Assoc Prof Jamus Lim citing theoretical literature that speculation could be stabilising. I would also point out that there are other academics who recognise that currency markets can be marked by massive instability.
It is, in fact, well acknowledged by most economists today that market-driven short-term flows are and will continue to be fickle and extremely volatile. The episode in 1992 when hedge fund manager George Soros took on the Bank of England by betting against the Sterling pound and dramatically destroyed the UK monetary system is one stark example. To put it simply, foreign exchange speculations have been and will continue to be a threat to economies, especially small, open ones like ours.
As an international financial centre, portfolio and banking-related flows in Singapore amounted to S$294 billion last year, or 63% of our GDP. Just last year, we saw extreme capital flow volatility in global financial markets due to the uncertainties and risk sentiments associated with the pandemic. MAS kept the Singapore dollar nominal exchange rate stable during this period backed by the full power of our reserves, giving banks and businesses certainty to make decisions under very trying circumstances.
I personally saw this during the Asian Financial Crisis, when I was Principal Private Secretary (PPS) to Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Mr Lee was invited by several countries in the region to share his views, as Singapore was relatively unscathed. I sat in all his meetings. It was very painful to see how speculation and the currency volatilities that these countries face was destroying businesses, big and small, and the lives of men and women in these places. The exchange rate is far more important for a small open economy like ours compared to our neighbouring countries. And if our neighbouring countries are so badly affected during the Asian Financial Crisis, you can imagine the impact on us.
The Singapore dollar is one of the most actively traded currencies in the world relative to our GDP with daily turnover estimated at US$37 billion globally or annual turnover of US$9.5 trillion. Our nominal GDP is just US$350 billion. So, you are comparing trillions and billions.
Let me share that I was Managing Director of MAS when the Global Financial Crisis hit the world. Singapore is unique in operating in an exchange-rate centred monetary policy. My team and I had to not just be alert to the domino effect of the failures of banks globally, but also the flights of capital and the risks of speculation on the Singapore dollar. If we had been attacked, the businesses in Singapore, big or small, and the lives of our workers, would have been severely disrupted.
Now, as a Board member of MAS, I want to ensure that MAS is able to continue effectively using Singapore's exchange rate to deliver price stability. A very volatile Singapore dollar exchange rate, subject to market fads and bubbles, would not ensure low and stable prices for Singaporeans.
In normal times, our nation’s reserves also underpin our triple A sovereign credit rating, thus underpinning confidence in our unique exchange rate monetary policy system.
So, as a practitioner at the frontline, who tries my best to understand the intricacies of the system, I must caution Assoc Prof Jamus Lim – let us not play with fire. This is about the lives of our people, not theoretical musings.
And I urge all Members of this House to focus the debate on the merits of the policies and programmes and how we can improve the lives of Singaporeans. Instead of repeatedly focusing their attention on the size of reserves or other erroneous claims. We have inherited a strategic asset for the long-term survival and success of Singapore. Protect it, nurture it and never squander it.
Let me now turn to the global outlook, and our next steps.
I said in my Budget Statement that we expect to fund the expenditure for the remainder of this term of Government without a further draw on Past Reserves. But the global outlook is highly uncertain, and we need to think ahead of how we can respond.
Prof Hoon Hian Teck articulated well the difficult balance Singapore needs to strike: stabilising the economy to avoid a sharp downturn, but also undertaking and investing in structural policies for transformation.
The uncertainty over how quickly the global economy will recover makes this balancing act even more complicated. If we face a prolonged slump, it will be even more necessary for us to transform, but it will also be more challenging to find the required fiscal resources to both stabilise and restructure the economy.
Taking the longer-term view, we have to press on with these economic investments, secure the next decade of growth and emerge stronger. If we hold back these investments, we will miss the opportunity to restructure, seize new opportunities and race ahead. If we fail to change and our economic recovery is sluggish, it would have a long tail effect on our jobs and economic vibrancy, and affect Singaporeans adversely. It will also further worsen our fiscal situation.
So, after considering the various options, if the public health and economic situation deteriorate sharply and our fiscal situation turns out to be worse than expected, the Government may again have to seek the President’s approval for the use of Past Reserves to continue such economic investments so that Singaporeans can emerge stronger.
The President has expressed her understanding towards the Government’s approach and will consider the Government’s specific proposals, should there be a need to draw on Past Reserves.
But if we are to draw on Past Reserves for the economic investments to emerge stronger, we should do our best to make good on the draw. These investments are expected to yield returns for the economy, which can give a boost to our tight fiscal situation and allow us to make good the amount drawn.
As a crisis response to COVID-19, we have drawn from the Past Reserves, an amount equivalent to about 20 years of financial surpluses. It will be a challenge to also make good this amount drawn given the magnitude of the crisis. This is the \"crisis fund\" function of the reserves. Nonetheless, we should strive to remain fiscally prudent to build back our reserves gradually.
The fiscal situation ahead will be very challenging but I believe that Members agree on several issues. There is scope to do more to take better care of Singaporeans, especially the more vulnerable. With that, we will need to find the resources to do so. We need to consider all available options to raise revenues. We will continue to review additional options to complement a GST rate increase, but it is not realistic to hope for these to become alternatives to a GST rate increase, or to make the GST rate increase unnecessary.
Each of the decisions we make or do not make today to tackle the challenges will determine the starting point we give our future generations. We must have the courage to confront the hard issues now and not take the easy way out. We are stewards and must keep faith with our future generations. Doing so will give us the resources to deliver on social, economic and security priorities to further the welfare of Singaporeans. Not just today, but also tomorrow.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we inherited a strong Singapore. We are able to enjoy many opportunities and work towards our aspirations, because our pioneers were also good stewards with courage. They steered Singapore through many storms.
We have strong governance and trusted institutions today. We have built a strong global Singapore brand. We contribute to the world in our own way.
COVID-19 has taught the world that trust is a valuable currency, and there is a high premium for long-term planning, and reliability. Singapore takes pride into doing these well. First, we plan long term and act in the best interest of Singapore and our people. Mr Cheng Hsing Yao rightly pointed out that we now have the luxury of choices in dealing with resource constraints, precisely because of the foresight of the generations before us. Second, we are upfront. We do not shy away from difficult conversations. We explain the difficult decisions, as the well-being of Singaporeans are at the heart of what we do. Third, we honour our commitments and hold ourselves to high standards. Where we fall short, we learn and strive to do better.
Singaporeans know that they can trust us to lead the country. We trust one another and advance as Singapore Together, as one united people. And this is crucial to our success, because Singapore is a small island nation in a big turbulent world. We will continue to work hard to deliver results to Singaporeans, and strengthen and grow our valuable reserve of trust and unity.
Mr Speaker, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin before I conclude.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Although COVID-19 is still spreading globally, we have made progress in safeguarding our health, livelihoods and businesses. This year's Budget prepares us for a post-COVID-19 world and is more targeted at helping businesses, workers and the vulnerable groups.
The vaccine has brought hope for countries around the world in triumphing over the pandemic . But the tremendous impact of the pandemic has also accelerated the structural changes which were already taking place. We need to redouble our efforts to protect our future.
We will continue to help businesses in all sectors to transform and to create more good jobs for our workers to ensure that Singapore thrives in the post-COVID-19 era.
COVID-19 is a grave test for many countries. We will also build trust and strengthen cooperation with other countries to overcome our common challenges.
Our Past Reserves give us the confidence to move forward because we have enough resources to cope with a possible crisis. Drawing on Past Reserves is a difficult decision. When considering whether or not to draw on the Past Reserves, the Government has always adhered to the principle of fiscal prudence and long-term planning, as practiced by our forefathers. This is to ensure the sustainability of our fiscal policy, that we act as stewards to safeguard the interests of future generations.
Today happens to be 元宵节 or the Lantern Festival. The significance of the Lantern Festival lies in family reunion. Family union is happiness. When all of us are united as a nation , we have strength. Over the past one year, Singaporeans have shown a spirit of solidarity and fortitude. In the new year, I hope that Singaporeans will uphold this spirit and work together to build a prosperous home with strong social cohesion. The future will change rapidly but I firmly believe that as long as we work together, we will be able to overcome the challenges ahead and emerge stronger.
(In English): COVID-19 has tested the strength, unity and resolve of countries – socially, economically, and fiscally. Singapore has done relatively well so far. Our society came together as One Team Singapore to battle this invisible but deadly enemy. We looked out for one another, and we stood united. We protected the livelihoods of Singaporeans amidst the immediate economic fallout. Now, our economy is gradually, but steadily, recovering.
We have been careful and prudent in the use of our reserves to protect the lives and livelihoods of our people. There remain huge uncertainties ahead. But we confront these unknowns together with confidence, knowing that we have built a deep reservoir of trust to meet the challenges head on.
The years ahead will be crucial. We have a narrow window of opportunity to transform our economy and forge ahead as One Team Singapore.
Singapore did not happen by chance. Whether we continue to do well cannot be left to chance. I have laid out our strategy to emerge stronger. The Government is committed to put in the investments. But the Government cannot do this alone.
To succeed, every Singaporean must come together to build the Singapore that we want. Businesses should continually innovate and support their workers through opportunities for training, growth and progression. Workers should seize the opportunities to up-skill and re-skill. And within our communities, I urge all Singaporeans to lend a hand to those who need more help.
Nation building is hard work. But if we put our hearts, minds, hands together, I am confident that Singapore will continue to prosper and be a place we are proud to call home. That is why I have given the name \"Emerging Stronger Together\" to this year’s Budget Statement. It is as much about \"Stronger Together\" as it is about \"Emerging Stronger\".
We are in this together. We all need to each play our part. We have a clear view of where we are headed. Government, businesses, and the community must come together to overcome our shared challenges; and Singaporeans must care and look out for one another along the way; so that Singapore will emerge stronger together. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I have three questions and clarifications for the Deputy Prime Minister. Before I start, can I ask Deputy Prime Minister Heng where did he get the figure of $20 million for a Parliament Budget Office from?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Singh, I got it from your Member who mentioned it. It is in the record.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, can I ask that the Workers' Party's Member who gave that figure to please clarify. Was that figure actually given?
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): I believe that the information was shared with the Ministry in bullet points for my cut which has not been delivered.
Mr Pritam Singh: A point of order, Mr Speaker. The Committee of Supply debates have not begun. That figure was specific to a cut. I believe the MOF officials have asked Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Jamus Lim to deliver points for and it should not really be part of this debate. But having said that, that was with regard to, I believe, a fiscal office and the cut has not been delivered.
Let me carry on with my clarification questions, Sir. The Parliament Budget Office or the Parliamentary Budget Office is not an unusual institution in many parliamentary democracies. It is a fairly new institution and, really, it is not to help the Opposition in Parliament. It is to help all Members of Parliament. This is constant with the separation of power schema.
I was a Member of the Estimates Committee some years ago, and I will never forget – and those Members of Parliament who were Members of the Estimates Committee will also remember – a senior civil servant said, \"I cannot be smarter than my boss\". Who is her boss? Her boss is the Minister for Finance.
And so, a Parliament Budget Office or officer is there to provide independent analysis to confirm the nature of the Budget, to confirm that programmes are delivering the outcomes that are desired. As was quite eloquently put by the Member for Aljunied, Mr Leon Perera, who said it is not just about getting an \"A\" for effort, it is about scoring and \"A\" for outcomes.
And to that end, as I acknowledged in my speech, and Deputy Prime Minister Heng also shared in his Round-up speech, the Budget is not about a one-year programme. It is about a multi-year programme. And in my speech, I asked Deputy Prime Minister Heng – for which I do not believe a clarification was forthcoming – about the headline $24 billion figure which is a multi-year initiative, questions about the accountability of this figure, how are we going to look back at this figure and say that money has been spent prudently?
The second point is with regard to the Capability Transfer Programme. I believe I had some questions about it and fundamentally again, the Minister committed until 2024, I believe. And I had some questions about how many Singaporeans were trained? The Minister gave the number: less than 970. And my query also sought information on how much money was spent on this initiative and whether these outcomes are outcomes that the Government is satisfied with. I do not believe that was answered.
My third point is a carryover from the Unity Budget. The Minister made the point about a remark I had made, elbow room, more fiscal elbow room than any other government. I think that is factually true. More revenues, certainly, more expenditure, but certainly more revenues as well for the Government to spend and to consider how to lay out its plans. So, there is nothing factually inaccurate about that.
But I would come to the point of the Driver Support Programme or the various programmes that the Government has laid out for private hire drivers. In the Unity Budget, I spoke about another community of individuals – private hire bus drivers – and many of them support the tourism sector. I think in this Budget with the JSS being extended to severely-hit sectors like aviation, I am sure the workers in that industry, the companies in that industry, appreciate the support.
But this group of private hire bus drivers; there was support rendered in the subsequent Budgets from the Unity Budget. One of the most important interventions was to subsidise the cost of parking in HDB estates for these private hire bus drivers. And that was extended to March 2021. Can I ask Minister Heng whether this extension would continue for this group of workers, because the tourism industry is decimated?
Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): I apologise, Mr Speaker. I did not mean to go before the Deputy Prime Minister's response, but I just wanted to ask or seek a clarification from the Leader of the Opposition, because this may be helpful for either the Deputy Prime Minister's reply or perhaps for later.
When he refers to the Parliamentary Budget Office, and I think it was quite clear in his original speech and just now, that he indicated that the purpose of this Office is to assess outcomes of Government expenditure. Can I just clarify if that is the purpose? Question number one.
Question number two, is this the same as the Independent Fiscal Council that the other Member of the Workers' Party, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, has filed a cut on?
Mr Pritam Singh: The Parliament Budget Office that I had shared in my speech in this debate about, actually mirrors the Canadian model, the Canadian Parliament Budget Office. Or under the Parliament of Canada Act, I believe it is called Parliament Budget Officer. So, the second question is then answered: no, it is not the same proposal that has not been delivered by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Mr Speaker: Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Leader of the Opposition. So, there are actually then two proposals: one, for a Parliamentary Budget Office, and the other for an Independent Fiscal Council. Is that correct?
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I am not sure whether Leader can phrase it that way because the Independent Fiscal Council, that cut has not been delivered. So, there is terminology. I think IMF refers to all these different agencies within Parliament as Fiscal Councils, but perhaps we should wait for Member Jamus Lim to deliver his cut. Then, the clarification would be obvious.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, that was not really my question. The Leader of the Opposition is well also the leader of the Workers' Party, so I assume he knows what he is talking about, and I assume he knows what his Member is going to to ask about. So, I am not asking in advance what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is going to say. That, of course, he will do in the Committee of Supply. But I am just asking and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition must know this: is the office that he is asking to be set up the same thing as what his colleague is going to ask for, or are they both asking for two separate things? That is all I want to know.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I can assure the Leader that it will be the same thing.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister Heng.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Speaker, Sir, now that Mr Pritam Singh says that it is the same thing, I am totally confused. Because they are very different entities. But before I answer his specific questions, let me repeat what I said right at the beginning of this debate.
I said over the last few days, passionate debate went along a few threads. Some Members elevated the debate to help Singaporeans appreciate the changing landscape and the need to change. Some Members highlighted importance of our reserves – the bold and decisive response mounted and what it achieved. Unfortunately, some argue selectively without acknowledging the broader context, broader impact of COVID-19 and the outcomes of the Government's decisive interventions.
So, Mr Singh said earlier that we should set up such an office because it is important to examine outcomes. He had an encounter with a Ministry of Finance official who say that, \"I am not smarter than my boss\". Your arguments are totally convoluted. One does not lead to the other.
If you are focused on the outcome, may I ask if Mr Singh and the Workers' Party Members have read the interim report which I have put out in the Ministry of Finance website, widely reported in the papers, on what the measures have achieved? There is a reason why I put out the interim report, even though the full effects have not been done. Because I am conscious we have used a big part of last year's Budget, we have used the past reserves and that I have a responsibility to account for those outcomes. And I put those outcomes.
So, the Member talked about assessing outcomes. That is our biggest spending. Does the Workers' Party have any comment on that? Because I sat through the debate, I read your transcripts, but no one no, one mentioned about outcome, no one raised a question about, \"Could this have been done better, could that have been done better\".
So, what is the purpose of setting up an office when, with information that is publicly available is there for you to ask?
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, this is essentially a question, as I mentioned in my first intervention about Organs of State. You have the Ministry of Finance, you have Political Office Holders who drive the agenda of that Ministry and you have a parliamentary platform where the proposed Parliament Budget Officer will sit. Two different functions completely independent of what Government is saying about the outcomes, because that is an independent perspective and that is something for Parliament who is going to approve the Budget. Those who are approving the Budget ought to have access to an independent analysis. And that is what the Parliament Budget Officer will give.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Singh himself, admitted that he has different names, different nomenclature. So, I do want to prolong this debate but we have the Committee of Supply coming up on the Ministry of Finance and we can debate that.
But let me just ask for the Workers' Party to be clear about what is it that you are proposing; and second, I am asking you a very simple question. Have you or any of your Workers' Party Members scrutinised that interim report and have questions for us?
But instead, in talking about outcome, what you have asked us just now, you raised the issue about, what about the Capability Transfer Programme which MOM is going to do in 2024? This is going to be debated at the Committee of Supply for MOM. You can ask those detailed questions.
Then, you asked what about the private hire car drivers and so on, and would it be extended? Those are details of the scheme. This Budget debate is a serious debate about whether our broad direction is correct. Do you have suggestions on how we can do it better? I am open to your ideas. But I have to say, unfortunately, so far, I have heard none.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I understand that when there is a Budget debate, it is again part of the rules of debate, that when I bring up a subject matter, that is the subject matter I want to talk about. I am not sure another Member has capacity than to ask me about a matter I have not spoken about. So, just as a point of order, I think we should make that clear. I mean, the Standing Orders exist for a reason, I suppose.
And insofar as the Minister's answers on Capability Transfer Programme, other issues being dealt with in the Committee of Supply, I can accept those answers. I can ask my questions during the Committee of Supply.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Aljunied): I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for responding to some of the points I raised in my speech. Just two clarifications, Mr Speaker.
The first is one where I raised that the Government cash surplus from 2011 to 2019, that is about $261 billion or about $29 billion of cash surplus a year. I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that the land sales revenue would form a key part of it. Based on what I could see, that would be about a $138 billion within the same time period or about $15 billion. So, in the spirit of accountability, just so all of us can better understand, where did the balance of $14 billion of cash surplus come from?
And I understand the need for us to be prudent about the use of land sales and this is something which I understand, but I think it is not one where we are calling for the use of land sales revenue in its entirety. It is one whereby, if you look at the incentives to using land sales revenue, they already exist today, but probably in a different extent. And I think it is also important, I guess, for me to share that —
Sorry, so, what I mean is that the incentives for using land sales as a means to increase revenue. I think that is something that is already done indirectly and so that is already in place although to a different extent.
But I think the broader point that I also would like to share, is in the context of Singapore, when it comes to land sales, it is something which I believe is a recurring source of revenue for the Government as well. That is the first clarification.
The second is, there has been a lot of talk about our reserves. Just now Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that is about 20 years of surplus. Yesterday, a different Member shared that we have blown about 10 years' worth of savings. And I think earlier today, a separate Member also asked how long do we need before we can replenish our reserves.
So, probably it will be helpful for Members of this House to understand, after accounting for the additional $11 billion of the draw at the end of FY2021, where would our reserves be? I mean, we do not need to know an absolute number, but where would our reserves be compared to 10 years ago, five years ago. That also helps us to understand the context, but without knowing the absolute amount of the reserves itself.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: On the technical question that Mr Louis Chua asked about, what constitute the other big part, well, one bit which, as the Member has pointed out, is the land sales; and the other part, a big chunk of it, is the NIRC. The NIRC is already being used. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance\", Official Report, 26 February 2021, Vol 95, Issue No 21, Correction by Written Statement section.]
On the second point about land sales, and that there is an incentive for the Government to use land sales because the revenues are already done indirectly, that is wrong. I said very clearly that when we do land sales, it is to meet the needs for our people, for our economy. You cannot plan land sales on the basis that we need the revenue, and therefore, I would have to do that. The land sale proceeds, they go into the past reserves.
I totally reject your allegation that the Government has an incentive to sell more land in order to generate revenue. If the Government had an incentive, I would not have pointed out the problems in many countries. I have studied this in many countries where unfortunately, where the government, especially the local government, is so reliant on land sales that they have a vested interest to keep land prices high because they need the revenue, and, in turn, that creates a lot of hardship for the people.
So, our system cannot incentivise it. URA has long-term plans – 50-year plans, 20-year plans. The land use planning has been a great strength of Singapore. I think you should seriously look at what the agencies have been doing and do not make allegations like these. Because I think it will demoralise the many good officers that we have in our planning departments, in URA and the Ministry of National Development, who have over the years, allowed for so much development in so compact a land.
And by the way, one of the areas that I am hoping that we can do more in our research plan, is precisely on urban solutions and sustainability, something which Senior Minister Teo started when he was the Chairman of the National Research Foundation (NRF) and which we are continuing. Because that is a constraint for Singapore and if we can overcome this constraint, we can do better.
It is not for us to sell land in order to do that. So, I would like you to take back your allegations that the Government has an incentive to sell land for that purpose.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister. I would just like to share that I did not make the allegation. Basically, what I was trying to get at is that if you look at the context of Singapore, the land sales revenue, I think that is a recurrent source of revenue for the Government over a period of time. I am actually not belittling the work of our MND and the good officers of the URA. I think that is something that they have done well in terms of the concept plan and the master plan.
What we are looking at is in terms of the level of cash surplus that the Government is generating, understanding where this comes from. Because on the technical point as well, if the NIRC is something that is to be used, then that should not actually form part of the cash surplus if it has already been used.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Chua made the points in a very indirect way, to say that, \"Well, the Government is doing it indirectly.\" I am glad that you are taking it back to say that you are not making that statement. So, I thank you for that clarification.
But let me repeat that the Government has no incentive to sell land for the purpose of generating revenue. Our Reserves Protection Framework has safeguarded all the assets that we have. You are just converting one asset to another form of asset and these are guarded.
Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a point of clarification for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Earlier, in his wrap-up, the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the point that I made about nurses and healthcare workers and how I was very supportive of the decision to enhance their salaries and to review their salaries. I also made another point beyond that, which was to say that, I believe, it is not just about salaries; there are other factors that perhaps we could look at in terms of enhancing careers, mid-career conversions, perhaps in improving the work-life balance. I even suggested a bit of a radical idea, like paid holidays or mandatory leave that nurses and healthcare workers need to take to encourage them to step back from the frontline.
The Deputy Prime Minister did not quite address this in his speech and I wanted to ask if it is something that the Government can actually consider beyond the salaries and the financial aspects of a nursing career.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I thank Mr Darryl David for the question.
When the issue of raising the salaries of our nurses and healthcare-related workers was raised as part of this Budget approval process, I did speak to Minister Gan Kim Yong. I asked exactly the same question. Minister Gan has given me a very good reply and I am satisfied with that.
The MOH Committee of Supply debate is coming up and I will leave it to my Minister for Health to outline more fully.
But let me say that personally, I support what you have said about how we can improve the working conditions of our nurses. I myself am a big beneficiary of the care of our nurses. I would like to see improvements, certainly, and career progression for our nurses and related healthcare workers.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comprehensive response to a few points that had raised in my Budget speech.
Let me just begin by fully agreeing with the principles that he has laid out. And I believe that, not only myself but also the Workers' Party, agree with the principles of prudence and stewardship. And we also agree that we, of course, do not have oil gushing out of our ground.
Now, that said, I think we can potentially have ideas gushing out of our heads and that is precisely why I made the suggestion about soft infrastructure. And I wonder why Minister Heng remains dismissive of soft capital.
The key I think is ultimately that we invest what we end up borrowing and while I agree that we should not allow recurrent expenditures to be lumped into soft capital, it is easy to allow recurrent expenditures of all forms, like various HQ functions in hard capital projects. The key is that we always evaluate what how we define a given project as soft or hard capital; and its ultimate investment and repayment potential.
Now, I should also clarify another point on the exchange rate.
Mr Speaker: Are you seeking a clarification?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Yes. So, the first one I was hoping for clarification on why he remained dismissive of soft capital.
My second point is again a clarification. I should be clear. I am not suggesting a revision in our exchange rate regime. I am questioning whether there is a need to keep reserve information secret and whether that actually helps, or hinders, our effort to do.
What I heard Deputy Prime Minister Heng share was a lot of reasons why the exchange-rate-targeting regime is warranted for our country. And I cannot agree more. But I did not hear strong reasons why secrecy over our reserves actually helps in that case.
Markets, I think, we both acknowledge, can be volatile. But I think they tend toward the truth. And indeed, speculation, as I conceded, can in fact be destabilising if our exchange rate is disconnected from the fundamentals. So, it leaves me to wonder is if Minister Heng is suggesting that with our current situation, such secrecy can actually help us to maintain what is an otherwise untenable rate? Because I know that the Ministry has routinely denied that we manipulate our exchange rate.
Mr Speaker: If the Member can keep the clarification short, please.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Yes. And the Ministry has routinely denied that we manipulate our exchange rate, only that we seek stability. I will stop there.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister Heng.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me let me say that in Parliamentary debates, please do not put words into my mouth.
I did not dismiss soft capital. You said that I was dismissive of soft capital. I was not. I said that we have to be careful. I said, I sound a word of caution about soft capital. Precisely because it is soft, it can morph into various shapes. I had mentioned how many good schemes started with very good intentions, with very good people, but precisely because it is soft, the shape changes, and over time, everything becomes capital investment. So, that is the first point.
Second, I think there is a role for building all this soft capital. If you want to talk about whether my notion of partnership, working together, is soft capital, well, you can say that and say: should we invest a lot of money in that? We have been very careful to say how we can build our society. In fact, if you want to use academic terminologies like these, there is a lot of soft capital in our neighbourhood because people are supporting one another, and we did see soft capital coming up.
But that is not the issue. The key issue is this. We have to be very careful with recurrent spending and the outcome focus, which was a point that Mr Pritam Singh mentioned right at the outset.
So, let me share my experience as Education Minister. I said in my speech, and in fact, I have shown this slide many times. Perhaps I should show it again and again until the message gets through. I have shown it many times how Singapore has been ranked so well in the international ranking of students.
I have also shared that in 2018, when the IMF/World Bank meeting was held in Bali, President Jim Yong Kim of the World Bank invited the Prime Minister to talk about the Human Capital Index. And when I was walking with President Jim Yong Kim to the venue site, I asked him: \"Personally, I am not terribly comfortable talking about Singapore being ranked well because it is not our approach to talk about our ranking. So, what is your purpose?\" And he said something which has never left me. He said, \"Well, actually, my interest in Singapore is not how much you spend, but how well you spent.\"
And the reason he could say that was that he had done comparisons, the World Bank team had done comparisons, of the educational expenditure and the outcomes of the student. We ranked well not because we spent the most money, but because we actually achieved outcomes.
Having been Education Minister for five years and visiting so many of our schools, I am convinced that our schools and our teachers have put in the greatest amount of effort, and the fact that we have parents who are so supportive of our kids' education is what allowed our students to do so well. There is no one magic formula. You can have a number and say, \"I would like to know whether it is 5% or 10% of GDP\" and so on. It does not.
I have also said in this Budget debate and even in the previous round, about our healthcare outcome. It is the same – it is not what you spend; it is how you spend it and the dedication of the staff.
So, I am extremely grateful to our frontline officers, to our teachers and our educators in their various roles in our schools, and which is why, as Education Minister, I talked about every school being a good school, because I am deeply convinced that that is the case. It is not something that a Budget and a theoretical number can give you the result.
So, President Jim Yong Kim told me, \"I hope that Singapore is open to sharing this so that others can learn because there are countries who will need to raise this, and they are very concerned that they will not have the resources to educate their people better\".
So, it is how we use it.
Now, the second question on the exchange rate. Let me again state, for the benefit of our currency stability and for the benefit of all of these debates around the world about manipulating exchange rate, Singapore does not manipulate our exchange rate. Singapore does not manipulate our exchange rate. We do not manipulate it to secure a competitive advantage because that is not sustainable.
As an economics professor, I think he will fully understand that, that long-term sustainability for economic competitiveness must come from productivity growth and labour force growth. Our labour force growth is turning towards zero. And so we have to rely on productivity growth –which is why in the next phase of our transformation, we need to focus on technology and innovation-driven growth.
So, we do not manipulate our exchange rate. So, what do we do? What is our exchange rate policy centred on? It is not different from other central banks, which is maintain medium term price stability, so that economic agents, economic players can make decisions on the basis that these are the relative prices that they can make decisions on, that you do not have runaway inflations.
Even then, I will say that, right now, because of COVID-19, there is, again, new thinking about whether this inflation targeting is the right approach, and so on. But as far as Singapore is concerned, we have been maintaining price stability and that has allowed our economy to have the macro economic framework to stay competitive.
So, the question about our exchange rate regime, I am glad that the Member is not saying that we should reveal our exchange rate regime, that is good. As to your question about why the secrecy, I do not wish to hold up this whole forum. I devoted more than two pages of my reply to you on that, about the size of currency trading, about my experience in MAS during the Global Financial Crisis, about my experience when I was accompanying Mr Lee Kuan Yew to the countries which were so badly hit by the Asian Financial Crisis. So, please, have a care that policy-making cannot be theoretical musings.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I would just like to add on to a point that the hon Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had raised. Because I know he is very gung-ho on borrowing; he is entitled to his views. But I just want to add, in life, when you want to borrow, it does not automatically mean people want to lend to you.
In the case of Singapore, we will be able to issue debt papers if we want, but that is because of the huge reserves that we have accumulated over the last 55 years.
I would like to raise a question to Deputy Prime Minister Heng. Deputy Prime Minister Heng did not say so but I am trying to read into his mind, and I apologise if I got it wrong.
I think one of the reasons we are quite comfortable to borrow now, with fairly large reserves behind us, is because we are quietly confident that in the long term, our rate of return from our reserves is going to exceed the cost of borrowing. Because when the Government of the Republic of Singapore goes out to borrow, there is a premium. The cost of debt is significantly lower than others. So, am I right about my assumption?
Mr Speaker, Sir, I know you are going to ask me to sit down but please allow me to share a story. Thirty seconds. I want to share a story with the House.
Mr Speaker: Fifteen seconds. Thank you.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Thirty seconds. I had a conversation with our retired Member of Parliament Mr Chandra Das not too long ago. I do not think he will mind me mentioning his name. Mr Das worked with Dr Goh Keng Swee in the 1960s and 1970s. So, I asked Mr Das, \"During your time, did you go out to borrow?\" And he said \"Once\"; only once but for a different reason. And that was because Dr Goh saw a project, he was not entirely convinced that it was feasible and he gave instructions to the staff, \"Go out to an external third party financial institution and get a second opinion and see whether they lend us\". So, that is how careful we have been. In the past and even today —
Mr Speaker: It is more than 30 seconds.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Okay, and that is why when we issue debt, the international financial world is willing to take it. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for your indulgence.
Mr Speaker: Thank you.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I thank Mr Sitoh Yih Pin for his question and for sharing the story. Why are we borrowing at this point? There are several reasons and the Member touched on two of them.
One is that for our SINGA Bonds, which is about borrowing for our infrastructure, the significant national infrastructure, we are borrowing because we are now coming to another hump in our development expenditure.
In the early years, did we borrow? Yes, we did borrow when we were building the first MRT and our airports. And, again, that was another big hump. So, the nature of infrastructure project is such that you need to build it over the next two, three years, but the benefits of that project should last us several generations.
So, therefore, how do we spread out the borrowing? First, do we build or do we not build? Just because we do not have the resources to build it now, do we forego it? We must build it only if it gives you economic or social return. The projects that we did for our MRT lines, for our airport, give us both the economic and social returns, and therefore we can justify why we are doing it.
But at the same time, I mentioned that, in the coming years of, first of all, even if our fiscal situation was good, it may not even be enough for us to fund that lumpy investment. So, lumpy investments need to be spread out over time.
Then, the next question is how do I fund it? There are several ways. One is, could you go and use the past reserve for that? It is not because the reserves are used for extraordinary and temporary situation. It is spelt out in our Constitution.
So, why are we borrowing? Well, I mentioned before that there are several reasons. One, that it is fair for inter-generational equity, because you spread out the cost of borrowing, because various generations are going to benefit from that. Second, at this point, it is efficient because interest rates are very low and ultra-low. And to your observation as to whether, therefore, we should not touch our reserves and liquidate our assets to borrow, you are a good investor.
Mr Speaker: Time is also not unlimited, so I will not borrow anymore time. Otherwise, we will not finish on time next week. I will wrap it up.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022.\" (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Commencement Time of Committee of Supply","subTitle":"Announcement by Mr Speaker","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Order. We have completed the debate on the Budget Statement. We are now going into the Committee of Supply to debate the Estimates. I have revised the commencement time of the Committee of Supply to start immediately.
With the change in commencement time, the revised \"guillotine\" time for Head U – Prime Minister's Office is 8.00 pm, which includes a tea break. Members are to note that the proceedings in the Committee of Supply will be taken till 9.30 pm for today. Hon Members will be notified of the revised conclusion times for the subsequent heads of expenditure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022","subTitle":"Committee of Supply - Paper Cmd 5 of 2021","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day]. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure of Singapore for the financial year 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022, contained in Paper Cmd 5 of 2021. For convenience, I shall take the totals for each Head of Expenditure in the Main and Development Estimates as they appear in the last columns of the schedules of estimated expenditure under the Main and Development Estimate outlays for FY2021 on pages 6 and 7 respectively of the Command Paper.
A total of 569 amendments to the Estimates of Expenditure have been submitted this year. The \"guillotine times\" to the discussion of the Heads of Expenditure under Standing Order 92(7)(a) have taken into consideration the earlier commencement time of a Sitting, the reduction of Question Time and the extension of Sitting times of the Committee of Supply for each allotted day.
I must remind hon Members that the total time for discussion of each Head of Expenditure includes the replies from the front bench. With the assistance of the digital timer in the Chamber, I trust that hon Members will be able to keep to the speech times indicated against their amendments. I would urge hon Members both from the back and front benches to adhere to their time limits, as I will be stringent in my time-keeping.
I shall deal first with the Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement. Head U – Prime Minister’s Office. Ms Tin Pei Ling.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head U (Prime Minister's Office)","subTitle":"Good governance","sectionType":"OS","content":"Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Mr Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Sir, it was almost seven years ago since the launch of the Smart Nation initiative by Prime Minister Lee. The Smart Nation initiative envisages a future Singapore that is a leading economy powered by digital innovations and world-class city with the Government that gives our citizens the best home possible and responds to their different and changing needs.
We are truly fortunate to have benefited from the coordinated build-up of digital infrastructure, capabilities, talent pool and smart tools through the efforts of the Smart Nation initiative. This virtue of being prepared allows our Government agencies to respond swiftly and act decisively in our response to COVID-19.
I dread to imagine how colossal an effort it would have been to have to manually track persons on Leave of Absence and Stay-Home Notice or to contact trace hundreds of thousands, perhaps, millions of people, especially when speed is of essence to containing the spread of COVID-19.
At the peak of the pandemic, there was so much uncertainty and Singaporeans struggled to figure out what help schemes they are eligible for and what information to believe or not to believe. Everyone would have had a unique set of circumstances. The sheer amount of queries received were simply overwhelming.
But, thankfully, innovations and creations such as TraceTogether, and digital tools such as the Government WhatsApp and Telegram channels, eligibility checker and chatbots, helped to achieve what we needed to, so much more effectively and efficiently.
Consequently, we were able to effectively control the spread of COVID-19 and deliver important information to Singaporeans in a very timely manner.
On this note, I would like to ask whether the Government could provide an update on what other technology-based measures that might be in place to boost our fight against COVID-19 and future crises such as this. As our population gradually gets vaccinated, if, how and when can we expect electronic vaccination certificate to be issued? Could this be integrated with the SingPass mobile app, just like how we can now access our NRIC, driving licence and other useful information?
Having a robust digital capability will strongly position us for future challenges and opportunities. Who knows when \"Disease X\" might strike us? Hence, the earlier we are digitally ready, the better. May I therefore ask how is the Smart Nation initiative progressing at this point?
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Tin Pei Ling: This brings me to my second question to ask the Ministry whether the National Digital Identity (NDI) initiative is on track for widespread adoption in 2022 and what is the expected timeline for NDI to be enabled for cross-border travels and transactions? If we are to expect vaccination e-certificates, perhaps we should consider enabling NDI for cross-border travels and transactions concurrently.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Chairman, permission to take my cuts together.
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr Alex Yam: Chairman, the pandemic has threatened public health and safety, forcing individuals and organisations to cease economic and social activity and to stay within the safe confines of our homes.
One cannot imagine how we could possibly have coped if not for the Smart Nation infrastructure that was already in place pre-COVID-19.
The Government's foresight to progressively build up our digital infrastructure and engineering capabilities have paid off handsomely.
In the midst of a pandemic, we could count on technology to access essential services and goods, reducing exposure to the virus. We could also stay informed with the myriad of official online channels, established to protect us from misinformation.
Then, there is the TraceTogether, which allows for the establishing of an efficient contact tracing network. This network has effectively prevented widespread community outbreaks and saved our healthcare system from being overwhelmed. Minimising the impact of the pandemic has also allowed for our economy to enter the recovery stage, while the general population gets to resume life with some form of normalcy.
For commercial entities, the application of smart technology pushed them to innovate and reinvent their operations or product offerings. Not only were they able to continue their operations during the pandemic, they are even scaling new heights.
We will continue to face multifaceted challenges, further complicated by COVID-19. Can I ask the Minister to share about how the Smart Nation will help us emerge stronger from the pandemic?
My second cut. As I mentioned earlier, we coped with this pandemic due to our resolve and helped definitely by technology.
In the past one year, we have navigated the pandemic with the help of digital services, whether we want to find out where to collect our masks, or to see a doctor, or if it is safe to go to a mall or to a park, we would utilise the digital platforms created by GovTech. There are also the safe entry systems and contact tracing tools and networks which were created by the Government to help all of us stay safe. Many of these digital services have gone a long way to directly benefit citizens and businesses. Let me take the opportunity to thank all the engineers and staff at GovTech for innovating on our behalf during this difficult period.
As we further our Smart Nation initiative, opportunities abound as well for the private sector. The Government has had several strategic national projects that have involved close collaboration with industry players. For example, the rapid development of our cashless payment system can be attributed to the hard work of our officers as well as bank service providers and merchants.
Such collaboration improves diversity of solutions and resources. It also contributes to job creation and makes a good training ground for budding tech experts to pilot new technologies. It will help our businesses to develop new capabilities and improve their product and service offerings, which will in turn stimulate economy.
Can the Minister share about how we are collaborating closer with the private sector to further our Smart Nation drive?
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Sir, our civil and public servants may come across classified information at work and such information could be crucial for them to exercise their duties effectively. There could be dire consequences if such information is wrongfully shared publicly.
In April last year, we had two such cases. First, a public servant was arrested for sharing a draft media statement on schools moving into full home-based learning to curb the spread of COVID-19. Later, a civil servant was arrested for leaking the COVID-19 case numbers before official announcement. Both incidents could have resulted in panic in the community at a time when calm was needed.
Most recently, a public servant allegedly leaked a Police lookout message that identified the suspect of the Tampines fatal stabbing incident. The message included the suspect's name, image, date of birth and nationality. It was widely circulated that the man had fatally stabbed his wife. From that, I received calls informing me that the deceased is my ex-PCF staff, Iris.
Sir, Iris was a sweet and thoughtful lady. After her resignation from PCF, she came to bid me farewell at my Meet-the-People session. The next week, she returned again. She noticed that I was engaging people over my exposed drink and returned with a cup cover. She was a good mother and brought her children well. Her three children lost both their parents on the eve of Chinese New Year reunion dinner. It was a difficult period, made more difficult with the exposure.
I would like to ask how can the Government further instill discipline on how Government officers deal with the possession of such information and what can be done further to let officers better recognise and appreciate the severity of sharing this information publicly.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Chairman. What role does the Government play in building digital infrastructure to support our economy and society?
Our Government has always advocated for a Smart Nation approach in building Singapore's future. As the next generation of technology evolves and influence positive changes to our lives, there will soon be more urgent need for digital infrastructures, such as the upcoming 5G network.
With that in mind, what is the current status of the 5G roll-out? Are there any data security concerns and safeguards that we should take note of before we widespread adoptions?
Lastly, in which areas will the digital infrastructures enhance our governmental services online in order to better serve businesses and our Singaporeans?
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Chairman, in 24 November 2014, the Smart Nation initiative was launched by Prime Minister Lee. At the launch, Prime Minister Lee outlined Singapore vision to be a Smart Nation. He said, I quote, \"Our vision is for Singapore to be a Smart Nation – a nation where people live meaningful and fulfilled lives, enabled seamlessly by technology, offering exciting opportunities for all.\"
Echoing this, Minister-in-charge of the Smart Nation Office said, and I quote, \"How do we include everyone in the digital revolution? This is all about designing solutions for people, and not the other way round.\"
Now, more than six years into our journey to make Singapore a Smart Nation, can the Minister share how we are making our vision of Smart Nation real and tangible for Singaporeans and Singapore?
In the last year, we have seen how COVID-19 has accelerated the adoption of digital, affecting many aspects of our work and life, changing how we work, live and play. Digital solutions enable new capabilities, allowing us to reimagine the way things are done. And in doing so, how we have and how are we continuing to ensure that no one is left behind in our drive to being a Smart Nation?
In my Budget debate speech earlier this week, I did give the example of my resident struggling to get a simple task as the process had been digitalised. And I had shared that it was not an aversion. It was because of a gap in tech savviness but not an aversion to use in tech.
So, in our process of digitalisation, are we going to make an effort to drive a Smart Nation and design solutions for our people who are less tech savvy. How can we make it such that we make technology disappear?
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Chairman, in the Smart Nation Summit on 26 June 2019, Prime Minister Lee mentioned, for us, being a Smart Nation, it is not about flaunting fizzy technology, but it is about applying technology to solve real-world problems that will make a difference to people's lives.
As we battle the pandemic over the past 12 months, we have witnessed clearly how Smart Nation applied digital technology that has made a difference to our lives, such as MOE's student learning space which enabled home-based learning for all students; TraceTogether (TT) token, which reduced contact tracing from four days to 1.5 days and the supply airline app which manage the distribution of critical supplies, such as 90 million masks and more than 500,000 meals for Redeem SG.
Moving ahead, what are the Smart Nation initiatives can we look forward to to help deliver more personalised and inclusive services for our citizens?
The Chairman: Minister Vivian Balakrishnan.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Thank you, Mr Chairman, on behalf of Prime Minister Lee and Senior Minister Teo.
COVID-19 has been a real stress test of the work that Smart Nation has embarked on for the past, more than almost seven years. It has exposed gaps, it has validated our investments over the many years and it has also allowed us to differentiate ourselves and to emerge stronger in a post-COVID world.
So, the questions my team and I have asked ourselves in the last one year are the following: have our digital systems helped to save lives, enhance resilience, improve the quality of services provided to our people? Has it enabled us to overcome challenges collectively without leaving anyone behind? That has been our framing.
The digital systems that we have been building up have actually showed to be absolutely critical in our fight against COVID-19. Many of the solutions that we deployed during the crisis were developed by our in-house engineers within GovTech and other public agencies in weeks, sometimes overnight, over days.
TraceTogether, which now has 4.7 million people using it, SafeEntry – all these have helped to reduce the time needed to identify and quarantine close contacts. It used to take us four days. It is now down to 1.5 days. SupplyAlly and RedeemSG have been used to distribute more than 2.9 million TT tokens and 19 million masks. And those of you who participated in this would know that this really helped turbo charged the delivery of these.
We had websites, MaskGoWhere, SupportGoWhere, FluGoWhere and we have the Gov.sg WhatsApp and Telegram channels. Again, rolled out overnight and the ability to provide crucial accurate information from trusted sources enabled us as a population to respond in a coordinated, effective and calm manner.
Over 700,000 manpower and workplace applications for businesses have been made through the GoBusiness portal and that also provides convenient, comprehensive information, especially on safe management guidelines over the past year. The Government was therefore able to continue serving people, providing services online even during the circuit breaker and thereby cushioned the social and economic impact.
Technology will be critical as we try this year to resume our daily lives. For instance, using the National Appointment System for COVID-19 Vaccination, eligible persons can book their vaccinations online when it is their turn. But it goes beyond that. It is about matching supply and demand in time and space. And for those of you who have been vaccinated, you can check your records which are available on HealthHub.
MOH and GovTech are also developing a globally inter-operable HealthCerts standard based on blockchain technology to facilitate cross-border verification of health documents. There will be notarised Pre-Departure Test (PDT) test results which will be available on SingPass Mobile and we will look into extending this to vaccine certificates as suggested by Ms Tin Pei Ling.
Ninety-five percent of Government's transactions between citizens and businesses are today completed digitally end-to-end – 95% done paperless, cashless and presence-less. This is actually one of the highest rates in the world.
These achievements have only been possible because of our relentless recruitment of talent and especially in-house engineering capabilities before the crisis hit. And we must now double down on building up our people, building up our capabilities and our agility and to use the latest cutting-edge technologies.
One area which we will do more of is to make greater use of the cloud in order to scale new services and to re-engineer existing services.
Seventy percent of our eligible IT systems will have migrated to the cloud by 2023 under the Digital Government Blueprint. This shift to the cloud incidentally will also make us greener and more sustainable.
We will continue to attract and nurture top ICT talent within the public sector, through our Smart Nation Scholarships, Technology Associate Programme (TAP) and other talent development programmes. And we are not just looking for hardcore engineers but also multi-disciplinary teams – designers, analysts, policymakers, artists, communicators, in order to create really functional teams fit for purpose.
We will be launching the Digital Academy next quarter, to build up the digital skills within the wider Public Service in areas including data analytics and cybersecurity. The Digital Academy will train more than 6,000 Public Service officers. We hope to offer about 95 training programmes within the first year. And I will also put in a request for Members of Parliament, those of you who want to attend these courses, please email me, and I might even try to persuade the Prime Minister to do an introductory course on C. I have not asked the Prime Minister yet.
I share Miss Cheng Li Hui’s concern that it is critical for our public officers to carefully handle classified information in order to maintain public trust. All officers will undergo an annual data security programme, so that they know their responsibilities and how to safeguard the data that they handle in the daily course of activities and we will also remind our officers of the severe consequences of mishandling data.
I agree with Ms Hany Soh that the Government plays a critical role not only in shaping the national digital infrastructure but also the processes and the thinking and the mindset around it. Just like physical infrastructure, we must commit to ensuring that our digital infrastructure, in both the hard and software side of it, is top-notch globally. The question on 5G rollout will be handled by MCI later. But even in that area, we will make sure that we are at the leading edge of the world and, both in terms of security and efficacy, we will be there.
Ms Tin Pei Ling asked for an update on the national digital identity. I am glad to report that SingPass now provides seamless and secure access to over 1,400 digital services by 340 agencies, including private sector organisations, like some banks and insurance companies. The number of users of SingPass Mobile has grown. It was one million users in March last year. It is now 2.4 million users today. We will be looking to extend the benefits of our national digital identity platform and to enable easier access to e-services beyond our shores, and we are embarking on pilot projects with Australia and Shenzhen, China.
I agree with Mr Sharael Taha that the Government's digital services must be secure, must be inclusive and must be personalised. We have introduced the SingPass two-factor authentication (2FA) modes to ensure that SingPass remains not only secure but accessible and especially to the elderly and vulnerable groups, especially those without mobile phones. And these include the latest use of Face Verification so that people can use Face Verification as a second factor and this will be based on matching their images against a verified database held by ICA. Individuals can also opt to have their SMS one-time password sent to a trusted family member so that they can still have the benefit of security and the help of a trusted family member.
We are consolidating information and services for our citizens under the one-stop LifeSG app. If you have not used it, please go and check it out. More than 250,000 people have already downloaded the app, and they can access a personalised dashboard of services to more than 70 Government e-services. Users can also view the Government benefits and support relevant to them, such as GST Vouchers, Pioneer and Merdeka Generation MediSave top-ups and, soon, including the benefits that have been announced under this current Budget.
We are also improving our digital services for improved productivity and, next quarter, GoBusiness will launch an e-Service Navigator to provide our businesses easy access to over 300 Government e-services. But more importantly, this is also an opportunity to re-engineer our processes and make Government services more suitable and facilitatory to all our businesses.
We have harnessed digital technology also to create more energy-efficient and water-efficient homes, and you will be aware of some further announcements on smart meters in both energy and water.
Mr Alex Yam has emphasised that partnership is key, and the Government and financial sector are, indeed, in fact, a very good example where this partnership has borne fruit. Compared to a year ago, we have a 31% increase in PayNow mobile users. Today, we have than 2.7 million users, and PayNow transactions have more than doubled in this one year. No doubt accelerated by COVID-19 and the aversion to handling cash.
Another example is the Singapore Financial Data Exchange which has enabled us, as individuals, to retrieve a consolidated view of all our personal finances, using either the MyMoneySense portal or a mobile banking app. Actually, if you have not checked this out, it is a big deal because it allows data sharing which has historically been very difficult to achieve because you get a direct overview of all your financial statements and bank accounts. But you can imagine the security needed to enable that to happen. And this was enabled because we have central digital infrastructure riding on SingPass and MyInfo and the relationship the Government has had with the banks and our role as a neutral, trusted party to enable this kind of sharing and this kind of utility to occur.
I want to also thank the 150 Smart Nation Ambassadors who, even in the midst of the difficulties last year, volunteered to help promote the use of digital technologies, including TraceTogether. Later this year, we will be convening a citizens panel to explore how we can improve the design of our digital services.
So, let me conclude, COVID-19 did not change history but it has accelerated both the need and the opportunities arising from the digital revolution. Our Smart Nation Initiative has put us in a good position to seize the moment and to prove that we can and do solve real-world problems quickly and to differentiate ourselves in the post-COVID world.
The Chairman: Any clarifications? Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: Mr Chairman, COVID-19 has provided the impetus for many Singaporeans and businesses to adopt the use of e-payments.
E-payments make real-time payments between individuals; consumers and business; or business-to-business convenient, seamless and fast. It takes away the need and the risk of carrying and handling cash, saving time and effort, and is safer. There are clear benefits of using e-payment and we have been helping our residents as well as businesses in using and adopting e-payments.
But we do still receive requests and feedback to ensure that e-payment does not become the only mode of payment, Because there are segments amongst our residents and even small businesses that prefer to continue to use physical cash. A case in point is that, during COVID, the bank branch in our constituency was closed. You would not believe the number of emails and requests I had to talk to the bank just to get the bank to open and there were long queues. I was sent photographs of long queues at other bank branches near our constituency that residents needed to go to. So, clearly, there is anxiety and people like to still handle cash and there is also anxiety about security. This has been conveyed. So, I would like MAS to give us an update on whether Singapore residents have been more receptive to e-payments in the past year, albeit that COVID-19 would have driven some of that. But what steps has MAS taken to ensure that the less digitally savvy amongst us are not left behind?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Chairperson, there has been a concerted effort to educate and encourage all seniors to go digital. While such projects, like Seniors Go Digital and Hawkers Go Digital, are highly commendable, there must be the awareness of the gap between the availability of technology and the people using it. Contactless payments through credit and debit cards have recently become the norm in Singapore, at retail merchant outlets and even in buses and trains since 2019.
Until recently, NETS relies on a PIN for verification since its inception in 1985. Recently, though, NETS has pushed out their new contactless card with similar operating principles for contactless cards as international scheme debit cards. This has led to some worries among the elderly. While contactless payment has made payments easy, senior citizens are more vulnerable to scams. The spike in bank account debit and credit-card scams in recent years has also made the elderly concerned over losing their hard-earned money in these scams. One of my elderly residents was told by DBS that all new cards will be contactless and they will not allow any card requiring PIN for all transactions. He contrasted DBS' services with OCBC's which, he said, provided a debit card which is digitally rendered non-operative by default unless so activated by the customer.
Mr Chairperson. I understand that Singapore uses a chip and signature system in verifying payments through debit and credit payments. Many European countries, on the other hand, have implemented a chip-and-PIN authentication system. Such a system may be a good guard against attempts at fraudulent payment scams targeted at debit and credit cards. Indeed, we have seen an increase of such cases in the recent one to two years, and many against our senior citizens.
I would like to urge MAS to explore having a chip-and-PIN debit card or a PIN-only NETS-enabled ATM bank card only meant for domestic payments that are issued to senior citizens. Such cards can provide an added layer of defence to senior citizens against any fraud or scams.
The Chairman: The last I checked, I am still a Chairman. So, please feel free to use that term. Ms Sylvia Lim.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Apologies!
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Chairman, Sir, it has been heart-wrenching for us in this House to see our residents being scammed of their hard-earned monies. Many are elderly and have little avenue to earn money lost.
As Singapore moves towards widespread adoption of digital payments, the risks are heightened. As the money scammed are usually transferred from bank accounts, what role should banks play in trying to minimise the risks for vulnerable customers? It does seem that different banks may have varying requirements when it comes to transactional security. Therefore, I welcome the recent consultation paper by the MAS on a proposed notice on identity verification. This will mandate the types of information financial institutions must use to verify the identity of an individual for non face-to-face contact.
I wish to follow up on a suggestion made by the former Member of Parliament for Hougang, Mr Png Eng Huat, during last year's Committee of Supply of offering an option of a cooling-off period for inter-bank transfers. Has the MAS considered this and could it be implemented?
On vulnerable customers, there was a Business Times article last weekend by David Hardoon, a former special adviser to the MAS. He noted that some financial institutions were using AI and psychometrics to help predict which customers might be more susceptible to scam attacks. This would assist in developing bespoke advisories and training programmes to help inoculate such customers from falling prey to scams. To what extent is the MAS working with banks on this?
Finally, I would like to make an observation regarding the freezing of scammed monies in bank accounts in Singapore. In response to my Parliamentary Question in January 2021, the Minister for Home Affairs said that where the suspect was not arrested, a Court order was needed to return the money to victims, which process might take at least a year. As such a delay could cause serious hardships, could the agencies and banks work on a more expedited process?
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Chairman, being an international financial centre, Singapore-based banks must remain vigilant in the fight against fraud and money laundering.
In the recent past, there had been an exponential increase in dollar value of white-collar crime that has impacted on the banking system.
In the commodities trade sector, Singapore has been rocked by trade financing fraud that has led to multi-billion dollar exposures to banks. Some banks have withdrawn services from this sector totally. Traders with legitimate businesses suffered a hit as it would be more difficult for them to get credit lines.
In a response dated 5 October 2020 to my Parliamentary Question, the hon Senior Minister stated that the fraud cases have been attributed to weak disclosure practices and internal controls on the part of the companies.
What is concerning though is that, despite these weaknesses, banks have extended credit lines to such companies. On the part of the banks, there should have been more robust credit risk assessment of the companies. There should be more checks, apart from just relying on paper-based processes, as they are more susceptible to the risk of fraud. The impact of the banks’ lack of diligence is not just felt by the banks in question but the entire eco-system.
Banks regulated by MAS play a key role in preserving the integrity of our financial system. They are, in fact, required to guard against the use of their operations to facilitate any illegitimate activity, including fraud and money laundering. Failure to do so can have a serious impact on businesses and affect Singapore’s reputation as a premier international financial centre.
May I ask whether MAS has conducted a review of the banks’ actions against their regulatory requirements? How will MAS ensure that banks will take their responsibilities seriously in preventing fraud and anti-money laundering, especially in the context of fraud amounting to billions of dollars?
Even as Singapore grows in strength and stature as a financial centre, we need to make sure that our growth is rooted in a strong enforcement regime where all stakeholders are held firmly to their regulatory duties.
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Mr Chairman, the support given by MAS through the six-month moratorium on the payment of insurance premiums has been helpful, but it will end by 31 March 2021.
We are likely to see more residents not being able to continue to pay their insurance premiums as the economy will not recover so quickly, including the unevenness of growth expected to continue across economic sectors.
Residents in such cases may have no choice but to terminate their policies or sell them to third parties. It would be good if MAS could consider ways to help citizens who have to sell their policies to third parties to get a fairer value, especially under such challenging times, through better price discovery from the secondary market that is currently unregulated.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Chairman, I have spoken on the value of gender diversity in the workplace and the value of a diversified board.
Climate change is a global emergency, requiring efforts from all companies. How they invest and conduct their business is a powerful lever in supporting Singapore’s Green Plan 2030.
Can the Ministry consider mandating gender diversity and green investment board disclosure for listed companies? This can allow investors to shape their investment towards our gender diversity and sustainability aims. We already have mandatory sustainability reporting. We can go further by companies report on their green investment and footprint. For gender diversity, we can look at efforts by the Board to diversify itself.
Can the Ministry also support a corporate-led movement similar to Bloomberg’s Gender-Equality Index? It tracks the performance of companies committed to disclosing their efforts to support gender equality.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, the MAS-regulated Singapore Stock Exchange currently has a \"comply and explain\" policy on sustainability reporting for its listed companies, which was first announced in 2016. It presents a range of internationally accepted standards which companies are encouraged to choose and follow, but are not mandatory. This has resulted in inconsistencies in reporting methods, quality in data disclosure and, hence, rendering the reports ineffective due to lack of comparability amongst the listed companies. It could also lead to greenwashing. According to an NUS study done in 2019 on sustainability reporting, there are clear differences in the sustainability reporting performance among different industries.
Perhaps we could move from a \"comply and explain\" to a mandatory regime, as some other major exchanges have done. Studies are needed to determine the best frameworks to align with, such as GRI, TCFD, SASB, and so on, and we could also add industry-specific frameworks, such as RSPO.
But more broadly, can MAS share its plans to improve SGX's sustainability reporting policy to ensure quality and comparability of sustainability reports and provide support for SMEs to encourage sustainability reporting?
The Chairman: Minister Ong Ye Kung.
The Minister for Transport (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Chairman, on behalf of Senior Minister and Minister-in-charge of MAS, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam.
Let me start by addressing the issue of public trust, which is the bedrock of the financial services sector. I will then talk about two important medium term developments for the sector asked by Members. One is e-payments and, two, is promoting greater social good, such as sustainable development.
First, it is absolutely important for us to preserve and enhance the trust in our financial system. Ms Sylvia Lim asked if banks can work with the Police for more expeditious return of monies belonging to victims of scams. This is, indeed, a concern, especially when scam cases are on an uptrend. The banks have various measures to protect consumers. There are various caps, daily transaction limits, ATM withdrawal limits, contactless payment limits.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether there could be a cooling-off period, but it is really not so practical. The cooling-off period applies more in circumstances where you buy something and you find that it was an impulsive buy, you return it and you get your refund. But for day-to-day transactions, I think there are serious practical limits to impose a cooling-off limit. But I think the most important safeguard is to practise good cyber hygiene and take personal precautions.
So, for consumers, this means updating security patches and anti-virus software on your electronic devices promptly; and never giving away online banking login credentials, whether it is your user IDs, OTPs and PINs, to anyone. This includes not responding to seemingly legitimate requests for your personal and banking information, whether via email or SMS. No matter how genuine they look, never give that away.
The Anti-Scam Taskforce under the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) has a specific workstream focusing on educating the public against scams. The Anti-Scam Centre under the Police, works closely with banks to freeze the bank accounts of recipients of scam monies to enable police investigations. However, once prosecution commences, it will be the Courts that decide when the seized monies can be returned, depending on factors, such as whether seized monies remain relevant for the purposes of investigation or trial. MAS understands and shares Ms Lim’s concern, and this is something we will have to consult the Police to see what is possible.
Mr Murali Pillai asked about fraud prevention and anti-money laundering efforts in the commodities trading sector. MAS is working closely with other Government agencies on this. This includes strengthening banks’ credit risk assessment on firms in the sector, and digitalising trade financing to reduce fraud risk.
ABS, with the support of various Government agencies, has issued a code of best practices to enhance commodity financing standards in Singapore. It covers the trading companies’ corporate governance, risk management and disclosure practices. Banks will use it to set standards for lending and this will be fully implemented by July this year.
MAS is also working with ABS to establish a secure central database for banks to access records of trade finance transactions in Singapore. This will enhance transparency of transactions and mitigate the risk of duplicate financing.
Mr Derrick Goh asked about surrendering of insurance plans and secondary trading of insurance policies. In 2020, despite the economic recession, the number of policies surrendered hit a five-year low of 153,000, representing 0.9% of total in-force policies. This is partly due to the industry’s COVID-19 relief measures, which allow customers to defer paying for premium up to six months. The applications for premium deferment have since fallen sharply by 80% between Q2 and Q4 of 2020.
We should note not all policies surrendered are due to financial hardship. Some policyholders choose to terminate their policies because they no longer serve their needs. Whatever the case may be, it will benefit policyholders to be able to sell the policy in secondary market, which typically fetches a higher value.
Let me now talk about a couple of key developments in the financial sector, starting with e-payments. Ms Jessica Tan has asked for an update and expressed some concerns.
So, let me state at the outset we cannot be dogmatic about this. We are promoting e-payments because it is efficient, convenient and green, but we are not aiming to be a cashless society. Cash will continue to be a familiar and convenient way to transact, as Ms Jessica Tan has experienced. The adoption of e-payments by Singaporeans has been steadily increasing in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic and the rise of e-commerce have accelerated this trend.
Registrations for PayNow, for example, rose by 1.6 million last year, bringing the total number of registrations to 4.9 million. Registrations for PayNow Corporate doubled last year to around 240,000 business users. This means that 80% of residents and businesses are now on PayNow. This has driven PayNow transaction volumes to over $5 billion for the month of December 2020, which is double the volume a year ago. We expect this growth to continue, as users can now also send and receive PayNow transfers via non-bank e-wallets, such as GrabPay and Singtel Dash.
Adoption of QR payments by merchants has also surged. There are 200,000 SGQR labels islandwide, with 120,000 deployed in 2020 alone. And as more people switch from cash to e-payments for their day-to-day transactions, the usage of cheques has fallen. The ratio of cheque volumes relative to e-payment volumes has dropped from 32% in 2016 to 18% in 2019 and then 12% last year. The absolute number of cheques used fell by a record 10 million in 2020.
Similarly, the ratio of ATM cash withdrawals to e-payments has also been falling, from 47% in 2016 to 24% in 2019, to then 17% last year. These ratios should decline further as more people get used to accepting e-payments. And there are Singaporeans who are less familiar or face difficulties with e-payments and we will not leave them behind.
The “Seniors Go Digital” initiative – Members are familiar – helps seniors acquire skills to transact digitally. Seniors can receive personal lessons at SG Digital Offices around the island and they will be handheld, people will guide them, and I believe MOE is still pressing ahead to equip every child with a bank account and digitally-enabled bank account.
Furthermore, it is important that cash continue to be widely accepted in Singapore. There will continue to be ATMs and cash withdrawal points across our island. Today, there are 4,100 of these touchpoints, compared to about 3,700 five years ago.
As for PIN-only bank cards requested by Mr Dennis Tan, the local banks do offer customers the ability to disable the contactless feature of their ATM and debit cards, or the option of ATM cards without the contactless feature at all. We are not aware of any bank's initiative to do away with PIN numbers. We will remind the banks to explain this option to customers who may need it.
Another significant development in the financial services sector is the evolution of its role in promoting the larger social good. In this regard, Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Leon Perera asked about disclosures and sustainability reporting.
We share the Members’ desire to see companies providing high-quality reports on their efforts to promote sustainability and in social contribution. We also want to see continued improvements in how our companies disclose their broader social and environmental impact, on top of their financial performance. Such disclosures are important, especially given the heightened social and environmental consciousness amongst investors. It will facilitate capital flows towards investments more aligned to the investors’ preferences, objectives and standards.
Since 2016, Singapore Exchange Regulation (SGX RegCo) has required SGX-listed companies to disclose material environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks and opportunities that could influence the decisions of investors. These include information, such as greenhouse gas emissions, skills and gender diversity of senior management and their board members. In addition, the Code of Corporate Governance requires listed companies to disclose their board diversity policies, one aspect of which is gender diversity, and the progress in implementing the policies.
For financial institutions, MAS has set out its expectations with respect to the governance, management and disclosure of environmental risks. These disclosures are in accordance with international reporting frameworks, such as recommendations by the Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
Notwithstanding that, in certain areas – and as pointed out by Mr Leon Perera – such as in the area of environmental sustainability, current corporate disclosures are still not where they need to be, because international standards are still evolving. The basic problem is that there are various sustainability disclosure standards globally. So, this reduces the reliability, consistency and comparability of ESG disclosures across jurisdictions and even sectors. That undermines the purpose of the disclosures, which is to facilitate capital allocation decisions across competing investments.
MAS and SGX RegCo are, therefore, carefully studying international initiatives on harmonising sustainability disclosure standards. One major initiative happening is that significant international standard setters are now coming together to develop unified global standards and we will monitor the developments closely.
SGX RegCo will be consulting this year on enhancements to its sustainability reporting requirements. It will incorporate recommendations from the TCFD. In the meantime, MAS and SGX RegCo will continue to work with the Singapore Institute of Directors to help boards raise their sustainability reporting standards.
Mr Chairman, to conclude, let me say this. As an international financial services centre, Singapore can contribute to the global climate change movement by mobilising capital towards low greenhouse gas emission solutions and climate-resilient development. These can be investments in renewable energy generation, battery technology, carbon-efficient and food production methods, so on and so forth. The ability to achieve this and not disclosures alone, is what will move the needle and make a significant impact that is beyond Singapore.
Some observers have noted that in the recently announced Green Plan, not all the initiatives and targets are new. It is a fair and accurate observation and, in fact, it is only right that the Green Plan comprises existing as well as new initiatives. Because, as a nation, we have been implementing strategies to preserve our environment and combat climate change for many years. What the Green Plan does is to try to consolidate and synergise all that we are doing, all that we are planning to do, and elevate their importance.
Each initiative under the Green Plan is a major multi-year undertaking. For MAS, our strategy is to develop Singapore into a leading centre for Green Finance and that was announced in November 2019. If we can successfully mobilise capital and new investment into the green economy, we can bring about a virtuous cycle of economic growth, creation of jobs and opportunities that are environmentally sustainable. In the coming years, we will need to work very hard with the industry and all our partners, to build environmental risk resilience into the financial system, of which, quality disclosures play an important part; expand green finance solutions and markets; and leverage innovation and technology. The work is cut out for MAS and the financial services sector. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
The Chairman: Any clarifications? Order. I propose to take a break now.
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 6.35 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 6.17 pm until 6.35 pm.
Sitting resumed at 6.35 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Head U (cont) –
Miss Cheng Li Hui: Sir, since the Marriage and Parenthood package was introduced in 2001, there has been few rounds of enhancements, with the latest enhancement in 2019. However, this has not arrested the declining Total Fertility Rate, or TFR. Singapore’s TFR is at our historical low.
The low TFR is not a situation unique to Singapore alone. For example, South Korea’s TFR fell to 0.92 in 2019. This is likely due to changing social norms and values, as many continue to prioritise their careers over marriage and parenthood.
In the Parenthood survey that I mentioned in my Budget debate speech, there was question: \"What would encourage you to have more children?\" Some answered “Nothing”, “I want my life back”, “Enough”, \"My parents are getting too old to help.\"
Others said, \"Trusted care-givers such as grandparents\", \"infant care near home and work\", \"I must have time for each child.\"
But it would seem the Government have a tough job encouraging some couples to have more children.
Given the on-going COVID-19 situation, Singapore’s TFR may dip in the near term. As young couples may choose to defer their marriages due to safe distancing capacity limits imposed on weddings. Uncertain economic conditions may also cause couples to postpone their child-bearing plans. Overall, this would impact our immediate marriages and fertility outcomes. Hence, I would like ask the Minister for an update on the impact of COVID-19 on our marriage and TFR numbers.
I would also like to ask the Minister on whether the Government plans to review its existing strategies to encourage more Singaporeans to marry and have children, especially given changing life priorities and societal values.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): The TFR for resident Singaporeans stands at 1.14 as at 2019, the lowest registered in Singapore so far. But the developed countries all over the world struggle with low birth rates.
A case in point is South Korea which has TFR lower than Singapore. Since 2006, South Korea was reported to have spent almost US$250 billion on mostly cash schemes such as medical subsidies for pregnant ladies, cash for each baby born and for raising the child till he was one, and monthly allowance for families with children under seven. However, South Korea still has a very lacklustre track record in terms of TFR, mainly due to the lack of desire to marry amongst the young people and also, their decision for alternate lifestyle choices.
It is obvious external outside-in strategies such as cash incentives are insufficient and they would have to be balanced with a strong dose of inside-out effort to shift social mindsets.
I seek the consideration of Government to the following suggestions to both increase TFR and our resident Singapore population.
One, to encourage earlier marriage, consider offering support and grants to organisations with larger staff sizes and especially gender-dominant sectors like nursing, teaching, the army, to create opportunities, dignified, respectable opportunities for interaction; for example, in sports, in learning, or in forming interest clubs.
Second, also to encourage parenthood for those who are married, consider the following measures. For couples are willing and able to conceive, introduce even more generous housing priority benefits. Consider second timers, for example, for HDB flat priorities and also assure couples and all of this Interim Rental Flat that they will need before they get their flat. Consider providing free universal infant care and child care up to the age of seven.
And next, for couples who are willing and unable or find difficulty in conceiving: one, provide a greater range of support measures of fertility care and education; two, study carefully and consider addition of new fertility techniques such as egg freezing into the slew of assisted reproduction measures.
And for couples who are able to conceive but are reluctant or unwilling, provide respective and effective platforms for more inside-out education and sharing – dare I say, counselling – services for them to consider parenthood. And next, on the immigration policy of Singapore, through better supporting transnational families with one Singapore Citizen parent. Sir, I am deeply empathetic to residents of mine who are affected by the very strict and I know well-intended immigration decisions of our Government.
Qin Hao, the stepson of my resident, came to Singapore only in his teens when his mother remarried here. He cannot speak very good English, but a really good boy. He tried very hard to catch up with his English proficiency and worked very hard in school and later went to ITE. He was a diligent community volunteer. I helped support part of his ITE education but alas, when he reached 21 years of age, he had to leave Singapore. His mother, brother and stepfather are all Singaporeans. They are separated.
In other families, foreign women either widowed or abandoned by their Singapore spouses with children, are not assured of their stay in Singapore when they apply for PR or Singapore Citizenship, due to our strict migration policies. They have either a mix of children born locally and/or children from their past marriages.
I seek Government’s careful consideration to include them and their children as resident Singaporeans. The burden and stress they have to pay, sometimes in the form of very high school fees and healthcare costs, should be relieved. I propose that there be more flexibility and leniency in granting both PR and citizenship to families such as them.
Ms Hany Soh: Chairman, I would like to explore whether it is possible to provide more support to first-time parents, not just the financial support but also what else we can do to relieve their stress and feelings of helplessness during pregnancy and after the birth of their first-born. In particular, can we explore an initiative to develop a milestone booklet, akin to a baby's health booklet, to be provided to expecting couples, to track expectant mommies' well-being and to share useful information useful information by health practitioners regarding the necessary preparations for each stage of pregnancy, the parenting best practices and a list of supports systems available to all parents for the first few years of their journey into parenthood.
There is a similar concept found in Taiwan where it is called the \"Maternal Health Handbook\", 孕妇健康手册, which tracks the expecting mothers physical and emotional development. Some examples of what I envision could be in our Singapore's version would include items such as a checklist of vaccinations required for expecting mothers, recommended dates to sign up for prenatal classes, a checklist of items to prepare for the arrival of the baby, along with tips on how to spot signs of labour or postnatal depression symptoms and where to seek support in this regard.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Singapore’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is at a dismal 1.14 births. We have tackled this from a financial angle by various schemes to lower the cost of having children. However, in addition to financial constraints, time and stress are common concerns I hear from parents, especially those thinking about having a second child.
While some of us have the luxury of working from home, COVID-19 has also shown us the limits of this for certain groups of essential workers. For them, childcare sick leave is critical for juggling the demands of work and parenthood. I have spoken up about this previously.
It has been more than a decade since childcare leave provisions were increased. Will PMO consider having specific childcare sick leave and providing this on a per child basis?
The Public Service already gives officers childcare sick leave and it is on a per child basis. If the Government feels that childcare sick leave is important for the people who work for us, then why is it not important for the people we serve? Let us level this playing field.
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, in January this year, fellow Member of Parliament Mr Louis Ng raised an Adjournment Motion on “Providing more help for those undergoing IVF”. Yesterday, Member Miss Cheng Li Hui also spoke about Assistive Reproduction Technology (ART) and fertility health yesterday. I too relate with the topic because of residents who have shared with me their struggles.
Based on the Department of Statistics data, the highest marriage rates among males and females in Singapore has grown to 30 to 34 years old in 2019, an increase of about five years from a decade ago. This means that more couples are getting married at a later stage of their life.
With economic uncertainties due to the COVID-19 pandemic, like Miss Cheng Li Hui, I will not be surprised that some couples may decide to delay their marriage and may unknowingly be set back by fertility issues when they plan to have children later at an older age.
The Government's move from last year to remove the age limit of 45 years old for women undergoing ART procedures, as well as the cap on the number of IVF cycles a woman can undergo will certainly help sub-fertile couples.
Yet, as recent as last week, I still have a discouraged couple who shared with me their emotional and financial concerns after numerous failed attempts in ART. Given that the Total Fertility Rate has remained low and may worsen due to the pandemic and economic downturn, I would like to ask what other strategies the Government will consider to help young people understand more about fertility health earlier in their life, to better make their marriage and child-bearing plans.
The Chairman: Ms Carrie Tan.
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Chairman, Sir, I shall not belabour the point about Singapore's dismal Total Fertility Rate (TFR). What I do wish to emphasise is the reasons why we do not have enough babies and propose some measures to help bring the numbers up.
Number one, unequal care load between the men and women. Singaporean women struggle to juggle work and care in a large part due to the lack of men's involvement in parenting. Utilisation of paternity leave is at 53%. And fathers that I have spoken to express a spectrum of challenges, ranging from, \"I don’t feel that I add much value at home because the baby only wants mommy\" or \"If I take leave, I will have a pile-up of work. It is even more stressful\" or \"I still need to bring the bread home.\"
This is consistent with studies that NPTD has done, which brings us to major factor two – high work stress, no time and energy due to demands at work, make couples decide on having less children than what they would like to.
And such resistance to taking paternity leave, made worse by workplace demands makes it necessary for stronger Government measures. My proposal is to mandate the 50-50 sharing of the current childbirth leave.
Currently, mothers receive four months of maternity leave, two months of which are subsidised by the Government. And this has the unintended impact of discriminatory hiring by companies who hesitate to hire women especially those who are newly married, for fear of having to bear the financial and operational costs of paid maternity leave for four months.
To ensure higher usage of paternity leave, the Government can mandate that the four months be split half and half between mom and dad, with each of the employers getting subsidised for one month by the Government. This will have an equalising effect on hiring and firms will find it easier to manage the absence of a staff for two months instead of four.
Mandating paternity leave by law, and making the one month of Government subsidy only available to both firms respectively if fathers fully utilise their paternity leave, will also compel companies to be supportive of their employees taking leave in the months post-birth.
To sweeten the deal for fathers, I would like to venture that the Government may want to also offer fathers income tax reliefs which are currently given to mothers, if paternity leave is fully utilised. Of course, we need to provide infant care courses for dads as it will be helpful to help fathers step up better and also set mothers' minds at ease.
With such measures, we can create in time a norm in societal expectation for fathers to be present and involved in the first months of an infant's life, and subsequently as the child grows. Studies have shown that fathers who have a close relationship with their children contribute to their sons growing up with an increased inclination to be involved dads themselves.
If we want to cultivate a more positive mindset towards marriage and parenthood in our future generations, we need to ensure equal sharing of the load of care. And the time is now for us to set a new norm.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, a Straits Times article in December last year provided a snapshot into the state of corruption in Singapore today. One of the opening lines was, and I quote, \"Many people are heedless of the corruption that exists in squeaky clean Singapore, but graft remains prevalent.\"
Over the last three to four years, the number of high profile corruption revelations have come to light.
In 2018, two Chinese Nationals, both of whom were forklift drivers were charged for collecting multiple bribes of $1 in exchange for not delaying the loading and unloading of vehicles. Both drivers were fined and jailed between two to four months.
An equally significant case came to light this year when a brother and sister were handed jail terms close to the maximum five years for conspiring to secure tenders for two companies in China and receiving in excess of $2 million in bribes. The case was significant because a substantive part of the offence was committed outside Singapore. But because the Prevention of Corruption Act applies and has extraterritorial effect, the message was a clear one. Corruption committed by Singaporeans and Singapore corporate entities are not condoned anywhere in the world.
Yet, the remark of graft remaining prevalent in our paper of record, no less, is a matter of concern. While the Government is busy determining how best to reset the economy and put Singapore ahead of the pack when the post COVID-19 recovery begins, the core Singaporean value of a no-nonsense attitude towards corruption needs to be restated more forcefully. At stake is the reputation of the Singapore brand in a world where competition is stiffening and strong sustained growth harder to come by for a mature economy like ours. The goodwill and confidence generated for high quality investments by a strong emphasis against corruption through the Singapore brand cannot be understated.
CPIB be cannot afford for Singaporeans to be heedless of the corruption that exists in the country and double down on public education of its work. In the Minister for Law's Parliamentary speech last November, the Minister spoke of the zeitgeist that is being felt worldwide with many societies grappling with debates about inequality and the sense that the elites are bending the rules and systems to their own advantage and that the structures are unfair.
Sir, to this end, it would be useful to recall some high profile cases that have been splashed across our newspapers in the years past involving people in high places.
The Keppel Offshore and Marine or KOM scandal come to mind as does the CAD raid of S-League clubs and the Football Association of Singapore, which saw the arrest of our former Member of Parliament allegedly involved in $0.5 million donation to the ASEAN Football Federation.
I understand that investigations can take some time to complete but in view of the profile of the latter two cases in particular which involve people have some status, there is a real public interest as to why these matters have not closed yet. In the public mind, the inordinate delay in investigations is commonly juxtaposed against the publication of names, images and details of individuals splashed prominently in our papers, involving relatively petty amounts that constitute corruption like the $1 bribe, and rightly so.
To address public talk of inequality and double standards or perceptions of the same, it would be important for the CPIB and investigatory authorities to consider interim updates in view of the length of time that has elapsed since the news of the investigations broke. In the Keppel case, many remain perplexed why the authorities are taking so long to complete investigations, especially in light of Keppel officials who have been anonymously fingered in publicly available US Department of Justice documents.
In November 2019, Keppel Offshore and Marine's lawyer who admitted to drafting contracts to make bribe payments was sentenced to a year's probation and fined $75,000 in the US. Although a US citizen, the district judge allowed the lawyer in question to serve his probation in Singapore where he resides with his wife. What is holding up the investigations into the Keppel matter? Because it does not seem fathomable that the company can admit to offences but at the same time, there is insufficient evidence to lay at the feet of senior Keppel officials thus far.
Separately, when can the public anticipate a closure to the FAS matter?
And finally, I call on the Government to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act to raise the penalties for corruption.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Chairman, Singapore has a well-known reputation of being a jurisdiction that is tough on corruption.
Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2020 ranked our country as being the third least corrupt country in the world. Singapore is the only Asian country to be ranked in the top 10.
This hard-earned reputation and result are due in no small part to our men and women in CPIB. They deserve our gratitude for keeping corruption in check and ensuring that no one is exempted from the long arm of law even though the investigations can be difficult, arduous and may even take time.
In the 2018 Committee of Supply debate, I suggested that the main tool of the CPIB, the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), which was last reviewed more than 30 years ago, be updated to ensure that CPIB will continue to be able to handle the evolving challenge of corruption, in particular, cross-border corruption.
Some of the areas I suggested looking into include expanding the extraterritorial reach of PCA to include corporations incorporated in Singapore; to update the punishment provisions, especially with respect to corporations, and to consider enacting a provision similar to the UK Bribery Act; which is to make it an offence for corporations that fail to prevent the commission of bribery.
The hon Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, in response, stated that a review was being undertaken.
Three days ago, CPIB issued a press statement highlighting the charging of three former employees for bribery in which the value of the subject is about $200 million. It seems to me that this case is a timely reminder of the need to review the PCA provisions to ensure that the punishment provisions serve as an effective deterrent.
One further area which I wish to highlight for review is to statutorily provide in the PCA the attribution of company employees' corrupt actions to the company so that the company can be held liable and can be taken to task under the PCA in appropriate cases too.
As three years have passed, I will be grateful for an update of this matter.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): The COVID-19 pandemic has hit our economy very hard. Although latest figures show some improvement in employment levels at the end of last year, we are certainly not out of the woods. The external economic environment remains uncertain and the recovery of the labour market will take time.
In particular, the Labour Movement is concerned about the challenges faced by workers in the impacted sectors. We are also very concerned about segments of the workforce, in particular, the mature Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs).
These employment challenges triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic accentuated what are already longer term trends and challenges facing workers, which is that technological changes are reshaping jobs, creating new jobs and also taking away the need for other jobs, which can be automated or done with fewer workers due to digitalisation.
Even without the challenge posed by COVID-19, it is challenging for workers to maintain their employability throughout a longer career span going forward. While workers need to be open to learn new skills, we also require employers to look ahead and identify the job changes and invest ahead in retraining, before the job changes happen.
The Public Service is a significant employer. I would like to ask the Minister in charge of Public Service, how the Public Service can step up to support local workers, especially those from hard hit sectors, with job opportunities. How has been the progress in the public sector's SGUnited Jobs and Skills effort?
The Public Sector is also a significant sector, which has launched its own \"ITM\" in the form of the Public Sector Transformation movement. I like to ask how is the Public Service planning to ensure that its officers continue to have the pre-requisite skills and can retain their employability, as jobs are being reshaped in the transformation process? In the same vein, how is the Public Service taking the lead in enhancing the employability of older officers? With the current weak labour market, is the Public Service continuing with its earlier commitment to extend retirement and re-employment ages ahead of time?
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): In my Budget debate speech, I highlighted how the two phenomena of work-from-anywhere and work-from-home, will result in Government having to fundamentally re-assess long-held policy beliefs.
In the face of such rapid global transformation, we need to ensure that our Public Service remains agile to respond to these changes. Our public officers will need to remain adaptable through constant upskilling and new experiences, so that they can serve Singapore effectively in the new normal.
I would like to ask what is PSD's plan to ensure that our public officers of today will be ready to take on the challenges for tomorrow. How will our Public Service tap on the potential of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, 5G, and autonomous robotics?
For our Public Service leaders of tomorrow to effectively drive transformation in Ministries and Statutory Boards, we need to ensure that we groom officers from a wide variety of background. While the Public Service has committed to recruit talents from both the private and people sectors, more can be done to send more officers on external attachments to acquire fresh perspectives, including to the Labour Movement. How many public officers have been seconded to the private and people sectors? Can PSD set a target for key sectors, such as education, health and trade and industry?
Sir, in the new normal, with increased life expectancies, how does the PSD plan to extend the lifelong employability of our public officers? Are our Public Service schemes ready for the day when more Singaporeans live beyond 90 years?
Lastly, as the largest employer in Singapore, companies turn to the Public Service to take the lead in adopting progressive workplace practices. With the new work-from-home culture, I hope that the PSD can drive the adoption of flexible working arrangements; and set the tone for companies in the private sector to follow.
The Chairman: Minister Indranee Rajah.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their views and suggestions on population matters.
We want to build a population that fosters a strong and cohesive society, sustains a strong sense of shared national identity and generates a strong, vibrant economy where all can progress, and the fruits of growth can be distributed for a fair and just society.
Singaporeans will remain front and centre of all we do. Let me share four key population strategies that will help us to emerge stronger in a post-COVID-19 world.
First, supporting marriage and parenthood remains a national priority. Helping Singaporeans start and raise their families allows individuals to fulfil their aspirations to be a parent and also addresses an existential issue for us, which is maintaining a core of citizens born and bred here.
Miss Cheng Li Hui asked about the pandemic's impact on our marriage and fertility outcomes. COVID-19 has caused some Singaporeans to postpone their marriage, resulting in about 10% fewer marriages in 2020 compared to 2019. Others have delayed their parenthood plans.
Because we recognised the importance of marriage and parenthood as a life-goal for Singaporeans, we prioritised these even as we tackled the health and economic consequences of COVID-19:
We increased the attendance capacity for wedding receptions and solemnisations to 100, so couples can celebrate with more loved ones.
We introduced the $3,000 Baby Support Grant, or BSG, in October for Singaporean couples who have a child in these two years. This is over and above the Baby Bonus Cash Gift. Almost 10,000 families have benefited. We hope this gives some reassurance to couples to proceed with their parenthood plans.
The pandemic has also brought about opportunities. COVID-19 showed that flexible work arrangements (FWAs) are feasible and help parents to manage their responsibilities at work and home.
Mr Louis Ng asked if we could introduce additional leave for parents to care for sick children. Any leave enhancement, even if unpaid or temporary, could affect employers' operations and parents' employability, and must be reviewed with other requests for leave enhancements. It is more difficult to introduce such changes in the current challenging economic climate.
FWAs, on the other hand, are a pragmatic approach to meeting the needs of employers and workers. So, that is something that we can look at.
I agree that we need to lock in the gains of FWAs since the vast majority of employers now offer it. We are studying the effects of increased use of FWAs and how to keep such practices. Meanwhile, we urge employers to continue to offer FWAs to achieve better work-life harmony while at the same time, meeting business needs.
Ms Denise Phua suggested many ways to improve our Total Fertility Rate (TFR). Our TFR has been below replacement level for years. In 2020, our TFR was 1.10, which is a historic low. We are in a similar predicament as East Asian societies like South Korea and Taiwan, and Scandinavian countries known for achieving good fertility outcomes, like Finland and Norway. They also experienced a drop in TFR, and some are at historic lows too. Raising fertility is an uphill task for advanced societies, but we must continue to support those who wish to marry and have children.
Most young Singaporeans still desire to marry and have children. The recent World Values Survey showed that families are important to Singaporeans and most want to have children – preferably two. This is consistent with findings from the latest National Population and Talent Division's Marriage and Parenthood Survey, where over 80% of single respondents aged 21 to 35 said they wanted to get married, and 92% of married respondents in the same age group wanted at least two children. In the last five years, or 2016-2020, the average number of citizen births also increased compared to the previous five-year period of 2011-2015. We hope that notwithstanding the pandemic, Singaporeans will continue to pursue their family goals, and we will galvanise a whole-of-nation effort to support them.
Responding to Ms Denise Phua's suggestions, we are committed to building a Singapore that is made for families.
In the past two years, we have significantly enhanced access to affordable housing and pre-school. We raised the qualifying income ceiling for subsidised housing from $12,000 to $14,000 in September 2019 so that more couples could have affordable housing options. Those buying resale flats, can now receive up to $160,000 in housing grants, up from $90,000 five years ago.
We also increased the Additional Subsidy for pre-schools and raised the qualifying household income ceiling to $12,000 a month. We aim to further lower fee caps at Government-supported pre-schools so that working families with a child in full-day childcare pay around the equivalent of fees for Primary school plus after-school student care. With means-tested pre-school subsidies, low- and middle-income households will pay even less.
Miss Cheng Li Hui in her Budget Speech yesterday, and Ms Denise Phua and Ms Ng Ling Ling in their speeches today, have suggested increasing support for Singaporeans who undergo Assisted Conception Procedures, or ACPs. We agree that adequate financial and socio-emotional support is important. While we encourage married couples to have children when they are younger and their chances are better, we have also enhanced ACP support over the years.
The age cap on ACP co-funding is based on clinical evidence that success rates decrease with age. In deciding the maximum number of co-funded cycles, we also considered the emotional strain couples face when undergoing ACPs.
With MediSave and existing co-funding support, eight in 10 eligible Singaporean couples have no out-of-pocket expenses for their first cycle, while nine in 10 would not pay more than $500 for their first cycle.
Just last year, we removed the age limit for women undergoing Assisted Reproduction Technology, or ART, treatments. We also enhanced the co-funding scheme for couples to tap on up to two of the six co-funded ART cycles when the wife is aged 40 and above, if she had attempted an ACP before 40. We will continue to review the MediSave withdrawal limits to balance between supporting couples with their cost of treatment today, and ensuring they have sufficient savings for healthcare in old age.
While public Assisted Reproduction centres currently provide couples undergoing ACP with emotional support and social counselling, we will do more with community partners to provide holistic support and remove stigma for those seeking fertility checks or treatment.
Ms Hany Soh, who has asked for information to be disseminated to first-time parents, will be glad to know that the MSF's Baby Bonus Parenting Resources, or BBPR, Pregnancy Keepsake Journal, provides tips on pregnancy and parenthood. This will be piloted at maternity hospitals and selected private obstetrics clinics, complementing MSF's BBPR website, and HPB's e-toolkits for expectant mothers and new parents.
But we can always do better. With your permission, Mr Chairman, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an infographic showing the key enhancements this year. Members may also access these materials through the SG PARL MP mobile app.
While most married Singaporeans wish to have two or more children, and the majority still do, a growing number have only one child. Some Singaporean couples have shared their worries about the costs of having a second child, even though they very much want to. Currently, the support from Government to parents for their second child is the same as their first. We reviewed this and will provide more support for couples having their second child. We will double the maximum dollar-for-dollar Government co-matching of parents' savings in the Child Development Account (CDA) for the second child, from $3,000 to $6,000. This is in addition to the $3,000 CDA First Step Grant that parents receive upon opening the CDA.
With this enhancement, the maximum total Government contributions for the second child's CDA will increase from $6,000 to $9,000. All Singapore Citizen, or SC, children who are the second child, and whose date of birth or estimated date of delivery is on or after 1 January 2021, will be eligible. About 12,000 children will benefit annually.
The one-time $200 CDA top-up, announced by Deputy Prime Minister Heng on Budget Day, as part of the Household Support Package, will provide additional support.
Ms Carrie Tan has championed greater gender equality in caring for children and asked to set aside two months from the current four months of maternity leave, as paternity leave. She also asked for tax incentives to nudge fathers to use them.
We agree that the active involvement of fathers is critical to the wellbeing of children and their partners. Today, fathers can already share up to one month of their wives' maternity leave under the Shared Parental Leave Scheme, on top of two weeks of paternity leave. However, only about 5% of fathers use this flexibility. Some couples also prefer to reserve all 16 weeks of maternity leave for mothers to recuperate and bond with their child.
Hence, we are cautious about requiring fathers to take more of mothers' existing maternity leave. We would first urge fathers to take their paternity leave. Since the introduction of Paternity Leave, take-up rates have increased from 25% in 2013 to 53% in 2018. It is encouraging that more fathers have been taking time off to care for their new-borns, and we hope this signals a stronger shift towards greater shared parental responsibility.
Some working fathers and adoptive mothers may not qualify for paternity or adoption leave due to their employment arrangements. For example, they may be on multiple short-term employment contracts, or their employment contracts may have expired before the birth or adoption of their child.
To better support this group of parents, we will introduce the Government-Paid Paternity Benefit (GPPB) and Government-Paid Adoption Benefit (GPAB). This is similar to the current Government-Paid Maternity Benefit for working mothers, where a cash benefit is given in lieu of the Government-paid share of leave if their employment circumstances do not qualify them for leave. This will apply to parents whose children's date of birth, estimated date of delivery, or formal intent to adopt, is on or after 1 January 2021. About 500 working fathers and adoptive mothers would benefit from GPPB and GPAB annually. More details on the eligibility criteria and application process will be shared later.
I move on now to a workforce with a strong Singaporean Core.
The pandemic has also given us an opportunity to transform our workforce and reduce our reliance on lower skilled foreign workers. From June 2019 to June 2020, our total population declined slightly by 0.3% due to a decrease in foreign employment in the services sector, and Work Permit holders. S Pass and Employment Pass (EP) holders have also decreased amid the pandemic due to travel restrictions and the economic downturn. The Government continues to maintain a tight stance on our foreign worker manpower policy.
COVID-19 has accelerated efforts for businesses to transform business models and improve productivity. At the same time, we will continue to partner businesses to train and retain local workers and strengthen the Singaporean Core of our workforce.
We must also remain open to global talent who can complement our local workforce and attract high-value activities that create quality jobs for locals. That is why we have tightened the EP criteria and sharpened our tools, such as the Tech@SG and the Tech.Pass. We set a high bar for these schemes and are very selective. The talent base will help us emerge stronger, by anchoring and expanding new growth sectors.
For example, Mr Timo Recker and Mr Andre Menezes, from Germany and Brazil, co-founded agri-food tech start-up Next Gen Foods in Singapore in early 2020. They bring with them experience in alternative protein and food distribution. The team is developing plant-based foods, including an alternative chicken product. Next Gen Food Technologist Ms Claudia Lee, who majored in Food Science at NUS, said it was a dream come true to work directly with leading global experts in plant-based foods. By working with global talent, more Singaporeans like Claudia can deepen their expertise in growth areas.
Finally, we will continue to carefully calibrate the pace of immigration. In 2020, we granted about 21,100 new citizens, and 27,500 new Permanent Residents (PRs). These figures are lower than previous years due to travel restrictions and operational issues arising from COVID-19. For example, safe management measures resulted in limited slots to complete the final steps for PR and citizenship registration, which must be done in-person.
Hence, a few thousand applicants, who were approved in-principle, had not completed all the required processes to be granted their PR or citizenship respectively by end-2020. Depending on how the COVID-19 situation evolves, these applicants could be granted PR or citizenship in the coming months and may add to the numbers normally granted this year.
We continue to carefully select new PRs and citizens, and welcome those who have committed to making Singapore their home. We take in immigrants not just based on their ability to contribute to Singapore, but also their ability to integrate.
As Ms Denise Phua has acknowledged, foreign spouses have family ties to Singapore and our policies are already facilitative for those in genuine and stable marriages. Widowed or divorced foreign spouses, with custody of minor Singaporean children, will generally be allowed to stay here on a Long-term Visit Pass (LTVP) until the child becomes an adult. They can also qualify for a Letter of Consent from MOM which will allow them to work and care for their Singaporean children here. While it is not possible to guarantee PR or citizenship to any foreigner, foreign spouses are generally considered more favourably, especially when they have Singaporean children.
We must continue to build a community that is inclusive and united. In the past year, we saw many uplifting positive examples of Singaporeans and foreigners rallying together to help battle the COVID-19 crisis. For example, Ms Chong Pek Lian from Malaysia contributed to the COVID-19 battle as a contact tracer at Sengkang General Hospital. Despite the long hours and heavy workload, she was glad to help reduce the spread of the virus.
Singaporeans also gave help, support and appreciation for our foreign workers who have contributed to our society, such as those in healthcare and construction. Many have continued to carry out their duties here and have not been able to see their families throughout this period. Our society will be stronger if all who call Singapore home and believe in our vision are empowered to make Singapore a better place.
The Government will continue to work with a range of stakeholders to build our future together and emerge stronger post-COVID. We have consulted Singaporeans widely on population-related issues. For instance, in 2019, we convened a Citizens' Panel to tackle the tricky issue of improving work-life harmony, which affects marriage and parenthood.
In 2020, we also worked with the Citizens' Workgroup to co-develop new curriculum and programmes for the Singapore Citizenship Journey. This initiative explored what it means to be Singaporean, including our shared values and duty to contribute to society. We agree with Miss Cheng Li Hui that the Government's strategies for encouraging marriage and parenthood need to account for shifts in life priorities and societal norms.
As part of the Emerging Stronger Conversations, Minister of State Sun Xueling and I will lead a series of conversations on \"Building A Singapore Made For Families\", from April to September this year. We want to better understand how the thinking and aspirations of Singaporeans, at different stages of their Marriage and Parenthood journey, may have changed due to the pandemic. Ms Denise Phua will be glad to know that the engagements will include transnational families, who may face unique challenges after deciding to make Singapore home. We will work together with the rest of society to better support all families in Singapore and shape an environment in which we can make time for things that matter.
Our post-COVID world will require population strategies that keep us resilient and cohesive. Together, let us continue to build a Singapore that is a home for all Singaporeans and emerge stronger as a nation.
Let me now go on to separately address the cut by Mr Pritam Singh on corruption. I think he made some general comments at the start about the status of corruption, and I just wanted to refer to the CPIB Report for 2019. This indicates that the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for 2019 ranked Singapore fourth out of 180 countries and territories with a high score of 85. And in the latest Political and Economic Risk Consultancy 2020 corruption survey, Singapore maintained top position and improved its score to 1.73 as compared to a score of 1.85 the previous year, zero being the best score.
In 2019, CPIB received 350 corruption-related reports compared to 358 in 2018. And in 2019, the percentage of corruption-related reports registered for investigation increased to 34% compared to the annual average of 28% over the preceding four years, but generally speaking, we are doing well on that front and the cases have been prosecuted with all due dispatch.
Mr Singh asked for update on two cases. I think it was the Keppel Offshore and Marine and I believe FAS.
On Keppel Offshore and Marine, this case is complex and transnational, involving multiple authorities and potential foreign witnesses from several countries. The Singapore authorities have been working closely with foreign investigating and prosecuting agencies on the matter. As part of the on-going investigation, AGC and CPIB had made two fact-finding trips to Brazil in May and August 2019. As there is a need to obtain additional information from other witnesses based overseas, AGC and CPIB have worked together to send a mutual legal assistance, MLA request to Brazil following the earlier fact-finding trips. The MLA request is pending their response.
AGC and CPIB are also working together to send more MLA requests to other relevant foreign authorities to interview these potential witnesses. While our intention is to move as expeditiously as possible, not all aspects of the investigation are within our control, particularly in relation to the requests and applications made and filed in other jurisdictions.
The current COVID-19 situation globally has also made the cross-jurisdiction investigation efforts more challenging. CPIB is unable to comment further on the case, so as to protect the integrity of investigations, which are confidential in nature and to avoid prejudicing any prosecutorial decision that might follow. CPIB remains resolute and committed to combat corruption and will continue to pursue the case to its end.
With respect to the FAS case, I am afraid that when Mr Pritam Singh filed the cut on corruption, normally you have to indicate the gist of the cut. And the gist of the cut which is indicated to Parliament and then given to the Ministries, only indicated update on Keppel investigations; so, I am sorry I do not have the information on FAS. But perhaps, Mr Singh might like to file a Parliamentary Question on that.
The Chairman: Minister Chan Chun Sing.
The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me, on behalf of the Prime Minister, address the cut from Mr Murali on the CPIB.
First, let me thank Mr Murali for recognising the efforts of CPIB in keeping corruption at bay. Corruption is under control in Singapore but we must never be complacent. The findings from CPIB's 2020 Public Perception Survey saw strong public confidence in our national anti-corruption efforts, with the following cited as the top three success factors contributing to the low corruption rate in Singapore: first, the political determination to keep corruption at bay; second, the heavy punishments; and third, the anti-corruption laws that are effective.
The Prevention of Corruption Act has served Singapore well and remains an effective instrument. The review of this Act by CPIB is underway. CPIB has been working in consultation with AGC on a comprehensive list of provisions for the review, some of which included the disgorgement of corrupt benefits from perpetrators and strengthening the protection of informers' identity. CPIB will provide more information on the review when it is ready together with AGC.
But having said that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I would like to emphasise one particular point that has come up from the various threads. And that is, our reputation as a clean and corruption-free country is hard-won and is not something that we take for granted. Looking at our history, we know that such things may happen now and then, involving all strata of society. But regardless of who is involved, which organisation is involved, nobody will be above the law and CPIB, together with the rest of the enforcement agencies will get to the bottom of each and every case, because the reputation of Singapore, the kind of values that we exhibit must be above all other considerations. So, it is a hard-fought reputation, it is hard-won but we must never be complacent because it is a job that will never be done and we must never let our guard down.
Next, I will address the cuts from Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Melvin Yong on the Public Service's efforts to enhance employability, employment practices and build capabilities.
Mr Patrick Tay asked how the Public Service has helped Singaporeans impacted by the pandemic. We have worked with unions and other partners to place some 21,000 local workers so far in short-term and long-term jobs and traineeships across the public sector. They came from all age groups, including mature workers, and we remain committed to supporting the needs of workers through the SGUnited Jobs and Skills effort.
But we are clear that in the longer term, with an ageing and shrinking local workforce, we must help our people work longer with new capabilities. Therefore, the Public Service will raise its retirement and re-employment ages to 63 and 68 respectively from 1 July 2021, one year ahead of the national schedule, as earlier committed.
Mr Melvin Yong spoke about supporting public officers' lifelong employability, through good workforce and workplace practices. We agree. Key to this is re-skilling our officers to continually upgrade their skillsets to keep up with the new job demands. Since 2019, we have worked with the unions to upskill thousands of officers in areas such as basic digital literacy, data analytics and adapting to career and work-life transitions.
We are also developing public officers through job rotations and attachments to the private and people sectors. Officers learn best practices to bring back to the public sector. So far, we have worked with over 50 partners to attach over 90 officers from more than 30 agencies to such organisations and we will continue to expand this scheme further.
Mid-career hires into the Civil Service also accounted for over 45% of all hires in the past five years. We welcome more mid-career hires to join us and contribute their skillsets and experiences to public sector work.
We are implementing progressive workplace practices to build a more collaborative and caring Public Service. We have implemented flexible work arrangements like enabling more officers to adopt hybrid work arrangements. We are doing more to promote workplace health and mental wellness. For instance, we are starting a Service-wide programme to train mental wellness ambassadors to provide peer support and care for co-workers.
We are also making concerted efforts to strengthen the Public Service’s capability to serve Singapore. We have been investing in technology as a key driver of Public Sector Transformation. Many of our COVID-19 responses were underpinned by technology, like A*STAR and TTSH’s Fortitude test-kit, and HTX’s autonomous robot M.A.T.A.R deployed to patrol dormitories.
We are leveraging technology like Artificial Intelligence (AI) for policy-making, service delivery and operations. The MSO One Service App uses AI-enabled routing of residents’ feedback. Public officers working in science, technology and engineering (STE) roles will be developed in niche areas like power engineering, modelling and simulation. We welcome more aspiring scientists and engineers into the Public Service.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Service will continue to transform ourselves and continue to develop our workforce to prepare our people for a longer career within the Public Service. At the same time, we will increase the porosity between the Public Service and the private and people sector, so that we can gather experiences from all across the nation for the good of our country.
The Chairman: Any clarifications? Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir. I agree with the Minister that flexible work arrangement especially work-from-home is the way forward. But I think we need to remember that the essential workers cannot work from home.
So, could I ask, one, whether the Minister is aware of any studies in Singapore that show that by increasing childcare leave, it would decrease the employability of a person?
Two, could I ask whether PMO can study the usage of childcare sick leave amongst our public servants, and then use this study to decide on whether to extend it to everyone else?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, on the first question, I do not have information on specific study with me at hand but I can look that up and we will liaise with the Member separately.
On the second, I believe the Member had a suggestion. I am always happy to entertain suggestions from the hon Member Mr Louis Ng and we will look at it.
The Chairman: Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: Chairman, I just have a clarification for Minister Indranee. I was asking for a bit more flexibility and more liberalisation of the immigration policy for the foreign spouses of Singaporeans. They are either widowed or abandoned. Minister mentioned just now, and I wanted to seek clarification, that these spouses who are widowed or abandoned, the Minister mentioned that they would only get long-term visit pass until the Singaporean child is 21. Is that correct? Because if so, by the time they can apply for PR will be actually quite late. And many of them would have Singaporean roots and the children and the families would all be here. So, I think it would make sense to provide them the PR or citizenship status. I am just seeking clarification on that.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I was actually simply describing the broad range of measures. I was not making a statement as to a specific time when it is considered. I think ICA considers each case on its own merits and the point I was making is that family ties will mean greater priority.
The Chairman: Ms Tin, would you like to withdraw your amendment?
Ms Tin Pei Ling: Chairman, I thank everyone for the contributions and also to our very hardworking Public Service officers and our leaders in this House for keeping Singapore vibrant and safe. With that, Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $972,616,700 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $293,445,300 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head M (Ministry of Finance)","subTitle":"Good governance","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Head M, Ministry of Finance. Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
As the key Ministry responsible for managing fiscal policies and financial sustainability, MOF plays a pivotal role to ensure prudent and efficient allocation of resources across the whole-of-Government.
During this period where our fiscal situation is a lot more constrained and yet our spending needs continue to rise sharply, we need to be even more judicious in managing how we spend and whether we achieve the intended outcomes.
The Government is, of course, a massive entity and it may not always be possible to have full visibility as to whether we achieve value-for-money in what we spend. At the same time, we must be mindful to strike a balance between the speed of responses versus ensuring governance and checks.
Can I ask the Minister how does MOF ensure effective allocation and productive use of resources so that we maintain fiscal accountability and sustainability, even as we are faced with the increasingly complex challenges that cut across Ministry lines, for example, cybersecurity, or even the setting up of our community isolation facilities? These are multi-agency tasks.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
How are we ensuring that the Government spends prudently and appropriately on big-ticket items such as our infrastructure where we are expecting more spending to come?
What are MOF’s efforts to drive accountability for outcomes of spending, especially for significant spending in response to the COVID-19 crisis?
Sir, Singaporeans must be at the heart of what we do, especially during an extraordinary crisis of this scale. In rendering support and relief to our businesses, families and workers, it would require the Government and agencies to work with decisiveness, speed and with empowerment. Assistance and relief support need to be timely and thoughtful to be meaningful, and to serve its purpose. How has MOF exercised agility and flexibility to flow assistance to businesses and citizens more expeditiously at the outset of the crisis and during the circuit breaker?
IRAS, ACRA and Customs are key interfacing agencies for businesses and citizens. From time to time, I do receive feedback and appeal requests from my constituents to expedite approvals and to seek waivers from these agencies that come under MOF. How is MOF working together with the businesses to develop innovative solutions and enhance productivity? How has MOF increased partnership and co-creation with the community in delivering solutions?
Sir, over the last one year, we have experienced unprecedented change in our way of life. Working from home and flexi-work arrangements become suddenly workable. Digital transactions, QR code, Zoom meeting, among others, is now the way to go for businesses and for individuals.
It has implications in Public Service and would require enhancements as to how public sector can serve and deliver services. How is the public sector gearing up for greater adoption of digitalisation among our businesses and society? In the case of MOF, what has the Ministry done to build capabilities in areas such as finance, procurement, grants management, shared services and internal audit?
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Chairman, unprecedented Government expenditure has been incurred in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important that proper controls, governance and accountability over the use of public funds are maintained, even as Government agencies react swiftly to the evolving pandemic situation.
Most importantly, support measures should be fair and must reach targeted groups, especially vulnerable groups such as low-income workers and families who have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic.
The Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) was by far the most significant cost item in the Government’s expenditure to fight COVID-19. It was a lifeline to many companies, helping them keep local employees on payroll. It was broad-based, benefiting all companies albeit at different support tiers.
With COVID-19 pandemic impacting industries and companies unevenly, questions have arisen on whether JSS could have been more targeted from the beginning, channelling differentiated and sustained help to impacted sectors and none to firms that are positively impacted. In some countries, such as Australia, eligibility for wage support only kicks in if business turnover drops by 30% due to the pandemic.
Whilst I appreciate it is easier to assess impact on hindsight, could the Minister share how the Government prioritised assistance and channelled funding support during the outbreak? What was the rationale to provide JSS across the board?
Sir, with increasing support directed towards new areas of development, including R&D and start-ups, the measurement of grants’ outcomes and success will need to evolve to different sets of parameters and time horizons. How does the Government evaluate the return on investments for such support schemes? What KPIs are used to track progress and success to ensure public funds are judiciously allocated?
Sir, as the Government will face major constraints in its fiscal position in the coming years, the value-for-money culture and accountability for the outcomes of spending cannot be more important. How is MOF deploying technology and data as the key enablers for agencies to better plan, collaborate and deliver public services more efficiently and effectively?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Chairman, fiscal councils are agencies staffed by professional civil servants which evaluate policy proposals to provide budgetary implications.
To-date, there almost 40 fiscal councils worldwide concentrated among advanced economies. Some are comparatively older. The Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis dates back to just after the end of the Second World War while the Congressional Budget Office which serves both Houses of the United States legislature was founded in 1974.
Others have more recent prominence but have, nevertheless, become rapidly influential. Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer was established in 2006. The United Kingdom's Office for Budget Responsibility was formally constituted in 2010 and most fiscal councils within the EU were set up following the European Fiscal Compact in 2012.
Importantly, fiscal councils are independent and are expected to provide non-partisan assessments of the expected effects of policy on revenue and expenditure. As such, they serve as trusted public institutions that can help score, reform ideas and proposals to help ensure the economy's commitment to sustainable public finances. The support functions that fiscal councils offer include public assessments of fiscal plans and performance and evaluation of all provision of macro-economic and budgetary forecasts.
While these functions may already be performed to some degree by MOF, MOF reports to the government of the day. In contrast, the fiscal council will provide advice and the key here is advice as they do not possess any formal power to determine the Budget to the whole of Parliament at their request. As such, the Council will be available to scrutinise policy proposals offered by PAP backbenchers as well as Opposition parties.
I should point out that a proposal to form an independent Office of Budget Responsibility was raised by Mr Low Thia Khiang of the Workers' Party in 2017's Committee of Supply debates, This proposal builds on that, detailing the functions of the proposed agency and its service to the full legislature, and underscore the distinct macro-economic environment of the day.
There is evidence that fiscal councils can improve fiscal performance, especially when such Councils enjoy legal and operational independence, are tasked with monitoring fiscal rules and are supported by a robust media presence. Moreover, an independent fiscal council can be especially useful at this juncture in our economic evolution, given how we are currently running the largest Budget deficit since Independence, with substantial uncertainty over the likely future evolution of our economy.
Unlike the past where our Government has run balanced Budgets over successive terms and, hence, we may have had little need for this institution, there was an unprecedented deficit over the last term of Government which necessitated a draw on past reserves. I propose that the MOF consider the formation of an independent fiscal council, the Parliamentary Budget Office of Singapore seeded with an initial $20 million and tasked with the mandate to score all major policy proposals, formally advanced by Members of Parliament for budgetary and macro implications.
The Chairman: Mr Leon Perera, please, if you would like, take all three cuts together.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, my first cut on National Research Foundation. The National Research Foundation is responsible for directing a huge amount of Government spending. The Research Innovation and Enterprise RIE 2025 Plan announced in December 2020 plans for investments of $25 billion between 2021 and 2025.
In other countries, we do hear anecdotally how government-supported R&D initiatives help seed IP to domestically based companies. In the US, for example, it is known that in the past, NASA might have seeded technology to American companies, technology that arose from the state-funded space effort. I have spoken in the House about this before.
The nexus between state research institutes and research centres on the one hand and local companies on the other, is not non-existent. For example, some new initiatives were rolled out in 2018 to try to ease the process by which local firms can engage with the R&D capabilities residing in our RIs and RCs. However, I still hear anecdotally that local firms find this process not altogether easy to navigate and that there is a perception that those local firms, able to write and present their proposals well or those that hire consultants, are best able to navigate this process as opposed to those with the best ideas.
I would like to suggest that the NRF be tasked with a number of hard mandates: firstly, that KPIs be set for engaging the local firms on co-generating or supporting the generation of commercialisable IP, with the economic impact and multipliers of that IP being measured and tracked going forward. This is in line with one of the themes of my Budget debate speech that we should score an \"A\" for outcomes, not only an \"A\" for effort.
Secondly can the NRF be given a more structured or built-in mandate to direct some of its spending towards green tech in ways that would help national and, indeed, global decarbonisation goals. The two objectives, of course, are not mutually exclusive.
The second cut on assessing the performance of sovereign wealth funds.
Mr Chairman, Temasek and GIC, no doubt compare their performance against various global market indices and other standards of performance internally. It would be useful for these Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) to publish these comparisons in the analysis for the reasons for better assessment of their performance. In fact, it would be useful for the Government in the form of MOF to understand these comparisons in some detail.
With that said, I would like to ask how does the MOF itself assess that the SWFs Boards and management have done a reasonable job in terms of returns. What internal metrics, indices and benchmarks and processes are used?
In the case of Temasek, the MSCI is used as a reference. As I understand it, Temasek also sets its own hurdle rate at a risk adjusted cost of capital that its market value TSR has under-performed on the one, three, 10 and 20-year periods, as of March 2020. It has argued that its under-performance relative to the risk adjusted cost of capital is because it is making a systemic shift to build resilience for the future. I would like to ask does the Government have clarity on the transformation Temasek is undertaking and why they think the future rate of return will outperform the current rate of return on these new investment strategies?
Last cut on reserve spending. Mr Chairman, the reserves consist of various classes of assets held by Temasek, GIC and the MAS, if we are to exclude land banks.
During typical economic crises some asset value such as equities may fall on the whole. This is fairly typical. If a result draw-down is financed by liquidating assets in a time of crisis, this may not necessarily be advantageous for Singapore since it may mean selling fundamentally good assets, such as shares and good blue chip companies, for example, at low prices rather than hanging on to those assets to realise future value when the economy recovers.
However, if the reserves draw-down is financed by borrowing against the collateral of the reserves, that may in some circumstances prove to be more advantages to Singapore, especially given that interest rates may be lower in a time of global economic crisis as central banks slash the cost of credit to financial institutions as they often do. Or is the first line of execution for reserves draw-down utilising cash or cash equivalents held by the MAS or other institutions?
Hence, I would like to use this cut to ask the Government what is the operating principle that determines how reserves draw-downs are financed and executed with these considerations and questions in mind?
And in conclusion, I just like to add that I am aware that during the COVID-19 period, some sectors and some stock exchanges and market indices actually rose. In that sense, this crisis has been atypical. My comments earlier referred to more typical global economic crisis.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, Sir, as the Government continues to fiscally strategise to meet long-term needs of our nation through investing in essential sectors, I would like to suggest that the Government adopt more upstream urban design ideas to optimise downstream operating expenses. This can reduce long tail costs.
For example, designing upstream and investing in an organic waste conveyance system cum digester as part of building or district. Organic waste is transported through a system of pipes to an onsite digester which could up-cycle waste into useful products. Such a system reduces overall cleaning and haulage cost due to lesser need for point-to-point transportation, allowing for a reduction in carbon footprint too. Value for money and value for good.
I also would like to recommend training in deep sector technical knowledge for relevant public officers so that procurement tenders are scoped with the best outcome. Creating more secondment opportunities for public officers to be attached to high growth Singapore businesses to gain first-hand experience would also be ideal. Having equipped with industry technical knowledge would allow for all translation work to be more effective, alongside with industry feedback and insights.
Finally, we need to further integrate the use of technology with design-driven solutions so that the user is at the center of all of Governments’ programmes and services. We can find the balance of being both cost conscious and outcome driven and embrace the importance of design in our public services.
Ms Foo Mee Har: Chairman, the Government can play an active role to give local businesses a leg up. Sir, I am particularly heartened by the support to our heartland businesses and hawkers by the partnership between MOF and Community Development Councils (CDCs) to give all Singaporean households $100 worth of CDC Vouchers to be used at participating heartland shops and hawker centers. This will not only go a long way to bolster the vibrancy of our local merchants but to foster a strong spirit of community and solidarity.
SingapoRediscover Vouchers is another excellent example of supporting local tourism at a time when they most needed it. The scheme was off to a good start, but it will need Government’s support to give it a boost in usage. The key challenge based on feedback from my residents is in navigating the various participating websites to look for something of interest. The current process of redemption seems time-consuming and complicated, especially to the less tech savvy.
Government can support businesses better by flowing assistance to them more easily, staying nimble and customising support. To achieve flexibility and agility, Government will need to gain new capabilities in setting more dynamic parameters and monitoring mechanisms. I would like to ask if the Government has leveraged AI, Artificial Intelligence, big data as well as analytics to achieve better outcomes in grant support.
Sir, there is much demand for the Government to enable local businesses to leverage publicly developed infrastructure and capabilities to catalyse development of industry’s eco-system. This is especially relevant with respect to datasets and applications specific to Singapore as part of our digitalisation efforts. How can Government developed APIs be shared with local businesses to support fast track development of new commercial applications? What plans are there to foster a closer partnership and cocreation with the local businesses in delivering solutions?
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, 2020 was a year fraught with challenges. We saw an increased number of applications for financial assistance, be they from businesses or citizens. In response, a number of new schemes were very quickly introduced to address their needs, including the COVID-19 Support Grant, Jobs Support Scheme, Temporary Bridging Loan Programmes and many more.
Despite the wide array of support, I note that some have had to make appeals or request for further support. They were not aware of what supporting information to provide, or were found to be narrowly ineligible.
Can the Minister share how agility and flexibility have been exercised to avail assistance to businesses and citizens more quickly during COVID-19? And how are the involved personnel equipped to cope with the increased workload? Is there a need to enhance their capabilities?
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Chairman, there has been a growing global emphasis on Environmental, Social and Governance or ESG goals. This reflects expanded role of companies in driving our environmental and social outcomes. And there is still vast potential still to be tapped, especially for private companies.
Can the Ministry consider making it a requirement for larger private companies to report on their sustainability and gender diversity efforts in their annual returns? Their customers and business partners can then better decide how their resources can used to pursue our environmental and social aims.
I understand that some companies have stayed privately held because of business considerations, some of which might be compliance requirements of public listing. However, there are significant number of private companies compared to listed ones. The latter which already have sustainability reporting requirements. Private companies can provide the added impetus for our Green Plan and gender diversity aims. We can strike a good balance by limiting to companies above a certain level of turnover or manpower size.
Next, can the Ministry also share on how Government grants are also used to drive sustainability and social outcomes? Can the Government share on its longer term plan to leverage on our procurement guidelines for good sustainability and gender diversity outcomes?
Mr Leon Perera: Mr Chairman, I am heartened by the growing passion and quality of debate inside and outside this House regarding our climate challenges. Our sovereign wealth funds as global players should rightfully play a leading role in the effort to decarbonise. We could kickstart this by having our Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF) adopt the PSTLES style framework directed by MOF.
First, it is good that Temasek has committed to half 2010 net portfolio emissions by 2030 and to deliver net zero by 2050, But this refers to only scopes 1 and 2 emissions. Can Temasek include scope 3's indirect emissions into its commitment since portfolio companies are often investors themselves?
On GIC's end, we have no visibility in its portfolio environmental targets, will GIC release this information?
While it may be impossible to disclose the full extent of investments, the declaration of standards companies must fulfil before a SWF can invest in them would be positive. Norway's SWF outlines concrete expectations of companies that it invests in and has an exclusion list on the types of companies that do not meet ethical and environmental standards. An explicit statement allows for accountability and sends a powerful message to the business community about what the Singapore brand stands for.
The Chairman: Mr Henry Kwek. Not here. Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Chairman, with a 9% increase in private residential volumes in 2020 despite the absence of foreign buyers and despite COVID-19, the Singaporean aspirations of upgrading from public to private property is stronger than ever. Aspirations for better housing is particularly pertinent for residents aged 35 and below, with 73% aspiring to upgrade according to the HDB's latest sample household survey.
Enabling financially able Singaporeans to upgrade from HDB to private not only fulfils their aspirations, but it also eases demand for homes in the public residential market. While Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) has helped reduce excessive demand for property investments, it has also affected genuine HDB owners to upgrade to a private property.
An HDB owner today has to pay 12% ABSD upfront within 14 days of signing the S&P agreement for a private property if he or she has not already sold their current home. Given the rising prices of private property, 12% is no small amount, even though this could be remitted for married couples once they sell their first residential property within the specified timeline. This experience is different for a HDB owner who upgrades to an Executive Condominium (EC) or even buying another larger HDB unit. The Government grants semi-automatic ABSD remission providing them six months after collecting the keys to sell the flat.
Mr Chairman, this remission reduces the pressure of having to pay the ABSD in a short span of 14 days, a relief the HDB owners transitioning to private properties do not enjoy. I would like to ask if there is any rationale behind the absence of remission for a HDB to private property automatically, as a compared to HDB or EC upgraders. Would MND explore harmonising this remission to this group of citizens who wish to fulfil their housing aspirations?
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Chairman, with the transformation and changes that we are witnessing, the public sector too needs to build capability to stay relevant.
A key role that the public sector plays is that of steward of public resources. Can Minister share what MOF has done to build up public sector capabilities in areas of procurement, grants management, internal audit and shared services to enable better governance, value for money and benefits for the businesses and citizens?
With digitalisation and the pace of change, traditional Government procurement processes will need to evolve as current tender procurement processes may not always work.
The effective use of technology and digitalisation enables agility, speed and the capability to do things differently. How has MOF leveraged digitalisation to strengthen public sector capabilities and processes, to transform the way work is done and improve how citizen services are delivered?
Transforming public sector services is not just about application of technology or digitalising. It involves relooking at how things are done and in some cases, completely new ways of doing things.
Digitalisation enabled by new technologies and platforms is also increasing citizen engagement and feedback with Government. This is changing the dynamics of citizen and Government engagement and will require public officers to have new mindsets, technology and leadership skills. How is the public sector developing public officers, bringing in new talent and competencies and ensuring the retention of subject matter expertise?
The Chairman: Minister Lawrence Wong.
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Chairman, I thank the Members for their questions and comments for MOF.
The cuts by Members cover four broad areas: first, fiscal sustainability and accountability; second, managing our investments and reserves and tax-related matters; third, supporting social and environmental outcomes; and fourth, supporting businesses, citizens and community and enhancing public service capabilities.
I will speak on the first and second areas and my colleague, Second Minister for Finance Ms Indranee Rajah will cover the other two areas and the proposal for an independent fiscal council.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Foo Mee Har raised important points and asked how the Government ensures prudent and effective allocation of resources, especially in such challenging times. And I want to assure both Mr Liang and Ms Foo that we take these issues very seriously, especially on securing good value-for-money and good outcomes with the resources that we have.
So, we continually prioritise and reallocate funds to key areas of greater needs across the whole-of-Government so that it is not just about additional spending but also about re-prioritisation. As an example, in the October Ministerial Statement, Deputy Prime Minister Heng highlighted that MOF had re-directed funding of about $8 billion from areas with reduced spending, such as development projects that were delayed due to COVID-19, towards funding our fight towards COVID-19. Clearly, something which was of priority.
Second, we have joint budgeting arrangements for cross-cutting domains, to better align priorities and reduce duplication of resources across different agencies. Joint budgets have been set up in the areas of jobs and skills, vaccines and therapeutics, Smart Nation and Digital Government as well as in Research, Innovation and Enterprise.
Ms Foo asked how we evaluate the return on investment for support schemes directed towards new areas of development. As with all Government programmes, we monitor the output and outcomes of our programmes and schemes to ensure that their purposes are met. We also review whether to scale, refine, or sunset programmes depending on their outcomes.
For example, for digitalisation programmes, we look at digital adoption rate and digital readiness across the sectors.
For enterprise development programmes, we monitor the growth of benefiting companies like revenue, to holistically assess how well the scheme objectives are met.
For Research and Development or R&D, we continuously seek to refine the way by which we assess and monitor the impact of our investments. We currently track a basket of indicators, which include Business Expenditure on Research and Development, the number of successful start-ups supported by Research, Innovation and Enterprise or RIE programmes, and the number of research projects that are undertaken in collaboration with the industry.
In this regard, Mr Leon Perera asked about enhancing the economic impact of research spending. This is an area where we share common objectives. We too in MOF would like to enhance the economic impact of everything that we spend. We want to achieve an \"A\" score not just for effort but for outcomes too. We want to have \"As\" in all areas.
We continue to place a strong focus on ensuring that RIE investments develop the capabilities needed to catalyse economic growth. At the same time, we recognise that some investments in basic research are essential and are important and they should continue to be maintained for laying the foundations of downstream breakthroughs. The nature of basic research is that they may not always have direct translational outcomes. Or even if they do, the outcomes may take time to materialise and manifest themselves. Mr Perera highlighted some examples in America. Indeed, if you look at the American examples or even in Israel, some of the basic research is done with very little direct and immediate outcomes because the economic outcomes bear fruits many, many years later.
In Singapore, we have a similar example of our biomedical sciences. We started investing in R&D in biomedical science in 2000. More than 20 years have passed. The initial years were not easy but we stayed the course. We had patient capital and today, our investments have set the stage for the flourishing Biomedical Science (BMS) sector. As Deputy Prime Minister mentioned just now in his Round-Up speech, the biomedical sector in Singapore today makes up about 4% of our GDP, and four of the world's top 10 drugs by global revenue are made in Singapore.
RIE activities have also helped to catalyse private sector research and innovation activity and to establish a vibrant innovation and enterprise eco-system.
We have created high quality jobs. The number of industry research scientists and engineers, or RSEs, has tripled. These are industry RSEs, not Government. Industry RSEs has tripled from about 6,500 to over 19,000, in the 20 years from 1998 to 2018. Beyond the immediate impact on RSEs, RIE investments have also indirectly contributed to good jobs in the rest of the economy, by keeping industries and businesses competitive globally.
In the same period of time, Business Expenditure on R&D has increased by more than two-and-a-half times, from $1.5 billion in 1998 to approximately $5.6 billion in 2018. So, these are the outcomes that we have achieved and we will continually strive to do better.
In response to Mr Liang's question on accountability for spending outcomes, we continue to strengthen governance and accountability over the outcomes of our spending, including strengthening the value-for-money culture across all Government agencies.
Infrastructure projects are evaluated for their worthiness and cost-effectiveness, before the Government embarks on them. For larger projects, Ministries' proposals and MOF's evaluations are further scrutinised by the Development Projects Advisory Panel, which comprises technical experts from the private sector and academia. Over the past five years, these processes have led to design improvements and generated savings of about $4 billion in total or about 5% of the capital costs.
For example, MOF worked with LTA to improve the proposed design for the Sengkang West multi-storey bus depot-cum-dormitory, including right-sizing the space for housing mechanical and electrical equipment and common areas, and green roof areas. These changes helped to reduce the estimated cost by about $70 million.
For day-to-day operational spending, public agencies also proactively look out for ways to spend prudently. For example, MOH's Agency for Care Effectiveness evaluates the clinical-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medicines, vaccines and medical technologies and then negotiates fair prices with companies. This has delivered total cost savings of $300 million between 2016 and 2020.
I also thank Mr Edward Chia for his suggestion on making greater use of design to optimise cost effectiveness over the lifespan of infrastructure projects. Indeed, the Government adopts a life-cycle cost perspective during upfront planning and in the design of infrastructure projects. This improves visibility of long-term resourcing requirements. It allows us to optimise the combination of upfront costs and downstream maintenance and operating costs.
In this way, we avoid having projects, be it buildings or infrastructure, that may be cheaper to build but are expensive to maintain and operate and, in fact, on an overall basis, end up being more expensive. And so, by taking this approach, we expect to bring about savings of 2% to 5% in total life-cycle costs over the long-term, which is a significant sum given that we spend about $15 billion to $20 billion every year on capital expenditure alone.
Ms Foo spoke about the need for governance and accountability over the use of public funds, even as we were responding to the COVID-19 situation. Indeed, when coming up with support schemes, agencies do make full use of a whole range of tools. They considered the possibilities of fraud and unintended beneficiaries upfront in scheme designs. They deployed various monitoring mechanism and safeguards, at pre-disbursement and post-disbursement stages, to ensure that funds are disbursed to the appropriate beneficiaries.
Specifically, on the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS), this was introduced at the start of the crisis when the public health and economic situation was highly fluid, and when firms were facing immediate cashflow issues. The priority then was to ensure that all firms received timely support, so that they could focus on retaining their workers and sustaining their operations. The JSS was implemented as a broad-based scheme then, without the need for onerous applications. This was especially helpful for SMEs.
As the economic situation improved and with actual data on sectoral and firm performance, we then stepped down our broad-based support measures and pivoted towards more targeted, sector-specific measures. In fact, we began tapering JSS support levels from September 2020. For sectors that managed well, we ceased JSS support after December 2020.
In this Budget, we extended the JSS for Tier 1 sectors like aviation and tourism by six months. For Tier 2 sectors like land transport and retail, we extended by three months. For sectors that remain hard hit, we also introduced additional targeted measures like the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers to stimulate domestic tourism, and extended sector-specific support like the Aviation, Point-to-Point Support Packages and the Arts and Culture Resilience Package.
This tiered approach has enabled us to bring targeted relief to business owners and the workers they are responsible for. We will continue to monitor the outcomes and effectiveness of COVID-19-related schemes. For example, MOF has published its interim assessment of the initial effects of the Government's measures to reduce business costs, save jobs and support families. Preliminary data suggests that the Jobs Support Scheme has reduced job losses in vulnerable firms, while loan schemes have supported over 20,000 firms in accessing loans.
Next, let me talk about managing our investments and reserves.
Mr Perera asked about the performance of our investment entities. We have had this debate before, this question has been raised multiple times and I have explained that both GIC and Temasek are long-term investors. Their remit is to secure good sustainable returns on a total portfolio basis over the long term.
So, the relevant performance measure for them is not the year-to-year return which can fluctuate because of market volatility but sustained long-term returns over and above global inflation. If you look at that measure, both GIC and Temasek have indeed performed creditably over the long term. Their results are published in their annual reports and there is a full writeup explaining their decisions, their performance and the evaluation of their performance.
Take GIC as an example. GIC in recent years, has recognised that there is high uncertainty in the equity markets, as well as high valuations, which can lead to large permanent portfolio impairment. As a result, GIC has undertaken pre-emptive measures to reduce portfolio risks. Nevertheless, despite reducing its risk exposure, GIC's returns on its portfolio, compared to a reference portfolio comprising 65% equities and 35% bonds; GIC's performance, despite a reduced risk, has been equal, if not better, than the reference portfolio. This has been so, over the rolling 20-year period. It has also been so over more intermediate periods, like a 10-year and five-year timeframe.
So, I think if you look at the overall performance on the broader term, longer term, not just year-to-year, I think both GIC and Temasek have done creditably well in a very challenging investment environment.
Going forward, how do we ensure that such performance continues? There is never any guarantee in investments. But all the processes are in place, by the Boards who supervise management, between MOF and the Boards to review the performances of these entities, and in discussions with external parties as well as investment advisory panels. Very prominent names in the investment community sit on these advisory panels to help us guide our two entities.
On green investments, we have explained that both GIC and Temasek operate on a commercial basis, so their individual investment decisions are independent of the Government. Nevertheless, both entities acting on their own accord, emphasise sustainability in their investment activities, and that is because they recognise that good sustainability practices are good for business and can have a positive impact on long-term returns. Conversely, companies with poor sustainability practices carry business and reputational, as well as environmental, social and governance risks.
GIC and Temasek integrate sustainability considerations holistically into their investment processes across all asset classes, so that they protect and enhance the long-term value of their investments. Both entities take a strong interest in not only understanding sustainability-related challenges, but also the opportunities for innovation, business growth and new investments.
Both entities also support efforts by the Financial Stability Board's Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosures, or TCFD, to develop an internationally accepted framework on climate reporting. This provides a framework for companies to disclose their climate-related strategies, and for investors to incorporate climate change considerations into long-term investment decisions. Both entities have also published comprehensive statements on their approach to sustainability and they will continue to review what additional information can be pulled out in their annual reports.
In response to Mr Perera's question about reserves spending, let me just explain how the Government executes the spending of reserves during economic crises.
The fiscal framework in the Constitution requires the Government to spend within its means. A draw on Past Reserves occurs if our revenues and surpluses accumulated during the current term of Government are unable to support our current spending.
The Chairman: Minister, if you would like to pause, we have arranged for some water.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Okay, I think that might be better.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr Lawrence Wong: It is not a bug, I assure you.
The Chairman: And we would not steal your time; the timer has stopped.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Much obliged.
I was talking about dealing with the issue of the execution of the spending of reserves. So, in terms of our fiscal framework, we have clear rules on what constitutes a draw on past reserves, but where the Government obtains the cash to pay for expenditures is a different matter. That is part of the Government's overall cash flow management. It is an operational issue and is separate from the budgeting process.
For purposes of cash flow management, the Government has a range of liquidity sources it can tap on, and this would include tax revenues which come in at different times of the year, funds raised outside the Budget, like proceeds from land sales. Constitutionally they do not contribute to the Budget and do not count as Government revenues, but they are part of the cash flow that the Government receives. It also includes Government deposits which we can draw on for purposes of cash flow reasons.
So, all of these cash flows are pooled together and all of the sources of liquidity are pooled together and we manage cash flow on a disciplined and integrated basis. On top of these different sources, I have highlighted earlier in this House that the Government will be issuing Cash Management Treasury Bills. This is part of the Government's ongoing efforts to expand our cash management tool kit.
With regard to the specific question asked by Mr Leon Perera, to pay for expenditures in fiscal year 2020, the Government was able to tap on all available sources of cash under the tool kits which I just described. So, GIC was not put in a position where it had to liquidate investments under time pressure.
Finally, let me address Mr Louis Chua's questions about the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty, or ABSD, remission for Singaporean married couples. The aim of ABSD, I think we all know, is to moderate demand and to ensure a stable and sustainable residential property market. To be effective as a measure to moderate demand for property, ABSD has to be applied consistently and to all buyers.
Only one exception is made, namely that is for Singaporean married couples. A Singaporean married couple may need to change homes due to changing family needs, such as when they have children, when their children are growing up, or when the couple needs to right-size in their senior years. It is in this context that we have an ABSD concession for Singaporean married couples buying a second residential property.
Under this concession, we allow Singaporean married couples to claim a refund of the ABSD paid on their second property, provided they sell their first property within six months after the purchase of a completed property, or the Temporary Occupation Permit date of an uncompleted property. For those who are purchasing a HDB flat or a new Executive Condominium, they are granted upfront ABSD remission, as Mr Chua highlighted. This is because, they are subject to HDB regulations which require them to not own another residential property and to dispose of their existing property within HDB's stipulated timeframe. There are no such regulations for private residential properties and that is the reason why for such private residential property purchases, ABSD remission is only granted upon the sale of the first property within the required timeline, unlike the case of HDB.
Mr Chairman, MOF is committed to ensuring that our overall fiscal system is fair and progressive, achieves good value-for-money outcomes, and importantly, sustainable over the long term. The Second Minister Ms Indranee will now address the other questions.
The Chairman: Minister Indranee Rajah.
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Let me address the independent fiscal council and also earlier on, during the debate on the Budget Statement, there were a few confused looks around the Chamber, so I thought it will be helpful if I just explain what that was about.
Mr Pritam Singh had suggested a Parliamentary Budget Office. In his response, the Deputy Prime Minister had referred to that as having a $20 million budget being requested for it. The reason why that was referred to was because, when Members of Parliament file cuts, they have to give an indication of what the cut is about, so that the Ministry can prepare. And in this case, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had filed his gist that he proposed that MOF consider the formation of an independent fiscal council or the Parliamentary Budget Office of Singapore, seeded with an initial $20 million.
Hence, I sought clarification from the Leader of the Opposition whether his Parliamentary Budget Office was the same as the independent fiscal council and the Leader of the Opposition kindly confirmed that they were actually the same. There is only one council that he is talking about. And we heard Assoc Prof Jamus Lim just now, who has confirmed that what he is asking is for a council that is set up at a proposed cost of $20 million. This is just so that everybody knows what everyone is speaking about.
So, let me address Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's cut. In assessing the value of such a proposal, the fundamental starting point must always be: why? What is the need to be addressed? The Assoc Prof Jamus Lim ran us through various independent fiscal entities around the world. I will refer to them as Independent Fiscal Institutions, or IFIs.
So, it is important to first understand the context in which such institutions are established. The setting up of IFIs around the world took place mainly in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis in 2008 and 2009 where government deficits and debts were high.
There were some which were established beforehand, for example, in the US and the Netherlands, but, primarily, the largest bulk of them were established after the Global Financial Crisis.
So, more than half of the IFIs in the OECD today were established after the Global Financial Crisis and the main intent was to prevent future fiscal crises.
In those cases, fiscal rules had proved insufficient to ensure prudent management of the public finances before the crisis. IFIs were set up to safeguard fiscal discipline, eradicate unreliable budgeting and rebuild public trust in policy-makers' capacity to manage public budgets prudently and transparently.
However, the context in Singapore is very different. The ills which led to the need for IFIs in other systems are not present in our system and we continue to keep a very strict eye on our fiscal prudence. Markets have confidence in our system. We are among the small number of countries today that continue to enjoy a AAA credit rating.
The Government has been disciplined in keeping to our fiscal rules and safeguards. We have run balanced Budgets in each term of Government, barring major crises. The draw on past reserves for COVID-19 relief, which was a crisis situation, was done in accordance with our Reserves Protection Framework.
We have put in place a strong system to scrutinise spending and debate budgetary matters, without incurring the costs of setting up additional fiscal monitoring institutions.
The Constitution requires us to run a balanced Budget over each term of Government and any departure would require the approval of the President.
The Government is required under the Constitution to seek Parliament's approval for its expenditure and revenue during each year's Budget.
The annual Budget Debate and Committee of Supply (COS) provide the opportunity for Members of Parliament to debate on and scrutinise Government policies and programmes.
Under the Constitution, the Government cannot draw on the reserves accumulated by past terms of Government without the approval of the elected President.
There is a standing Parliamentary Select Committee, the Estimates Committee, which examines the Government's Budget.
The Government's accounts are audited by the Auditor-General's Office. The AGO's findings are reported to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), also another Parliamentary Committee, which can call on the relevant agencies to explain lapses or take corrective actions.
More importantly, the Government has been upfront about the hard choices that we make on budgetary matters. For example, we have not shied away from highlighting the need to raise taxes to meet longer term increase in healthcare and social spending needs.
Robust, intellectually honest analysis is important to foster more informed parliamentary debate. But ultimately, there is no substitute for having the political courage to make difficult budgetary choices.
Members of an independent fiscal council are not elected representatives in Parliament. Their role is to advise, but the responsibility for making difficult decisions ultimately lies with the elected Government. Alice Rivlin, the founding chair of the US Congressional Budget Office, said this very well. She said that IFIs, I quote, \"can play an important role in ensuring realistic and well-informed debate based on honest numbers, focusing attention on the consequences of action (or inaction), and identifying more or less sustainable solutions to budget dilemmas. They cannot instil political courage to make unpopular decisions. Political leaders have to do that for themselves\".
Setting up an independent fiscal council will not substitute for such courage. It will also not miraculously remove the structural drivers for higher healthcare and social expenditure, nor will it delay any painful changes.
Based on the experience of other countries, did the setting up of IFIs solve their fiscal management issues? No, because, ultimately, we cannot outsource honest and upfront debate.
We should focus our time and our energy on having robust, honest and constructive debates, deciding on the trade-offs and not delegate that responsibility to a third party.
Forecasting is an inherently uncertain exercise, and independent institutions are not exempt from this uncertainty. So, the Office for Budget Responsibility, or OBR, in the UK has actually been criticised for overly optimistic forecasts and has had to downgrade its forecasts several times since it was set up.
We recognise that there will always be uncertainty in forecasting and fiscal planning, but we cannot wish away more fundamental drivers of expenditure, particularly the increase in public health expenditure, as our population ages.
Mr Chairman, I move on now to address some of the other cuts.
On supporting social and environmental outcomes, Mr Desmond Choo asked how we can drive environmental and social outcomes through our funding and corporate regulatory levers.
MOF allocates public resources, and uses tax, charges and corporate regulatory levers, in order to achieve broader societal objectives, including social and environmental outcomes. These measures work alongside public education efforts.
We have more than doubled our spending in the social and environmental sectors over the last decade, and we have achieved good social outcomes.
In the area of gender equality, Singapore reports our progress regularly to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. We have done relatively well in areas such as higher education attainment, and are closing the gender gap in labour force participation rates and wages.
However, more can be done. In some metrics, such as women in corporate leadership, we still lag behind the most progressive countries. Women still shoulder most of the care-giving burden.
For environmental outcomes, we have one of the lowest carbon emissions per dollar of GDP in the world. Building on this, we are working towards peaking our emissions around 2030, and achieving our long-term net-zero aspirations as soon as viable. To do so, we are supporting businesses and households to become more energy-efficient, among other initiatives. Businesses can tap on EDB's Resource Efficiency Grant for Energy (REG(E)) or NEA's Energy Efficiency Fund (E2F) for funding support to adopt energy-efficient technologies. However, there remain areas of improvement, such as our domestic recycling rate, which we hope to increase to 30% by 2030.
On procurement, environmental sustainability requirements are already part of the consideration. For instance, agencies are required to buy energy-efficient appliances, and Government buildings are required to achieve Green Mark standards. We will continue to enhance these requirements in support of GreenGov.SG.
Mr Choo also suggested using the corporate regulatory lever. There are existing disclosure requirements for listed companies. For example, the Code of Corporate Governance requires listed companies to disclose their board diversity policy in the company's annual report. The Singapore Exchange (SGX) Listing Rules require listed companies to prepare annual sustainability reports.
The Government is mindful that a unified international sustainability framework has yet to be agreed upon and is monitoring international developments closely. We will take these into account in studying when it would be feasible and timely to introduce sustainability reporting for non-listed companies.
Besides the efforts made by the Government, businesses, organisations and individuals must all play their part in changing their mindsets and accepting new societal norms. I encourage the various stakeholders to step up and help us achieve better environmental and social outcomes together.
I move on now to the other cuts.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how MOF exercised agility and flexibility to flow assistance quickly to businesses and citizens. In response to COVID-19, our priority was to flow assistance to those affected as quickly as possible.
For example, the CPF Board and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) enhanced their processes to speed up disbursements of the Jobs Support Scheme, or JSS. This enabled the JSS payouts to be brought forward by three months, from July 2020 to April 2020. The JSS has helped to keep our unemployment rate in check.
We also facilitated faster payment to Government suppliers to ease their cashflows. During the pandemic, we went the extra mile to pay businesses as early as possible, rather than when the payment is due, which is typically 30 days from the invoice date. As of end January 2021, about 90% of invoices less than $5,000 were paid within an average of 12 days, benefiting about 4,500 businesses, comprising mostly SMEs.
We exercised flexibility in applying regulations on businesses in view of the COVID-19 disruptions. The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, or ACRA, extended the deadline to hold Annual General Meetings (AGMs) and file annual returns for companies. ACRA also worked closely with MAS, Singapore Exchange Regulation and other agencies to facilitate virtual AGMs. An estimated 120,000 eligible companies can benefit from this.
Mr Saktiandi also asked how we coped with the increased workload. The Public Service mobilised manpower resources within and across agencies to help our frontline operations. On top of that, we also hired temporary staff. For example, MSF hired more than 300 temporary staff in 2020, with many redeployed from the aviation sector, to ensure prompt accessing of the COVID-19 Support Grant.
I agree with Ms Foo Mee Har that it is important for the Government to step up our collaborations and increase partnership to co-create solutions with businesses and the community.
Through a mix of traditional and digital media and engagement platforms, we reached out to 50% more Singaporeans during our recent Budget engagements, as compared to the previous year. We received suggestions from close to 9,000 Singaporeans. Agencies considered the suggestions and refined our support scheme parameters to benefit more citizens and businesses. For example, we carefully evaluated feedback and included the coverage of qualifying shareholder-directors' wages under the JSS since May 2020.
Mr Chairman, I notice that my time will be running out, and I do have a little more to cover. Since we are still within the guillotine time, may I have your permission to continue?
The Chairman: You are, indeed, correct. Please do carry on.
Ms Indranee Rajah: We are stepping up our partnerships with businesses, community groups and citizens to create policy solutions together.
For example, the Technology Hub for Non-Profit Organisations (NPO) initiative, was an idea that originated from the NPO leaders to accelerate the digital transformation of the non-profit sector during COVID-19. Tote Board partnered MCCY, MSF and NCSS and worked with IT companies to put together this one-stop shop, providing a variety of shared-service IT manpower, programmes and digital solutions to NPOs.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Edward Chia and Ms Jessica Tan asked about MOF's efforts in building up public sector capabilities and strengthening functional leadership.
MOF is leading efforts to raise public sector capabilities in essential functions, such as finance, procurement, grants management, shared services and internal audit. These functions play vital roles in ensuring the Government spends prudently, effectively and accountably. When these functions perform well, agencies can focus on their core missions of helping businesses, citizens and the community. MOF has re-organised ourselves and formed dedicated offices to drive these efforts.
To strengthen grants management, MOF established a new grants governance framework last year that sets out rules and guidance that cover all stages of a grant – from grant design, approval and disbursement, to monitoring and fraud detection. The Grants Governance Office was formed to drive its implementation and raise agencies' capabilities to ensure proper financial governance.
We are transforming Government procurement to buy more smartly and effectively. MOF set up the Government Procurement Function Office last year to drive efforts to transform and strengthen the Government's procurement function. We are taking further steps to consolidate the procurement of facilities management services of Government buildings. A central team with deeper expertise would manage these premises, instead of smaller, decentralised teams. This provides the scale for service providers to adopt more innovative, less manpower intensive solutions to manage the facilities, and is in line with our industry transformation efforts.
As a start, we have consolidated the facilities management of The Treasury and Revenue House. This has resulted in estimated annual savings of $1.2 million. It also enabled the adoption of innovative technology solutions that facilitate workflow automation, data analytics and access to real-time data, which has improved service delivery at reduced costs.
As Mr Chia pointed out, we need to develop public officers with deep sector technical knowledge. The Finance and Procurement Academy set up by MOF is working with agencies such as the Building and Construction Authority and GovTech to deepen technical know-how in specialised procurement areas such as contract management for construction and Infocomm Technology. We will also be facilitating attachment stints and exchange programmes with the private sector to enable our officers to stay abreast of the latest professional and industry developments.
In response to Ms Foo and Ms Tan's questions, as we strengthen the public sector capabilities and processes, we are also adopting more pervasive digitalisation in our processes. These efforts also help spur digital transformation in the private sector. For instance, MOF and GovTech are partnering businesses to co-create a solution which facilitates public officers to make smaller value purchases on commercial digital platforms.
We are currently piloting this with Eezee and Shopee, and will be onboarding more e-commerce platforms progressively in the coming months. This solution not only helps us save processing time, it also incentivises vendors to digitalise and bring their businesses online.
Ms Foo also asked if local businesses could re-use Government developed capabilities. Minister Vivian Balakrishnan earlier mentioned various collaborations between Government and the private sector, like SGFinDex, to deliver solutions. GovTech has also launched the Singapore Government Developer Portal in December 2020. This one-stop resource site enables tech developers to discover the latest Government IT solutions to build on and integrate into their applications.
Mr Chairman, in conclusion, the Public Service continues to enhance its capabilities, and is committed to working with the community and businesses to position Singapore to grow and thrive for the long term. Let us work in partnership so that Singapore can emerge stronger together.
The Chairman: We do have some time for clarifications. Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Thank you, Sir. Last year, we had an extraordinary year. As we battled the COVID-19 crisis and the public sector had to respond almost on the move and to make time critical decisions, and probably with no SOP manual to reference from, whether it is to set up the massive community isolation facilities or with the under urgency of time for the foreign workers. These are all unprecedented things that the public sector did last year.
So, can I ask the Minister. We know that MOF does have very strict procurement policies and processes. I read a lot of this in the AGO reports where the lapses were picked up and so on. So, in the situation such as this, with the urgency and the exigencies, needs, how has our procurement process been able to allow for such situations to be managed? And then, whether there is the provision of waivers and so on for such acts?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chairman, I thank Mr Liang for the question. In fact, this was raised last year too, when we were in the midst of, well, we still are in the midst, of fighting COVID-19, but at the height of the pandemic last year when we had a huge outbreak. I think some Members had asked questions about the processes in which these procurements could be done quickly. I had explained then that we do have Emergency Procurement provisions in place where for such cases, there are provisions for agencies to make use of these Emergency Procurement provisions in order to buy services more promptly. And indeed, these were made use of last year during the crisis and when we had, in particular, to respond very quickly.
I think since then, the situation is more stable. Processes have been put in place. Agencies are able to respond in a much more coordinated and effective manner, but we never take anything for granted because the situation is highly unpredictable and new threats, new challenges may always emerge over the horizon.
The Chairman: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Chairman. I would like to thank the Minister for what I believe is a very thoughtful defence of why this Government has historically had an admirable track record in its fiscal affairs. And I would put on the record that I agree that this, in fact, is the case.
That said, I wonder first if the Minister is also suggesting that our macro-economic and fiscal environment today is as unchanged as it has been historically, and even in the midst of the largest reserve drawdown in our history? And would not a second opinion on how our fiscal prospects are going forward into the future be valued, especially, as I emphasised in my cut, that this would be in the form of advisory nature rather than as law?
The second point that I thought would be useful to point out is that in the proposal, I had indicated that the independent fiscal council would actually serve all of this House. And so, if by implication, does that mean that we should regard all proposals by all Members of this House as equally, fiscally credible that whatever estimates provided should be regarded as equally trustworthy as long as they are put on the table. So, in part, you can think of it as not purely a constraint on the Government, which does have a very good track record, as I have explained, but also on proposals that are offered by Members of this House. They may not have enjoyed as long and illustrious a track record.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, I thank the Member for his clarification. I am sorry, I did not understand the second clarification. Could the Member repeat it or explain it in clearer terms?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I would be happy to. So, my suggestion in the cut was that the independent fiscal council, the Parliamentary Budget Office, whatever we wish to call it, would serve the full Parliament. So, all Members of this House would be able to pose requests for scoring of policy proposals that are advanced.
So, my question was if the Minister or the Ministry believes that in the absence of such a fiscal council, are all suggestions about policy, even if it is self scored by us, and not by an independent fiscal council would be treated with the same regard?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Member for his clarification. Let me take them in turn. So, the first one he asked whether I thought that the macroeconomic fiscal environment is unchanged and whether or not a second opinion would be valued.
On the first one, of course, it has changed. The world has seen the biggest crisis in a century, which was when the last global pandemic was around. So yes, it has changed, but the important thing is this – what is the difference between Singapore and the other countries who have needed the IFIs or their own fiscal councils? They got themselves heavily into debt. They borrowed. They would not raise taxes when they needed to. Some did not display the political courage that was needed in order to maintain a balanced budget.
Singapore on the other hand – thanks to the foresight of our pioneering PAP leaders – set aside our reserves, refused to squander the reserves, put in place a constitutional framework which required us to run a balanced Budget and to make sure that any time that we had to dip into the reserves, it was for good reason and put in place a framework where you could use the income on the reserves, but set in place a certain limit.
All of these things are what set Singapore apart, and that is one of the reasons why we do not need a financial council like this.
And earlier on in his answer, the hon Member referred to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) in the UK and referenced a cut made by Mr Low Thia Khiang some years ago. The hon Member was not in the House at that time, but I would like to read out an excerpt of what I had responded to Mr Low at that time, which is still relevant today.
When the OBR in the UK was set up, it was done so by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon George Osborne, and this is what he said when he set up the OBR, because it was set up by the Tory government. He said, \"Over the last 13 years, the public and the markets have completely lost confidence in government economic forecasts. The last government's forecast for growth in the economy over the past 10 years have, on average, been out by £13 billion. Their forecasts of the budget deficit three years ahead have on average been out by £40 billion. Unsurprisingly, these forecasting errors have almost always been in the wrong direction.
The conclusion is clear. We need long-lasting change in the way we put together budgets in this country. The final decision on the forecast has always been made by the Chancellor, not independent officials. And that is precisely the problem. Again and again, the temptation to fiddle the figures, to nudge up a growth forecast here or reduce a borrowing number there to make the numbers add up has proved too great...We need to fix the budget to fit the figures and not fix the figures to fit the budget. To do this, I am today establishing a new independent Office for Budget Responsibility. For the first time, we will have a truly independent assessment of the state of the nation's finances.\"
That was the scenario that prompted the setting up of the OBR. That scenario is not present in Singapore, and for that, we have very good civil servants and agencies to thank, who keep us straight, who keep us narrow, who keep us honest.
And he asked whether a second opinion is valued. Well, I have explained firstly why it is not necessary. But I also want to go on to point out that in the UK, after setting up the OBR, it has not necessarily been the case that they have been on target. So, the second opinion, well, in 2012, the OBR admitted it had a poor forecasting record. The OBR had predicted economic growth six times stronger than the latest official figures suggested.
And in August 2020, the Institute for Fiscal Studies or the IFS described the OBR's \"upside scenario\" economic forecasts for UK GDP as \"extraordinarily optimistic\". So, second opinion does not always settle the issue.
With regard to the second clarification, the learned Member said that the council he is proposing will serve the full Parliament. The suggestion really is that, okay, this is going to be for everybody. And he asked whether in the absence of such a fiscal council, all suggestions will be treated with the same regard.
Well, the Parliament comprises the Members of Parliament who form the Government, the Members of Parliament who are part of the Ruling Party's backbenchers and the Opposition Members of Parliament. Insofar as proposals are put forward by the Government, these are assessed by the Civil Service. The Government has an idea of the costing of its proposals and how it should be dealt with.
So, in essence, what the learned Member is actually asking is for this council to serve the Opposition Members because the PAP Members are not asking for this, and the Government does not need it. So, effectively, it is a request for a $20 million fiscal council to assist the Opposition Members with their proposals. Effectively, that is what it is.
The Chairman: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just two clarifications for Minister Lawrence Wong. I thank the Minister for responding in detail to my MOF cuts.
The first one is on the National Research Foundation. I think the Minister referred to some of the downstream outcomes. For example, four of the top 10 blockbuster drugs in the world are manufactured in Singapore. I believe those four are by MNCs though. So, my question would be, really, in terms of local companies, locally owned companies, does the NRF actually track the IP that its spending has resulted in, the IP that is co-created with local companies, and does it track whether that IP then is used to create a blockbuster drug or a blockbuster product by the local company itself further downstream? Is that something that the NRF looks at?
I accept, of course, that there are different uses for research, not just one. But is that dimension kind of being tracked or will it be tracked, going forward? I know that these results take time to manifest. I believe NRF was set up in 2002 or 2003, so it has been 17 or 18 years. So, I am wondering if that is being tracked, examples of that.
Secondly, in relation assessing performance of Temasek and GIC, the Minister helpfully shared about advisory councils that help to guide Temasek and GIC. So, my question is, really, that the Government in the form of MOF is the sole shareholder, basically, of GIC and Temasek, and as the sole shareholder, is there a process within the MOF where you assess whether their performance is good enough?
In past debates on this subject, I believe that the Government has said its approach is a bit hands-off; it leaves it to the Board and management. But I am wondering whether there is a formal process every year or every few years to assess whether the Board and management have done well or whether they have done not well enough, so that they need to be taken to task or, in extremis, whether they need to be replaced. Does that sort of happen within MOF or somewhere else in the Government?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chairman, let me take the two questions from Mr Perera.
On the first question, the translation from research to economic output, and whether or not local companies themselves are benefiting from this, this is indeed something we do track. It takes longer, understandably, because the capabilities of our local firms may not be at the same level as MNCs. So, their readiness to take research and to translate research into tangible outcomes may not quite be there. So, there is an on-going effort to transform industries to boost the capabilities of our local firms. That is one prong.
But a second prong of this is through NRF's research initiatives itself, some of these get translated into local start-ups, and then these start-ups, in the nature of start-ups, not every one will succeed. Some may exit early but we certainly hope some of them, over time, will grow and be very successful companies. And because we are still relatively early in this journey, I think we do need patience.
Just to give an example of a successful start-up like that which came from research in one of our universities. Members would have read about Nanofilm that was listed recently. This was a project that started from a R&D project in NTU, I think, in 1999; that long ago. And only recently, it got listed.
That is the kind of gestation periods that we are talking about. We are tracking this; we are certainly wanting more translational outcomes that will benefit our economy and local firms. But I ask for patience from everyone, even as we track this effort on a continuing basis and strive for better outcomes.
Second, on evaluation performance of both Temasek and GIC, the Government continually reviews the performances of these two entities. There is a whole range of processes that we have put in place to do this.
First of all, oversight by the Boards which they ought to do as part of their fiduciary duties. The Boards take this very seriously. Both entities have advisory panels, as I have highlighted, and that also provides guidance and oversight. MOF itself has a review process where we meet the Board and management of Temasek on a regular basis. We get them to update us on their understanding of the overall scenario, the risks, the outlook and opportunities they can envisage over the horizon, and what kinds of investment strategies they have in mind.
And then on top of all that, at the end of the day, it all comes down to the returns, and based on the risks that they are taking, the returns that they are delivering. As I have highlighted, we look at these returns not just on a yearly basis. I think that would be very short-sighted and that would be detrimental and counter-productive. We look at it on an overall basis and over a longer term. It is really rolling returns over a longer period of time, preferably over 20 years, which we do, but then we have intermediate milestones and we look at 10 and five-year periods as well. That is the ultimate test. That they are able to deliver consistently good returns over the longer term.
The Chairman: Mr Liang Eng Hwa, do you wish to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Thank you, Sir. In the last 12 months, we have quite a series of Budgets. And I am sure behind each of these extensive series of well-structured and thoughtful Budget measures, there were a lot of hard work put in by the officers, the brain-crunching, the deliberations.
Sir, I want to thank the MOF team for the great work and tenacity, I am sure the long hours as well, over Chinese New Year, over Valentine's Day. I think no amount of Auntie Mei Jok's porridge can make up for it.
I want to also thank Minister Lawrence Wong and Minister Indranee for responding to our cuts; and, finally, to the Deputy Prime Minister, really thank him for the solid and steady steer of the Government's fiscal response during these very difficult circumstances, challenging circumstances we are in, and getting us into the safe zone.
I certainly share the Deputy Prime Minister's wish and hope that this FY will be a one-Budget FY, and that we will soon get back to a balanced Budget in the next few years. With that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $3,869,833,800 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $139,715,100 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply Reporting Progress","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Chairman, may I seek your consent to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again on Monday, 1 March 2021?
The Chairman: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again on Monday, 1 March, 2021.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2021/2022, and ask leave to sit again on Monday, 1 March 2021.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn till 10.30 am on Monday, 1 March 2021.\" – [(Mr Zaqy Mohamad)]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 9.13 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Government's Requests to Facebook for Information on Accounts in 2020","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"6 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Communications and Information regarding the Government's requests to Facebook for information on accounts from January to June 2020 (a) what is the reason for the increase in the number of requests to 759 from 315 during the same period in 2019; and (b) how many requests are not related to serious offences as defined in the Seventh Schedule of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020.
Mr S Iswaran: The increase in requests to Facebook for information on accounts over the past year is due to the significant rise in cybercrime, including online scams and cyber-extortion. For example, social media impersonation scams, most of which occurred on Facebook and Instagram, have almost quadrupled year-on-year from 786 cases in 2019 to 3,010 cases in 2020.
The requests were mainly due to online scams such as social media impersonation as well as online harassment such as doxxing, but none were for the serious offences as defined within the Seventh Schedule of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Education for Singapore-based Businesses Venturing Overseas on Doing Business in Countries Facing Economic Sanctions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"9 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether Government economic agencies seek to educate Singapore-based businesses on sanction requirements when doing business abroad especially in high-risk countries; and (b) what actions Government economic agencies will take to encourage local companies to avoid violation of sanctions including secondary sanctions.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: All businesses should be responsible for ensuring that they comply with relevant laws and regulations which they are subject to, wherever they conduct their business activities. This includes United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions.
Although businesses are primarily responsible for compliance, the Singapore Government helps to raise awareness in the business community through advisories and outreach events. Firstly, whenever sanctions are imposed by the UNSC, MTI, Singapore Customs and Enterprise Singapore will issue formal advisories on the scope of the sanctions and the penalties for non-compliance. Businesses are encouraged to refer to these advisories and seek legal advice to ensure that their activities do not expose their company and employees to sanctions. Secondly, Government economic agencies organise outreach events such as industry seminars for businesses to learn about best practices for due-diligence and Know-Your-Customer processes. This helps to equip businesses with the knowledge on how to spot red flags during the course of their commercial activities, so that they may be able to comply with prevailing laws and sanctions.
10 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current ratio of male pre-school teachers to female pre-school teachers; and (b) whether there are plans to increase the number of male pre-school teachers.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government has been investing in the early childhood sector to provide families with access to affordable and quality preschool. At present, there are over 22,000 preschool educators in the sector, of which, over 160 are males. To support the expansion of the preschool sector, we will continue to put in place measures to attract more people, both men and women, to join the sector.
For instance, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) offers Training Awards to encourage post-Secondary students to pursue Early Childhood courses at the National Institute of Early Childhood Development (NIEC). To attract more mid-career entrants, we have also rolled out the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) for Preschool Teachers and the Place-and-Train Programme (PnT) for Educarers to encourage people who are looking to switch careers or re-enter the workforce to join the preschool sector.
We believe that male educators can also play a valuable role in preschools, and that they bring different strengths and perspectives to the sector. They can offer male role models for children and emphasise the role men can play in supporting the development of children in their early years. As the preschool sector continues to expand, there are growing areas of specialisation such as Mother Tongue Language, Outdoor Learning, and socio-emotional development, where male educators can contribute meaningfully to our children’s learning.
Nevertheless, there are challenges faced in recruiting male preschool educators. While early childhood educators are professionals who play a critical role in the holistic development of our children, there are misperceptions that the early childhood sector is associated with caregiving and is more suited for women. ECDA has been working to change these misperceptions. For instance, since 2018, ECDA has embarked on a national campaign for the early childhood sector to create greater awareness of the sector and career opportunities, and to foster greater respect and recognition of the profession. It is a journey to change misperceptions, and we will continue to work towards a better balance of male and female preschool educators over time, as we collectively debunk stereotypes and encourage mindset shifts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Application for Waiver of Resale Levy by Seniors and Single Parents with Dependants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"11 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past three years, how many appeals have been made for waiver of resale levy by (i) seniors who are applying for 2-room Flexi flats and (ii) single parents who form a family nucleus with their children; and (b) how many of such appeals have been successful.
Mr Desmond Lee: Singaporeans enjoy a significant housing subsidy when they buy a new flat from HDB, or a resale flat in the open market with a CPF Housing Grant. To ensure a fair allocation of our limited housing subsidies, those who buy a second subsidised flat from HDB receive a smaller subsidy than first-timer buyers, by paying a resale levy.
HDB does not track the number of appeals it receives from specific groups of buyers for a waiver of the resale levy. Nonetheless, we do assist seniors who apply for 2-room Flexi flats with their resale levy. For seniors who sold their first subsidised flat before 2006 and chose to defer their resale levy with interest until they bought their second subsidised flat, we waive the accrued interest for their resale levy if they buy a 2- or 3-room flat as their second subsidised flat. In addition, for all seniors who buy a short-lease 2-room Flexi flat and need to pay a resale levy, regardless of when they sold their first subsidised flat, we assist them by capping their resale levy at $30,000 and adjusting it downward based on the length of the lease purchased. From 2018 to 2020, 6,460 senior households that booked a 2-room Flexi flat benefited from these forms of assistance.
Beyond seniors, HDB has also exercised flexibility for other second-timers in extenuating circumstances, on a case-by-case basis. These include some single parents who buy a flat with their children. From 2018 to 2020, HDB has acceded to 535 appeals by such single parents to reduce the resale levy payable, or to incorporate it into the flat price so that it need not be paid upfront in cash.
Those who require assistance with their resale levy, such as households that have financial difficulties or that wish to right-size to a smaller flat, can approach HDB and we will see how best to help them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Access to Government Documents in National Archives","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"13 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether he can provide an update on the number and proportion of Government documents that are more than 25 years old and hence part of the public archives contained in the publicly accessible National Archives Online; and (b) what are the factors that the National Archives takes into account when choosing whether or not to give researchers access to such documents which already constitute \"public archives\".
Mr S Iswaran: The National Archives of Singapore (NAS) holds about two million Government Records that are 25 years and older. Of these, the metadata of around 258,000 records are publicly accessible on Archives Online. This is a significant increase over the metadata of the 160,000 records that were publicly accessible when the Member last raised a similar query in September 2019. Records transferred to the NAS undergo declassification before they are made available for public access. The NAS will continue to work with all public agencies to progressively make more records available.
As with archives around the world, public records transferred to the NAS are reviewed for release by government agencies taking into account the need to safeguard national defence, internal security, international relations, confidentiality (commercial or otherwise) and personal privacy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Making Public Consultations Conducted by REACH","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"14 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) over the past five years, what proportion of REACH public consultations have had their results (or a summary thereof) made open to the public; (b) whether the full findings (as opposed to the summary) of these public consultations are made available to independent researchers; and (c) what is the average length of time for which consultations are run.
Mr S Iswaran: REACH aims to engage Singaporeans and seek their feedback through multiple platforms such as dialogues, mobile listening points, chat groups and surveys to better understand ground issues and concerns.
Feedback collected by REACH is shared with the relevant Ministries as part of their ongoing process to review and improve policies. REACH also periodically releases findings that may be of public interest, such as the findings from our annual feedback exercise on the Budget.
Government agencies may also tap on the REACH Public Consultation portal to obtain feedback on specific issues as part of their policy formulation and review process. Government agencies decide on the duration of their respective public consultations on REACH’s website, but it typically lasts four weeks.
Over the past five years, 126 public consultations were hosted on the REACH website. The findings or summary of responses of 49 such public consultations were published on the REACH portal, at the request of the agency. Other agencies consolidate their findings from various feedback avenues and publish these on their own platforms and/or share them with relevant stakeholders, including researchers, as appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Safety Record of Vendors Engaged by Schools to Conduct Activities for Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"15 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education (a) how are schools ensuring that all outdoor education and activities are conducted with the participants’ safety at the top of their minds; and (b) how are all personnel including external vendors who plan and conduct such activities accredited and assessed periodically for safety training.
16 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry conducts periodic reviews of third-party vendors’ safety records especially for those organising physical activities; and (b) whether the Ministry obtains feedback from students and teachers on the safety protocols of such vendors.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Schools conduct risk assessments for all outdoor adventure learning activities to ensure that the risks are identified and adequately mitigated. The risk assessment examines areas such as facilities and equipment used, competence of personnel conducting the activities, safe conduct of the activity, participant readiness and the environment.
When working with external vendors, schools require vendors to comply with MOE’s safety guidelines at the external site. During the activity, school staff monitor students’ well-being and check that measures to mitigate risks are implemented effectively. Upon conclusion of the activity, the Teacher IC reviews the conduct of the activity. This includes obtaining feedback from teachers and the vendor on the safety management of the activity. The findings are made available to any school staff who is tasked to organise similar activities in the future.
All personnel conducting outdoor adventure activities, including external vendors, must possess relevant certifications to conduct the different activities safely. External vendors who are unable to provide such certified personnel will not be considered for the conduct of such activities. MOE has identified relevant technical certifications for the different types of activities.
Instructors are also required to register with MOE before they can provide their services to schools, either as individuals or under third party vendors. MOE will assess the suitability of the applicants based on their relevant certifications, safety record and experience to conduct the activities; as well as their registration with a relevant professional body (if applicable). Successful applicants will have their MOE registration valid for a period of two years.
MOE will take further action against vendors or instructors who are found to have acted in a way that compromises the safety and well-being of students, including de-registering instructors. A deregistered person will not be able to provide services to schools whether as an individual or under a vendor company. For vendors under investigation for unsafe practices, MOE may postpone or cancel upcoming activities under their existing contracts, and may hold back the award of new contracts.
The safety of our students has always been of paramount importance to us. As mentioned earlier, MOE is conducting a review on the conduct of outdoor adventure learning activities. We will provide further updates when the review is completed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"One-stop Platform for Family Members or Legal Representatives of Deceased Persons to Obtain Legal Documents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Prime Minister whether there can be a one-stop platform for family members or legal representatives of deceased persons to obtain the deceased's list of insurance policies and financial accounts on producing the death certificate and required legal documents in order to facilitate post-death financial administration matters.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): A range of private and public sector service providers are involved in post-death administrative matters. The Ministry of Health, Public Service Division and the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group launched the My Legacy portal in January 2020. The portal, currently in beta testing, aims to be a one-stop platform for end-of-life, palliative care and post-death matters, and to make planning easy and convenient. This is part of the LifeSG initiative to integrate and bundle Government and private sector services, to help citizens access services and information that are relevant to them.
The portal has a My Legacy Vault feature that allows users to plan, store and share legal, healthcare and estate matters securely with the people they trust. This includes storing of financial information such as CPF nomination status, bank account details, insurance policies, and legal documents such as Lasting Power of Attorney. Users can designate trusted persons such as family members to access these documents, with the option to also allow access before death has occurred, to facilitate post-death administration matters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protocol for Law Enforcement Officers in Apprehending Suspects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the principles, guidelines and considerations to ensure that law enforcement officers use appropriate and proportionate force; (b) what are the principles, guidelines, considerations and training on de-escalation provided to law enforcement officers; (c) what are the regular mechanisms for review for policies regarding the above and how often do they take place; and (d) whether there can be regular public reporting to Parliament on aggregated and anonymised data on police use of force.
3 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there are any public education efforts on the common guidelines and procedures for law enforcement officers to capture suspects in public, including the appropriate amount of force that is to be used; and (b) what recourse and remedies are available should the public witness or experience law enforcement officers acting in ways that are not in line with stated guidelines or common procedure.
Mr K Shanmugam: Law enforcement officers are empowered to use force in the discharge of their duties. These will include situations which require protecting and saving lives, preventing the commission of an offence, and arresting suspects who have committed offences.
Some suspects may be compliant with verbal commands by the law enforcement officers. Others may resist arrest with different degrees of violence. In such situations, the use of force may be necessary to prevent the suspect from hurting themselves or others, including the officers. Indeed, law enforcement officers put their own safety and lives on the line every time they intervene to prevent the commission of an offence, or to protect members of the public. We should give them the respect and thanks they deserve.
Law enforcement officers have to evaluate the threat posed and decide on the most appropriate course of action, including the force that is needed, and the safety of all who are involved, or around. This has to be done in real time, sometimes in the blink of an eye, and without the benefit of detailed and thorough analysis of the circumstances, backed up by viewing of camera footages and other information, that an ex-post analysis would allow.
The policy on the use of force is reviewed as necessary.
If members of the public feel that the force used by law enforcement officers may be disproportionate to the situation, they can provide feedback to the Ministry of Home Affairs or lodge a Police report. The Ministry will investigate these complaints. If the complaints are substantiated, action will be taken against errant officers, including criminal proceedings, if a criminal offence is disclosed.
We invite the Member to explain the rationale for reporting of aggregated and anonymised data on Police's use of force to Parliament. We will consider the suggestion, in the light of the reasons given. It takes time and effort to collate and provide such data, and the Singapore Police Force is already working with limited manpower – as we have explained several times.
In short, the Ministry is of the view that the public knows that Police act lawfully. And those who feel that Police have acted unlawfully have been able to obtain and have obtained recourse.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Educating Cyclists on Section 11A of Road Traffic (Bicycles) Rules and Enforcement Efforts to Improve Road Safety","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how does the Ministry currently educate cyclists on Section 11A of the Road Traffic (Bicycles) Rules which mandates lights on bicycles on roads between 7 pm and 7 am the following day; and (b) whether there are any enforcement efforts in relation to this to improve road safety for both motorists and cyclists.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Traffic Police (TP) conducts public education to raise awareness on safe cycling. For example, TP's \"Use Your RoadSense\" campaign encourages cyclists to conduct pre-riding device checks. These checks include ensuring that the front and rear lights of the bicycle are operational. TP also partners the Singapore Road Safety Council, Safe Cycling Taskforce, Singapore Cycling Federation, and People's Association to raise awareness on safe cycling practices among the cycling community, including wearing reflective gear at night and ensuring that lights and reflectors on bicycles are installed in proper positions.
TP conducts enforcement operations at locations such as traffic junctions near the Park Connector Network, where there is a higher concentration of cyclists who are prone to commit traffic offences such as cycling in a disorderly manner or against the flow of traffic. In these operations, enforcement action is also taken against cyclists who commit the offence of failing to display lights at the front and rear of their bicycles when cycling on roads between 7 pm and 7 am. First-time offenders may be fined up to $1,000, imprisoned for up to three months, or both. Repeat offenders may be fined up to $2,000, imprisoned for up to six months, or both.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Medical Certificates to Husbands Accompanying Wives for In-vitro Fertilisation Treatments at Public Hospital","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider requiring doctors to provide medical certificates to husbands accompanying their wives for In-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatments at public hospitals.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Medical certificates (MCs) are issued to patients only on proper medical grounds when they are unwell or unfit for work or school, to allow them to rest and recuperate at home. Due to the medically invasive nature of IVF treatments, women undergoing these treatments are issued MCs for them to take time off work to attend the treatments and get proper rest after.
As is generally the case for individuals who accompany patients for other procedures, MCs are not provided to husbands who accompany their wives for IVF. However, doctors may provide memos to the husbands, which some employers recognise by extending a day off.
Employers are encouraged to be understanding and supportive of the needs of their employees or spouses who are undergoing IVF treatments, and consider exercising greater flexibility at the workplace. This could include allowing husbands time-off, or providing work-from-home arrangements so that they could be with their wives during recuperation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Postpartum Complications, Infant Health and Mental Health Issues during COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there has been an increase in postpartum complications, infant health, and mental health issues during the COVID-19 pandemic due to factors such as the limited availability of family support and hired caretakers; and (b) if so, what are the steps that have been taken by the Ministry to address this issue.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Ministry of Health (MOH) has not observed any increase in postpartum complications and infant health issues at the public hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mothers who cite issues with family support and caretaking are referred to the Medical Social Workers who will assist in equipping the new parents with parentcraft skills prior to discharge and arranging for post-discharge support.
The Institute of Mental Health's Mental Health Helpline saw a 48% increase in number of calls from April to December 2020 as compared to the same period last year. However, while this increase seemed to be largely caused by COVID-19-related anxieties and pressures, we cannot attribute the increase specifically to family support and caretaking issues.
Since April last year, MOH has been working with the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and the community partners to support the mental wellbeing of families and individuals during COVID-19. During the circuit breaker, AIC's community teams supported their clients through phone outreach. For high-risk clients who require urgent assistance, the community intervention teams will conduct home visits, while taking precautionary measures.
In addition, the National CARE Hotline was launched in April 2020 to support those facing mental health concerns such as anxiety and adjustment issues related to COVID-19. As of end-December 2020, the hotline has handled almost 38,000 calls. The monthly number of calls has decreased by about 80% since its launch.
MOH and IMH have set up the COVID-19 Mental Wellness Taskforce in October 2020 to address the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the population. The Taskforce had taken stock of the mental health and well-being initiatives introduced across agencies to address the impact thus far, and will be working to address the identified gaps to better meet the mental health needs of the population during this time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Government's Review on Mental Health Strategy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Raeesah Khan asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the status of the Government's review on mental health strategy; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider (i) greater decentralisation of mental healthcare to improve accessibility and (ii) offering semi-inpatient services to allow for greater patient autonomy.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government's review of the mental health strategy is currently in progress and more details will be announced at a later date.
To support persons with mental health conditions and improve accessibility to mental health services, the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) have been working with the public healthcare institutions and community partners to strengthen mental health services within the primary care and community settings. Mental health and/or dementia services have been set up in 14 polyclinics, and over 220 general practitioner (GP) partners have been trained to identify, diagnose and care for persons with mental health conditions. In the community, 48 community outreach teams have been set up as of June 2020, to reach out to persons who have or are at risk of dementia or depression. In addition, 21 community intervention teams have also been set up as of June 2020 to support GP partners and community partners in managing clients with mild to moderate mental health conditions.
Persons with stable mental health conditions who do not require acute inpatient care can tap on a range of psychiatric intermediate care services for residential or day care support. These include psychiatric rehabilitation homes and psychiatric sheltered homes for persons who require short term accommodation, and psychiatric day centres which provide day care and ongoing living skills training for those living in the community with care-givers.
In addition, the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) operates day facilities such as the Mood Disorders Unit (MDU) day hospital, where patients with stable conditions attend customised day programmes with group therapy and support group sessions. IMH also provides day programmes at its Occupational Therapy, Activities, Vocation, and Empowerment (OcTAVE) Centre, which offers a range of outpatient rehabilitation programmes.
MOH will continue to improve access to mental health care services and facilitate the recovery of patients in the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Co-Payment in Integrated Shield Plans for Specific Hospital Categories and Breakdown of Average Claims Made through Full Riders of Integrated Shield Plans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will review the necessity of the 5% co-payment in Integrated Shield Plans for only specific hospital categories that have demonstrated unsustainable medical cost increases instead of allowing insurers to impose the requirement across all categories.
9 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Health how can the Ministry safeguard the interests of policyholders against insurance companies who change the terms and conditions of full-cover Integrated Shield Plans signed prior to 8 March 2018.
10 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Health between 2015 and 2020, what is the increase in average claims made through full riders of Integrated Shield Plans covering (i) private hospitals (ii) Class A wards in restructured hospitals and (iii) Class B1 wards and below in restructured hospitals respectively.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Co-payment is an important principle in the design of healthcare insurance. It encourages policyholders and their doctors, to consider the necessity of the medical treatment and its cost, so that they can make an informed decision on the appropriate healthcare services. This encourages prudence and keeps healthcare cost, and health insurance premiums, affordable and sustainable in the long term.
This principle applies regardless of hospital category. Integrated Shield Plan (IP) full riders that covered the entire co-payment under the IPs were not in line with this principle. Such riders allowed policyholders to avoid co-payment regardless of their bill size, and had contributed to over-consumption, over-servicing and over-charging. Between 2015 and 2020, the compound annual growth rate of claims incidence was about 15% for full riders of private hospital IPs, and about 9% for full riders of restructured hospital IPs. For riders with some form of co-payment of private and restructured hospital IPs, this figure was close to 0%. Over the same period, the average bill size for claims from full riders were at least 20% higher than riders with some form of co-payment, for private and restructured hospital IPs.
This was one of the reasons why MOH had announced the requirement for a minimum 5% co-payment for new riders across all settings in March 2018. This would apply for new riders sold from 1 April 2019, while riders sold after the announcement, between 8 March 2018 and 31 March 2019, would have to transition onto these new co-payment riders by 1 April 2021.
While this co-payment requirement was not mandated for riders purchased before 8 March 2018, some insurers have recently announced that they will also be including a co-payment component to these riders. This is allowed under their contractual terms with their policyholders. MOH has encouraged the insurers, in considering these changes, to ensure that their policyholders' interests are safeguarded even as insurers seek to ensure the sustainability of their portfolios. As an additional safeguard, insurers are required to clearly explain these changes to their policyholders at least 30 days before they take effect.
To provide their policyholders more assurance after these changes, we understand that some insurers have also introduced co-payment limits for treatments that are provided by their panel doctors, or for pre-authorised treatments. Policyholders can also continue to tap on MediSave to pay the co-payment amount under their riders, subject to the MediSave withdrawal limits.
All stakeholders, including the Government, healthcare providers, insurers and policyholders, have a part to play in keeping healthcare costs affordable and sustainable. These changes, together with other efforts by the Government, such as the publication of fee benchmarks and appropriate care guides and drug guidances, will further encourage prudent use of healthcare services, and contribute towards keeping healthcare costs sustainable for all Singaporeans. MOH will continue to work with all stakeholders to encourage appropriate and cost-effective treatment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lowering Legal Vehicular Noise Limits in Residential Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether legal vehicular noise limits in residential areas can be lowered from the current 103 decibels in order to be made comparable to the 75-decibel limit for construction sites near residential areas.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) is committed to minimising noise nuisance from vehicles and construction sites to protect public health. NEA sets noise emission standards for vehicles and maximum permissible noise limits for construction sites under the Environmental Protection and Management Act.
The noise limits for vehicles and construction sites are not directly comparable. First, the vehicular noise limit applies to the loudest noise emitted by a vehicle. In comparison, the construction noise limits apply to the average sound level measured over longer time durations (five minutes, one hour or 12 hours), as construction noise from a site can be sustained over a longer period of time.
Second, vehicular noise measurement is undertaken at source (i.e. at the tailpipe), while noise from construction sites is measured at the receptor (i.e. at the façade of the nearest residential building), given the range of construction activities and equipment operating in a construction site at any point in time.
NEA regularly reviews the noise emission standards to keep pace with the latest international standards. Infrastructural measures also help to mitigate noise emissions. For example, for expressways near residential areas, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) works with the National Parks Board to line the expressways with dense planting, which act as screens that absorb light and noise from roads. LTA is also studying the feasibility of other noise mitigation measures such as low-noise pavement mix for roads and vertical noise barriers. When there is public feedback on noisy vehicles, agencies will work together to address the feedback, including carrying out enforcement actions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Notions of Respect and Consent Taught in Sexuality Education Curriculum in Light of Sexual Harassment and Assault Cases Involving Young People","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education in light of sexual harassment and assault cases that have occurred over the last few years involving young people, how are the notions of respect and consent taught in the Ministry's sexuality education curriculum.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Through MOE Sexuality Education, students are equipped with age-appropriate knowledge and skills to maintain safe and healthy relationships, recognise risks and make informed and responsible decisions on sexuality matters.
For example, in primary school, students are taught about personal safety and protection of oneself from unhealthy relationships, sexual exploitation and abuse. In secondary school and at the pre-university level, there is a greater focus on how to build healthy relationships. This includes helping students understand the importance of treating others and themselves with respect, the need to assert and respect boundaries for self and others, and the social-emotional and legal consequences if they overstep these boundaries.
Students are taught to seek help from trusted adults, such as their parents, teachers and school counsellors when there is risk of their personal safety being compromised, or when they think that their peers are being exposed to violence or harmful influences.
Schools also engage and work closely with parents to support their children as they play a critical role in imparting values of respect and providing guidance to their children.
13 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider imposing a moratorium on declawing cats and debarking dogs and monitor whether pet euthanasia rates change during this moratorium to study the relationship between such practices and pet euthanasia.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks does not encourage the practices of declawing cats and debarking dogs. However, there could be instances where such procedures are required as a last resort, in order for owners to keep their pets.
The Code of Ethics for Veterinarians considers declawing cats and debarking dogs unethical unless these procedures are performed as an alternative to euthanasia. Veterinarians are required to advise the owners of non-surgical alternatives and to ensure that all reasonable efforts have been made to manage the issue prior to performing such procedures. Failure to do so can result in written warnings, composition fines, or suspension or revocation of veterinary licences.
It would not be desirable to impose a moratorium on these procedures for the purpose of monitoring changes to pet euthanasia rates, as this could lead to the unnecessary euthanasia of pets. If the public comes across suspected cases where declawing of cats or debarking of dogs have been performed without due justification, we ask that they inform NParks, so that it can investigate the cases and take enforcement action if warranted.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Maximum Weight Limit of Commercial Vehicles in HDB Carparks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the rationale for HDB to limit the maximum unladen/laden weight of commercial vehicles to less than 2,000 kg if the vehicles are able to fit into a standard parking lot whereas such weight requirements are not applicable to passenger vehicles; and (b) whether HDB will consider raising the maximum weight limit to minimise the inconvenience to residents driving such vehicles.
Mr Desmond Lee: In general, commercial vehicles with unladen weight exceeding 2,000 kilograms are not allowed to park in HDB residential car parks for safety reasons. This is because the vehicles tend to protrude from the car lot and obstruct the view of other car park users, block passengers in vehicles next to theirs from opening their doors, or generate noise and air pollution that impacts residents.
However, HDB does exercise flexibility to allow drivers of commercial vehicles that marginally exceed 2,000 kilograms to park their vehicles at surface residential car parks, if the vehicle is able to fit within the car lot, does not obstruct or endanger other car park users, and does not create noise or air pollution.
HDB also exercises similar flexibility for parking in multi-storey car parks (MSCPs). However, as the MSCPs are not designed to withstand vehicular weights beyond a certain limit, only commercial vehicles near the 2,000-kilogram limit, and which fit within the car lot, can be allowed.
Vehicles that are unable to park in HDB car parks can park at commercial and industrial car parks, as well as purpose-built heavy vehicle parks instead.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Residents who Aspire for Better Housing in HDB Sample Household Survey 2018","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development based on the HDB Sample Household Survey 2018, what is the percentage of respondents in each age group who indicated \"aspire for better housing\", as further broken down into \"larger than current flat type\", \"private property\" and \"from rental flat to sold flat\".
Mr Desmond Lee: The findings from the HDB Sample Household Survey 2018 showed that housing aspirations differed by residents' age. Younger residents were more likely to have higher housing aspirations.
Overall, 35.2% of residents aspired for better housing. Among them, 4.3%-points were renters who aspired to own an HDB flat, while 15.2%-points and 15.7%-points, respectively, were existing HDB flat owners who aspired to live in a bigger HDB flat or a private property (Table 1).
16 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development (a) how often maintenance checks are conducted on senior fitness corners and playgrounds in public estates, in particular those located near childcare services and schools; and (b) whether there are plans to utilise more inclusive design efforts for persons with different abilities and needs in these community spaces.
Mr Desmond Lee: Town Councils are responsible for managing and maintaining the common property in HDB estates, including senior fitness corners and playgrounds. Maintenance checks on such facilities are therefore carried out by the respective Town Councils, who will decide on the schedule and frequency of such checks.
Community spaces such as playgrounds and fitness corners in HDB estates are generally designed to be inclusive and accessible to all. For instance, main footpath routes along these community spaces are designed to be barrier-free, taking reference from the Building & Construction Authority (BCA)'s code of accessibility in the built environment. The selection of playground equipment within playgrounds in HDB estates is also guided by the Singapore Standard SS457:2017, which provides specifications for playground equipment that is for public use. Under this standard, playground equipment should be barrier-free and accessible by the physically challenged.
All playgrounds in HDB developments since the 2000s are designed to be accessible to wheelchair users and children with different physical abilities and needs. For instance, wheelchair users are able to access ground-level equipment such as play counters and seesaws, as well as play on elevated platforms and slides via transfer platforms and accessible stairways with assistance. Wheelchair-friendly fitness equipment is also provided at elderly fitness corners in new HDB developments since the 2000s. The chest press, for instance, provides strength training and can be accessed directly by wheelchair users.
With the ageing population in Singapore, HDB is looking into various aspects of health and wellness to enhance residents' physical, social and mental well-being. For older HDB developments, playgrounds and fitness corners that are designed to be accessible to all can be introduced through upgrading programmes. For instance, improvement works under the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) include the replacement of existing playgrounds and fitness corners, and the construction of new ones in existing HDB precincts. A recent initiative that is steadily being implemented in new HDB developments is the introduction of pictograms on precinct signage to help the elderly and those with dementia to better understand the signage.
HDB recognises the diverse demographics and varying needs of HDB residents, and will continue to plan and design new HDB developments to be universally enjoyed by all.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statements were in the reply given by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat) during the Budget debate Round-up Speech at the Sitting of 26 February 2021: (proc text)]
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): On the technical question that Mr Louis Chua asked about, what constitute the other big part, well, one bit which, as the Member has pointed out, is the land sales; and the other part, a big chunk of it, is the NIRC. The NIRC is already being used. [Please refer to “Debate on Annual Budget Statement”, Official Report, 26 February 2021, Volume 95, Issue No 21.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Heng Swee Keat circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to the reply given during the Budget Debate Round-up Speech at the Sitting of 26 February 2021. My reply should read as follows:
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): On the technical question that Mr Louis Chua asked about, what constitute the other big part, well, one bit which, as the Member has pointed out, is the land sales; and the other part, a big chunk of it, is the Investment and Interest Income. It is already being used.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":1761,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210226/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"OA","file":null},{"annexureID":1792,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210226/annex-Annex 2.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1793,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210226/annex-Annex 3.pdf","fileName":"Annex 3.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1794,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 4","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210226/annex-Annex 4.pdf","fileName":"Annex 4.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1795,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 5","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210226/annex-Annex 5.pdf","fileName":"Annex 5.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4371,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Vikram Nair","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210226/vernacular-Mr Vikram Nair - 26 Feb 2021 - Budget Statement.pdf","fileName":"Mr Vikram Nair - 26 Feb 2021 - Budget Statement.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4372,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Ang Wei Neng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210226/vernacular-Ang Wei Neng Budget 26Feb2021.pdf","fileName":"Ang Wei Neng Budget 26Feb2021.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4373,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Mariam Jaafar","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210226/vernacular-26 Feb 2021 - Ms Mariam Jaafar - Speech on Budget Statement.pdf","fileName":"26 Feb 2021 - Ms Mariam Jaafar - Speech on Budget Statement.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4374,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210226/vernacular-26 Feb 2021 - Mr Zhul Rahim - Speech on Budget Statement.pdf","fileName":"26 Feb 2021 - Mr Zhul Rahim - Speech on Budget Statement.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4375,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Heng Swee Keat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210226/vernacular-Heng Swee Keat Budget Roundup 26Febt2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Heng Swee Keat Budget Roundup 26Febt2021-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}