\r\n
| \r\n
Page: 1290
\r\nPage: 1293
\r\nPage: 1294
\r\n\r\n Under the provisions of\r\nclause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore,\r\nthe following Members have been granted permission by the Speaker\r\nto be absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament\r\nto which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:
\r\n\r\n| Name | \r\nFrom | \r\nTo | \r\n
|---|---|---|
| \r\n | (2012) | \r\n(2012) | \r\n
| Dr Mohamad Maliki\r\nBin Osman | \r\n18\r\nFeb | \r\n02\r\nMar | \r\n
| Mr Arthur Fong | \r\n22\r\nFeb | \r\n25\r\nFeb | \r\n
| Mr Lim Hng Kiang | \r\n25\r\nFeb | \r\n27\r\nFeb | \r\n
| Mr Lui Tuck Yew | \r\n25\r\nFeb | \r\n26\r\nFeb | \r\n
| Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam | \r\n25\r\nFeb | \r\n27\r\nFeb | \r\n
| Mr Lee Kuan Yew | \r\n28\r\nFeb | \r\n28\r\nFeb | \r\n
| Miss Penny Low | \r\n01\r\nMar | \r\n03\r\nMar | \r\n
| Mr Teo Siong\r\nSeng | \r\n01\r\nMar | \r\n02\r\nMar | \r\n
| Mr Cedric Foo\r\nChee Keng | \r\n02\r\nMar | \r\n02\r\nMar | \r\n
| Mr Patrick Tay\r\nTeck Guan | \r\n02\r\nMar | \r\n02\r\nMar | \r\n
| Mr Alvin Yeo | \r\n06\r\nMar | \r\n12\r\nMar | \r\n
| Dr Janil Puthucheary | \r\n10\r\nMar | \r\n15\r\nMar | \r\n
| 11\r\nApr | \r\n13\r\nApr | \r\n|
| 26\r\nMay | \r\n08\r\nJun | \r\n|
| 13\r\nDec | \r\n24\r\nDec | \r\n|
| Er Dr Lee Bee\r\nWah | \r\n10\r\nMar | \r\n12\r\nMar | \r\n
| 15\r\nMar | \r\n18\r\nMar | \r\n|
| 25\r\nMar | \r\n02\r\nApr | \r\n|
| 06\r\nApr | \r\n08\r\nApr | \r\n|
| Mr Sitoh Yih\r\nPin | \r\n10\r\nMar | \r\n16\r\nMar | \r\n
| Mr Teo Chee Hean | \r\n13\r\nMar | \r\n15\r\nMar | \r\n
| 30\r\nMar | \r\n02\r\nApr | \r\n
Page: 1294
\r\n\r\n The following Bills were\r\nassented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the\r\ndate stated:
\r\n\r\n \r\n 21 February 2012\r\n
\r\n \r\nPage: 1295
\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nPage: 1295
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : Order. At the\r\nsitting of Parliament on 17 February 2012, I informed hon Members\r\nthat the Clerk of Parliament had written to Mr Yaw Shin Leong, the\r\nMember for Hougang, asking him to inform her in writing by Friday,\r\n24 February 2012, if he intends to appeal against or challenge his\r\nexpulsion from the Workers' Party.
\r\n\r\n I also informed hon Members\r\nthat the decision on the vacancy of Mr Yaw's seat in this House\r\nwould be taken when his reply is received or after expiry of the\r\ndeadline given to him to reply.
\r\n\r\n On the evening of 20 February\r\n2012, the Clerk of Parliament received a letter from Mr Yaw stating\r\nthat he will not be appealing against his expulsion from the Workers'\r\nParty.
\r\n\r\n In accordance with Article\r\n46(2)(b) of the Constitution, I have to therefore inform hon Members\r\nthat the seat of the Member for Hougang became vacant from the evening\r\nof 14 February 2012, which was when he was expelled from the political\r\nparty for which he stood in the 2011 General Election.
\r\nPage: 1295
\r\n\r\n \r\n 1\r\n Mr Zaqy Mohamad\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts and Minister-in-charge\r\nof Muslim Affairs (a) what is MUIS' position on food courts that\r\nmarket themselves as h\r\n alal outlets when only individual\r\nstall operators within these outlets are halal-certified;\r\nand (b) how can MUIS assure the public that such food courts or\r\noutlets are audited regularly to back their claims as halal certification\r\nis given to individual stalls which turn over on an ongoing basis.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister for Information, Communications\r\nand the Arts and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Assoc Prof\r\nDr Yaacob Ibrahim)\r\n : Sir, the Islamic Religious Council\r\nof Singapore, or MUIS, administers and regulates halal certification\r\nin Singapore. It issues individual halal certificates to\r\na stall holder, food company or any other eating establishment that\r\ncomplies with the terms and conditions of its halal certification\r\nsystem. In the case of a food court, only individual stalls are\r\nissued with the halal certificates. Hence, it is misleading\r\nfor a food court to claim that it has been halal-certified.
\r\n\r\n MUIS is committed to ensuring\r\nthe integrity of the more than 2,700 halal certificates issued.\r\nPeriodic and surprise inspections are conducted regularly to ensure\r\nthat the halal certificate holders comply with the conditions.\r\nIn 2011, 7,000 such inspections were carried out. MUIS views any\r\nbreach of its halal certification system seriously and investigates\r\nall complaints by members of the public for any infringements of\r\nconditions or misuse of its halal certification mark. In\r\n2011, 21 halal certificate holders were found to be in breach. Of these,\r\n14 had their certificates suspended while seven were issued with a\r\nwarning.
\r\nPage: 1296
\r\n\r\n Food operators and members\r\nof the public can play a part in maintaining the integrity of Singapore's halal certification\r\nsystem. Halal certificate holders should ensure timely renewal\r\nof their halal certification. As halal certificate\r\nholders are required to display the halal certificates prominently, Muslim\r\ncustomers can check that the food outlets have a valid h\r\n alal certificate\r\nbefore patronising them.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang)\r\n :\r\nI thank the Minister for his reply. I am heartened to hear that\r\nthe amount of enforcement is quite significant. But there is a certain\r\nperception among the community that MUIS does not go around to enforce\r\nand check. Could the Minister inform us how we could enlighten the\r\ncommunity on how they could enforce their rights and, if possible,\r\ncontact MUIS? Also, how do we ensure the accountability on the part\r\nof halal food providers?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim\r\n :\r\nSir, on the integrity of the system, we take a three-pronged approach.\r\nFirst of all, MUIS conducts both announced and unannounced visit\r\nto the halal-certified premises. More inspections will be\r\ncarried out for food establishments that were found to have not complied\r\nwith prescribed conditions and these, of course, are investigated\r\nfor infringements. As for those who are dealing with meat-based\r\nproducts, we take a stricter view of such outlets and will be inspected\r\nmore often. MUIS also investigates every complaint that it receives.\r\nSo, the role of the public is also very important and we hope that\r\nmembers of the public can continue to provide feedback to MUIS.\r\nThere are channels in which they can register their complaints either\r\nthrough a phone call or an email on the MUIS' website.
\r\n\r\n Finally, Sir, we expect\r\nthe certificate holders themselves will play their part by strictly\r\ncomplying with all the conditions at all times and, more importantly,\r\nto display their halal-mark, which has been certified by\r\nMUIS, timely. And if it needs to be renewed, we will keep them informed,\r\nin fact, three months ahead of the next renewal. So, the system\r\nis in place to ensure that there is timely renewal and information\r\nregarding whether or not the premise is halal-certified.\r\nIn terms of inspection, we will continue to step up especially the\r\nunannounced inspection. Really, this is dependent upon the number of\r\npeople that we have on the ground. We have been working with some\r\nother partners to ensure that we can step up our inspections across\r\nthe board.
\r\nPage: 1296
\r\n\r\n \r\n 2\r\n Mrs Lina Chiam\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Law for the past two years, what is the number\r\nof bankrupts who are sent for debt restructuring schemes and the\r\nnumber who is discharged from bankruptcy.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the\r\nMinister for Law (Ms Sim Ann) (for the Minister for Law)\r\n :\r\nMrs Chiam asks for the number of bankrupts who are sent for \"debt\r\nrestructuring schemes\". I take it that Mrs Chiam is referring to\r\nthe Debt Repayment Scheme (DRS) under Part 5A of the Bankruptcy\r\nAct. The DRS was introduced in 2009 to allow debtors with regular\r\nincomes and debts not exceeding $100,000, an opportunity to avoid\r\nbankruptcy by paying off all or some of their debts through a repayment\r\nplan. In 2010 and 2011, 274 debtors in total were placed on the\r\nDRS. Of these, seven have completed the scheme while 29 fell out\r\nof the scheme as they did not adhere to the repayment plan. The remaining\r\n238 are still on the scheme. Sir, Mrs Chiam also asks for the number\r\nof bankrupts who were discharged from bankruptcy in the past two\r\nyears. In 2010, 2,252 bankrupts were discharged from bankruptcy.\r\nIn 2011, the number was 1,391.
\r\nPage: 1297
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs\r\nLina Chiam (Non-Constituency Member)\r\n : I thank the\r\nSenior Parliamentary Secretary for answering the question. I would\r\nlike to ask a supplementary question. What qualifies a person to\r\ngo under the debt restructuring scheme?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Sim Ann\r\n : Sir, the criteria\r\nfor the courts referring a case to DRS are set out in sections 65(7)\r\nand 67(3) of the Bankruptcy Act. They are as follows: first, the\r\ntotal debt involved in a bankruptcy application does not exceed\r\n$100,000; second, the debtor is not an undischarged bankrupt and\r\nhas not been a bankrupt in the last five years; third, there is\r\nno voluntary arrangement in respect of the debtor, either now or\r\nwithin the last five years; fourth, the bankrupt is not already\r\nin the DRS and has not been in the DRS in the last five years; and,\r\nlastly, the debtor is not a sole proprietor or partner of a firm,\r\nor a partner in a limited liability partnership. Upon referral to\r\nDRS, the Official Assignee will make a more detailed assessment\r\non whether the referred debtor is suitable, and factors considered\r\ninclude whether there are any other debts owed by the debtor, whether\r\nthe debtor earns a regular income and whether the debtor can propose\r\na viable repayment plan.
\r\nPage: 1297
\r\n\r\n \r\n 3\r\n Mrs Lina Chiam\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Law (a) if he will give a detailed account of the\r\nannulment of bankruptcy orders issued in December 2011 to the three\r\nformer directors of the National Kidney Foundation; and (b) how\r\nthe bankruptcy laws have been applied in the case.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Sim Ann (for the Minister for Law)\r\n :\r\nSir, before I address Mrs Chiam's question, I should declare that\r\nmy Minister represented the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) in\r\nits suit against, amongst others:
\r\n\r\n (i) Ms Matilda Chua, ex-Member\r\nof the NKF board;
\r\n\r\n (ii) Mr Richard Yong,\r\nex-Chairman of the NKF board; and
\r\n\r\n (iii) The late Mr Loo\r\nSay San, ex-Treasurer of the NKF.
\r\n\r\n Following bankruptcy applications\r\nfiled by the NKF, Mr Yong, Mr Loo and Ms Chua were adjudged bankrupts\r\non 16 May 2007 after failing to pay liquidated damages and costs\r\nto the NKF.
\r\n\r\n Sir, sections 95 and 95A\r\nof the Bankruptcy Act provide that the Official Assignee may annul\r\na bankruptcy order if a composition or scheme is accepted through\r\na special resolution, where a majority in the number of creditors,\r\nwho together hold at least 75% of the total liabilities, accept\r\nthe debt settlement proposal.
\r\n\r\n In the case of Mr Yong,\r\nMr Loo and Ms Chua, the Official Assignee had completed the administration\r\nof their bankruptcy estates and realised all their available assets\r\nfor the benefit of the creditors. A debt settlement proposal was\r\nput up to the creditors for their consideration. This was accepted\r\nby creditors, in accordance with sections 95 and 95A of the Bankruptcy\r\nAct, as earlier mentioned. As such, the Official Assignee granted\r\nCertificates of Annulment to the three of them on 2 December 2011.
\r\nPage: 1298
\r\n\r\n \r\n 4\r\n Miss Penny Low\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Transport what is the Ministry's vision of our\r\npublic transport landscape in five years' time and what are the\r\nsteps to be taken to move towards this five-year plan.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister of State for Transport (Mrs\r\nJosephine Teo) (for the Minister for Transport)\r\n :\r\nSir, over the next five years, our focus will be on increasing the\r\ncapacity of our public transport system, raising its service levels\r\nand enhancing the overall commuting experience. This is key to addressing commuters'\r\ncurrent concerns and achieving our longer-term objective of encouraging\r\nmore Singaporeans to take public transport.
\r\n\r\n We will continue to invest\r\nheavily in our public transport system to increase its capacity\r\nand coverage. The completion of the Downtown Line, North-South Line\r\nExtension and Tuas West Extension will add another 51 kilometres\r\nto our existing rail network. For existing rail lines, more new trains\r\nwill be put into service and the signalling system for the North-South\r\nand East West Lines will be upgraded.
\r\n\r\n It will take time for\r\nthese rail capacity improvements to be completed. In the meantime,\r\nwe will significantly ramp up bus capacity to relieve daily congestion\r\nin public transport. The Government will partner the public transport\r\noperators to add about 800 buses over the next five years, or a\r\n20% increase. Details will be given during the Ministry of Transport's\r\n(MOT's) Committee of Supply (COS) debate. We will also upgrade major\r\nbus stops and implement more bus priority measures to improve service reliability.
\r\n\r\n To enhance the accessibility\r\nand catchment of our public transport nodes, we will build more sheltered\r\nwalkways for pedestrians, as well as cycling paths and parking facilities\r\nfor cyclists. Over time, we will also make our public transport\r\nsystem more barrier-free and elderly-friendly by increasing the\r\nnumber of wheelchair-accessible bus services and barrier-free routes\r\ninto MRT stations.
\r\n\r\n Lastly, we will ensure\r\nthat public transport fares remain affordable by reviewing both\r\nthe rail and bus financing frameworks and the public transport fare\r\nadjustment formula.
\r\n\r\n In five years' time, there\r\nwill be significant progress in our efforts to make public transport\r\na choice mode, and deliver a commuter-centric and well-integrated\r\nbus-rail network. Our strategies must serve us well even beyond\r\nthe next five years and, therefore, we will also review the Land\r\nTransport Masterplan which was put out four years ago. Over the\r\nnext year or so, we will engage key stakeholders and invite ideas\r\nfrom the public to develop an updated Masterplan to serve as our\r\nroadmap for the next 10 to 15 years.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol)\r\n :\r\nI would like to thank the Minister of State for some early good\r\nnews about the intention to improve the transport plan and also\r\nthe people-oriented approach through feedback on improving the plan.\r\nMay I ask two supplementary questions, Sir? One, what is the distribution\r\nplan for the additional 850 buses that are funded by the Government,\r\nand what would be the basis of prioritisation? In particular, in\r\nnew towns like Punggol 21 where it is less well served than many other\r\nmore mature towns, what are the plans in terms of increasing both\r\nthe frequency as well as adding new routes to the new towns?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, I thank the Member, Miss Penny Low, for her questions. Since the\r\nannouncement during the Budget Statement that the Government will\r\nbe injecting substantial bus capacity, we have received largely\r\npositive feedback and also many requests for their estates to be prioritised. These\r\nwill all be studied very carefully and we will have to balance where\r\nthe benefits can be spread out and also bring more convenience to\r\nthe commuters. I assure the Member that this issue will be touched\r\non in greater detail during MOT's COS debate.
\r\nPage: 1299
\r\n\r\n \r\n 5\r\n Miss Penny Low\r\n asked\r\nthe asked the Minister for Transport (a) what plans are there to\r\nresolve traffic congestion even though the ERP is in place; (b)\r\nwhether the Ministry will consider turning off ERP gantries when\r\nthere is smooth traffic flow; and (c) whether the ERP system needs\r\nto be tweaked to be more flexible and responsive to live situations\r\non the road.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo (for the Minister for\r\nTransport)\r\n : Sir, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) adopts\r\nan integrated and holistic package of measures to manage traffic\r\non our roads. Besides Electronic Road Pricing (ERP), this includes\r\nenhancing the capacity of roads, for example, through road widening; and\r\noptimising traffic flows through new traffic schemes and the use\r\nof Intelligent Transport Systems, such as the Expressway Monitoring\r\nand Advisory System, commonly referred to as EMAS. These traffic\r\nmanagement measures are complemented by our Vehicle Quota System\r\nand the improvement of public transport services.
\r\n\r\n Currently, ERP rates are\r\nreviewed every quarter – in February, May, August and November –\r\nas well as during the June and December school holidays each year.\r\nDuring these reviews, the ERP rates are adjusted based on the prevailing\r\ntraffic situation. An optimal speed range determined by a Nanyang Technological\r\nUniversity (NTU) study is used to guide the review. This speed range\r\nis 45 to 65 km/h for expressways and 20 to 30 km/h for arterial\r\nroads. When speeds exceed or fall below the optimal range, based\r\non measurements carried out by LTA over a two-week period once every\r\nquarter, the ERP rates will be adjusted downwards or upwards respectively.
\r\n\r\n By and large, this should\r\nensure that traffic should be relatively congestion-free when we\r\nhave the ERP in place. However, traffic flow is dynamic. Accidents\r\nand bad weather impact road conditions and, hence, driving speeds.\r\nThere is also some lag in adjusting the ERP charges as we only do\r\nthese measurements once every quarter.
\r\n\r\n If traffic flow is smooth\r\nsuch that speeds are above the optimal range, LTA will bring down\r\nthe ERP charges at the next review. For example, the ERP rate for\r\nthe Central Expressway (CTE) gantry north of Braddell Road for the\r\nperiod 7.00am to 7.30am was recently revised downwards. If this\r\nhappens repeatedly because traffic speeds are consistently above\r\nthe optimal threshold, it is possible that ERP charges will fall\r\nto zero.
\r\n\r\n ERP manages congestion\r\nby influencing motorists' driving behaviour. This is possible only\r\nwhen motorists know the ERP rates in advance. With advance knowledge\r\nof the ERP rates, motorists can then decide whether to travel as\r\nplanned, or take a different route, travel at a different time,\r\nor change their mode of travel to public transport. They can also\r\ndecide to travel somewhere else or even cancel their trip completely.\r\nHence, we fix the ERP rates for a period of time until the next\r\ncycle of review, so that motorists can make informed decisions about\r\ntheir choice of travel time, route or mode.
\r\n\r\n To complement the ERP\r\nsystem, we provide timely information to motorists as much as possible. This\r\nallows motorists wishing to avoid ERP to do so, for example, when\r\nthere is severe congestion caused by incidents on the road. If they\r\nare already on the road, motorists will be alerted of incidents through\r\nthe Expressway Monitoring Advisory System (EMAS) Travel Information\r\nDisplays (TID) and LTA's\r\nTraffic News on the radio. Motorists can also access real-time traffic\r\ninformation before they begin their travel, via LTA's traffic.smart\r\non the One.Motoring website, and adjust their travel plans accordingly.
\r\nPage: 1300
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Miss Penny Low\r\n : Once again,\r\nI thank the Minister of State for her reply. She mentioned that\r\nthere was a lag in the adjustments of rates due to the quarterly\r\nreviews and that information provided to motorists is as real-time\r\nas it can get. Some time ago, there was talk about using a GPS-based\r\nsystem which would provide dynamic real-time information both to\r\nthe agencies as well as the motorists. Is this currently being studied?\r\nWill it be implemented in due course? The second supplementary question\r\nis on the ERP. I am happy to hear that it could even be down to\r\nzero-rated. Has there been any such experience in the past?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Josephine Teo\r\n : Sir,\r\nI thank the Member for the questions. I believe that the system\r\nthe Member is referring to is ERP2. The development of the ERP2\r\nproject is still in its early stages. We awarded a tender to four\r\nconsortium groups last year to conduct a system evaluation test\r\nfor the next generation ERP system. The tests are still ongoing.\r\nBecause when we have a very built-up city and distances travelled\r\nby motorists can be very short, we have to make sure that it can\r\nbe reliably used for the purposes of road pricing. The tests are\r\nstill ongoing and, even if the ERP2 system is technically feasible, it\r\nis still some years before it is ready to be launched and implemented.\r\nOnce the technology is proven, we will study how we can use the\r\nERP2 system to influence motorists' driving behaviour more effectively.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Miss Penny Low\r\n : When the\r\nGPS-based system is finally implemented, assuming that it works\r\nand will be implemented, what will happen to the physical gantries?\r\nDoes it mean that they will outlive their function or will they\r\nbe torn down? What will happen to them? And how much would that\r\ncost the Government?
\r\nPage: 1300
\r\n\r\n \r\n 6\r\n Dr Lim Wee Kiak\r\n asked\r\nthe Prime Minister (a) for each of the past five years, how many Singaporeans\r\nwho relinquished their citizenship were new citizens; and (b) what\r\nwere the reasons for doing so.
\r\n\r\n \r\n 7\r\n Mrs Lina Chiam\r\n asked\r\nthe Prime Minister (a) what are the criteria for granting Singapore citizenship\r\nand permanent residency; (b) whether there is a rigorous system\r\nin place to ensure that the right people are given these status;\r\n(c) for the past four years, how many foreigners gave up their Singapore\r\ncitizenship; and (d) whether these foreigners are required to sell\r\ntheir HDB flats and properties when they leave the country or are\r\nthey allowed to profit from renting them out.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister\r\nfor Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean) (for the Prime Minister)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, may I take Question Nos 6 and 7 together, please?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean\r\n : Sir, every\r\napplication for Permanent Residence or Singapore Citizenship is evaluated\r\nholistically on a range of criteria, including economic contributions,\r\nqualifications, age, family profile and length of stay in Singapore.\r\nWe assess how well an applicant is able to contribute and integrate\r\ninto our society and his commitment to sinking roots. For those\r\nwith family ties to Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents, we\r\nalso consider the local sponsor's ability to support the family.
\r\nPage: 1301
\r\n\r\n An average of 1,200 Singaporeans renounced\r\ntheir citizenship each year from 2007 to 2011. Three hundred of\r\nthese were naturalised citizens. The renunciation rates for both\r\nnaturalised citizens and Singapore-born citizens were low, 0.1%\r\nor less. The reasons for emigration vary. Some emigrants leave for\r\nfamily reasons – because of marriage, or to reunite with family\r\nmembers overseas, while others do so for a different living environment.\r\nAll Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who own HDB flats\r\nwill have to sell their properties if they renounce their citizenship\r\nor cease to be Permanent Residents. There are no exceptions to this\r\nrule.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for\r\nhis answer. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether\r\nthere is any characteristic specific to this group of 300 new citizens\r\nwho renounced their citizenship. For example, what was their original nationality?\r\nHow long did they stay in Singapore? Did they have children who\r\nhave taken advantage of our education system or do they have a child\r\nwho is due for National Service (NS)? And is there any penalty for\r\nthem when they renounce their citizenship?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean\r\n : Sir, there\r\nis no particular pattern to the naturalised citizens who have renounced their\r\ncitizenship. Once a person is a citizen, he is liable for National\r\nService if he is of National Service age and he has to fulfil those\r\nrequirements.
\r\nPage: 1301
\r\n\r\n \r\n 8\r\n Miss Penny Low\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Health whether the Ministry could review (i) the\r\nblood-taking procedure in hospitals whereby patients are subjected\r\nto repeated blood takings within a span of one to two weeks because\r\nthey are admitted under different departments within the same hospital;\r\nand (ii) the need for patients to stay as inpatients while waiting\r\nfor blood culture results that may take up to three days and the\r\npatient is well enough to return home.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong)\r\n :\r\nSir, blood investigations are conducted for various purposes, ranging\r\nfrom routine health assessments, monitoring of a chronic condition,\r\nto the clinical management of an acutely ill person. The type and\r\nfrequency of blood investigations are determined based on clinical\r\nneeds after the assessment of the patient's conditions.
\r\n\r\n With increasing complexity\r\nof cases and specialisation in medicine, we need to ensure that\r\ncare is better coordinated between different clinical departments\r\nand to avoid duplicated tests. Our healthcare institutions have\r\nintroduced measures, such as electronic medical records, to reduce\r\nduplication of tests. As test results can be accessed online by\r\nhealthcare professionals involved in the care of the patient, blood\r\ntests are often not repeated unless it is clinically required, such\r\nas monitoring of platelet levels in dengue patients and monitoring\r\nof white blood cell counts in a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy.
\r\n\r\n Another example of initiatives\r\nby our hospitals to reduce duplication of tests is the iSMART blood orders\r\ntracking system at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital's Specialist Outpatient\r\nClinics. This system allows\r\nnurses to track the blood tests that have been ordered by different\r\nclinical departments to enable the samples to be obtained at one\r\nsitting and the results shared by the departments.
\r\nPage: 1302
\r\n\r\n Going forward, the National\r\nElectronic Health Record System that is being rolled out nationally\r\nwill enable doctors from different institutions, who are managing\r\nthe patient, to see the patient's results from blood investigations\r\nthat have been performed before deciding whether a repeat test is\r\nindicated.
\r\n\r\n Despite such efforts,\r\nthere are still occasions where tests are duplicated unnecessarily.\r\nWe will continue to improve on the process to minimise inconvenience\r\nto patients and reduce wastage.
\r\n\r\n On blood cultures, the\r\ndecision to discharge a patient is made based on the patient's clinical conditions.\r\nA patient requiring admission and blood cultures tend to be generally\r\nquite ill and, hence, would usually stay in the hospital until results\r\nare obtained to inform treatment decisions and until the patient's\r\nconditions have improved. However, if the patient's condition improves\r\nor the illness has been determined to be non-infectious in nature,\r\nthe medical team can discharge the patient earlier before the culture\r\nresults are finalised and the patient would be given a follow-up\r\nappointment, as an outpatient for a review of his conditions as\r\nwell as the culture results.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Miss Penny Low\r\n : Sir, I thank\r\nthe Minister for his comprehensive answer. I have been told that\r\nit is possible these days to use diagnostic kits with just a very\r\nsmall sample of blood for a number of tests, instead of taking specific\r\nblood samples for specific tests. Is that something that is also\r\nbeing practised in our hospitals? If so, then it could really reduce\r\nthe number of times that a patient would be asked to give blood\r\nfor tests.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gan Kim Yong\r\n : Sir, I\r\nagree with the Member's general intention that we should minimise\r\nthe number of tests that are done on the patient unless they are\r\nnecessary. However, blood tests are such that they are usually for\r\nspecific objectives and purposes. When we take blood samples, they\r\nare to be tested for specific results that we are looking for. Therefore,\r\nit is unlikely for us to be able to draw blood from a patient for\r\na comprehensive test in anticipation of tests that would be needed\r\nin future. Usually, the doctors or nurses in attendance will decide\r\nthe relevant tests that need to be done on the blood sample. So\r\nwe will draw the blood and it will be subject to the tests that\r\nare prescribed by the doctors or nurses for the specific purpose\r\nof treating the patient's diseases. If the patient is admitted subsequently\r\nfor a different episode, tests may have to be done again because\r\nthe illnesses or the problems that the patient has may be quite\r\ndifferent from the conditions before and, therefore, repeat tests\r\nmay be necessary so that we can determine the conditions of the\r\npatient and are able to prescribe treatment more precisely. These\r\nare clinical decisions that will be decided by the doctors and the\r\nnurses on the ground based on the conditions of the patient. But\r\nI do agree with the Member that we should continue to see how we\r\ncan minimise unnecessary tests or duplication of tests because tests\r\nare inconvenient and sometimes can be painful to patients. So, our\r\nobjectives are in alignment.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Miss Penny Low\r\n : I would\r\nlike to once again thank the Minister for his very comprehensive\r\nanswer. My question was really about using more advanced diagnostic\r\nkits where we could draw one blood sample for multiple tests that\r\nare required by the clinics. Obviously, if they have to go for repeated\r\ntests because they are admitted for different conditions, that has\r\nto be done.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gan Kim Yong\r\n : Sir, I\r\nagree. The hospitals and the doctors will look at whatever technology\r\nthat is available to minimise the necessity to draw additional quantities\r\nof blood. We will minimise the amount\r\nthat we need for the tests. But, again, these tests would have to\r\nbe prescribed by the doctors and the nurses.
\r\nPage: 1303
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the\r\nMinister for Education (Ms Sim Ann)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir,\r\nclarification. In my reply to a supplementary question during the\r\nParliamentary sitting on 17 February 2012, I had referred to the\r\nproportion of international scholars who have been awarded Second Upper\r\nClass Honours and above in our universities as being about 45%.\r\n[Please see Official Report on 17 February 2012, Pg 1202.]
\r\nPage: 1303
\r\n\r\n \"to provide for the issue\r\nfrom the Consolidated Fund and the Development Fund of the sums\r\nnecessary to meet the estimated expenditure for Financial Year 1\r\nApril 2012 to 31 March 2013\",
\r\n\r\n \r\n recommendation of President\r\nsignified; presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance\r\n(Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam); read the First time; to\r\nbe read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates\r\nof Expenditure for FY 2012/2013.
\r\nPage: 1303
\r\n\r\n \"to provide for making\r\nsupplementary provision to meet additional expenditure for the Financial\r\nYear 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012\",
\r\n\r\n \r\n recommendation of President\r\nsignified; presented by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam; read\r\nthe First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of\r\nproceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2012/2013.
\r\nPage: 1303
\r\n\r\n Order read for the Resumption\r\nof Debate on Question (17 February 2012),
\r\n\r\n \"That Parliament approves\r\nthe financial policy of the Government for the Financial Year 1\r\nApril 2012 to 31 March 2013.\". – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister\r\nfor Finance]
\r\n \r\nPage: 1304
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms\r\nJessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast)\r\n : Mr Speaker, thank\r\nyou for allowing me to join in the Budget debate.
\r\n\r\n \"A Budget for the Future\",\r\n\"A Carings Budget\", \"A thoughtful Budget\" − these were some of the terms\r\nused to describe Budget 2012. I have had several dialogues and discussions\r\nin the last week with different business groups, residents and the\r\nonline community on their reactions to Budget 2012. The Government's\r\nmove in this Budget to pay attention to seniors, the disabled and\r\nlower-income Singaporeans and their families is welcomed. However,\r\nsome feel that the Budget is not as inclusive as it did not address\r\nsegments that they feel need support, given the high cost of living.\r\nThese include the singles, the \"sandwiched\" class, the middle income,\r\nincluding retirees and those who live in private property but are\r\nnot well off. Reactions to the measures to restructure our economy\r\nand managing dependence on foreign workers and support for SMEs\r\nwere mixed.
\r\n\r\n The Deputy Prime Minister\r\nand Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam in Budget 2012 outlined\r\nthe directions for the Government to embark to build an inclusive\r\nsociety and a stronger Singapore. He outlined the principal focus\r\nof Budget 2012 to be one of addressing Singapore's longer-term challenges\r\nand building a better future for Singaporeans. The Deputy Prime\r\nMinister announced a whole range of economic and social strategies\r\nto achieve these goals centered around two key strategies: (1) Sustaining\r\neconomic growth; and (2) Building a fair and inclusive society.\r\nBoth these strategies are not easy to achieve but are critical for\r\nthe future of Singapore and Singaporeans. I am glad to see the directions\r\nset out in this year's Budget.
\r\n\r\n In my speech today, I\r\nwould like to touch on three areas: (1) challenges faced by companies\r\nas they move to restructure their businesses; (2) our growing income\r\ngap and how Budget 2012 sets out to address this; and (3) older\r\nworkers and the CPF reinstatement.
\r\n\r\n A key concern for businesses\r\noperating in Singapore, both large and small, is the issue of rising business\r\ncost. Labour, rental and energy costs have driven business costs\r\nupwards quite significantly.
\r\n\r\n Many do accept the fact\r\nthat there is a need to reduce the reliance on foreign workers.\r\nWith easy access to foreign workers, wages of Singaporeans, especially\r\nthe lower-skilled workers, tend to be depressed. There is also an\r\nincreasing burden stretching the limits of our infrastructure with\r\na growing workforce. However, there are worries of the shortage\r\nof talent and the tight labour market in the short term which will\r\nimpact the ability of businesses to operate effectively and address\r\nopportunities. This will result in increased costs to businesses\r\nand lead to higher cost for consumers.
\r\n\r\n While the calibrated approach\r\nof reduction in the Dependency Ratio Ceilings (DRCs) and S Passes is\r\nunderstood, companies, especially the SMEs, will have to adjust\r\nand they will feel the pain in making the transition. So, while\r\nthe implementation of the changes to the DRC has been calibrated\r\nto allow businesses hiring foreign talent time until June 2014 to\r\ncomply with the new DRCs, companies will not be able to bring in\r\nnew foreign workers beyond the new DRCs from 1 July this year. This\r\nwill mean that adjustments must be done now and businesses and their\r\nplans will be impacted.
\r\n\r\n In many industries where\r\njobs are taken up by foreign workers, these jobs are not necessarily\r\nthe jobs that Singaporeans want. Many have cited that culture plays\r\nan important role in shaping the perception and desirability of\r\nsome of these jobs. Many have expressed concerns on whether companies\r\nwill be able to attract Singaporeans to do these jobs. In the ICPAS\r\npre-Budget roundtable that I participated in, panelists felt that\r\nthe current income and offerings in the service sector were less\r\nthan desirable and more must be done together with appropriate polices\r\nto tackle these issues. To make a concerted effort and to accelerate\r\nthese efforts to attract locals to the sector, recommendation was\r\nmade to perhaps appoint a champion agency.
\r\nPage: 1305
\r\n\r\n For some industries, for the higher skilled\r\njobs, the issue is whether Singapore is producing enough of the\r\nright skilled resources in time to fill the higher end jobs created\r\nas companies move up the value chain. In many business forums as\r\nwell as in feedback from our members in the Government Parliamentary\r\nCommittee (GPC) Resource Panel, who are from various industries,\r\nboth SMEs and MNCs, a common thread we hear is that many experience\r\ndifficulty in hiring higher skilled Singaporeans in their respective\r\nareas. The concern is whether our educational system is providing\r\nthe relevant training that graduates and employers want. Is the\r\neconomy able to accept these graduates in jobs that align to their\r\nskills as well as their expectations? A stronger economy for the\r\nfuture will require a skilled labour force. Hence, the greater policy\r\nconcern going forward, especially as opportunities for pursuing\r\ntertiary education are increased in Singapore, is the employment\r\nof higher skilled Singaporeans and how they will meet the needs\r\nof businesses. While businesses will need to invest to develop their\r\ntalent base as they restructure, there needs to be better collaboration\r\nbetween industry and educational institutions in meeting future\r\nskills needs of the various sectors.
\r\n\r\n Another point on foreign\r\ntalent that came up in the various dialogues was around Professionals, Managers\r\nand Executives (PMEs) jobs and quality jobs for Singaporeans. Several\r\nexpressed concerns of being \"crowded out\" of these PME roles, given\r\nthe competition from foreign talent. While many agree that with\r\nthe pace of growth and the focus on upgrading industries, Singapore\r\nmust stay open to foreign talent. However, more needs to be done\r\nto ensure skills transfer and development of local talent for these\r\nroles and also a focus to reduce the heavy reliance on foreign talent.
\r\n\r\n To support SMEs to innovate\r\nand increase productivity, especially in the light of the economic challenges\r\nand the changes to the DRC, this year's Budget does have several\r\nwelcomed measures. These include the enhanced Productivity and Innovation\r\nCredit (PIC) Cash Payout up to 60% of $100,000, enabling PIC payout\r\non a quarterly basis, the ability to use PIC for in-house training\r\nwithout the need for certification, and the changes of qualification\r\nfor R&D expenditures and software development, the One-Off Cash\r\ngrant, the Special Employment Credit, and a few other measures.\r\nThese will definitely prove useful and helpful for the companies,\r\nespecially SMEs, in addressing the cost of doing business and enabling\r\ntheir growth.
\r\n\r\n What is important, however,\r\nis to ensure that access to these funds and support is simple so\r\nthat companies that most need it are able to access it, and enjoy\r\nthe reliefs and obtain the funds when they are needed. This is where\r\nI feel improvements must be done. As it is often said, while the\r\npolicies and schemes are the right ones, the implementation and\r\nexecution are important to achieve the intended results.
\r\n\r\n Let me illustrate this\r\npoint with the PIC application process. Currently, there is quite\r\na lot of information on PIC to help companies. This is, however,\r\nwhere the problem lies. There is a bit too much information for\r\nmost companies to handle and they will require time to understand\r\nthe vast amount of data available. Let me give an example. The PIC\r\nguide, \"Productivity and Innovation Credit revised in 15th July\r\n2011\", is a 66-page guide. You will agree with me that you can\r\nprobably write a book with this. The FAQs guide, \"FAQ for PIC\r\nand cash grant\", is a 22-page document with 72 questions. The PIC\r\nforms in the IRAS website are not too difficult to fill. The challenge\r\nis in understanding the criteria which companies are required to\r\ncheck, validate and get the appropriate approvals from the relevant agencies\r\nagainst their other tax criteria. I think you get my drift now on\r\nthe need for simplification. While promising small companies can\r\nand should tap the scheme, given their day-to-day operations and business\r\npressures, they do not have the capacity to navigate the complexity\r\nof the application for the scheme.
\r\nPage: 1306
\r\n\r\n For companies to make the shift and to\r\nrestructure as well, it is more than just a matter of cost. What will\r\nbe required is also appropriate skills and expertise to enable the\r\nchange and to drive innovation. Many of these companies do not have\r\nthe relevant skills and expertise. Enhancing productivity requires companies\r\nto focus on systems, processes and technology to innovate and improve\r\nquality of products and services. It may be worthwhile to explore\r\na pool of expertise that can be made easily accessible and the aggregation\r\nof demand would lower the cost to utilise them. Change management\r\nand business process re-engineering is also required.
\r\n\r\n Now, let me now move on\r\nto touch on the point of fair and inclusive growth. I would not\r\nbe discussing the details of the schemes announced, but I would\r\nlike specifically to talk about the point on the growing income\r\ngap and how Budget 2012 has set out to address income inequality,\r\nand the steps taken towards income, redistribution and preserving\r\nopportunities for Singaporeans and ensuring social mobility.
\r\n\r\n Singapore, as we all know,\r\nis small, is an open city and open to market forces. Like many other global\r\ncities like Hong Kong, London, Seoul, New York, we face the same\r\nchallenge of the growing income gap. But I am glad to see the deliberate\r\nsteps and position taken by the Government to address this difficult\r\nchallenge of the growing income gap. As outlined by Deputy Prime\r\nMinister Tharman in his Budget Statement, he said, and I quote,\r\n\"we cannot leave our social compact vulnerable to market forces.\r\nWe have to do all we can to contain inequality and to sustain social\r\nmobility in each new generation. We are therefore making a determined,\r\nmulti-year effort to raise the prospects of success for lower income\r\nfamilies. We must also give our middle income families every opportunity\r\nto achieve their aspirations in an evolving and often unpredictable\r\neconomic environment.\"
\r\n\r\n Education and jobs will\r\ncontinue to be levers for all Singaporeans to achieve success. And\r\nwe must ensure that there are opportunities for all children and\r\nworkers to qualify for quality education, training and jobs. This\r\nwill need to be supported and sustained by Singapore's continued\r\nincome growth.
\r\n\r\n The need as expressed\r\nin Budget 2012 is also to be targeted in our efforts. Although it\r\nis not perfect, it will in some way ensure that we keep our efforts\r\nfor income distribution and preserve social mobility. As I have\r\nsaid earlier, many have expressed that it is not as inclusive because\r\nthere may be groups that are less well-off that may need help, and\r\nI think we need to be cognisant of this and ensure that they do get\r\nthe help that they need, but we need to ensure that Budget 2012\r\nstays targeted so that the groups that need help do get it. I am\r\nglad to see that the Budget while targeted in its approach, it does\r\nattempt to broaden the reach of the schemes to include the lower\r\nend of the middle-income group who may not be as well off.
\r\n\r\n Let me give Members some\r\nexamples. The GST Voucher Scheme, which is based on income and the\r\nannual value of homes, does include Singaporeans living in the lower\r\nend private properties. The annual value criterion which is capped\r\nat $20,000 covers about 15% of private properties. I would ask that\r\nthe Ministry consider the suggestion and feedback to refine the\r\nMedisave component of the GST Voucher to include those 60-65 years\r\nof age. Given the concerns of the rising cost of healthcare in our elderly,\r\nmany in this age group who are already out of the workforce may\r\nnot have sufficient provisions for their healthcare needs and require\r\nhelp.
\r\n\r\n The absorption of the\r\nGST and increase in subsidies for long-term care, including community hospitals,\r\nnursing homes, day care and rehabilitation facilities and home-based\r\ncare packages will enable more in the middle income group to also\r\nbenefit. Those who previously did not receive any subsidy will now\r\nbe able to do so. MOF has also indicated that with these changes,\r\n80% of elderly or two-thirds of Singaporean households will qualify\r\nfor these subsidies. This will indirectly help their family members\r\nwho are taking care of them and paying for their medical expenses.
\r\nPage: 1307
\r\n\r\n Similarly, the schemes introduced to support\r\nSingaporeans with disabilities are welcomed. The measures on early\r\nintervention and education will benefit some 2,000 children, and\r\nsupporting employment will enable more Singaporeans with special\r\nneeds to participate. Adult care and subsidies for adult Singaporeans\r\nwith severe disabilities will also enable middle-income families\r\nto offset about 50% of annual cost in attending Day Activity Centres\r\nwhile lower-income families will benefit more.
\r\n\r\n These measures, which\r\nI have highlighted, show deliberate steps to redistribute income\r\nand help Singaporeans cope with increasing costs while ensuring\r\nfinancial viability and sustainability of the programmes. Many of\r\nthese measures are not one-off for the year and the Budget has put\r\nschemes with specific funds set aside to ensure financial stability\r\nand sustainability. For example, $3.6 billion has been put aside\r\nfor the GST Voucher Fund, $2.3 billion for the Special Employment\r\nCredit and Top-up of $200 million for the Edusave Endowment Fund.
\r\n\r\n While I share the concerns\r\nof businesses of increasing cost of doing business with any increase\r\nin labour cost, I must say that I am glad that finally, we are raising\r\nthe CPF contribution rates of older workers. CPF contribution rates\r\nfor older workers were lowered in the late 1980s and, again, in\r\nthe 1990s. The then seniority-based wage system discouraged employers\r\nfrom hiring older workers as the seniority based system at the time\r\nmade the older worker more costly to hire than the younger worker. With\r\nthe focus on productivity and the flattening of the wage system\r\nto one focused on performance, it is now only fair that older workers\r\nare recognised and rewarded for the work that they do. I personally find\r\nit hard to justify why any older worker is paid less just because\r\nthey are older. If they are able to do the work, they should be\r\nrewarded for the same as any worker, young or old. On the recommendations for\r\nthe rise in the CPF contributions for older workers, I would also\r\nencourage the Government to consider extending the CPF contribution\r\nrates for those above 65 years who can and are working.
\r\n\r\n Our economy today is dependent\r\non services rather than manufacturing. And, hence, productivity while\r\nit still entails getting things done faster in a shorter time does\r\nimply the need for experience and knowledge. So while an older worker\r\nmay be physically slower in some instances, it does not necessarily mean\r\nthat they are less effective than their younger counterparts. Let\r\nme give you a very simple example. Take going into a store or going\r\ninto a restaurant as an example: the quality of the service you\r\nreceive from the service personnel really depends on their knowledge\r\nof the products and services and their ability to understand and\r\nmatch your needs and then to follow up and give you the products\r\nand services you require. The ability to complete the transaction\r\nin the shortest time and to provide you with a quality customer\r\nexperience need not mean that each step must be done in the shortest\r\ntime but rather the ability to complete it in the shortest time\r\naccurately. With older workers better educated and having more experience,\r\ntheir ability to provide good service and to understand customer\r\nneeds will be strong. Their ability to retrieve products, input\r\nthe service requirements or complete the order quickly can be assisted with\r\nsuitable technologies to check stocks or to scan products or to\r\nuse portable input devices to input service requirements.
\r\n\r\n We must recognise that\r\nthere still exist perceptions and sometimes biases that older workers\r\nmay not be productive as compared to the younger workers and it\r\nwill take time for such perceptions to change. While the CPF contribution\r\nrates are increased, having the Special Employment Credit (SEC)\r\nin place will encourage employers to continue to employ older workers\r\nand keep them in demand in the employment market. Together with\r\nschemes like PIC and the restructuring of work to leverage the use of\r\ntechnology and automation to be less labour intensive and to improving\r\nthe work processes, all these will enable older workers and disabled\r\nworkers to be more effective and equally productive.
\r\n\r\n I would like to share\r\na recent example that I was fortunate to come to learn about during\r\nthe course of my commercial work. This is about a company that restructured\r\ntheir business processes and policies to address their business challenges to\r\nenable their workforce to be more productive. This company is called\r\nEureka Call Centre Pte Ltd. Eureka Call Centre is a 30-seat Call\r\nCentre. It was facing high staff turnover and was not able to run\r\nits operations effectively. In 2008, it decided to embark on an\r\nambitious re-engineering project. Eureka decided that they would\r\nrun a Call Centre with call agents who were visually impaired. In\r\n2009, they started with their pioneer batch of visually impaired\r\ncall agents. They currently have 16 persons with physical disabilities\r\n(PWDs) and intend to recruit 12 to15 more every six months. They\r\nbenchmark themselves with Call Centres that have able Call Agents\r\nand they set their KPIs at 10% higher than able Call Agents and\r\naims to have their Call Agents to be more productive. They have\r\nbeen successful in achieving these goals. And their Call Agents\r\nhandle an average of 30% to 50% more calls than able Call Agents.\r\nThey are able to do an average of 16% higher talk time per hour. They\r\nwere able to achieve this by re-engineering of their work processes\r\nand providing technology to enable the PWDs and the visually impaired\r\nworkers do their work effectively. The User-Interface was re-programmed:\r\nthey use technologies like hotkeys as shortcuts, voice synthesizers\r\nfor the totally blind, screen magnifiers and high contrast displays,\r\nand real time monitoring for supervision, training and barging.
\r\nPage: 1308
\r\n\r\n While they pay their agents\r\ncompetitively, they also realise that their needs to socialise and\r\nhave outings was really what they valued. Job security and continuity\r\nwere also important. They had the appropriate HR policies to align\r\nto the needs of their staff and they were able to retain a highly\r\nmotivated staff as well. On that point, I would say that the Special\r\nEmployment Credit that is in place, 16% for employers who hire SPED\r\ngraduates, regardless of age, is definitely welcomed. I do ask if\r\nthe Minister could consider extending this to include the employment\r\nof all disabled workers.
\r\n\r\n Would the Ministry also\r\nconsider refinement of the SEC for older workers to not be capped\r\nat $4,000 a month? With a large proportion of our workforce who\r\nare PMETs, this will encourage employers to hire older PMETs. Currently,\r\nthey are the more vulnerable group in our workforce when companies make\r\ndecisions to downsize or restructure their businesses or operations.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget\r\n2012 is a Budget for the Future, a Budget that as Deputy Prime Minister Tharman\r\nhas emphasised, sets out our direction and takes significant steps\r\ntowards building an inclusive society and a stronger Singapore.\r\nHe aptly summed up his Budget Speech with \"Opportunity, improving ourselves,\r\ncompassion\", saying that this sets the tone of the character of\r\nthe society that we want to build for all Singaporeans and a place\r\nthat we can be proud to call home. This is the Singapore that I\r\nam proud to be part of and I hope that you will be too. With that,\r\nMr Speaker, I support the Budget.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for allowing me to join this Budget debate.\r\nThis year's Budget Statement heralds significant changes in our\r\npriorities as a nation. In the past decade, as one financial crisis\r\nafter another hit our shores, our focus had been on mitigating the\r\nimpact. Keeping and creating jobs were paramount. We had pulled\r\nout all stops to bring in new investments. Our efforts had paid\r\noff. Singapore has been topping international rankings, including\r\nthose by the World Bank, as the easiest place to do business for\r\nthe last few years. Investments have been propelling our economic\r\ngrowth and wealth creation.
\r\n\r\n However, not all Singaporeans\r\ncould catch up and benefit from the changes in our job environment. Our\r\nincome gap has widened. It is appropriate that we now implement\r\nmeasures to recalibrate. This new Budget seeks to build a more inclusive\r\nsociety by redistributing some of the new wealth to the poor and needy,\r\nelderly and disabled. In addition, to preserve the character of\r\nSingapore society, the Government has decided to reduce our dependency\r\non foreign workers and slow down immigration, even though this may mean slower growth.\r\nWe must be prepared to pay more to attract Singaporeans to redesign\r\njobs in sectors where foreign workers make up a significant proportion\r\nof the staff.
\r\nPage: 1309
\r\n\r\n We are well aware that\r\nthis move will result in higher costs in a few areas which will\r\nultimately hit our own wallets. Nonetheless, we can derive a sense\r\nof comfort, assurance and pride from knowing that it is a fellow\r\nSingaporean who had just fixed our laptop, took our order, cooked\r\nour lunch, and drove us to work; it is a fellow Singaporean who\r\nwill be here with us for the long haul, not a transient worker;\r\nit is a fellow Singaporean getting decent pay to support his parents\r\nand children. This is what it means to be part of a nation tribe.\r\nIn a world of over seven billion people, just over three million\r\nare Singaporeans. We are a very small tribe. Hence, all the more\r\nwe should look out for one another. It is no longer as important\r\nto race ahead at all costs as to make the journey together as one\r\nfamily, slowing down now and then to check on the weaker members\r\nand ensure that they do not fall too far behind.
\r\n\r\n The measures to improve\r\nthe conditions for older workers in employment send a good signal\r\nthat while we should not expect to be paid more for seniority, we\r\nshould not discount a person just because he or she has more grey\r\nhair or, for that matter, less hair. It is not what is on the head,\r\nbut in the head that is more important. However, I would like to\r\nremind us that just because these measures and the push to reduce\r\ndependency on foreign workers are announced together, we are not\r\nexpecting senior citizens to take on all the displaced jobs of foreigners.\r\nJobs will certainly need to be redesigned to increase productivity\r\nand people's mindset need to change too to learn new skills and\r\nventure into new careers.
\r\n\r\n There is dignity in every\r\njob and in making an honest living, but there will be jobs that\r\nwill be difficult to find enough Singaporeans to want to do and\r\nI will be happy that fellow Singaporeans need not take on these\r\njobs and can find better ones. To me, these would include jobs of\r\nthe construction workers and cleaners. There will also be professions\r\nthat our local population will not be big enough to provide enough\r\npeople to meet an increasing demand. For instance, the healthcare\r\nsector. I am glad that by 2020, the number of beds in acute hospitals\r\nwill be increased by 1,900 beds and in Community Hospitals, 1,800\r\nbeds. How many more doctors, nurses and allied healthcare workers\r\ndo we need? I support the move to improve conditions to attract\r\nmore people to join the healthcare sector, but given that our population\r\nis not going to increase much further but ageing rapidly, how many\r\ncan we attract or displace from other sectors? How many can our\r\neducational institutions train in time to meet the demand?
\r\n\r\n I find that the reduction\r\nin the Dependency Ratio Ceilings (DRCs), although calibrated, when applied\r\nacross the whole manufacturing and services sectors, is too blunt\r\na tool. I urge the Government to look into the needs and characteristics\r\nof specific industries and adjust the ratios accordingly. I am suggesting\r\nthat for a start, cleaning, construction and nursing sectors be\r\ngiven more leeway to employ foreigners.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, on the topic\r\nof foreigners in Singapore, over the past week, I have had some\r\nvery direct responses from many Singaporeans regarding my comments\r\nover a remark made by a foreign student on a Singapore scholarship.\r\nI am grateful to many who understood where I was coming from and accepted\r\nmy explanation. I am mindful that there are some netizens who are\r\nout to discredit whatever views to pursue a certain agenda, and\r\nthat online comments do not necessarily represent the public opinion\r\ncomprehensively.
\r\n\r\n In trying to give the\r\nbenefit of doubt to what the student said, and attempting to soothe\r\nthe hard feelings of some Singaporeans, I was accused of siding\r\nwith a foreigner and not standing up for fellow Singaporeans. It\r\nwas never my intention to undermine Singaporeans but to those whose\r\nfeelings my words have hurt, I am sorry. I reflected myself and\r\nthis is my learning: I do not think that we can just treat all the negative\r\nsentiments against foreigners as noise and expect that people would\r\njust learn or have to be rational.
\r\nPage: 1310
\r\n\r\n A message to my Facebook\r\naccount yesterday reads, and I quote:
\r\n\r\n \"Many Singaporeans are\r\nvery angry that the government has been giving free rides to foreigners\r\n€¦ Many students €¦ are given the red carpet treatment in Primary\r\nand Secondary schools. The government woos all the 2nd tier and\r\n3rd tier students €¦ (the 1st tier students normally do not want\r\nto uproot themselves), give them scholarships and money to cover\r\ntheir expenses, so that they will uproot and come to Singapore,\r\n... And when they do get here, they (are) given further privileges\r\nby the government moving them down 1 or 2 levels in their respective\r\nschools €¦ The excuse the government gives is that these people need\r\nto catch up on English. However, this gives the foreigners an unfair\r\nadvantage over Singaporeans because they are 1 to 2 years ahead\r\nof the Singaporean kids in their standard, in terms of maturity,\r\nknowledge, intelligence €¦ They end up getting better results than\r\nSingapore kids. Many eventually get scholarships in post-secondary\r\neducation as well in university education, at the expense of Singaporeans.\r\nThe government has not been fair to Singaporeans at all. Double\r\nstandards exist in favour of foreigners. Singaporean commoners do\r\nnot get scholarships, but foreigners with such an unfair advantage,\r\nhave scholarships thrown at them €¦ It is time for the Singapore\r\ngovernment to put its citizens first €¦ How can Singaporeans be treated\r\nas 2nd class citizens in their own country ??? And that is how many\r\nSingaporean commoners feel.\"
\r\n\r\n Sir, I have skipped some\r\nvery harsh words and phrases but I believe I have not paraphrased\r\nout of context. I do not know how many Singaporeans feel this way\r\neven though I know not all the points raised are factual, but suffice\r\nto say, there are such feelings among Singaporeans that the Government sometimes\r\nseems to place more emphasis on foreigners or prospective Singaporeans.\r\nWhen I was studying for my \"A\" levels, I was sent to an ASEAN scholar\r\nclass. About a third of my classmates from Malaysia and Brunei joined\r\nus during the June holidays of our first year. They used to study\r\nthe various subjects in their home country in Malay and had to catch\r\nup with the rest of us not only in the language adjustment, but\r\nalso six months of curriculum. I was impressed with their diligence\r\nand many did well eventually. Some have settled down in Singapore\r\nand have given our country our new sons and daughters.
\r\n\r\n Over the last 25 years,\r\nthe number and proportion of foreign students have increased. And\r\nbecause we only want to attract quality students, many of them competed\r\nagainst Singaporeans in examinations, competitions, sports, arts\r\nand scholarships. Unfortunately, there will always be black sheep\r\nin every community, any misbehaviour is easily amplified and this\r\ntarnishes the reputation of foreigners.
\r\n\r\n This presence of foreigners\r\nis also evident outside the schools. We used to have expatriates\r\nworking and living in Singapore, and sometimes they tend to socialise\r\nwithin specific communities and spaces. Now, it is a good thing\r\nthat foreigners are living in HDB flats, taking public transport\r\nand eating at hawker centres. They are better assimilated in the\r\nSingapore society. When I was living in London, I believed there\r\nwere more of us foreigners in central London than the local British,\r\nbut they lived in the outskirts or other smaller cities, towns,\r\nor villages where the population there is more or less homogeneous.\r\nHowever, Singapore does not have the luxury of space, and whether\r\nwe are in Jurong, Queenstown or Tampines, we squeeze with more or\r\nless the same people queuing up for buses and taxis, or rushing\r\nto get into the MRT trains. We have to understand that when it is\r\na daily experience of having to fight for places or space, people\r\nare naturally tested for their patience and emotions may run high. People\r\nfelt squeezed out in their own homeland, not only for seats in the\r\ntrain or for vacancy in the school, or university, or for resale\r\nflat.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, I would also\r\nlike to highlight an interesting phenomenon in Singapore. Most of\r\nour new immigrants or foreigners working, living and studying in\r\nSingapore are from China. Most would expect that since the majority\r\nof Singaporeans are Chinese, there will be a natural fit. However,\r\namong the Chinese, we would be able to identify a different language,\r\naccent or slang in the way we speak. Hence, we might even be more\r\nconscious of the differences among us. I believe it could be a similar\r\nsituation within\r\nthe Indian community. As a non-Indian, I cannot differentiate between\r\nTamil, Hindi or any Indian dialects, but I believe some Singaporean\r\nIndians would be able to tell from a glance whether someone is from\r\nnorthern India or southern India. Therefore, there is a certain\r\ndynamic within seemingly identical ethnic groups and sometimes,\r\nthis leads to tension.
\r\nPage: 1311
\r\n\r\n However, we cannot afford\r\nto be xenophobic given that the world is getting smaller and that\r\ntalents are global, including Singaporean talents. NBA star Jeremy\r\nLin must be the most newly-famous American now. Through his hard\r\nwork and talent, he is a shooting star in the basketball arena and\r\nan inspiration for many, not only Chinese worldwide, but the world\r\ntoo, including Americans of all races. I am sure when his parents\r\nmigrated from Taiwan to the United States, they would have struggled settling\r\ndown in a foreign land. Even when Jeremy grew up in an American\r\nenvironment, he had suffered prejudices and I read that he has been\r\ncalled names like \"wonton soup\" and \"sweet and sour pork\". If he\r\nhad not persevered, he probably would have become a volleyball or\r\na table tennis player. If we care too much about what people call\r\nus, we will find it difficult to be more than a stereotype or an inaccurate\r\nlabel. Let us be confident and quietly proud of ourselves of who\r\nwe are.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, just\r\nas this Budget has set the broad direction to develop Singapore\r\nas an inclusive society, we must be mindful of what may tear us\r\napart. I have learnt that no matter what my intentions may be, I\r\nneed to be mindful and be more sensitive of what people might read\r\ninto certain words. Likewise, in our policies and the way we implement\r\nour policies, we must be mindful of how people may perceive them.\r\nWe need to communicate more and engage better. If a policy was not\r\nwell received, let us try different ways to create a dialogue and\r\nexplain our thinking. But we must always remain open to change a\r\npolicy when necessary. We may want to persist in our argument that\r\nit is for the long-term interest, but we need also to demonstrate\r\nimmediate benefits. We should not win a battle to lose the war, but\r\nwe should aim to sort out any dispute before escalating to a confrontation.\r\nWith that, Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh)\r\n :\r\nThank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I see Budget 2012 as a response to new\r\neconomic, social and political realities facing Singapore. The Government\r\nshould be congratulated for taking these changes into account, and\r\nwith Budget 2012, we are better placed to address concerns of many\r\nSingaporeans, particularly those in the lower income brackets. I\r\nwish to focus my current comments, and those that I intend to make\r\nduring the Committee of Supply debates, on this latter group of\r\nSingaporeans – those from the lower income and less skilled groups.
\r\n\r\n This new, inclusive approach\r\nof the Government in budgeting is a positive move. By allocating\r\nmore funds to help the elderly, the needy and the less able, the\r\nGovernment is acknowledging that some groups of Singaporeans need\r\nspecial attention. I hope that in our upcoming debate, we will continue\r\nwith this approach, and allocate the Government's budget to address\r\ncurrent and immediate concerns of less fortunate Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n To start with, Sir, I\r\nam deeply concerned with the plight of older and less skilled workers.\r\nI accept the Government's argument that the best and the most sustainable\r\nway to raise incomes is by improving productivity. And this comes\r\nthrough upskilling and use of technology and even processes. This approach\r\nis well and fine for many workers, but perhaps not so applicable\r\nto those in the lowest rungs of our workforce. Let me give you an\r\nexample. Recently, I was approached by an elderly man, in his late\r\n50s, approaching 60s. He works as a cleaner in a small company.\r\nTo his credit, he said that he had heard a news report that his\r\nincome could go up if he could improve his productivity. Then he\r\nasked me how he\r\ncould go about improving his productivity. Honestly, it is not an\r\neasy answer. Because while I could tell him to attend a course to\r\nupgrade himself, or learn to use the cleaning machines, I knew that his\r\ncompany, which is a small one, was not going to send him for many\r\ncourses, or buy many machines. For him, there would be a difficult\r\nway up. At close to 60 years of age, he struggles and is unlikely\r\nto learn a new trade. Realistically, he is unlikely to find a new\r\njob, even in more progressive cleaning companies. So, the Government's\r\ncall for workers to improve productivity was irrelevant to him.\r\nThis is not an uncommon view among workers in the services sectors\r\nlike cleaning, health care, F&B, retail, etc. To these workers,\r\nin these sectors, it is all good and well to throw a big word like\r\nproductivity at them, but they still struggle to come to terms on\r\nhow it will really make an impact in the way they work, the salary\r\nthat they earn and the career progression that they may have.
\r\nPage: 1312
\r\n\r\n Sir, this is just one\r\nexample – workers in many small companies in Singapore may be in\r\nthe same situation – and my point is that at the macro level, it\r\nis reasonable to talk about improving productivity as a way of improving\r\nincomes. But at the micro level, we must have a more meaningful\r\ndiscussion about how individual workers can hope to raise their\r\nincomes, so that they too can benefit from the results of Singapore's\r\nprogress.
\r\n\r\n I believe that we have\r\nnot fully recognised the plight of the low-income workers and particularly\r\nso, the plight of older and less skilled workers. I urge the Government\r\nto place some emphasis, using the power of whole of Government,\r\nto look at how we can improve the lives of this group. While I am\r\nsure that they appreciate the rebates, the vouchers, and so on,\r\nthat the Government offers from time to time, I think that there\r\nis a need for a closer examination of where each dollar of a low-wage\r\nworker earns goes to. A question that I would like to ask is: how\r\nmuch of the earnings of the low-wage worker go to paying direct\r\nand indirect government-related taxes, fees, charges and the like?\r\nIf we do have some sense of the reality, we could consider options\r\nthat are more effective in helping them cope with the challenges\r\nthat they faced. Like, what scope exists to reduce these charges,\r\nfor example? My logic is that a low-wage worker's standard of living\r\ncan be improved not only by increasing his income, but also by reducing\r\nthe cost of his living. I believe that now is the most opportune\r\ntime to look at this issue because, in fact, our Minister for Manpower\r\nis also the Minister of Finance!
\r\n\r\n Sir, I accept that the\r\nissue of housing for low-income workers is a complex one too. I\r\nhave previously suggested that the HDB look at managing the sale\r\nof 3-room and smaller flats differently – totally different from\r\nthe way we do it now, so that poorer households can buy or rent\r\nhomes at an affordable price. Today, I would like to suggest even\r\nmore bolder and radical ideas to the Government. One idea is for\r\nHDB to consider selling homes on shorter leases – say 50 years or\r\n60 years lease, for example – for Singaporeans with lower incomes\r\nand limited financial resources. HDB can put further restrictions like\r\nrecovery of subsidies on sales and buy them back at a cost-plus\r\nbasis. This can remove speculation of 3-room or smaller flats, and\r\nrevert the HDB to its original mission of housing a nation. If we\r\nmake enough effort, I am confident that we can think of a scheme\r\nto reduce the start-up burden on low-income families and even young\r\nfamilies, and they can be assured of a roof over their heads at\r\na reasonable price. This would be another way to reduce the burden\r\nof cost on low-income workers and also for young Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n Next, Sir, beyond the\r\nlow-income workers, I also wish to focus and discuss on workers\r\nin general, and whether our education and training system is preparing\r\nour students for the work life. We know that Singapore's brand and\r\nreputation on education is well-known far and wide. Our schools\r\nand tertiary institutions are ranked among the best in the world,\r\nso I think it is only reasonable to expect that our young people,\r\nhaving attended these schools, should be highly productive. Yet,\r\nwhen we talk to our businesses, this does not seem to be the case.\r\nThey find school leavers to be book smart, but not street smart.\r\nThey seem to know how to behave in a classroom, but not in a workplace.\r\nAnd they seem to lack a hunger to excel and are demanding in their\r\nexpectation. I am not sure what the cause of this apparent gap is.\r\nIs it because we teach what is not exactly relevant to what the\r\nbusinesses want? Or is it because we teach theoretical principles, but not\r\nhow these will be relevant in the workplace? Or does the issue lie\r\nwith the students – after being told to study hard, work so hard\r\nthat they can get comfortable jobs, they think that getting a degree\r\nmeans that they have arrived. Perhaps, it is true that they have\r\narrived, but they need to accept that they have only arrived at\r\nthe start of the next phase of their lives – where they can only\r\nachieve their aspirations through continued hard work!
\r\nPage: 1313
\r\n\r\n Another point that we\r\nmust consider is the difficulties that some of our workers face\r\nin retirement. Sir, we have received much feedback about the elderly\r\nin my housing estates who are very concerned about their retirement\r\nand employability in their old age. I was, in fact, very encouraged\r\nwhen the Government, in the past few years, was discussing ways\r\nto improve the returns of the CPF balances. It is good that the\r\nGovernment has decided to grant a higher interest rate for the first\r\n$60,000 of the CPF balances. But I am asking if there is a possibility\r\nfor us to do more and give more whenever gains are good. We are\r\naware of the magic of compound interest. For example, if you have\r\n$1,000 balance in your CPF account, at an interest rate of 2.5%,\r\nover 30 years, it will give you $2,098. But we know that if this interest\r\ncan be better, the gains can be much more. Now, imagine if you are\r\nable to achieve an appropriate interest rate that is viable and\r\nalso sustainable, this would mean that our retiring workers can look\r\nforward to more resources at retirement and little more comfort,\r\nafter helping Singapore grow and prosper. It would also mean that\r\nthey would be less reliant on the Government for their needs in\r\nlater part of their life. It may be opportune time for us to relook\r\nat the interest rates of CPF accounts of Singaporean workers for\r\ntheir long term benefits. It is also timely, Sir, I think for us,\r\nas a whole of Government, to see how we can maximise the contributions\r\nof all in our workforce. Sir, allow me now to speak in Malay.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In Malay): [Please refer to Pg\r\n1399 for Vernacular Speeches.] Sir, perhaps it is timely\r\nfor Government as a whole to look at how we can use the potential\r\nand abilities of Singaporean workers so that we can maximise the\r\neconomic contributions of all our workers. This means that each\r\nMinistry and Government institution will have to work together to\r\neducate our students and inculcate a deep sense of social spirit\r\nso that they have a continuous desire to excel, work hard to attain\r\na higher standard, possess the desire to learn on the job, and,\r\nhopefully, when they have done well, they will continue give back\r\nto society and the less fortunate.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In English): I think we must\r\nelevate our Budget discussions, sweep the slate clean and think\r\nfrom the overall macro perspective of how we can improve the lives\r\nof Singaporeans. While making routine cuts to address the issues\r\nof particular segments of our community has its place, we should\r\nspend more energy looking at how the Government's Budget is allocated.\r\nFor example, if buying one less jet fighter means we can help hundreds\r\nof poor families take a step out of the poverty trap, is it worth\r\nthe sacrifice to our national defence? Or if we build one less national\r\npark, but can help hundreds of poor students learn some work-life\r\nskills, is it worth the sacrifice? This is just my layman way of\r\nthinking, but I think we in Parliament have a duty to examine our\r\nBudget allocation, and assure ourselves that, overall, we are doing\r\njustice to all Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans\r\ncan be justifiably proud of our many \"Number One\" accolades or being\r\namong the \"Top\" in the world. Our physical infrastructure rivals\r\nthe best in the world, we have a Number One port and airport. Many\r\ntall and magnificent buildings grace our skyline. Now, with Budget 2012,\r\nwe are presented with the opportunity to be Number One in another,\r\nperhaps more important, area.
\r\n\r\n I would like to propose\r\nthat we work towards being Number One in helping our fellow Singaporeans, particularly,\r\nthe most vulnerable amongst us, to achieve a better life: a better\r\nlife through good education, a meaningful and fulfilling work-life,\r\nand a dignified and happy retirement. That would be a proud achievement\r\nindeed.
\r\nPage: 1314
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio)\r\n :\r\nSir, clearly, this year's Budget has managed to address the needs of\r\nSingaporeans who were most affected by the Government's past economic\r\ngrowth strategies, especially the older aged workers and the lower\r\nand middle income groups. Where previously they were most affected\r\nby stagnant or slow wage growth, they are now assured of some form\r\nof a safety net to help take care of their needs.
\r\n\r\n In healthcare, for example,\r\nI welcome the additional spending tabled in this year's Budget.\r\nSingapore spends far less on healthcare as a percentage of GDP when\r\ncompared internationally. According to the World Health Organization's\r\ndata, Singapore's total spending on health was only 3.3 % of GDP,\r\nlower than most developed economies such as US, UK, Japan and Korea,\r\nwho spend between 6.5% and 15.2% in the case of US, and also lower\r\nthan developing countries like China, India, Malaysia and Thailand, who\r\nspend about 4.1% of their GDP on healthcare. In fact, Singapore's\r\nspending on healthcare is only about half of the global median of\r\n6.1%. So, the additional spending this year is a welcome move.
\r\n\r\n The GST Vouchers that\r\nthe Government extended in this year's Budget were another good\r\ninitiative. Previously, the Government would extend one-off GST\r\ncredits but it still did not remove the anxieties among low-income\r\nSingaporeans as it was always viewed as a temporary scheme. So,\r\nthe GST Vouchers, as a permanent assistance will provide more assurances\r\nand give many a peace of mind that they will get help regularly.
\r\n\r\n I am glad that the Government\r\nhas realised that the widening income gaps will not go away anytime soon\r\nand therefore the increase in spending for basic things like education,\r\nhealthcare, housing and transportation. However, while I am happy\r\nthat the Government sees that it needs to play a bigger role in\r\nhelping Singaporeans, we should not adopt a western style welfare\r\nsystem for obvious reasons, as we can see from what is happening\r\nin Europe today.
\r\n\r\n Therefore, we must have\r\na more permanent way of improving the wages of Singaporeans so that\r\nthey can still be better off despite shouldering some of the high\r\ncosts that we see here in Singapore. Inevitably, we may have to\r\nmove to some form of a Government-supported minimum wage system\r\nin the initial years, as I mentioned before, to be taken over by\r\nProductivity Improvement.
\r\n\r\n I am not suggesting minimum\r\nwage fully on the burden of employers, because they are already facing\r\nhigh costs, but to be shared by the Government. What I am suggesting\r\nis that we should start thinking about a wage that is reasonable,\r\nfor the Government to support in the short term. This will give employers\r\ntime to restructure in the long term and they can only do that by\r\nproductivity improvements. This will shift the future cost of the\r\nminimum wage to companies as the Government cannot be seen to be\r\nsupporting this forever. If the company fails to restructure in\r\nfive years, for example, then it should realise that it may not\r\nbe able to compete in Singapore in the future and will slowly fade\r\nout. This higher salary will also be one way to help our employers\r\nmanage a tightened labour market as the Government reduces the intake\r\nof foreign workers as it will help attract the Singaporeans who\r\nare not currently working due to low salaries to re-enter the labour\r\nforce. We should no longer accept low wages for our workers, like\r\nthe $600 that our Singaporean cleaners earn. It is just not fair\r\nto them.
\r\n\r\n Sir, just like the vulnerable\r\nin society that need help, similarly our SMEs are badly affected\r\nby the double whammy of rapid costs increases and a tight labour\r\nmarket due to the Government's restructuring efforts. SMEs should\r\ntherefore need more help and the Budget could have done more and\r\nto be a more inclusive one for them.
\r\n\r\n Today, the strategy of\r\ncreating a productivity-led growth is not wrong but once again the Government\r\nis adopting an \"instant tree\" mentality of expecting everyone to\r\nmake progress overnight. Business\r\nmodels take time to change with productivity improvements taking\r\na longer time to set in and therefore the Government should be more\r\nrealistic at the pace of change of the economic restructuring as\r\nin the short and medium term, we will be penalising our SMEs with\r\nhigher labour costs.
\r\nPage: 1315
\r\n\r\n In the past, the Government\r\nwas too liberal with our foreign worker policies, opened the gates\r\nfor too many foreign workers to come in and now when we realised\r\nthe economic and social problems have been created, we are taking\r\nthe other extreme and completely turning off the tap. This is not\r\nthe right thing as companies need time to adjust to a tightening\r\nlabour market. According to the team of economists from the Lee\r\nKuan Yew School of Public Policy, if Singapore were to achieve a\r\nmoderate economic growth for this decade, there needs to be about\r\na 1.5% employment growth even if we meet our productivity targets.\r\nSingaporeans alone will not be able to meet this job growth rate\r\nand therefore, at least in the medium term, companies here will\r\nhave to turn to foreigners to supplement this. Hence, turning off\r\nthe tap too drastically now will kill off the much needed labour\r\nsupply for our companies and to grow our economy in the near term.
\r\n\r\n One area which is a huge\r\nconcern for companies is the cost of renting or owning industrial\r\nor commercial space. The cause of this can be traced to a policy\r\nshift by JTC. Traditionally, JTC was very firm in its industrial\r\nland policy being only available to companies here for designated\r\nuses and at subsidised rates. In recent times however, JTC has offered\r\ntheir industrial land to REITs and other private developers, and\r\nthese are now being redeveloped into strata-titled industrial units\r\nwhich are rented to non-industrial tenants for higher yields, and\r\nas we read from the papers recently, these are rented out for child\r\ncare centres and even religious organisations. I recently spoke\r\nto some SME owners, who are tenants of a JTC development in Toa\r\nPayoh, which is now operated by a leading private property firm.\r\nSome of the tenants are now negotiating a lease renewal with the\r\nlandlord and face a substantially higher rent at about 40% increase\r\nfrom what they were paying earlier. In a recent Business Times report\r\non the same issue, it showed that some SME owners were quoted as\r\npaying as much as 56% higher rent when they renewed their leases.
\r\n\r\n Sir, this is clearly an\r\nindustrial policy gone wrong. We should never allow industrial land\r\nto be used by investors. Now what has happened is that genuine companies\r\nwho need the industrial land have to pay way beyond what it should\r\nbe and therefore cannot survive as they cannot compete with similar economies\r\nsuch as Taiwan, Korea or Malaysia.
\r\n\r\n JTC should review this\r\npolicy and go back to being a direct industrial landlord. The current\r\nJTC policy has created a major impact at the bottom lines of companies.\r\nIn fact, JTC should practise a differentiated land pricing policy\r\nbecause pegging industrial land to market rates in Singapore is\r\nnot realistic and we should in fact be comparing what similar companies\r\nin our competing economies are paying and pricing industrial land\r\nbased on that – so that our companies can compete effectively with these\r\neconomies.
\r\n\r\n I was disappointed that\r\nthis year's Budget failed to address the shorter term problems faced\r\nby companies especially in the area of high business costs. Although\r\nthe Budget included a one-off SME cash grant, capped at $5,000,\r\nthis is insufficient to help SMEs, especially those have been in\r\noperation for some time. The Budget should have instead considered\r\noffering a tax rebate pegged against a proportion of a company's\r\nincome so that this is more reflective of the size of the company.\r\nBut there is a lot more that the Government can do in addressing\r\nthe cost issue.
\r\n\r\n In theory, the measures\r\nimplemented in the Budget to boost productivity may be sufficient\r\nbut, in reality, many of the smaller companies may have trouble\r\nimplementing them. They may not have the resources to focus on productivity\r\nfor now as they are fire-fighting with the high costs and so the\r\nBudget should have\r\nlooked at helping them in the short term with this cost problem.\r\nAs such, many smaller companies may not even benefit from the productivity\r\nschemes as they may not qualify for them at this stage.
\r\nPage: 1316
\r\n\r\n In the area of entrepreneurship\r\npromotion, I have bigger worries. The issues of high business costs and\r\nthe availability and price of foreign labour may actually affect\r\nthe number of start-ups that we see in Singapore. Moreover, for\r\nstart-ups, the productivity related incentives do not mean much\r\nas they will not have a significant top line revenues and they will\r\nnot benefit from the many productivity schemes that are pegged at\r\npegged incentives.
\r\n\r\n So, the question we must\r\nask is why did cost in Singapore rise so rapidly, beyond the rate\r\nof growth of incomes of Singaporeans and beyond the rate of growth\r\nof company profits? This can be attributed to the market driven\r\npricing approach taken by the Government and its agencies. The Government\r\nhas, many a time, been quick to increase the various charges, allowing\r\ncosts to escalate, immediately upon a recovery of an economic recession.\r\nEach time this happens, we bring the cost base higher without an opportunity\r\nfor cost reductions. This has led costs to unrealistically increase\r\nfaster and more than profit and income growth of Singaporeans. If\r\nfact, in the 2008 recession for example, the worst was in the property\r\nmarket where we continued to see real estate prices increase despite\r\nthe recession and this was because of our liberal policies on capital\r\ninflows. There are many foreigners who invested in Singapore. While\r\nthe Government should not interfere in the private market except\r\nto curb speculation, it could have done a lot in the HDB market\r\nhad it not pursued market driven pricing. Also market driven pricing has\r\ncreated huge cost burdens and will potentially edge out many of\r\nour SMEs because of squeezed margins.
\r\n\r\n While the Government has\r\nkept corporate taxes relatively low, and this is a good thing, there\r\nare other high overheads that companies here face that add to their\r\nhigh operational costs and erode their profits. There are many hidden\r\ntaxes – GST is one, high levies for foreign workers, a series of\r\nduties and taxes on utilities, transportation costs such as COEs\r\nand ERP charges and many others that add to escalating business\r\ncosts. Similarly, Singaporeans are left with little disposable income\r\nas they pay for higher HDB prices and also their share of higher\r\ntaxes and levies. The Government should review all of these to see\r\nwhich could be removed or adjusted because these built-in taxes\r\nand high operational costs cream off the profits for our SMEs and\r\nlower the disposable income of Singaporeans. As suggested by Prof\r\nTan Khee Giap and his team in an article in The Straits Times dated\r\n4 January this year, \"this approach of re-pricing Government services\r\nmay lead to lower revenues or bigger subsidies for statutory boards,\r\nministries and Government-linked companies. But it will also translate\r\ninto higher income and employment for Singaporeans\". What I am suggesting\r\nis that the Government does a thorough cost reduction review exercise.\r\nWe must re-calibrate our policies to minimise upfront costs for\r\ncompanies and Singaporeans and let them earn better incomes. If\r\ndone correctly, the Government may offset lower revenues by spending\r\nless on special transfers for social safety nets. We need to do\r\nmore in the beginning and not at the end of the process by giving\r\ntransfers.
\r\n\r\n In conclusion, everyone\r\nhas a role to play to build an inclusive society and the Government,\r\ntoo, has a big role to play. Budget 2012 shows that the Government\r\ncontinues to recognise that, as we continue to grow rapidly, more\r\nSingaporeans are finding difficulty in keeping up. The Government\r\ntherefore has to spend more to strengthen the Safety Nets to help\r\nreduce the stresses that Singaporeans face.
\r\n\r\n I would like to conclude\r\nthat the strategy to restructure is not a bad one and that is one\r\nthat would benefit Singapore and Singaporeans in the long run. However,\r\nthe time horizon that the Government has provided for this restructuring\r\nto occur needs to be reviewed. We need to have a slower start but\r\ncan accelerate later. For now, we should focus on short-term cost\r\nissues and allow companies to survive first. When we talk about\r\nrestructuring the economy, we will also have to restructure the\r\nway the Government contributes to cost. If we are not careful at\r\nthe pace of restructuring of the economy, we may end up hurting the future\r\npotential of our economy as we reverse many of the good things that\r\nwe have been doing, as recommended by the Economic Review Committee\r\nin 2002. My fear is that once again the Government may be inducing\r\na significant squeeze out of SMEs who are the biggest employers\r\nin Singapore today. And if we are not careful, the day that MNCs\r\nstart to move out in large numbers, we will see a vacuum and a hollowing\r\nout of our economy without a strong base of home grown companies to\r\ntake over. For the long-term view of Singapore, this is also not\r\ngood and will undermine our restructuring efforts. If we want to\r\nrestructure, to have a maximum effect, we need to work with our SMEs\r\ntogether on this journey. Sir, on the whole, I support the Budget.
\r\nPage: 1317
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, we must ensure growth for all, not the favoured\r\nfew. We do not need blind economic growth, we need compassionate\r\ngrowth. For a long time, the People's Action Party Government drove\r\ngrowth without paying sufficient attention to the adverse effects\r\nof increasing income inequality, especially affecting our poor,\r\nelderly and disabled. In this Budget, the Finance Minister course\r\ncorrected to ensure that our poor, elderly and disabled are not\r\nstuck in isolated pockets of poverty in our island of prosperity.\r\nThe Workers' Party believes we can do more to ensure greater cohesiveness\r\nas a nation.
\r\n\r\n First, empowering our\r\npoor. For the poor, the Budget takes a right step in emphasising\r\nthe importance of social mobility. Our income inequality has grown\r\nrapidly. The rich have more resources to get ahead, which endangers\r\nsocial mobility. If not addressed, there will be \"two Singapores\":\r\none for the mobile and rich, and the other for the immobile and\r\npoor.
\r\n\r\n Let us all agree to never\r\nallow the formation of a permanent underclass. I am sure all in\r\nthis House are affected when hardworking Singaporeans in rental\r\nhousing share how they are struggling to pay bills, their spouses\r\nare in prison, and believing that their child attaining a polytechnic\r\ndiploma or university degree is a pipe dream. Sadly, I have met\r\nmany of these mothers.
\r\n\r\n To raise wages for our\r\npoor, all of us have to play a role. The Finance Minister is right\r\nby imploring us to bring back respect for our waiters, cooks, chambermaids,\r\ncrane operators, construction tradesmen and factory operators. These\r\nare hardworking Singaporeans forming the bedrock of our economy, allowing\r\nmany others to work in higher income jobs.
\r\n\r\n The incentive for business\r\nowners is to lower cost, and hiring low-cost foreign workers is\r\nthe path of least resistance. However, compassionate growth means\r\nwe have to bite the bullet to improve productivity by being wise\r\nabout the number of foreign workers invited into Singapore.
\r\n\r\n Continuing Education and\r\nTraining (CET) has to improve the productivity of our workers to command\r\nhigher wages. However, are there more success stories such as the\r\nprivate security industry? Even for that industry, will it remain\r\na low wage sector despite some improvement in wages?
\r\n\r\n The Workforce Development\r\nAgency should share more details with the public about the impact from\r\nits substantial training investment, especially how these have benefited\r\nour lower skilled and low-income workers.
\r\n\r\n Next, securing our senior\r\ncitizens. Our elderly built the Singapore we have the privilege\r\nto enjoy. Many had raised, cared and sacrificed for us. Let us honour\r\nthem with a dignified life. The Special Employment Credit and raising\r\nCPF rates are encouraging steps for older workers. However, affordable healthcare\r\nis at the top of the minds for our seniors, especially those in\r\nthe lower to middle income groups.\r\nThis Budget acknowledges that affordable long-term care is the Government's\r\nresponsibility, but we must do more.
\r\nPage: 1318
\r\n\r\n Earlier, the Member, Mr\r\nInderjit Singh, shared data of how our total expenditure on healthcare\r\nas a percentage of GDP was far lower than international standards.\r\nMore importantly, we note that the Government or public expenditure\r\non healthcare is also far lower than international standards. Our Government\r\nexpenditure on healthcare is about 1.6% of GDP, nearly four times\r\nlower than the 6.1% global average, based on World Health Organization's\r\ndata 2009. In addition, the Singapore Government's contribution\r\nto the total healthcare expenditure has reportedly fallen from 51%\r\nin 1995 to 41% in 2009. This is much lower than over 60% in many\r\nother middle and high income countries.
\r\n\r\n Therefore, the Government\r\nis rightly catching up by doubling yearly healthcare expenditure\r\nfrom $4 billion to $8 billion over the next five years. However,\r\nthis may work out to an end point of 2-plus per cent of GDP after\r\nfive years, which is still much lower than the 6% global average.
\r\n\r\n I affirm the Government's\r\nfocus in addressing the unaffordability of intermediate and long-term care.\r\nWe know that Medisave, MediShield and Medifund provide only limited\r\ncoverage for long-term care which involves recurring expenses over\r\nan extended period of time. Unfortunately, the Government had taken\r\nthe back seat and pushed voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs)\r\nand commercial providers to take the lead in providing long-term\r\ncare.
\r\n\r\n Many organisations had\r\nto raise charity dollars to subsidise bills of patients so that\r\ntheir families could afford care. Affected family members have been\r\nunder financial strain due to substantial monthly nursing home bills.\r\nSome resorted to placing their elderly family members in institutions\r\nat Johor Bahru. This situation is untenable. We must do more. We\r\nmust ensure that the long-term care subsidies factor in medical\r\ninflation. Towers Watson, a professional service firm, found that\r\nSingapore experienced 8.4% medical cost inflation in 2011, higher\r\nthan national inflation and wage growth. The higher growth of medical\r\ninflation is a worldwide trend.
\r\n\r\n We must also explore how\r\nwe can leverage on social risk-pooling to meet the high costs of\r\nlong term-care. For a start, how can Eldershield insurance be expanded\r\nto help foot the cost of step-down care?
\r\n\r\n Our current Eldershield\r\npayout provides minimal coverage for long-term care needs. Viable insurance\r\nfor long-term care will require higher premiums that may not be\r\naffordable for the less well-off. The Government should study how\r\nhaving better insurance coverage could help foot the cost of long-term\r\ncare, and help Singaporeans pay or co-pay the higher premiums which\r\nwill be needed.
\r\n\r\n Sir, we must also rebalance\r\nthe need for family responsibility in our approach towards healthcare financing.\r\nI agree that family must be the first line of support, but many\r\nof us will not agree that all the children must deplete their Medisave\r\naccounts to pay for their elderly parents' medical bills before\r\nthe Government intervenes. Given the longer life spans now, it has\r\nbeen noted that having a 60-year old withdraw his Medisave savings\r\nto pay the bill of an 85-year old parent is a reality in Singapore.\r\nIs this sustainable? This may, in fact, entrench intergenerational\r\npoverty, which would be more costly to society in the long run.
\r\n\r\n Next, on integrating our\r\ndisabled. Our nation's cohesiveness is also reflected in how we\r\ncare for the less fortunate, especially the disabled. We must help\r\nto integrate the three out of 100 Singaporeans who are affected\r\nby disabilities. Besides financial measures, can we do more to etch\r\ninto the national consciousness that the disabled are one of us,\r\nwith their hopes and dreams? Can we teach children from a young\r\nage that the disabled are part and parcel of our society? For example,\r\nhow far do our school textbooks and children's TV programmes include\r\ndisabled characters? Dare we consider incorporating disability as one\r\nof the admission factors for our institutions of higher learning,\r\nto recognise the more difficult circumstance disabled Singaporeans\r\nhave to overcome?
\r\nPage: 1319
\r\n\r\n Sir, one of the great\r\nAmerican Presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, said this, in the depth\r\nof the Great Depression:
\r\n\r\n \"The test of our progress\r\nis not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much;\r\nit is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.\"
\r\n\r\n Sir, we must have compassionate\r\ngrowth. We must be in the same ship. We must not be in separate boats\r\nwhere the rising tide of growth lifts some so high while others\r\nsink. The Workers' Party has long advocated a caring society. We\r\nwill work with the Government to build a more just, more equal and more\r\ncaring society, because our nation cannot prosper if only the prosperous\r\nprosper.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.\r\nI welcome the measures announced by the Finance Minister to build\r\nan inclusive society and a stronger Singapore. I would like to make\r\nthree recommendations for the Ministry's consideration: first, to intensify\r\nefforts to help more Singaporeans get a job; second, to quicken\r\npace of our strategy to achieve a deep-skilled Singaporean workforce;\r\nand third, to develop a self-reliant Singapore population.
\r\n\r\n On intensifying efforts\r\nto help more Singaporeans get a job, I would like to see more segments\r\nof Singaporeans being able to find employment more quickly, specifically\r\nolder workers, back-to-work women and ex-offenders. Today, the unemployment\r\nrate for Singaporeans is 3%. Over in the United States and Europe,\r\nthey are struggling with unemployment rates of 8% to 10%. So, have\r\nwe done well in comparison? On the one hand, the answer is yes.\r\nOn the other hand, while I am glad that the Finance Minister has\r\nannounced plans to enhance the existing Special Employment Credits\r\n(SEC) scheme, I believe we can do more. In an interview with Channel\r\nNewsAsia some weeks back, I called for more to be done through the\r\nSEC scheme for older workers, back-to-work women, ex-offenders and\r\nthose with disabilities. What the Finance Minister has announced\r\nwas far beyond my expectations. It was an aggressive move and companies\r\nshould take advantage of the new enhanced scheme.
\r\n\r\n The scheme is now expanded\r\nto include more older workers – those who are 50 years and above\r\n– and the quantum raised to cover workers earning up to $4,000,\r\nand the duration extended till 2016. It is also extended to employers\r\nwho hire Singaporeans who graduate from Special Education schools.\r\nI hope the Ministry can consider extending similar help to back-to-work\r\nwomen and ex-offenders.
\r\n\r\n Many women who stopped\r\nwork to take care of their families would like to go back to work.\r\nThe employment rate for women aged 25 years to 54 years old rose\r\nfrom 71.7% in 2010 to 73% last year. Apart from providing childcare\r\nsupport and flexi-work arrangements, we can certainly do more to\r\nhelp back-to-work women return to the workforce.
\r\n\r\n The second group of workers\r\nis ex-offenders. A recent report released by the Singapore Prison Service\r\nin February indicated that the number of inmates who secured jobs\r\nbefore release rose by 35%. This figure is encouraging. I find it\r\nheartening to see more employers creating opportunities to help\r\nex-offenders re-integrate back into society. I would like to propose\r\nthat the same SEC scheme be extended to employers who hire back-to-work\r\nwomen or ex-offenders. Companies can receive SEC for up to one year\r\nif the new hires are back-to-work women or ex-offenders. Of course,\r\nthe scheme needs only to cover\r\nthose who are 50 years old and below. With this revision, we can\r\ntap on our latent pool of back-to-work women and ex-offenders to\r\ncover any shortfall in foreign workers that we currently need.
\r\nPage: 1320
\r\n\r\n The second recommendation\r\nis to quicken the pace of our strategy to achieve a deep-skilled Singaporean\r\nworkforce. During the last economic downturn, we had Skills Programme\r\nfor Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR). Not only were companies able\r\nto cut costs and save jobs; more importantly, many workers were\r\nbetter trained. In this year's Budget, the Ministry has continued\r\nto strongly support training. SMEs who upgrade their workers for\r\ncourses certified by WDA and academic CET programmes will receive\r\n90% course fee subsidy. Absentee payroll cap will be increased from\r\n$4.50 to $7.50 per hour. But, more significantly, self-employed\r\nindividuals will also get to enjoy similar training benefits.
\r\n\r\n I would like to draw Members'\r\nattention to an article dated 3 February 2012 in MyP\r\n aper.\r\nLet me read. The title says: \"Not enough Singaporeans to fill specialised\r\njobs\". The article noted that foreigners are favoured over Singaporeans\r\nfor some jobs, because our local workforce lacks the skill sets\r\nand expertise needed in areas such as environmental engineering,\r\nenergy solutions, shipping and logistics. What does this imply?\r\nDoes it mean that the WDA programmes are ineffective? Is it because\r\nwe are not spending enough to train Singaporeans? Or is it because\r\nour Institutes of Higher Learning, such as ITE, polytechnics and\r\nuniversities, are not able to train Singaporeans in these areas?
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer\r\nis obviously no. For example, I am heartened to hear that MOE will\r\nstart the Singapore Industry Scholarship to develop future Singaporean\r\nleaders with deep knowledge in various sectors such as engineering,\r\nenergy and tourism. While I am happy that many undergraduates will\r\nstand to benefit from this scheme, there are many more adults looking\r\nfor a job or thinking of making a career switch, who will need similar\r\nassistance to acquire such deep skills. In addition, from what I\r\nobserved on the ground, there are many companies which still regard\r\nmanpower and training needs as an \"afterthought\". What do I mean\r\nby that? Let me share an analogy in Chinese to illustrate my point: yi\r\nnian zhi ji mo ruo shu gu, shi nian zhi ji mo ruo shu mu, bai nian\r\nzhi ji mo ruo shu. In English, it means this: it might take\r\none year to grow rice; it might take 10 years to plant trees; but\r\nit will take a lifetime to invest in education and training of our\r\npeople.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, the 2012\r\nBudget is a plan for the future, to help Singapore be stronger and\r\nmore competitive. Suppose a company decides to invest here − this\r\nis a planned decision for the future; land has to be identified;\r\ninfrastructure built; material and machinery costs calculated; and\r\nmanpower needs to be considered. Such planning is not done in the\r\nmidst of construction. Everything is thought through even before\r\na decision is made to invest here. Manpower and training needs should\r\nnot be an \"afterthought\". If we have known ahead that a company\r\nis investing in Singapore and that time is needed to conduct specialised\r\nskills training, companies should work with economic agencies, MOM,\r\nWDA, MOE, ITEs/Polytechnics, unions, etc, at a very early stage.\r\nMOE's announcement to groom Singaporeans from young is one step\r\nin the right direction. But we need to go beyond the academic route.\r\nWe also need to be aggressive in our Continuing Education and Training\r\n(CET) route. We need to understand what the manpower needs and skill\r\nsets required, develop the course curriculum and train Singaporeans,\r\nand give our locals who are looking for new opportunities to be\r\ntrained to enter this new trade. This way, we can gear up our local\r\nworkforce to cater to the company's needs ahead of time.
\r\n\r\n Let me share an example\r\nof how planning ahead pays off for a company. Rolls-Royce's new\r\nfacility at Aerospace Park was officially opened by the Prime Minister\r\njust a couple of months back. I visited the place more than a year\r\nago. Even before their building was completed, the company had talks\r\nwith e2i, NTUC, the union and WDA to identify skill sets and the\r\ntype of workers needed for their new facility. Together, we placed\r\nover 80 Singaporeans on an apprenticeship scheme to work for Rolls-Royce.\r\nMany are ITE graduates. Today, they have access to join a top-notch\r\ncompany, enjoy good pay, have good career prospects and have acquired\r\nspecialised skills.
\r\nPage: 1321
\r\n\r\n Through this, we are building a Singaporean\r\ncore group who will have access to work in industries which offer\r\ngood paying jobs. This behaviour is what all companies should adopt.\r\nMore importantly, Government agencies overseeing different sectors\r\nshould develop a comprehensive manpower strategy that will involve\r\nall stakeholders, one that allows us to build our own future-ready\r\nworkforce comprising a core group of Singaporeans who are highly\r\nskilled.
\r\n\r\n My third recommendation\r\nis about developing a self-reliant Singapore population. I applaud\r\nthe Government for the measures announced to enhance our existing\r\nsocial safety net. We have an even stronger support for the poor\r\nand low-income families now. There is also a special focus to prevent\r\na permanent underclass from forming through the education route\r\nto enhance the social mobility of children who come from low-income\r\nfamilies. Can we do more to encourage more of these families to break\r\nout and stay out of the social safety net?
\r\n\r\n I received feedback on\r\nthe ground from social workers and others that the strength of our\r\ncurrent social assistance and our compassion may have some unintended\r\nconsequences. Let me try to illustrate. Some low-income families\r\nare concerned that if they earn higher income and as a result exceed\r\nthe income criteria for social assistance, they stand therefore\r\nto lose out on a lot of subsidies. As such, many may choose not\r\nto earn higher income, preferring to stay under the radar. This\r\nmay result in a disincentive to exit from the social support scheme.\r\nMany may even lose the drive to do better and earn more as they\r\nfeel that their income increase may not be able to make up for what\r\nthey lose out in subsidies.
\r\n\r\n So, on the one hand, while\r\nI welcome the new initiatives announced by the Government to top\r\nup our funds for social safety nets, our enhanced efforts to increase\r\nthe mobility of children from low-income families, and our desire\r\nto hire more social workers to help them, I would like the Government to\r\nconsider a complementary approach. May I propose that we reward\r\nthose who have upgraded their skills, worked hard, improved their\r\nincome and successfully moved out from the social safety net?
\r\n\r\n Perhaps we can consider\r\ntwo options to incentivise them to do better. One is to either hand\r\nout the same subsidies they were receiving previously for another\r\nyear while considering giving them a lump-sum incentive. This is\r\nfor those who were previously receiving social assistance but have\r\ndecided to work hard and earn a higher income, therefore exceeding\r\nthe income criteria for social assistance. This will send a very\r\nclear message to them that the Government wants to develop a self-reliant\r\npopulation whereby individuals will be encouraged to continue to\r\nwork hard to improve their lives and the lives of their families.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, it is\r\nimportant that we intensify our efforts to help more Singaporeans\r\nget a job so that more segments of those who want a job can do so\r\nquickly. It is also important that we quicken the pace of our strategy\r\nto achieve a deep-skilled Singaporean workforce so that we have\r\na Singaporean core team to spearhead competitiveness in different\r\nsectors. Lastly, it is important that we encourage Singaporeans\r\nto stay motivated and continuously strive for improvement so that\r\nwe can develop a self-reliant Singapore population. Sir, with that,\r\nI support the Budget.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Mary Liew (Nominated Member)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to participate in\r\nthis debate. As a trade unionist, I am concerned about the issues\r\npertaining to our workers, in particular, the low income and the\r\nelderly. These are the groups that I feel are most affected by the economic\r\nchanges as well as the widening of the income gap. Sir, if we do\r\nnot address these issues well, the gap between the haves and the\r\nhave-nots will continue to widen, causing tremendous social frictions which would ultimately\r\nimpact our overall economic performance and growth. I am glad that\r\nthis year's Budget has addressed some of these issues to build an\r\ninclusive society and a stronger Singapore.
\r\nPage: 1322
\r\n\r\n At the NTUC National Delegates\r\nConference in December last year, the Labour Movement shared its\r\nvision for 2015 of helping our workers to achieve better jobs, improve\r\nwages and enhance their well-being. We hope to accomplish this through\r\nproductivity gains, so that wage increases and improvements in employment\r\nterms are sustainable, and that workers can enjoy the fruits of\r\nour economic progress.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, we thank\r\nthe Government for encouraging foreign and local investments which generated\r\njobs for Singaporeans. Our unemployment rate is the envy of those\r\ncountries experiencing high unemployment. We firmly believe that\r\nto have a job is the best welfare for our workers. We in the Labour\r\nMovement are also committed to do our part, together with our tripartite\r\npartners, to grow our economy, to keep our workers employed and\r\nto improve their wages.
\r\n\r\n The Ministry of Manpower\r\nand the Department of Statistics, in its report in October last\r\nyear, stated that the nominal monthly income of those at the 20th\r\npercentile rose from $1,200 in 2001 to $1,400 in 2010. Adjusted\r\nfor inflation, this worked out to a real growth rate of about 0.3%\r\nper annum. With the high cost of living in Singapore, one wonders:\r\nhow can our low-wage workers survive? I was told by many that, as\r\na result, they have to turn to the casinos. I have noted some progress\r\nsince but, in my view, we have a lot to do to grow productivity\r\nand to sustain real wage increase of 30% over a 10-year period to\r\nimprove the standard of living for Singaporeans. This is a very\r\nchallenging task.
\r\n\r\n I am particularly concerned\r\nabout the bottom 20% of our workers who have put in a hard day's\r\nwork but still have to struggle to see to the basic needs of their\r\nfamilies. The correlation between work and well-being does not seem\r\nto exist for this group of workers.
\r\n\r\n I am glad to note the\r\nrecent improvement by the 14 Town Councils, who stepped up to help\r\nour cleaners to bring their wages up from $750 to $1,000. This is\r\ncommendable. However, there are many other cleaners out there who\r\nare not employed by the town councils. They are earning about $600\r\na month but are similarly looking for a breakthrough in their wages.\r\nThe same also applies to our security officers, who have to work\r\nlong hours to earn a basic median monthly wage of $600. And after\r\nclocking many hours of overtime, they are then able to earn a gross\r\nmonthly wage of $1,300. This is also the case for our bus drivers.
\r\n\r\n To enhance our public\r\ntransport system by adding 800 buses on the road over the next five\r\nyears is commendable. Much has been said about why over $1 billion\r\nwill be given to profitable public transport companies. Personally,\r\nI have no principled objection to this move. After all, there are\r\nall kinds of grants, incentives and tax credits given to the commercial\r\ncompanies all the time. I think it all depends on what the money\r\nis used for.
\r\n\r\n If $1 billion brings a\r\nbetter bus service to commuters, better pay for workers to join\r\nthe industry, I think it is money well spent. If everything goes\r\nto shareholders and they become $1 billion richer, I think not only\r\nme but all Singaporeans will have a problem with this. So the real\r\nquestion to me is: how will the $1 billion be spent?
\r\n\r\n I think a large chunk\r\nwill go probably towards purchasing the new buses which, I presume,\r\nif left on their own, the bus companies will not invest in because\r\nit is a money-losing investment. However, the additional bus fleet\r\nserves also to aggravate the shortage of bus drivers unless something\r\nis done to expand the pool.
\r\n\r\n Let me relate the bus\r\ndrivers' plight to illustrate this point. The life of the bus drivers\r\ncan start as early as 4.00 in the morning. They will have to arrive\r\nat the bus depot by 5.00 am. They then check the bus thoroughly to\r\nensure it is in tip-top condition and start the bus service at 5.30\r\nam. They have their 20 to 35 minutes' break for meals at around\r\n9.30 am. But if the bus arrives late – on the ground they call it\r\n\"lambat\" – they may only have 10 minutes for their meal and\r\ntoilet break. And they will continue to drive with two or three\r\nshort breaks of seven to eight minutes in the interchange. They\r\nusually finish their work at around 3.00 pm with a couple of hours\r\nof overtime. Working overtime daily is a norm for bus drivers to\r\nsupplement their monthly basic wage ranging from $1,375 to $1,700.\r\nThis helps them to make ends meet and it is also compounded by the\r\nshortage of bus drivers. Encountering difficult commuters is also\r\ncommon. A slip of the tongue, momentary loss of cool, means getting\r\na complaint letter and, at the end of the day, bonus or increment\r\ncan get cut. Exceed the slow speed at the junction of the interchange\r\nand, again, you can get fined.
\r\nPage: 1323
\r\n\r\n It is no wonder that Singaporeans\r\nfind this a tough job. Unless we address the well-being of bus drivers,\r\nthe demands on the public transport workforce cannot keep up with\r\nthe expectations of commuters and the improvement of hardware.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, our enlightened\r\nmembers in the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU) look to\r\nthe Government to help their companies to explore ways to increase\r\nproductivity and to help to keep cost low so as to channel the savings\r\nto workers in the form of better wages and benefits. The bus drivers on\r\nthe ground have fed back previously to the Government to look into\r\nother ways of helping the PTOs to reduce their costs of operation\r\nfor public transport which, I understand, include ERP cost of some\r\n$30 million per year and high rental cost of depots, and they hope\r\nthat these savings can be shared with the drivers and contribute\r\nto improving their wages.
\r\n\r\n The commendable act of\r\nthe Government to partner the Public Transport Operators (PTOs)\r\nin providing funding for the 550 buses is welcomed by the union;\r\nhowever, we would like to ask the Minister to ensure that part of\r\nthese savings by the PTOs will be ploughed back to our workers.
\r\n\r\n Besides the cleaners,\r\nsecurity officers and bus drivers, there are many other sectors\r\nof workers that are experiencing different sets of challenges. We\r\nrecognise that the Labour Movement cannot do it alone by ourselves,\r\nand we call upon our tripartite partners to take a bigger role in\r\nraising productivity and, in return, through productivity gains,\r\nour workers will expect a fair share.
\r\n\r\n The Prime Minister said\r\nat our NTUC National Delegates Conference: \"Tripartism is our national treasure\".\r\nWe have settled our many problems through tripartism and we are\r\ncommitted to take tripartism one step further towards the Labour\r\nMovement 2015 – Tripartism for All.
\r\n\r\n The question I have, Mr\r\nSpeaker, Sir, is: does every Government Ministry, department and\r\nstatutory board appreciate this treasure? From my observation, the\r\nspirit of tripartism varies across the agencies.
\r\n\r\n Take the National Environment\r\nAgency (NEA), for example. I understand they are proactively looking\r\ninto a working group comprising Tripartite partners to work together\r\ntowards improving the work and wages of our low-wage cleaners. Tripartism\r\nis alive and well at NEA. Or take the Workforce Development Agency.\r\nThey have formed a close partnership with NTUC in developing and\r\ndelivering training programmes for workers.
\r\n\r\n But there were other agencies\r\nwhere collaboration is non-existent, or where there is only lip\r\nservice. This will not do. Every Government agency must understand,\r\nwhatever industry or activity it is promoting or regulating, that\r\nit cannot fulfil its mission unless it pays attention to the people\r\nworking in the industry or activity. And if workers are a key thrust\r\nof your strategy to achieve your mission, the labour movement will\r\nneed to be your partner. I would like to call upon the various Government agencies to live up\r\nto the spirit of Tripartism and to build upon this national treasure.\r\nThis could be in the form of the Ministry of Home Affairs championing\r\nthe cause of low-wage security guards; Ministry of National Development\r\nfor the low-wage construction and landscape workers; and even the\r\nMinistry of Trade and Industry for the low-wage retail workers.
\r\nPage: 1324
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, on the\r\nelderly, my concern is the strong prejudice against employing senior\r\ncitizens, even with the enactment of the re-employment law in January\r\nthis year. As it is, many in their 50s are increasingly finding\r\nit difficult to be employed. I am heartened that the Minister for\r\nFinance has put in place a Special Employment Credit which will\r\nsoon take place. The Government would need to continue to proactively\r\nencourage and engage employers to help overcome this bias and, if\r\nnecessary, to look into other incentives to encourage their employment.\r\nHaving a job would help the dignity of the elderly and also to lighten\r\nthe cost of their welfare and healthcare systems.
\r\n\r\n On CPF, I am glad the\r\nGovernment has responded positively to the call by NTUC and the\r\nthen Vice President of NTUC, Mr Cyrille Tan, to review the CPF contribution\r\nrate for older workers. Sir, on the CPF issues, I am concerned about\r\nworkers not having sufficient savings in their CPF accounts to retire with\r\nfinancial independence. I would like to make reference to the 1984\r\nReport of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged by the late\r\nMinister for Health, Mr Howe Yoon Chong. The Report mentioned the Government's\r\nultimate goal of raising the rate of CPF contribution to a maximum\r\nof 50% of an employee's salary and the CPF withdrawal age to be\r\nfurther raised to 65 years in later years. I believe the proposal\r\nwas mooted with the objective of enabling workers to accumulate\r\nsufficient funds in their CPF accounts for retirement. I also noted\r\nthat back then, the price of an HDB flat was much lower as of today.
\r\n\r\n During the Singapore Perspectives\r\n2012 Forum organised by the Institute of Policy Studies on 16 January,\r\na professor shared on retirement adequacy measured by income replacement\r\nratio, which is the proportion of the working income that one has\r\nat retirement. He shared that the current CPF contribution of 36%\r\nis not sufficient for retirement, and he suggested maybe 42% will\r\nbe more sustainable, and this is on assumption if there is no withdrawal\r\nof CPF for housing. Sir, this again seems to suggest the inadequacy\r\nof the CPF savings to support the retirement needs of our workers.\r\nCPF contribution had been cut three times from 25% to 10% in 1986,\r\n20% to 10% in 1999 and 16% to 13% in 2003. However, the restoration\r\nfrom 10% to 20% and 13% to 16% both took eight years to restore.\r\nThis excludes the further CPF cuts for workers age 50 years and\r\nabove.
\r\n\r\n To illustrate my point\r\nof how much Singaporean workers have sacrificed in their CPF savings,\r\nI take the case of a 30-year-old worker who earned S$1,000 per month\r\nin 1985 and the employer contribution rate then was 25%. If this\r\n25% contribution had not been cut, the worker would have accumulated\r\nan additional of more than S$30,000 in his account by 2011, that\r\nis, 26 years later. This is excluding interests and wage increments.\r\nIf he or she earned S$3,000 per month in 1985, the sacrifice would\r\nbe more than S$90,000.
\r\n\r\n I have illustrated this\r\nfor various reasons. Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, it is to acknowledge\r\nthe sacrifice of our enlightened workers way back in 1986 and many\r\nof them are the elderly of today. Because of their sacrifice, because\r\nof their understanding, because they were discerning, they did not\r\ntake to the street, they did not go on strike because they were\r\nenlightened. We progress as a nation to where we are today. Sir,\r\nthe $30,000 would have meant a lot to our low-wage workers. Secondly,\r\nI would like the Government to review and look into a long-term\r\nplan to determine a reasonable CPF rate for our people, including\r\nthe young ones, so that when their turns come for them to retire,\r\nthey would have a nest egg to retire gracefully with dignity. Lastly,\r\nI would like to appeal to our Government, please no more CPF cuts.\r\nI therefore urge the Government not to implement a one-size-fits-all\r\npolicy should there be a need to cut CPF.
\r\nPage: 1325
\r\n\r\n In conclusion, I would like to commend\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister for delivering an inclusive, a caring\r\nas well as a pro-Singaporean Budget that goes a long way to help\r\nthe weak, and truly, I believe, it is more blessed to give than\r\nto receive. On this note, I support the Budget.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah) \r\n \r\n (In Mandarin):\r\n[Please refer to Pg 1400 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, the Government's\r\nBudget had always given the impression of being pro-business and\r\npro-growth. The economic policies are also aimed at Singapore's\r\nlong-term economic development. However, this year's Budget overturned\r\nthis view.
\r\n\r\n For many SMEs, this year's\r\nBudget does not come across as being pro-business. Instead, the Government\r\nis stepping up the necessary reform in the labour market. But what\r\nis encouraging is that this year's Budget is more pro-people, more\r\ninclusive, especially in helping the elderly, the lower-income,\r\nand people with disabilities. This gives me comfort and I would\r\nsay this is a compassionate Budget.
\r\n\r\n In this Budget, the Government\r\nis introducing a slew of well-thought, new measures for the elderly to\r\nenhance the safety net, focusing on jobs, housing and medical cost.
\r\n\r\n The assistance package\r\nfor the elderly, as announced by the Finance Minister, reminds me\r\nof a saying by Mencius when he described his ideal world: \"If you\r\nlook after the old as if they are your own parents and look after\r\nthe young as if they are your own children, then the whole world\r\nis in your hands.\"
\r\n\r\n It means that you should\r\nnot only look after your own parents, but also take a further step\r\nto look after other people's parents; you not only take care of\r\nyour own children, but also take care of other people's children.\r\nThe country is like a big family, everyone should help each other,\r\ncare for each other and respect each other. Nobody should be neglected\r\njust because he is vulnerable. We should look after our elderly\r\nso that they live well and live long. If we can do that, the whole\r\nsociety will be more loving and more inclusive. This will strengthen\r\npeople's sense of belonging to our nation and society.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In English): Sir, it is not\r\noften that we have the Finance Minister that also doubles up as\r\nthe Manpower Minister, so in my remaining speech I will seize this\r\nopportunity and focus mainly on manpower issues and, in particular,\r\nhow we manage our over dependence on foreign workers.
\r\n\r\n Sir, Budget 2012 will\r\nprobably be remembered as one where it is less business friendly;\r\none where we bite the bullet, take the pain and press on with the\r\nrestructuring of our economy. Even with a number of enhancements\r\nto the assistance schemes available for the SMEs and the many other\r\nhelping hands to improve productivity, this year's Budget is still\r\nseen as harsh to many of the businesses. The SMEs will be directly\r\nimpacted by the further tightening of foreign labour. Some enterprises\r\nwill experience severe margins compression as a result and some\r\nmay no longer be viable. Others may choose to relocate elsewhere\r\nor exit the business altogether.
\r\n\r\n The interesting thing\r\nthat came out when I spoke to some of the business people is that\r\nmany actually do buy in and are in unison with the Government on\r\nthe need to reduce our over dependence on foreign workers and to\r\nuplift productivity. But that is about all in terms of a meeting\r\nof minds. Beyond that, the Government and businesses are miles apart\r\nas to how fast and how much we could tighten up foreign labour.\r\nIt is between a cold turkey treatment, or gradualist approach, or\r\nsomewhere in between.
\r\nPage: 1326
\r\n\r\n The end state we hope to achieve in this\r\nrestructuring is to keep the foreign workforce at a socially acceptable\r\nlevel. The ESC referred to this level as about one-third of the\r\ntotal workforce. So, we are still talking about a one-third leverage\r\nin manpower. With tighter foreign labour inflows, the Government hopes\r\nthat companies would either look to improve productivity or hire\r\nmore Singaporeans or both. The social intent here is that as companies\r\npay up to attract Singaporeans to the job, it would help grow our median\r\nwages. We all want a socially sustainable and inclusive way to grow\r\nour economy where at the end of the day, more citizens will benefit\r\nfrom the growth.
\r\n\r\n It is going to be a rough\r\nride to get there and there are significant risks that we have to\r\ncontend with. So, what are the risks and what could go wrong? First,\r\nthere is the obvious risk of an unsustainable rise in business costs.\r\nWe are hearing this loud and clear from the businesses. Raising\r\nthe foreign worker levy will directly increase labour costs. Tightening\r\nthe DRC will also compel companies to pay up to hire local workers\r\nand hence would also add to the manpower costs. In an almost full\r\nemployment situation that we are now in, local hiring may well be\r\na zero sum game. The most probable occurrence would be the unhealthy\r\npractice of staff poaching from each other which would just push\r\nwages up sharply to an unsustainable level. The cumulative increase\r\nin levy announced so far is expected to increase wage cost by 20%\r\nto 25%, according to some studies. Escalating business costs would\r\nimpact companies' bottom line if productivity improvements are not\r\nable to make up for the cost increases. The concern here is whether\r\nthis would lead to a repeat of a 1985-style recession.
\r\n\r\n Back in 1980s, as part\r\nof \"wage correction\", the NWC recommended three consecutive rounds\r\nof aggressive wage hikes. This resulted in a severe loss of international\r\ncompetitiveness. At that time, the wage reform actually benefited\r\nSingaporeans more directly because it was a straight wage increase\r\nfor the workers. In our current situation, the restructuring is\r\ndone by way of tightening foreign labour dependency ratio and higher\r\nlevy. One of the causes cited in the 1986 Economic Committee Report\r\nto review the economy then stated that the loss of competitiveness\r\ndue to high costs of doing business in Singapore as one of the internal\r\nfactors for the recession. So we have to be mindful during this adjustment\r\nphase not to allow non-wage operating costs to rise beyond control\r\nas costs are usually more sticky on the downside.
\r\n\r\n Secondly, the inflation\r\nrisks, as well expressed by many economists. It is unavoidable that\r\nsome of the businesses will pass on the increased costs to consumers,\r\nespecially those in the domestic services sector. Given the significant\r\ncost impact from increased wages and levy, prices will head north.\r\nWhether it is the cleaning contractor, delivery, building maintenance,\r\nrestaurant, and so on, these will likely cost more. In the midst\r\nof all these adjustments, we may be facing a sharp oil shock arising\r\nfrom the Middle East geo-political tension. So, we cannot take our\r\neyes off inflation.
\r\n\r\n Thirdly, the potential\r\nrisk of hollowing out within our economy. The expected rising costs\r\nand higher inflation coupled with tight labour supply will no doubt\r\nreduce our attractiveness as a business and investment destination.\r\nWe can expect more relocations and reduction in direct investments.\r\nEven without these foreign labour tightening measures, there is\r\nalways the fear of industry hollowing out due to our small domestic\r\nmarket and the lack of a dynamic hinterland. Of course, economies\r\nremain viable on the premise of comparative advantages. Companies\r\nthat are more labour-intensive will naturally relocate to locations\r\nwith abundance of cheap labour.
\r\n\r\n It does fit into our economic\r\nstrategy that we are pursuing, where we do not want all the labour-intensive\r\npart of the business to be done here, while keeping the nerve-centre\r\nactivities in Singapore. This is actually part of our game plan\r\nto internationalise our economy and what the role of IE Singapore is\r\nplaying. The setting up of a cross-border project finance institution\r\nand the development of Iskandar region at Johor would also complement\r\nour strategy. However, if the cost pressures and tight labour supply\r\nhit every aspect of the economy with no corresponding improvements\r\nin productivity or local labour\r\nparticipation, we could see an exodus or downsizing of companies,\r\nand this may include losing some of our strategic capabilities which\r\nwe hope to retain and grow.
\r\nPage: 1327
\r\n\r\n Fourthly, the risk of\r\nlong-term unemployment. Restructuring the economy often results\r\nin major permanent changes in the employment market. Some jobs may\r\nbecome obsolete while new skills sets would be in demand. Countries\r\nwith across-the-board high wages tend to experience higher structural unemployment.\r\nWe only need to look at some of the developed economies, whether\r\nit is in Australia, UK or Europe. The new economic landscape may\r\nmean requiring even more social spending as there will be greater\r\nneed for a stronger social safety net to deal with higher unemployment.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I am highlighting\r\nthese risks not because I am against restructuring. We all know\r\nthat not moving forward or to stay put is not an option. As a small\r\nisland state and a very open economy, our economic development is\r\nakin to riding a bicycle. If we stay still, we will topple. And\r\nthe only way to remain standing is to keep pedalling on and to keep\r\nriding ahead. Leveraging on foreign workers to grow has its limits;\r\nnot just physical and social constraints but there are also sound\r\neconomic arguments why we should reduce our dependence on foreign\r\nworkers. We want to continually elevate ourselves to be amongst\r\nthe most productive and the most technological advanced country\r\nin the world. Having an abundance of foreign workers would not get\r\nus there. In any case, foreign labour will not always stay cheap.\r\nWe must be prepared for the eventuality where foreign workers will\r\ncost more due to economic progress in those countries where the\r\nworkers come from. And, increasingly, we are also seeing more jurisdictions\r\nadopting minimum wages. China, in particular, is currently facing\r\na significant upward wage correction as well and we are only just\r\nseeing the beginning.
\r\n\r\n So, how do we manage and\r\nmitigate these risks that I have just highlighted?
\r\n\r\n Well, if labour costs\r\nhave to move up, we just have to hold all other costs down, at least\r\nfor now. One of the most important costs we need to restrain is,\r\nof course, the cost of land which Mr Inderjit Singh has also mentioned.\r\nAccording to URA data for the year 2011, as a whole, prices of multiple-user\r\nfactory space increased sharply by 27.1% while rentals increased\r\nby 16.2%. And this is after steep increases of 23.7% in prices and\r\n11.7% in rentals in 2010.
\r\n\r\n If land costs continue\r\nto rise at such a rate, our international competitiveness would\r\nbe eroded even without this round of labour cost increase. Even\r\nat the heartlands industrial workshops, where many of the small\r\nbusinesses operate, they are experiencing higher lease renewal costs\r\nand sharp rental increases. Just like hawker centres, these industrial\r\nworkshops offer to businesses no-frills, practical and budgeted workspace\r\nto operate. And these businesses, in turn, offer low-cost services\r\nand small job repairs to residents living in the neighbourhoods.
\r\n\r\n So, here, JTC and the\r\nother agencies must continue to play the role of keeping our industrial\r\nland affordable to sustain our competitiveness. JTC should not be\r\ntoo eager to mark its industrial land bank to market as the cost\r\nramifications are very serious to the industries and the businesses.\r\nThe Government's hand in managing this in providing public goods\r\nis still very much still needed as we want an environment of stable\r\nland cost for the industries. We cannot exert an upward cost correction\r\nfor both labour and land at the same time. This would be value destruction\r\nand we would soon lose many of our key economic capabilities to\r\nthe competing economies in the region.
\r\n\r\n The second cost-related\r\nconcern that we need to manage is the strength of our Singapore\r\ndollar. The strong Singapore dollar has always been one of our policy\r\ntools to manage imported inflation. While the local importer has\r\nbeen the major beneficiary of this policy, it is the exporter that\r\nis bearing the brunt of the strong currency. With higher wages to\r\ncome, our local labour cost will look even more expensive in foreign currency terms\r\nwhen the Singapore dollar strengthens. A continually strengthening\r\nSingapore dollar will depress the top line revenue of our exporters.\r\nSingapore is a price taker and exporters cannot set a higher price\r\nat the global marketplace.
\r\nPage: 1328
\r\n\r\n For productivity improvements\r\nto offset both the escalating wages and stronger Singapore dollar\r\nat the same time would be asking too much from the exporters. The\r\nexport sector is a crucial engine of growth. It brings about the\r\nmuch needed foreign exchange. We should not lose these capabilities.\r\nSir, I am not saying that we depreciate our Singapore dollar to\r\nimprove our export competitiveness. What will be helpful to exporters\r\nin this environment of rising costs is to maintain a stable exchange\r\nrate policy so that companies do not have to pay a further premium\r\nfor the exchange rate volatilities.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, in the\r\nfinal analysis, the Ministry of Manpower must still retain the flexibility\r\nin some sectors where it is clearly very difficult or impossible\r\nto find Singapore workers to replace. This could either be due to\r\nthe lack of such skills sets or where wage increase would not lead\r\nto higher labour participation. A case in point is the construction\r\nindustry and the cleaning industry, where it will be impossible\r\nto fill up these job openings with Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n Sir, we should also be\r\nmindful that labour market adjustment should not be done at the\r\nexpense of the quality of work or the quality of service. Our quality\r\nof life should not be impacted as a result.
\r\n\r\n On the question of timeframe,\r\nI want to salute Deputy Prime Minister Tharman for setting a very aggressive\r\ntimeframe − a 10-year timeline and target. To grow our real median\r\nwages by 30% in 10 years is a very ambitious target and it is not\r\nan easy task to do. So, I respect him for taking on this very challenging\r\ncause, and I hope Singaporeans will appreciate what he is trying\r\nto do. We all know the risks. In the next 10 years, we can expect\r\nmany known and unknown shocks that may come our way. We should not\r\npursue this stretch target at all costs. While we want to ride our\r\nbicycle forward, we should still watch out for the potholes and\r\ndo some refinements along the way. And one indicator that we should\r\nwatch very closely is the unemployment rate.
\r\n\r\n Sir, Budget 2012 also\r\nmarks a distinct shift in our social policy. We meant what we said\r\nabout being inclusive. It would, of course, come with added financial\r\nresponsibility. The cost of social spending can only increase in\r\nthe years to come with our ageing population. We need to grow our\r\neconomy to generate the financial resources to fund even more social\r\nprogrammes in the future. And we still need to continue growing\r\nour reserves so that the NIR contribution can grow beyond the $7.91\r\nbillion the Government received last year to fund the Budget.
\r\n\r\n Our reserves remain our\r\nmost important strategic resource and our long-term financial security.\r\nThe recent second bailout for Greece cost the EU and IMF 130 billion\r\neuro or S$218 billion. This is in addition to the earlier bailouts\r\nof Euro 110 billion in 2010. And this may not be the last time that\r\nGreece will stretch their hand out for money and there is still\r\nthis risk of default. So it gives us a sense of the magnitude that\r\nif we mismanage our finances and run out of savings, that will be\r\nour fate. And, here, we cannot look to EU for a bailout. We can\r\nonly count on our own savings to bail ourselves out, which is why\r\nI want to caution that when we measure the outcomes or the adequacy\r\nof our healthcare, we should not look at the amount of money we\r\nspend. In fact, that is just too simplistic. In US, for example,\r\nsocial security, Medicare, MediAid − just three items − account\r\nfor about half of the US government's non-interest spending. So,\r\nto measure our healthcare adequacy and outcomes just by its spending\r\nwill be too simplistic.
\r\n\r\n Finally, Sir, in the Finance\r\nMinister's two-hour long Budget Statement, one of the lines in his\r\nspeech stands out and warms my heart. He said, \"Let's help our seniors\r\nlive long and live well.\" These words reminded us that, at the end\r\nof the day, governing is all about people's lives and living well.\r\nClearly, Budget\r\n2012 will strengthen our social compact and will make Singapore\r\neven stronger. Sir, I support the Budget.
\r\nPage: 1329
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, the mission of this Budget is to, I quote, \"build an\r\ninclusive society and a stronger Singapore\". The Budget proposes\r\nto build an inclusive society by social policies designed to help\r\nthe elderly, Singaporeans with disabilities and lower-income families. The\r\nBudget proposes to build a stronger Singapore by economic policies\r\ndesigned to sustain growth through higher productivity and reduce\r\nour dependence on foreign workers. The Budget proposes to build\r\na stronger Singapore by economic policies designed to sustain growth\r\nthrough higher productivity and reduce our dependence on foreign\r\nworkers. We are glad that the Government has heeded the call of many\r\nSingaporeans for more inclusive growth. That is our long held belief.\r\nAnd as the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim said, we believe we can do more.
\r\n\r\n The elderly, the disabled\r\nand the poor in need of social security should not be seen primarily\r\nas social problems or \"challenges\", as the Budget puts it. These\r\nchallenges are, in fact, opportunities to invest in our human capital\r\nfor great social returns. We need to change our mindset. Investing\r\nin our elderly, the disabled, the poor and other needy Singaporeans\r\nwill reward society with the economic, social and cultural contributions\r\nthey will be able to make with assistance. It will also enable us\r\nto be more inclusive, which is the basis for community and social\r\ncohesion.
\r\n\r\n We should not see social\r\noutlays only as spending to be minimised over the short term, but\r\nalso as investments to be optimised for our long-term benefit. We\r\nshould seek out such investment opportunities to realise social\r\nreturns in different areas of social policy, not just social security,\r\nbut public housing, healthcare, education, and infrastructure and\r\nthe environment. We should actively, systematically and strategically\r\nseek them out, much as we do in the case of opportunities for economic returns,\r\nfor example, with agencies such as EDB, A*STAR and SPRING. We should\r\nseek to unlock not only economic value with our investments but\r\nalso social and cultural value that would make for an inclusive\r\nsociety and a stronger Singapore.
\r\n\r\n The elderly, for example,\r\nare a repository of social and cultural capital to be treasured\r\nand tapped on to enrich each passing generation. With some investments\r\nthat keep them close to their homes, we can leverage the elders'\r\nlongstanding ties in mature neighbourhoods to teach our children\r\ntraditional wisdoms and values, and stories and lessons about our\r\ncommunities. Similarly, Singaporeans with disabilities and other\r\nneedy Singaporeans, when the locked-in value of their human capital\r\nis released with more investment, they reward society with their\r\nenabled contributions as well as such intangibles as compassion\r\nand empathy. This argues for investing in social safety nets that\r\nkeep up with the costs of living. We want to see all Singaporeans\r\nrun a good race in a globalised and competitive world. When some\r\nof us trip and fall behind, we should help them get back up and\r\nstay in the game for a stronger Singapore.
\r\n\r\n For us to restructure\r\nand upgrade to an economy that is more productive in order to raise\r\nreal wages, we need to depend less on foreign workers. The Budget\r\nrecommends that we reduce the Dependency Ratio Ceilings for businesses\r\nin manufacturing and services and reduce man-year entitlement quota\r\nfor those in construction. How effective will the proposed measures\r\nbe in reducing our dependence on foreign workers? The population\r\nof foreign workers grew rapidly at 7.5% each year over the last\r\ntwo years. Growth for our resident workforce is under half of that.\r\nThe proportion of foreign workers had already breached the Government's\r\none-third target set in 2010, and was over 35% last year. Given\r\nthe size of the\r\ntask, a multi-year plan is needed to manage effectively our foreign\r\nworker dependency and allow our businesses time to adjust. Let us\r\ndo more for them.
\r\nPage: 1330
\r\n\r\n Let us refine the Manpower\r\nMinistry's current segmentation of industries for dependency ratio ceilings\r\nto ensure more targeted foreign manpower policies. As other Members\r\nhave pointed out today, the Ministry of Manpower's current framework\r\nof segmenting the economy into broad sectors – manufacturing, services\r\nand construction with exceptions for marine and process – is a blunt\r\ntool. For example, in the services sector, the dependency ratio\r\nceiling is the same for food and beverage (F&B), social services\r\nand also for finance and other industries. Could we look into the\r\npossibility of having different industry clusters for setting dependency\r\nratio ceilings? One cluster could comprise industries that have\r\nhigh productivity and generate good jobs for Singaporeans, for example,\r\nfinance, aerospace, biomedical and professional services. For these\r\nindustries, we may have more stringent foreign manpower policies\r\nso that foreign workers complement and not substitute Singaporeans.\r\nWe could even include lower end employment passes in the calculation\r\nof the dependency ratios as these are jobs that young Singaporean\r\ngraduates would find attractive.
\r\n\r\n Another cluster could\r\ncomprise industries that contribute to meeting Singapore's social\r\nneeds and would have a significant impact if higher labour costs\r\nwere passed on to the consumers. They could include social services,\r\npublic healthcare and construction for public infrastructure. For\r\nthese industries, we may need less stringent foreign manpower policies\r\nto keep costs low. Other clusters could be based on the industries\r\ndifferent prospects for productivity gains.
\r\n\r\n The Deputy Prime Minister\r\npreviously argued that quotas for different sectors are not workable\r\nand would constrain businesses' flexibility to get the necessary\r\nmanpower to expand. But remember – while we do not have different\r\nquotas targeted at different service sectors, for example, that\r\ndoes not mean we do not have quotas. We still have a dependency\r\nratio ceiling that applies to all industries in the services sector.\r\nWe believe we can do more to help our businesses in the different\r\nsectors adapt to permanent but different realities of a tight labour\r\nmarket in their respective industries. By working with them on the different\r\ntargets and roadmaps of reducing the dependency ratio ceilings,\r\nwe are not asking, in the Deputy Prime Minister's words, for \"a\r\ngroup of bureaucrats to decide which industry is more deserving\",\r\nbut we are asking for the Government to work more closely with the\r\ndifferent stakeholders in the different industries, get their input,\r\nrally their support and render them assistance. The same way the\r\nGovernment is working, for example, with stakeholders to set productivity\r\ntargets and roadmaps for 16 different industry sectors.
\r\n\r\n Last October, at the Opening\r\nof this Parliament, I cited the United Nations' inaugural Human Development\r\nReport in 1990, which declared \"people are the real wealth of a\r\nnation. As it happened, 1990 saw the tail end of our first national\r\nproductivity campaign. The mascot of the campaign was a bee by the\r\nname of \"Teamy\", and his song is deeply, deeply imprinted in our\r\ncultural memory: \"Good, Better, Best. Never let it rest\". However,\r\nin more recent years, reliance on cheap foreign labour has coincided\r\nwith the decline in our productivity growth. We are in the midst\r\nof the third productivity campaign following Teamy and Productivity\r\nAction 21. Today, we have \"Way to Go, Singapore!\" with a sectoral\r\napproach to productivity growth in 16 sectors with their own targets\r\nand roadmaps. Our national productivity campaigns must go deeper\r\nto achieve sustainable productivity growth. Ultimately, we need\r\nto invest in the human capital of our workers for growth. We should\r\nstart now and engage in long-term sustainable investment in our\r\npeople. We need to invest more in education in schools, in training\r\nour workers for the job so that they can do the job better and do\r\na better job at it, and in empowering our workers on the job, so\r\nthat they can make the job better.
\r\n\r\n We can also invest more\r\nin other aspects of a Singaporean's life and that of her family,\r\nsocial security, public housing, healthcare, education and infrastructure\r\nand the environment, so that she becomes a more productive worker.\r\nIn conclusion, Sir, let us go back to fundamentals. We need to put Singaporean workers\r\nback in the game before they can raise their game. To invest in\r\nSingaporeans is to invest in the future of Singapore. It has been\r\nsaid so many times and for so long that the only resource Singapore\r\nhas is ourselves, that our most important capital is our human capital.\r\nInclusive growth must be built on the growth of our human capital.
\r\nPage: 1331
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : Mr Vikram Nair,\r\ndo you have a clarification? Keep it short, please.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang)\r\n :\r\nSir, I thank Mr Chen for his speech. As a matter of principle, there is\r\nso much I agree with what he has said. I think we need to invest\r\nin the vulnerable groups, the poor, the disabled. Listening to both\r\nhis speech and Ms Sylvia Lim's – there have been many proposals\r\nfor additional spending. The one question I have is: what does Workers'\r\nParty intend to do on the revenue side? Is it planning to raise\r\ntaxes or eat into reserves to pay for all these additional programmes?\r\nBecause I think the objectives are noble. I am just wondering how\r\nhe balances it out.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Chen Show Mao\r\n : The clarification\r\nis for how we would propose to increase revenues in order to fund\r\nthese investments. By the nature of investments, over the term of\r\nthe investments, we would hope to see returns – both economic returns\r\nand social returns – generated by the outlay in this period.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Vikram Nair\r\n : I am sure\r\nwe will go into those details in the COS when the detailed policies\r\ncome up, because there has not been much detail here. But even in\r\nthe initial outlay, is he suggesting that we run a deficit to do\r\nthat? If so, for how long before we get dividends?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Chen Show Mao\r\n : No, I\r\nam not proposing that we run a deficit to fund additional social\r\nspending, but we can look at the numbers both on the revenue side\r\nand how much we hope to make in terms of investments to come to\r\na solution.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated\r\nMember)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for\r\nthis opportunity to speak on the Budget Debate. This coming financial\r\nyear's Budget addresses some of Singaporeans' key concerns as Singapore\r\nundergoes transformational changes by making a significant calibrated\r\nshift in the Budget's focus. The Budget represents a re-calibration,\r\na necessary right-sizing of the social compact.
\r\n\r\n This Budget signals an\r\nassertive return to the fundamental of shared and inclusive economic\r\ngrowth as the cornerstone for a revitalised social compact. It underlines\r\nthe move away from \"equal sharing\" to one of \"equitable distribution\"\r\nas the fundamental basis of sharing our nation's wealth. This shift\r\nis at least a decade in the making. To be sure, equity has been\r\na growing \"accent\" in previous Budgets since 2002.
\r\n\r\n But, going forward, equity\r\nmust be the unequivocal \"language\" of future Budgets. Equitable distribution\r\nand sharing must form the foundational stone of our Budget. Those\r\nmore in need will receive more while those who pay the most taxes\r\ndo not get as much. It is timely that the focus of the Budget is\r\nsquarely on older Singaporeans, Singaporeans with disabilities,\r\nand lower income Singaporeans. This commitment towards preventing\r\na permanent underclass from forming is necessary. The reality is\r\nthat economic globalisation and our economic policies have not resulted\r\nin every Singaporean being able to benefit from them. In fact, there\r\nis a considerable segment of Singaporeans who have found the economic\r\ntransformation and restructuring disconcerting as they have not\r\nbeen able to take\r\nadvantage of it. This group feels displaced by the rapid economic\r\nchanges and feels that the nation's prosperity seems to have passed\r\nthem by.
\r\nPage: 1332
\r\n\r\n Sir, the abiding imperative\r\nto renew Singaporeans' confidence in the commitment to shared economic\r\ngrowth is crucial if the ongoing plans to restructure the economy\r\nare to have the buy-in from Singaporeans. The social and economic\r\ndimensions of the Budget complement each other. Our society will\r\nbe all the poorer if we do not pay equal attention to both. Economic\r\ngrowth is necessary to sustain the evolving social compact as our\r\nnation grapples with competing, and perhaps even conflicting, needs and\r\ninterests. Sir, let me now list what I thought are some of the noteworthy\r\nfeatures of Budget 2012.
\r\n\r\n First, there is a greater\r\nwillingness to look beyond the 12-month fiscal year through multi-year spending\r\ncommitments. This funding model benefits, for example, the Special\r\nEmployment Credit, which is aimed at encouraging employers to plan\r\nahead and hire older workers. I hope that future Budgets will have\r\nmore spending commitments beyond 12-month fiscal year, especially\r\nin areas where multi-year funding is vital to ensure continuity\r\nand sustainability of those programmes. We should not let the financial\r\nyear's duration limit our commitment to plan beyond the next 12\r\nmonths. For many of the issues we are grappling with today, such\r\nas income inequality, dysfunctional families, expanding the public\r\ntransport network, we should not be strait-jacketed by a 12-month\r\ntimeframe.
\r\n\r\n Second, I applaud the\r\nrelatively comprehensive package of helping Singaporeans with special\r\nneeds through strengthening early intervention and education, to\r\nsupporting their being in gainful employment, and to the provision\r\nof better adult care. This support given to Singaporeans with disabilities\r\nis, I believe, unprecedented. They have often been at the periphery\r\nof the Budget and our society but there is now a concerted move\r\nto help them.
\r\n\r\n The third noteworthy feature\r\nis that the support for low-income Singaporeans has progressed to embrace\r\nnon-income support. The plan for more social workers and other professionals\r\nto help lower income families underlines the need for a holistic\r\napproach to helping them break out of the poverty cycle and become\r\nresilient. I hope we can make a serious effort to make non-income\r\nsupport a central feature of our ecosystem of care and caring. This\r\nHouse would be more than familiar with the gross limitations of\r\nwhat income transfers can do. In 2011, Government transfers constituted\r\na massive 43.8% of the annual household income from work per household\r\nmember for HDB 1- and 2-room resident households. This is an increase\r\nover the figure of 43.3% in 2010 and 41.4% in 2009. These transfers\r\nhelp in the short term but to help families become self-reliant\r\nand confident about the future, the need for psycho-social, holistic\r\nhelp, and principled-based case intervention are necessary if Government transfers\r\nare not to become a crutch for the disadvantaged among us.
\r\n\r\n Fourth, with the introduction\r\nof the GST Voucher, the Government has acknowledged, albeit indirectly\r\nand somewhat reluctantly, that the GST is a regressive tax since\r\nlower income households pay a larger share of their income to the\r\nGST than wealthier households do. Given that the GST Voucher will\r\noperate as a permanent system of offsets, does it suggest that an\r\nincrease in the GST is likely to be sooner rather than later?
\r\n\r\n Much as there is a tendency\r\nto see less well-off Singaporeans as the primary beneficiaries,\r\nit bears noting that we are all better-off as a society when it\r\nengenders resilience, hope, and confidence in the future, regardless\r\nof one's socio-economic status. Furthermore, how we, as a society,\r\ncare for the disadvantaged, give voice to the voiceless, and help\r\nthe downtrodden among us reflects on our heart-ware, and the quality\r\nof our nation-building.
\r\n\r\n Sir, it would be a pipe-dream\r\nfor any Budget to remove the inequalities in our society. Nonetheless, the\r\nBudget must contribute towards a less unequal society. I submit\r\nthat the Budget must represent the essence of our social compact.\r\nOur social compact must retain its inclusiveness, legitimacy and effectiveness. The\r\ngrowing income gap raises the real concern of the imminent development\r\nof \"two Singapores\". As the growing income gap is a reality that\r\nwill persist into the foreseeable future, what will prevent this\r\nstate of \"two Singapores\" is to ensure true social mobility and\r\nto provide adequate social safety nets that encourage risk-taking\r\nwhile not sapping the work ethic so carefully nurtured in the management\r\nof Singapore's success. Indeed, social mobility, and its promise\r\nof economic opportunity and success, has served as a powerful engine\r\nof economic growth and a source of social cohesion.
\r\nPage: 1333
\r\n\r\n Sir, the sustenance of\r\nour social compact requires a multi-stakeholder approach. Governments\r\nalone cannot maintain social compacts. A key challenge as we incur\r\nmore social spending in the medium to long term is whether those\r\nwho bear the tax burden would appreciate the significance and shoulder\r\nthe responsibility of the better-off helping the less well-off.\r\nIf so, we have a sustainable social compact that will not only be\r\na deep resource of Singaporeans' bond with the State but it will\r\nalso nourish the affective ties between fellow Singaporeans. The\r\nBudget is a social compact that must be a common enterprise for the\r\ncommon good. If not, then we will have \"two Singapores\" forming,\r\nand such a divided country will undermine the hopes and aspirations\r\nof all Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I hope this House\r\nwill affirm the need to view the Budget as a tangible manifestation\r\nof our evolving social compact. To be sure, the Budget is about\r\nsharing our wealth, and Budget 2012 is a \"social Budget\" that puts\r\nthe disadvantaged and elderly Singaporeans at the forefront. The\r\nBudget is a very powerful tool, an influential driver of social\r\nengineering to mould social attitudes and mindsets, and influence\r\nsocio-economic behaviour. However, I do not think we have effectively\r\nharnessed that to good effect. Instead, in recent years, the Budget\r\nhas all too often emphasised the \"goodies\" it contains which Singaporeans\r\nhave now grown to expect as an entitlement. I note that the Finance\r\nMinistry's Budget website provides a calculator tool for households\r\nand businesses to estimate the total amount that they can receive\r\nfrom the Budget. However, the larger and more important messages\r\nintended by the various policies and measures are drowned out by\r\nthe \"noise\" of calculating and comparing one's budgetary \"gains\"\r\nand \"losses\". This cultivation of \"what's-in-it-for-me\" mindset\r\nmay unwittingly lull Singaporeans into sacrificing long-term benefits\r\nfor short-term gains.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the Government has\r\nbeen criticised severely in the past for being tight-fisted. There\r\nare now concerns of whether the pendulum has swung to the other\r\nextreme. Even as the Budget shifts our focus towards expanded social\r\nsafety nets to help the less well-off Singaporeans, there is a concern\r\nof whether we might be unwittingly planting the seeds of a welfare\r\nstate. I doubt so. The fact that the concerns are raised suggests\r\nthat we are mindful of the dependency syndrome. It is perhaps inevitable\r\nand necessary, given the differential impact that our economic policies\r\nhave on different groups of Singaporeans, that Singapore has become\r\nmore welfare-oriented in recent years. However, if being less tight-fisted\r\non principled grounds to help Singapore remain inclusive and a land\r\nof opportunity, without undermining the spirit of self-reliance,\r\nthen, why not? Besides, rising inequality results in declining equality\r\nof opportunities, and runs the risk of political backlash and social\r\ninstability. Both could undermine the economic dynamism and social\r\ncohesion that form the bedrock of our success.
\r\n\r\n But I also detect, through\r\nmy association with the voluntary welfare sector, the nascent signs\r\nof an easy reliance on the Government. What is more important now\r\nis to inculcate the desirable values, norms and attitudes even as\r\nwe roll out more support. Our Budget and the assistance it offers\r\nto less privileged Singaporeans must not result in their having\r\na crutch mentality. For those who are able-bodied, the combination\r\nof assistance and government transfers must reinforce the dignity\r\nof work. The message of re-skilling, skills upgrading, and lifelong\r\nlearning must strike a chord with Singaporeans.
\r\nPage: 1334
\r\n\r\n In addition, I hope that as a society\r\nwe will keep a lookout for children from disadvantaged homes. In\r\nthis regard, education – especially pre-school education – becomes\r\ncritical in ensuring children from such homes are not unnecessarily\r\ndisadvantaged by the fates and fortunes of their parents. It goes towards\r\nhelping children from such homes have equal access to the equal\r\nopportunities that the Singaporean system has prided itself of.
\r\n\r\n Sir, even as the Budget\r\nseeks to provide a leg-up for the bottom 20th percentile of Singaporeans,\r\nwe should be mindful of those in the so-called sandwiched middle\r\nclass who do not get as many benefits as the lower-income group.\r\nThey too experience middle-class anxiety. My view is that in the\r\npast decade, the Government has focussed more on the threat to jobs\r\nthat the bottom 20% customarily face as their jobs get off-shored,\r\nout-sourced or simply become unavailable. However, we should pay\r\njust as much attention to the threat to wages that the sandwiched\r\nmiddle-class Singaporean faces. This group of workers still have\r\ntheir jobs but their wages are stagnant relative to the rising costs\r\nof living and tax burdens.
\r\n\r\n Sir, my second major theme\r\nis the need for the business community to play a larger role in\r\ntackling some of the challenges in our society. Contrary to the\r\ntalk among businesses, the economy did not, in my view, take a back\r\nseat in Budget 2012. For too long, the corporate sector has perhaps\r\nbenefited from the fiscal largesse dispensed due to the Government's\r\nanxiety to grow the economy and our desire for material well-being.\r\nAgainst a backdrop of a growing income gap, I would urge the business\r\ncommunity to see the Budget in a different light.
\r\n\r\n Sir, it appears that the\r\nbusiness community equates a social Budget as a Budget that is not\r\npro-business. In fact, given the economic transformation and ongoing\r\nrestructuring, the Budget needs to secure the buy-in of Singaporeans.\r\nSo, a social Budget is inherently pro-business. The Budget is our social\r\ncompact and the business community is a key stakeholder. Singapore's\r\nBudgets cannot be seen as a zero-sum game where if more is devoted\r\nto social spending, that there is then less for the economy. Strong\r\neconomic growth and a cohesive society are not and need not be mutually\r\nexclusive. Businesses can do more and should do more in areas like\r\nemployability of older Singaporeans, tackling the various forms\r\nof workplace discrimination, and promoting work-life balance. The\r\nneed for businesses to step up and play their role in the development\r\nof a resilient society is necessary. It is vital for them to do\r\nso if the tripartite framework that has served us well is to be\r\nsustained and enhanced in tandem with a changing world. In real\r\nterms, a cohesive society means that in times of economic uncertainty,\r\nthe Government and businesses can muster the requisite political\r\nwill, support, and flexibility in tackling the challenges of the\r\nday. This has been amply demonstrated in the past.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I gather that the\r\nBudget's measures to reduce the Dependency Ratio Ceilings (DRCs)\r\nhave not gone down well with the small and medium enterprises. The\r\nglobal economic landscape is changing rapidly. For too long, we\r\nhave become too dependent on perspiration through cheap labour inputs,\r\nrather than inspiration and innovation to achieve economic growth.\r\nWe urgently need to put emphasis on productivity and innovation.\r\nAnd our SMEs must rise to the challenge to take Singapore's economy\r\nto new heights and to reduce our reliance on multinational corporations\r\nand Government-linked companies. The SMEs are an untapped engine\r\nof growth. They need to be nurtured but certainly not molly-coddled.\r\nSir, I urge the business community to see the Budget from a societal\r\nperspective. Adding value to society's stakeholders will ultimately\r\nbenefit shareholders and business owners.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget\r\n2012 will not eliminate inequalities in our society. Instead, the\r\nBudget will have to tackle resolutely the widening income gap while\r\nensuring that Singapore's economic dynamism is continuously enhanced.\r\nYet, it is this economic dynamism that has caused the income gap\r\nand the middle-income squeeze. I suppose Singapore has no choice\r\nin this regard – we have to take the downsides, even as we benefit\r\nfrom globalisation. The Budget aspires towards a more balanced approach\r\ntowards growth and equity even as fiscal rectitude remains a cardinal\r\nprinciple in our budgetary\r\npolicy. Not only does the Budget attempt to strengthen our social\r\nsafety nets but its wider coverage promotes inclusiveness to meet\r\nthe challenges of the day such as income inequality and the perceived\r\ndecline in social mobility. Much as we tend to see the Budget in\r\nterms of what is in it for us, the Budget must also support the\r\nsocial compact that will keep Singapore society cohesive, stable,\r\nand confident of the future.
\r\nPage: 1335
\r\n\r\n Overall, I like the tenor\r\nand emphasis of Budget 2012. It makes a concerted effort to recognise\r\nthat not all Singaporeans have benefited equitably from Singapore's\r\neconomic progress in the last two decades. I hope we will build\r\non the inroads, catalyse mindset changes, and take a refreshing\r\nlook at how the Budget is a barometer for the type of society we\r\naspire to be. This will help Singapore and Singaporeans meet the\r\nlofty ideals enshrined in our National Pledge and National Anthem.\r\nSir, I support the 2012 Budget Statement presented by the Finance\r\nMinister.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang)\r\n :\r\nSir, widely acclaimed as the \"Budget with a Heart\", this year's\r\nBudget delights the three targeted vulnerable groups – the elderly,\r\nthe disabled and the low-income earners. It honours Government's\r\npromise to ensure that these groups, too, have a part in Singapore's\r\nprogress and will not be left behind.
\r\n\r\n With the exception of\r\nSmall Medium Enterprises (SMEs) who feel the stress from further\r\ntightening of foreign labour inflow, there was much approval and\r\nrespect for this Budget that takes care of the more vulnerable.\r\nSo, kudos to Deputy Prime Minister and his team. Sir, I have five\r\nobservations and five recommendations for Budget 2012.
\r\n\r\n Observation One. Budget\r\n2012 is a sobering reminder of the inevitable outcomes of Singapore's efforts\r\nto survive in an open global economy. Our survival strategy comes\r\nat a price of (a) higher cost of living, and (b) wider income gaps\r\nbetween the highly skilled, the globally mobile wage earners and their\r\nlower-skilled fellow citizens. Both consequences – higher costs\r\nand growing income gaps - are unlikely to disappear. And Budget\r\n2012 signifies that transfers such as the GST Voucher Scheme are\r\na key way to redistribute incomes and are here to stay. That the\r\nGST Voucher Scheme is made a permanent feature of Singapore's social\r\nsafety net marks the crossing of a psychological chasm, conquering\r\nthe ruling party's wariness and reluctance to guarantee payouts\r\nthat run the risk of an entitlement mentality.
\r\n\r\n Observation Two. Budget\r\n2012's comprehensive measures for the elderly also recognise the\r\nneed for a more aggressive Total Solution to support Singapore's\r\nrapidly ageing population – in employment, healthcare options and\r\ncosts, retirement financial planning and housing.
\r\n\r\n Observation Three. Budget\r\n2012 confirms that despite being a country with one of the lowest\r\nbirth rates in the world, the Government or the Deputy Prime Minister\r\nhas decided that further financial incentives will not yield more\r\nbabies and other more effective solutions will have to be deployed.
\r\n\r\n Observation Four. Budget\r\n2012 underpins a strong belief that for political, social and economic reasons,\r\nthe increasing dependence on foreign workers is not tenable and\r\nthe Government will face head-on the resistance of SMEs which form\r\n99% of the total number of enterprises in Singapore; and, last but\r\nnot least, Budget 2012 has answered the cry from a small segment,\r\nabout 3% of Singapore's population – the persons with special needs\r\nor more commonly known as persons with disability.
\r\nPage: 1336
\r\n\r\n Together with the 41 recommendations from\r\nthe recently submitted Enabling MasterPlan for the Disabled to Government,\r\nBudget 2012 responded to the call from this community to be seen,\r\nto be heard and to be treated as valued and equal members of the\r\nSingapore family. It provided for greater support to maximise their\r\npotential of persons with disabilities at key stages of their lives\r\n– at education, employment and adult living.
\r\n\r\n As a VWO volunteer, as\r\na service provider and a client of the special needs community,\r\nI thank the PAP Government.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I would like to make\r\nfive recommendations for the Deputy Prime Minister's consideration\r\nto further improve the Budget provisions:
\r\n\r\n (1) to make Special Employment\r\nCredit (SEC) permanent for the elderly and the disabled;
\r\n\r\n (2) to expand the Special\r\nEmployment Credit to cover more persons with disabilities (PWDs);
\r\n\r\n (3) to strengthen Singapore's\r\nprogressive personal taxation structure;
\r\n\r\n (4) to review the defence\r\nexpenditure as one source to fund the transfers; and
\r\n\r\n (5) to establish an agency\r\nto focus and nurture local Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).
\r\n\r\n Recommendation One. Make\r\nSpecial Employment Credit (SEC) permanent for the elderly and the disabled.\r\nSir, while I am extremely grateful for the SEC for the elderly and\r\ndisabled, I believe there is merit to consider making this feature\r\nof the social safety net permanent. This will go a long way to reflect the\r\nvalue that society places on these vulnerable members; to encourage\r\nthem to work where they can instead of collecting welfare; and to\r\ndevelop a reliable alternative to the foreign workforce. It will\r\nalso assure employers that the incentive will be available not just\r\nfor a short term and incentivise them to employ people who are elderly\r\nor disabled.
\r\n\r\n Recommendation Two. Expand\r\nthe Special Employment Credit to cover more persons with disabilities\r\n(PWDs). The Budget provides for Special Employment Credits only\r\nfor graduates from VWO-run Special Education (SPED) schools. While\r\nI appreciate the confidence that the Government places on these\r\n20 SPED Schools, I wish to remind the Government again that there\r\nare many persons with disabilities out there in Singapore who did\r\nnot attend or graduate from SPED Schools. They are either from mainstream\r\nschools, or are home-schooled, they stopped schooling or never been\r\nto school. Their potential or current employers should not be deprived\r\nof the SEC incentives for employing them.
\r\n\r\n In fact, just last night,\r\nI received various SMS confirmations from many VWOs representing\r\nthe hearing-impaired, the visually-impaired, the physically disabled,\r\nthose with muscular dystrophy and autism, and they confirmed there\r\nare at least a few hundred of them out there who are not special\r\nschool graduates. Many of them are able to work if they are provided\r\nthe training and support and if there are willing employers.
\r\n\r\n The call for an extension\r\nof coverage to include this group of non-SPED graduands is the same\r\ncall that I made when the Special Needs Savings Scheme was introduced\r\nearlier this year which similarly excluded them. I, therefore, ask\r\nthe Government to expand the Special Employment Credit to cover persons\r\nwith disabilities who did not graduate from special schools.
\r\n\r\n Next, Sir, on how the\r\nincreasing social expenditures are ultimately going to be funded.\r\nThe hon Member, Mr Vikram Nair, mentioned that. I had spoken earlier\r\nthat Budget 2012 is a sobering reminder that widening income gaps\r\nare here to stay and the Government is acknowledging that the gap\r\nhas to be addressed through transfers to the lower income group.
\r\nPage: 1337
\r\n\r\n I would like to propose two ideas to fund\r\nthe increasing social service expenditures. One, through personal\r\nincome taxes payable by higher income wage earners; and, two, through\r\nbudget re-allocation, in particular from defence.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the Singapore personal\r\ntaxation system is progressive and levies taxes according to one's income.\r\nHence, an individual with high income will pay more in taxes than\r\nan individual with a lower income. A good progressive tax system\r\nensures income redistribution but, at the same time, also has to ensure\r\nthat high-income taxpayers are not demotivated from taking on higher\r\npaying jobs or, worse, emigrate to more tax-friendly countries.
\r\n\r\n Although our traditional\r\nfiscal strategy is to keep Singapore's corporate and personal income\r\ntax rates low to compete with the likes of Hong Kong, there is merit\r\nto consider strengthening the progressive nature of the personal\r\nincome tax system. The highest income tax rate for anyone earning\r\na taxable income of over S$320,000, today in Singapore, is 20%.\r\nThis is way below the tax payable rate of 30% to 50% by higher-income\r\nearners in countries such as the Nordic countries, Australia, New Zealand,\r\nChina and the US.
\r\n\r\n Singapore is reputed to\r\nhave the highest proportion of millionaires in the world. Perhaps\r\nthose who are most blessed can be persuaded to bear more responsibility\r\nfor the society in which they live. I ask the Government to review\r\nthe personal taxation system and consider having Singapore's top\r\nincome earners who have benefited from Singapore's solid infrastructure,\r\ngrowth policies and public goods to bear some of the responsibility\r\nof funding the transfers to the poor and needy in society.
\r\n\r\n Recommendation Four. Review\r\nbudget allocation, in particular defence. Another suggestion I would like\r\nto propose to help fund future social needs is to review the traditional\r\nway the Budget is allocated. Sir, defence traditionally consumes\r\nthe highest proportion of total Government expenditure each year. This\r\nyear's allocation, for instance, represents close to 25% of total\r\nbudget and even sees an increase of 4.3% from last year – about\r\n$12 billion, I believe.
\r\n\r\n Sir, whilst I know that\r\nthe security of our small nation-state is critical and defence is\r\nnot an expenditure to be dispensed with easily, I urge the Government\r\nto study the optimal resources Singapore should expend on defence\r\nversus other new and pressing social needs. The study should consider\r\nthe changing nature of warfare the defence team has to wage, from\r\ntraditional to cyber wars and terrorism; and balance it with the\r\nupcoming and costly social needs of a maturing Singapore.
\r\n\r\n Last recommendation. To\r\nestablish an agency to focus and nurture local small and medium enterprises.\r\nSir, Budget 2012, whilst popular with many Singaporeans, I understand,\r\nreceived a cool response from some 150,000 SMEs who are concerned\r\nwith the further restriction on foreign labour inflow. These SMEs\r\nemploy more than 50% of the workforce in Singapore. And the wellness\r\nof this critical group of companies is important to our country.
\r\n\r\n In a full employment market,\r\nmany SMEs continue to face difficulties trying to find local employees needed\r\nto support their business growth. Besides labour constraints, the\r\nkey challenges they face are high costs especially in rentals and\r\nmaterial costs as a result of higher oil prices, for example.
\r\n\r\n According to a very positive\r\nSME owner I surveyed last night, the leap would require more than\r\nthe writing of cheques by the Government. Many SMEs aspire to innovate\r\nand make the leap from being an SME to a big multinational. Who\r\nwould not want that? But many of them also know that the Government\r\nis very serious about its economic committee strategies and SMEs\r\nwho do not make the change or the cut will have to exit from Singapore.
\r\nPage: 1338
\r\n\r\n However, transformation through productivity\r\nand innovation is easier said than done. Not through one-time process\r\nre-engineering or one-time grants, but through building a culture\r\nof productivity and innovation which, from my experience, takes\r\nat least two to three years to build, if well done. Sending employees\r\nto training when the organisation is fighting operational fires\r\ndue to a shortage of workers seems counter-productive. Training\r\nthat is not reinforced by workplace practices – by the bosses –\r\nis also similarly counter-productive.
\r\n\r\n Despite SPRING's efforts,\r\nmany SME owners are still unsure about what grants there are, who\r\nto apply to and how to apply for the numerous grants. If the full\r\nsuite of financial schemes and incentives that the Government is\r\nproviding does not yield the take-up rate and the desired outcome,\r\nthen, surely, the root causes have not yet been completely addressed.\r\nSir, unless we address these root causes on the ground, it is likely\r\nthat the Government's well-intended schemes will not bear enough\r\nfruit and many entrepreneurs will leave the scene.
\r\n\r\n My recommendations, on\r\nbehalf of SMEs, are as follows:
\r\n\r\n (1) In the face of a\r\nfull-employment labour market and the difficulty of trying to build\r\na culture of productivity and innovation, I urge the Government\r\nto be more empathetic to the SMEs in approving Work Pass applications\r\nfor proven foreign employees who are working in, one, industries\r\nwhich traditionally do not hold certificates or where jobs do not\r\ncome with certificates; and two, industries in which jobs are not\r\neasily filled or shunned by locals such as in cleaning, healthcare,\r\nF&B and public housing construction, amongst others. I would\r\nalso ask the Government to be more empathetic in approving PR and\r\ncitizenship applications to skilled foreign employees who have served\r\nin Singapore for many years and who have raised families in Singapore;
\r\n\r\n (2) Next, I urge the setting\r\nup and staffing of a Special SME Unit with corporate turnaround\r\nleaders and experts in various disciplines that can be deployed\r\nto nurture and transform high-potential SMEs to play in bigger leagues;\r\nand
\r\n\r\n (3) I also propose the\r\nassignment of SME Account Managers to conduct more effective communication\r\nand handhold SMEs on the use of available productivity and innovation\r\nschemes.
\r\n\r\n In conclusion, Sir, Budget\r\n2012 is not only a Budget with a heart that targets the three most vulnerable\r\nsegments of Singapore's population. It is also a Budget from a head\r\nthat knows that unless it takes the unpopular step of managing the\r\notherwise unstoppable escalation of the foreign workforce, the DNA\r\nof Singapore will change for the worse. But the hands of execution\r\nplay an important part too. The quality of execution and the readiness\r\nto finetune the policies when needed will determine, finally, the Budget's\r\nsuccess. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and his team and the\r\nPrime Minister for this well-crafted Budget. Sir, I support the\r\nBudget.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker: Order. I propose\r\nto take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again\r\nat 3.35 pm.
\r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n Sitting resumed at 3.35\r\npm
\r\n\r\n [Mr Speaker in the Chair]
\r\n\r\n DEBATE ON ANNUAL BUDGET\r\nSTATEMENT
\r\nPage: 1339
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, thank you for letting me participate in the debate.\r\nI share most of the sentiments expressed by fellow Members on the\r\nBudget. It stands apart from Budgets of the past. One aspect I note\r\nis that the Budget did not attempt to give something to everyone. In\r\ntimes of economic uncertainty, our spending must be focused to meet\r\nnational objectives. It makes less sense to give hong baos to\r\neveryone, whether they need it or not. One more dollar which goes\r\nto someone who needs it less, means a dollar less for someone who\r\nneeds it more.
\r\n\r\n I also support the Budget\r\nbecause it strikes a balance between encouraging Singaporeans to\r\nsucceed through their own efforts, yet recognising that you have\r\nto do more to level up society, and help those in need. Because\r\nthat is the hallmark of any inclusive society − or tribe as Mr Baey\r\ncalls it − every citizen instilled with the unshakeable belief that\r\nthe well-being of their fellow Singaporeans is important to them\r\nand a fundamental part of our national mission.
\r\n\r\n There is, however, a temptation\r\nin such debates to focus on areas which the Government could do more\r\nor has not addressed. Anyone can, without much effort, think of\r\nsomething we can spend more money on or areas they want the Government\r\nto pay more attention to. We all want to be as inclusive as possible\r\nbut our resources are not unlimited. It should not be how much we\r\nspend but really the outcomes we achieved. Mr Inderjit Singh and\r\nMs Sylvia Lim both talked about increasing healthcare spending,\r\nand that is a good example. In the US, for example, US spends 18%\r\nof their GDP on healthcare. And this compares to about 9%-10% of\r\nEuropean countries. But the outcomes in European countries on healthcare\r\nare much better – longer longevity, life spans, healthcare outcomes,\r\ninfant mortality. So it is not about how much we spend but the outcomes\r\nwe achieved. The real challenge is about getting our spending priorities\r\nright, and to be smart about how we spend, where we spend, why we\r\nspend, so that we can make a real difference to the lives of as\r\nmany Singaporeans as possible on a balanced Budget.
\r\n\r\n One of the key concerns\r\nall Singaporeans have is, of course, growing old and the challenges\r\nthat it will bring − lack of employment opportunities, rising cost\r\nof living, healthcare and housing. It affects not just the older\r\ngeneration, but the younger generation as well, as they know that\r\nthey have or will have the responsibility of looking after their\r\nparents, of making sure that they lead comfortable lives. And they\r\nknow that they will too grow old one day.
\r\n\r\n I therefore applaud the\r\nmany measures in the Budget which are targeted at helping the elderly.\r\nIt has been said many times that ours is an ageing society, and\r\nthe challenges we face today are only going to grow with time. I\r\naccept that it is impossible for the Government to address all these\r\nchallenges in a single term, never mind a single Budget. These are\r\nmeasures which have to be rolled out, modified and sharpened over\r\ntime. But it is important that we put in place the building blocks\r\nof our plan to meet an ageing society as soon as possible.
\r\n\r\n In this regard, I would\r\nlike to touch on three specific areas which I hope the Government\r\nwill look into to help our elderly citizens, and then end by making\r\na broader point.
\r\n\r\n First, the enhanced Lease\r\nBuy-back Scheme and the Silver Bonus Payment to encourage the elderly to\r\npurchase studio apartments. I support them because they are an improvement\r\nto what we have now. This was an issue I spoke extensively about\r\nduring the debate on the President's Address − the weaknesses of\r\nthe current Lease Buy-back Scheme and why it will not help the elderly.\r\nBut I hear the improvements still would not address certain fundamental\r\ndifficulties.
\r\n\r\n The situation we have\r\nnow is that many elderly are asset rich but cash poor. They live\r\nin flats which are fully paid up, and worth many times what they\r\npaid for them. But as the Finance Minister said, they do not have much in\r\ntheir CPF or the bank, as they worked in times when wages were low.\r\nRetirement planning was not a luxury many of them could afford.\r\nSome, for one reason or another, cannot turn to their families for\r\nhelp. That will be a growing problem as most Singaporeans do not\r\nmarry or have fewer children. The only sensible solution is to help\r\nthem monetise their homes, and address that imbalance between cash\r\nand property.
\r\nPage: 1340
\r\n\r\n Selling and moving to\r\na studio apartment is the neatest way to do this. A new house, a\r\nfresh 30-year lease, cash surplus which should get you by comfortably\r\nfor your remaining years. But Studio Apartments are currently not\r\neasy to come by. And even if we build more, it may be difficult\r\nfor the elderly to sell off their current homes, break ties they\r\nhave developed over the years, and start all over again in a strange\r\nenvironment. A recent Straits Times article published interviews\r\nwith a number of elderly, who expressed those very concerns. Do\r\nwe really want them to move? This cannot be good for their well\r\nbeing. We want them to grow old among friends and people they know,\r\npeople who will look after them.
\r\n\r\n To allow the elderly to\r\ncontinue living in their current homes, we introduced Lease Buy-backs\r\na few years ago. But it proved very unpopular, with very low take-up\r\nrate. For the reasons I gave in my earlier speech, I can understand\r\nwhy. It only applies to 2- and 3-room flats. The monthly payments\r\nare low. There are also a number of disadvantages. The payments\r\nare based on the present day value of the flats as determined by\r\nthe HDB, which means that the owner does not benefit from any rises\r\nin property prices. He, in fact, suffers inflation. And once he\r\nsigns on, he cannot get out. So, he can no longer sell his flat\r\nor bequeath it. And when he passes on, the flat is taken back by\r\nthe HDB and the remaining value cashed out and given to his beneficiaries.\r\nThe new changes will increase the amount of payout, both upfront\r\nand monthly. But I suspect the other disadvantages I have outlined\r\nwill not make the enhanced scheme much more popular.
\r\n\r\n I, therefore, urge the\r\nGovernment to come up with further options or choices to help older Singaporeans\r\nunlock the value of their HDB flats, which will not only allow them\r\nto stay where they are, but allow greater flexibility than the current\r\nLease Buy-back Scheme. At the debate on the President's Address,\r\nI suggested a scheme which will allow Singaporeans to sell back\r\nportions of their lease to HDB. A 70-year-old couple does not need\r\na 50- or 60-year lease. If they can sell part of their lease back\r\nto HDB, and for the proceeds to be given part in cash and part paid\r\ninto CPF, that would give them a decent sum to meet immediate needs,\r\nsuch as the costs of an operation or other medical needs, as well\r\nas daily expenses. Only a portion of their lease will be valued\r\nat current prices, which means that they will still benefit from\r\nfuture property price increases and the effects of inflation are\r\nreduced. They will continue to have the option to sell the flat\r\nand buy a studio apartment, when one becomes available. Or they\r\ncan leave the flat behind for loved ones.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the second aspect:\r\nprivate property owners. There were two notable changes in the assistance given\r\nin this Budget. First, unlike in the past, no or little distinction\r\nis made in the benefits given to those living in different HDB types.\r\nThis is welcome, as we know from the ground that the size of a person's flat\r\nis not an accurate proxy of his financial needs.
\r\n\r\n The second is that owners\r\nof smaller private properties, about 15% of the market, will enjoy\r\nbenefits as well. I can understand why we make distinctions for\r\nprivate homes. Those who live in larger private homes are generally\r\nconsidered wealthier, and they certainly have more options. But\r\nthere are a good number of them owned by elderly retirees who purchased\r\ntheir homes when they were considerably cheaper, and who are now\r\nin the same boat − small bank and small CPF balances. Some may argue\r\nthat if they need cash, they can sell their homes and downgrade\r\nquite comfortably. I think that is easier said than done. Again,\r\nit is a solution which forces them, in their golden years, to move\r\naway from their homes, their friends and places they are familiar\r\nwith. They have another challenge, which is this. Because of the\r\nsignificant rise in private property prices in recent years, many\r\nof them have seen a substantial\r\nincrease in the annual value of their homes, and therefore the property\r\ntax they pay. But the rise in annual values does not help them as\r\nthey derive no income from their homes and the increased tax they\r\npay is a further draw on their cash reserves. Would the Government\r\ntherefore consider a lower concessionary property tax for elderly,\r\nretired couples? It would, of course, not apply if they have other investment\r\nproperties or income.
\r\nPage: 1341
\r\n\r\n The third specified issue\r\ndeals with improving infrastructure to help the elderly become more mobile.\r\nOne example of this is an old chestnut – lifts for overhead bridges.\r\nThis has been brought up a few times in this House. The Land Transport\r\nAuthority (LTA), I understand, is building lifts for bridges at\r\ntransportation nodes, but it numbers about six. For an elderly person,\r\nthe inability to climb the stairs of an overhead bridge means, in\r\nsome instances, taking long detours just to cross a road. That presents them\r\nwith even more difficulties as walking itself is a struggle for\r\nmany. Hence, the temptation to jaywalk, putting life and limb at\r\nrisk.
\r\n\r\n There are 484 overhead\r\nbridges in Singapore, but there will be no need to upgrade all of\r\nthem. Some already have, or are able to have, ramps; others are\r\nnear enough to signalised crossings for the elderly to use; others\r\ndo not see much use. I urge the Government to start a pilot project\r\nto install selected overhead bridges with lifts, and assess the\r\nimpact.
\r\n\r\n I know this will be expensive,\r\nbut I believe it will be worth the price to help the elderly be\r\nmore mobile and independent. Over time, more of us will need it\r\nas our own knees give way and legs go weak. The HDB is currently\r\nimplementing a programme to install lifts for multi-storey car parks.\r\nIs that really a more worthy cause? The Lift Upgrading Programme\r\nhas released many elderly people from the prisons of their own homes.\r\nWe have made our public housing estates, buildings and places of\r\ninterest barrier free. The road represents the final barrier, and\r\nI hope the Government will help the elderly cross it.
\r\n\r\n This brings me to my final\r\nand broader point. The Budget initiatives for the elderly are intended\r\nto enable an elderly person to live safely and in comfort, and when\r\nill, to encourage him to recuperate at home, with his family and\r\nloved ones around him, and this makes sense. We must, therefore,\r\nbuild more Studio Apartments, nursing homes and Eldercare Centres\r\nnear where we live, so that the elderly can have access to amenities\r\nsuch as markets, parks, and bus-stops. The Government wants to build\r\nmore of these facilities – but where are we going to put them? The\r\nanswer is obvious. We need to build them within existing housing\r\nestates. That will enable our elderly to live within the community.\r\nIt will also enable them to be more independent, since they will\r\nbe living near the amenities they obviously need.
\r\n\r\n The problem is that some\r\nof us do not want such facilities near our homes. There has been\r\nmuch discussion in the media about residents in Woodlands and Toh\r\nYi Drive opposing the building of Eldercare Centres and studio flats.\r\nThese are treated as isolated incidents to be resolved at the local\r\nlevel, but they are not. Is there any doubt that there will be similar\r\nreactions if these facilities were proposed in other estates? There\r\nare too many similar examples. A couple of years ago, residents\r\nof one constituency even objected to building rental flats in their\r\nestate. The Government is in an impossible situation, as I see it:\r\n(a) if it builds without consulting residents, it will be accused\r\nof not listening; (b) if it consults, and builds, it will be accused\r\nof engaging in theatre; (c) if it consults and does not build, it will\r\nnot be able to build anything anywhere in the future.
\r\n\r\n The fact remains that\r\nfacilities for the elderly have to be built. They have worked hard\r\nall their lives. In their sunset years, they ought to occupy a special\r\nplace in our community, and not be told to go somewhere else. This\r\nis not a Woodlands issue or a Toh Yi issue, this is a national issue,\r\nand we need a national plan to address it.
\r\nPage: 1342
\r\n\r\n The Government must be able to project\r\nhow many such elderly facilities it intends to build around Singapore\r\nin the short, medium and long term, and where they generally should\r\nbe located or will be located. This should be shared with Singaporeans,\r\nso that the matter is not dealt with on an ad hoc basis, but\r\nthe issue is treated as being in everyone's backyard. When we sell\r\nBTO flats, we should indicate what amenities may be located within\r\nthe precinct so that all purchasers will know what the future plans are\r\nand no one will be taken by surprise. We also need to review the\r\ndesign of our flats. We should have fewer stand-alone studio apartment\r\nblocks, and more elderly apartments distributed within the block,\r\nso that parents and children can live separately but close together.\r\nMany elderly I have spoken to would prefer this model. They too\r\nfind it depressing to live in a block occupied entirely by the elderly.\r\nWe should ask them what they want. So, we need a national plan which\r\nmeets national objectives and, more importantly, we need Singaporeans\r\nto get behind the plan and support the Government.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the best Budget initiatives\r\nwe can think of will fail unless we get the basic principle right\r\n– that we are doing this not because it is convenient or cost effective,\r\nbut because it is the right thing to do, and we are faithfully serving\r\nthat unwritten commitment that we will love and honour our parents\r\nand our elders. And in time, we hope that all our children will\r\ndo the same for us. I support the Budget.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's\r\nOffice (Mr Heng Chee How)\r\n : Thank you, Mr Speaker,\r\nfor allowing me to join this Budget Debate. To me, the most important\r\nmessage of this Budget is about preparing Singapore for the future.\r\nThis future is one where we expect significant challenges: more\r\nphysical constraints being felt – of our land, of water, of air\r\nspace, of transport capacity; of a more aged population; also a\r\npopulation that will have ever higher expectations and sometimes\r\nless willingness to give and take, and I think the hon. Mr Hri Kumar\r\nhas just very eloquently illustrated that in respect of the building\r\nof elderly facilities and I agree wholeheartedly with him.
\r\n\r\n But this future is also\r\none that holds much promise: the promise of a stronger Singapore\r\ncore workforce; a country capable of sustained, reliable Whole-of-Government,\r\nWhole-of-Society responses to problems and possibilities, a people\r\nthat sees seeking the greater good and the common good as important\r\nas advancing self-interest. For today, I just wish to focus on the\r\nimportance of building the Singapore core workforce.
\r\n\r\n I recently travelled to\r\nthe Chinese city of Chongqing. At the Singapore airport, I popped\r\nby the book store and I saw and picked up a copy of the March issue\r\nof the Harvard Business Review. I did that because what was\r\non the front cover attracted me. The title says \"Special Report:\r\nReinventing America – why the world needs the US to bounce back;\r\nand Stop blaming China and India for America's economic problems\".
\r\n\r\n Inside the magazine, article\r\nafter article, author after author, cried out for action to move\r\nthe American economy and the American workforce back on track. One\r\narticle has the title \"A Jobs Compact for America's Future\", which\r\ncalled for productive dialogue among their tripartite partners, and\r\nfor renewed badly needed investments in the reading and math education\r\nfor its young and for strengthening the capabilities of the American\r\nworkforce. Another article entitled \"A Warning Sign for Global Companies\"\r\nsounded the alert that America needed to do more to attract and\r\nretain MNCs on its soil if it wants the jobs and the technological\r\nlead that such companies produce and bring. A third article called\r\n\"Fixing What's Wrong with US Politics\" lamented how the urge for\r\none-upmanship in American politics has resulted in dysfunction and\r\nmalaise, and the loss of long-term focus.
\r\n\r\n I said to myself: if this\r\nis how the Americans are coming around to seeing their situation\r\nand are agreeing on what they need to do to forge ahead, and if\r\nthey have that will then they will indeed forge ahead! As it stands,\r\nAmerican productivity is already higher than ours. So, where would\r\nSingapore's position be in that scenario, competing with such a\r\nrevitalised giant that is bent on getting even better?
\r\nPage: 1343
\r\n\r\n And so, then I flew off\r\nand landed in Chongqing around noon, and after a quick lunch, headed\r\nfor a dialogue with some city officials. We were briefed by several\r\nofficials in the areas of overall economic development, trade, finance\r\nand manpower development for this mega-city of 32 million people.
\r\n\r\n The officials relished,\r\nin fact they gushed, in their descriptions of how fast their city\r\nhas developed in the last decade, and especially in the past several\r\nyears. They highlighted their ambitions and their plans for rapid\r\nurbanisation, industrialisation and internationalisation – and how\r\nsuccessful they had been in taking investments and jobs from the\r\nbig cities out there on the east coast of the country, and how a\r\ngrowing list of big name companies are converging and clustering\r\ninto Chongqing, lured by promises of cheap land, cheap utilities,\r\ncheap logistics, cheap financing, cheap manpower.
\r\n\r\n But one thing really struck\r\nme – and that was that the officials spoke of how they have systematically sourced\r\ncheaper manpower first from the city, then its suburbs, then from\r\nthe countryside and then surrounding towns and surrounding provinces.\r\nWhy did they do that? They did that to lower manpower costs by bringing\r\nin cheaper manpower than what they could find in the city itself.\r\nAnd they were proud that that strategy had given them that pricing\r\nadvantage over the coastal cities, and had persuaded some companies\r\nto relocate away from the coast inland into Chongqing. That strategy\r\nsounded very familiar indeed. And I asked myself: can we outdo the\r\nChinese cities in such manpower sourcing? Can we do that now, or\r\nin the medium term, or in the long run? And if we cannot, then what\r\nwould become of our economy?
\r\n\r\n And then to my amazement,\r\nthe Chongqing officials went on and they said that they also knew\r\nthat this \"cheap sourcing\" – those are not their words, \"cheap sourcing\"\r\nare my words – this way of sourcing for cheaper manpower, this strategy\r\nwas not sustainable, in their view, in the long term, even for them in\r\nChina because they saw what happened to the coastal cities as development\r\npicked up speed. First, cheaper locations will emerge and will always\r\nlook increasingly attractive. So, if today you can take it from\r\nShanghai, tomorrow somebody will take it from Chongqing. So they\r\nknew that. Second, as the surrounding areas develop, the residents\r\nin those areas would be able to find decent work without venturing\r\nfurther afield. It would then become more and more difficult to\r\namass cheap manpower that way and they have to foster competitiveness\r\ndifferently for the medium to long term. And for this reason, they\r\nare aiming to use the cheap factor strategy to buy time to develop\r\ninto higher value production and services, so that they would not\r\nbe caught in the lurch eventually.
\r\n\r\n I told myself: Singapore\r\nhad better watch it and get our act together fast. For many years,\r\nwe have fuelled our growth through growing the size of our workforce\r\nboth internally and then by introducing external manpower to supplement.\r\nAnd this has successfully brought us to where we are today. To go further,\r\nwe have to pick our approach wisely. We have to judge whether relying\r\non an ever expanding inflow of external supplemental manpower will\r\nsecure our competitiveness now and in the long term. And what makes\r\nus think that the economic development that will occur in the home\r\ncountries of our foreign labour sources would not naturally reduce\r\nthe need and the desire of their populations from wanting to leave\r\nhome and work abroad? And if that happens, and if we are still bound\r\nto a model that critically depends on the free and abundant availability\r\nof external manpower, then would we not be exposing ourselves to\r\nunacceptable risks? And even if that does not happen, would we not\r\nat least be slowing the pace of innovation and transformation simply\r\nbecause the painkiller was there for us to take for the moment?
\r\nPage: 1344
\r\n\r\n Sir, the experiences of America and China\r\nin the past and their strategies for the present and future are\r\nimportant sign posts for us. Those ahead of us are recommitting\r\nto strengthening their core attractiveness, competitiveness and\r\ninnovation in order to stay ahead. Those behind are milking all\r\nthe advantages of their natural resource endowments to steal a march\r\non the others, while simultaneously retooling for progress and success\r\nin a more resource-scarce future. Singapore must not spin our wheels and\r\nlive in the past. Our methods must change in the light of these\r\nrealities, and climb. And we must climb the productivity and innovation\r\nladder as quickly as we can, while time and opportunity permit.
\r\n\r\n In this regard, I have\r\nseven ideas to suggest for consideration.
\r\n\r\n First, as this transformation\r\nwill impact the whole economy and, understandably, SMEs would be amongst\r\nthe most impacted, there must be positive outreach to them, and\r\nnot just a passive array of schemes for them to come forward to\r\ntap. We have heard from hon Members that, every day, SMEs are fire-fighting.\r\nThey have limited capabilities. They are too busy. They have many\r\nlimitations. A positive outreach towards them is absolutely necessary\r\nto begin and sustain this transformation.
\r\n\r\n Second, close monitoring\r\nof job displacements so that help can be extended early and in a\r\ntargeted manner. Again, we heard from Members that we have to bite\r\nthe bullet. It may be painful. Some may have to close shop; some\r\nmay have to go elsewhere. There may be workers from them that would\r\nhave to lose their jobs, and then what happens? And if we want to\r\nkeep that pain to the minimum, if we want to help as many of such\r\ndisplaced workers as possible, then we need to know where these\r\nthings are happening, where the retrenchments are taking place,\r\nwhere the shutdowns are taking place so that we can direct our attention\r\nand our help in a prompt, timely and effective manner. So, the monitoring\r\nis important.
\r\n\r\n Third, not only monitor\r\nbut what do you do when you find such a worker? Therefore, job banking must\r\nbe stepped up. As more businesses are impacted and their workers\r\nhave to move to new jobs, job banking and job matching will become\r\na critical success factor. We have traditionally thought of job matching,\r\njob banking in a context of an economic recession – cyclical. But\r\nnow we are attempting a transformation of the economy, so we must\r\nalso expect displacement to take place. Therefore, we also have\r\nto strengthen our capabilities in this area and deploy them to good\r\neffect.
\r\n\r\n Fourth, outreach must\r\nbe done in different languages and not only in English, to take\r\ninto account the reality facing many SMEs. In other words, many\r\nof the bosses of SMEs may not be fluent or effective in their English\r\nand, therefore, our help schemes must be business-centric so that\r\nthey can then be worker-centric.
\r\n\r\n Fifth, the connecting\r\nof labour supply to labour demand through re-employment, through\r\nback-to-work women workers and the upgrading of jobs, technology\r\nand the image of SME jobs must be stepped up, so that companies\r\ncan have a viable alternative to external manpower sources. So,\r\nnot only to tighten the tap of foreign workers coming in but also\r\nto address where do they find the workers that they need. There\r\nare internal sources that we can further unleash and we must do\r\nthat and help to make that connection. The better we do so, the\r\nless the pain for everyone.
\r\n\r\n Sixth, wage levels must\r\nbe monitored to give an ongoing sense of how the transformation\r\nis actually impacting the outcome for workers at all levels. That\r\nis, on the positive side, as we transform and as the value-add goes\r\nup, we want to see that translated into better wages, better livelihoods\r\nfor our workers. And we cannot assume that that would naturally\r\ntake place. We have to monitor and make adjustments, if necessary,\r\nto ensure that that takes place.
\r\n\r\n Finally, I propose that\r\na national level award be created to recognise and motivate companies,\r\nbig and small, for their effective and genuine efforts and initiatives\r\nto create and nurture a Singaporean core workforce. Mr Speaker, Sir, we must put\r\naway any wishful thinking and hunker down to search for new and\r\nsmarter ways to use our manpower, and to sharpen the capabilities\r\nof our manpower. We must build our Singaporean core before it is\r\ntoo late. I support the Budget.
\r\nPage: 1345
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mrs Lina Chiam\r\n : Mr Speaker,\r\nSir, with this Budget, the Government has belatedly and accurately recognised\r\nhow serious the problem with our over reliance on cheap foreign\r\nlabour is for our economy. The flood of cheap foreign labour had\r\nprovided Singapore with an unsustainable economic model, a phenomenon\r\nthat is akin to the use of performance-enhancement drugs in sports.
\r\n\r\n Growth of the economy\r\nis our end goal. Sustainable economic growth that brings about prosperity of\r\nSingaporeans across the spectrum should be the ultimate and key\r\nmeasure of our economic performance. To enhance productivity in\r\nour industries, we have to think out of the box for more creative solutions,\r\nespecially during this tough economic year. Here, it is important\r\nto highlight that the business environment must be conducive for\r\nSMEs to grow alongside MNCs that are brought in.
\r\n\r\n Recently, complaints about\r\nlabour cost, cost of businesses and factory or warehouse rent that\r\nplague local businesses have been raised. The Government should\r\naddress these issues that compromise the entrepreneurial abilities\r\nof our Singaporean businesses. Nonetheless, the Singapore People's\r\nParty believes that the Government should be credited for the various\r\nenhanced schemes catering to the elderly, those with disabilities\r\nand lower income families, in the push for a more inclusive society\r\nwhere no Singaporean is left behind.
\r\n\r\n CPF and Retirement: Silver\r\nHousing Scheme. In providing for the retirement needs of Singaporeans, we\r\nquestion the use of the Silver Housing Bonus. If the policy is intended\r\nto help Singaporeans benefit from the sale of their homes, this\r\nscheme is both impractical and unsuitable from a financial perspective.
\r\n\r\n Firstly, a home-owner\r\nwill forgo a significant sum of sales proceeds for future consumption\r\nthrough the CPF LIFE annuity. For a Singaporean who has short-term\r\nliquidity needs, this scheme does not help. Moreover, for retirees,\r\nthey do not enjoy lower property tax even though they no longer\r\ndraw a salary.
\r\n\r\n Secondly, for other home-owners,\r\nthis sum that goes into the CPF is not automatically adjusted for inflation.\r\nIf a Singaporean takes up the scheme without a long-term perspective,\r\nthe real value of his money in his CPF account might diminish with\r\ninflation.
\r\n\r\n Retirement funds should\r\nbe pegged to the inflation index. This could take the form of an\r\ninflation-protected scheme pegged to forecasted inflation. The Government\r\nshould also consider adjusting downwards the amount of proceeds\r\nfrom the sale of homes that have to go into CPF accounts.
\r\n\r\n Perhaps, we should also\r\ntake a step back and ask ourselves: what do we really want to achieve\r\nwith our Home Ownership schemes? What does it mean to buy a home,\r\nonly to sell it away when we grow old, because we need cash badly?
\r\n\r\n Higher CPF contribution\r\nrates for older workers: to help older workers better prepare for\r\ntheir retirement, the CPF contribution rates for workers aged above\r\n50 years will be increased from 1 September 2012. The CPF contribution\r\nrates for those aged 50 to 55 years will eventually be raised to reach\r\nthe full CPF contribution rate of 36%.
\r\nPage: 1346
\r\n\r\n A 50-year-old man will be less than 20\r\nyears away from retirement. He would have worked for about 25 years\r\nof his life. If the Government aims to better prepare Singaporeans\r\nfor retirement, the scheme should offer a higher contribution rate\r\nat an earlier age so that the effect of interest rates compounding will\r\nhave a much larger impact on the individual retirement fund.
\r\n\r\n If the concern is to better\r\nprepare Singaporeans for retirement, the Government will have to administer\r\na more focused set of tools for aged needy Singaporeans. Increasing\r\nCPF contribution when one reaches 50 years of age may be too late.\r\nIf the aim is to increase contribution at all, the earlier the better.\r\nIncreasing CPF contribution only at the age of 50 makes little policy\r\nor financial sense, especially at a time of their life when their\r\nsalaries may actually start to dip. Working Singaporeans younger\r\nthan the age of 50 could be given incentives to start accumulating\r\nfunds in their Supplementary Retirement Scheme accounts, to enjoy\r\npractical benefits from tax savings.
\r\n\r\n CPF for older women: let\r\nus not forget about the situation of CPF for older women. Compared\r\nto their counterparts in developed countries in the West, the labour\r\nparticipation of Singaporean women tends to fall much earlier in\r\nthe course of their lifespan. And since the economic development\r\nof Singapore was achieved within a shorter and at a later point\r\nof time in history than most developed countries, it also means\r\nthat older Singaporean women today are less likely than their counterparts\r\nto have gone to university. This has crucial implications for late-life\r\nemployment. All these point to the problem of income inadequacy\r\nfor older women, especially when they are physically unable to work. They\r\nhave longer life expectancies than men, but the assumption of our\r\nCPF policies is still that men are the main breadwinners in these\r\nfamilies, and that CPF payouts for older women largely assume that\r\nthey depend on their husbands – if they are even married in the\r\nfirst place.
\r\n\r\n Sadly, some of our younger\r\nwomen today may also face these concerns when they grow old. We\r\nstill hear many complaints of wrongful dismissal of women from work\r\nwhen they are pregnant. This may be more an issue of employment\r\npractices, but CPF policy is integral here too. In developed countries\r\nlike Sweden, for instance, women can get pension credits when they\r\nare on maternity leave, in recognition of their role as caregivers.\r\nThis calls for a substantial re-think of the CPF model, to build\r\na better social safety net for older women.
\r\n\r\n Healthcare: CPF MediShield\r\nfor retirees. I would like to ask whether the Minister for Health\r\nwould consider allowing Medisave to make payments for rider supplements\r\nto co-insurance and deductions, and whether he would increase the\r\nwithdrawal limit of $800 per policy year to pay for private Medisave-approved\r\nIntegrated Shield Plans, for policy-holders aged between 60 and\r\n80 years. This group of people, who are mostly retired, need to\r\nuse their insurance policies to the fullest, in the event of a major illness,\r\nfor which treatment can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars\r\nin medical bills. This is often an amount that cannot be adequately\r\ncovered by MediShield schemes. Topping up requires a few hundred\r\ndollars, and most of these retirees are cash-poor. The irony is\r\nthat they may have a lot of money in their Medisave account, but\r\ncannot make use of them to top up or upgrade due to the withdrawal\r\nlimit of $800. Currently, only Singaporeans who are 80 and above\r\ncould use the maximum of $1,100 per policy year which, frankly,\r\nis quite ridiculous – not everyone can live beyond 80 years of age.
\r\n\r\n Higher medical contributions\r\nand higher subsidies for care: subsidising needs is a short-term solution\r\nto a long-term concern. Medical fees have increased over time. The\r\nGovernment should conduct a benchmarking exercise of our medical\r\ncost against other developed countries. We should not allow medical\r\nfees to continue ballooning just because we fool ourselves by thinking\r\ntheir increase can be covered by the Medisave provisions and subsidies\r\navailable.
\r\n\r\n Note that increasing MediFund\r\ntop-up will only decrease cash-on-hand for Singaporeans, since it comes\r\nfrom CPF contributions from their salaries. This is not sustainable\r\nin the long run. The solution for increasing medical fees cannot\r\nalways be a one-sided reduction of cash from the pockets of Singaporeans. Instead,\r\nthe productivity and efficiency of our healthcare industry should\r\nbe increased, in line with the general thrust of this Budget. Here\r\nwe have some suggestions towards this end:
\r\nPage: 1347
\r\n\r\n Introduce virtual medical\r\nconsultancy for general illnesses. The Government should consider merging\r\nall national wide healthcare records in digital format so that patient\r\nrecords can be easily transferable. The Ministry of Health can also\r\ntrack medical trends and detect anomalies in quicker time.
\r\n\r\n More Hospital Beds: by\r\n2020, the number of hospital beds will increase by 30% for acute\r\nhospitals and 100% for community hospitals. Increasing hospital\r\nbeds is not the best solution to provide for adequate medical services.\r\nAs the society ages, recovery beds will be high in demand. Hospitals\r\nwill have to further divide the demand for beds into two levels\r\n– hospitalisation and recovery needs. Between the detection and\r\nsurgery phase, the patient will have to stay in the hospital. After\r\nsurgery, patients can stay in recovery beds that will require less\r\nintensive medical investments. Recovery beds can be housed in facilities\r\nadjacent to hospitals.
\r\n\r\n Transport: bus services.\r\nWe were initially glad to hear that the Government will be improving\r\nbus services by paying for 550 new buses and funding $1.1 billion\r\nthrough the Bus Services Enhancement Fund. But on deeper consideration,\r\nwe think all this masks a fundamental question. SBS Transit and SMRT\r\nare privatised companies that together enjoy a virtual monopoly\r\nover bus services in Singapore. Why is the Government using taxpayers'\r\nmoney to fund these two profit-making private companies to run their\r\nmonopoly? These companies have been reaping huge profits for the\r\npast few years. SMRT's revenue for the financial year ending 2011\r\nwas $969.7 million. SBS Transit's revenue for the same period was\r\n$751.1 million. Are they not able to fund purchases of new buses\r\nand improve their operations with the profit made?
\r\n\r\n Much of public resentment\r\ntowards SMRT comes from the fact that these profits were made on\r\nthe back of transport infrastructure assets that were funded by\r\nthe taxpayer, such as MRT tracks and roads. Yet these profits do\r\nnot go back to the public purse. The costs have been socialised,\r\nbut the profits have been privatised.
\r\n\r\n We call on the Minister\r\nfor Transport to end the monopoly of the two bus companies. Taxpayers' money\r\nshould not be used for what is in effect unfair subsidisation for\r\nthese privatised corporations. Consequently, allow other private\r\nbus companies to be set up to serve public bus routes. This will\r\nalso alleviate overcrowding in our transport networks. There could\r\nalso be a Government-run bus company set up to enter the fray. This\r\nis a good way to force the existing bus companies to operate more\r\nefficiently in a true market situation, and not to rely on Government\r\nfunding whenever they are incapable of getting their act together.
\r\n\r\n SMEs: we applaud the Government's\r\ncontinuing efforts to increase productivity in our industries, as a\r\nmeans to alleviate our over reliance on cheap foreign labour. However,\r\nwe should not overlook the competitiveness of our business environment\r\nfor SMEs. I do not have sufficient data to compare the level of\r\nincentives received by global MNCs – namely, through grants, tax\r\nrelief, foreign worker quotas – with the level of incentives received\r\nby SMEs, so I will be asking for these data to be released in the House\r\nin the course of this year.
\r\n\r\n The media has reported\r\ncomplaints by SMEs regarding high factory space prices due to the\r\nrole of real estate investment trusts (REITS) and the recent divestment\r\nby JTC Corp to the private sector. These are important factors that\r\nthe Government must address and be accountable for. Over the past\r\nfew years, Singaporeans have submitted feedback on food court and\r\nwet market acquisitions by conglomerates and larger organisations.\r\nGenerally, if the rent charged to end-tenants increases, this will\r\nhave two effects. Firstly,\r\nsmall businesses will find it difficult to sustain their businesses\r\nunless they pass the incremental cost on to consumers and, secondly,\r\nSingaporean consumers will be faced with higher consumption costs.
\r\nPage: 1348
\r\n\r\n In conclusion, Mr Speaker,\r\nmy hope is that the Government will not waver in its goal to build\r\na more inclusive society in successive Budgets. Let us continue\r\nfurther in this trajectory. In my speech, I have shown that what\r\nthe Singapore People's Party's desire for Singapore is not the kind\r\nof excessive welfare-state system that will snowball to a situation\r\nof spending beyond our means. Rather, we are putting forward logical\r\nand fair policy recommendations that a developed, advanced country\r\nlike ours should naturally strive towards. We also hope that the\r\nGovernment will not always demean other countries when raising examples\r\nof the so-called \"slippery slope to an excessive welfare-state model\". Instead,\r\nlet us focus on building a fair society that values inclusivity\r\nas well as hard work. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I support the Budget,\r\nand I thank the Finance Minister, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, and his\r\nteam for preparing Budget 2012 for an inclusive society and a stronger\r\nSingapore.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Siong Seng (Nominated Member)\r\n : (In Mandarin):\r\n[Please refer to Pg 1401-1404 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, Sir, I am the\r\nPresident of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry,\r\nand the Managing Director of Pacific International Lines (Pte) Ltd.\r\nThis year's Budget is an inclusive, compassionate and pro-people\r\nBudget, focused on looking after the elderly, lower-income and people\r\nwith disabilities. We feel deeply moved and encouraged by this.\r\nThe latest Budget emphasises the Government's determination to promote\r\neconomic growth and increase productivity. Minister Tharman also\r\npointed out that this year's Budget is a Budget for the future,\r\nthe focus being to address Singapore's long-term challenges, and\r\nnot to provide a counter-cyclic boost. Today, I would like to reflect\r\nsome problems that are being faced by our businesses using three\r\nmain points: human resource, an environment for SMEs' survival,\r\nand an inter-Ministry co-ordinating agency.
\r\n \r\n\r\n First, on human resource,\r\nthis is what we call a \"Move that Affects Everything\". One of the\r\nfocal points of this year's Budget is on the manpower resource policy:\r\nreducing the dependence on foreign workers, recruiting older workers,\r\nand improving productivity. Overall, we see the social benefit of\r\nthis move. As the number of foreign workers is reduced, employers\r\nwill naturally find all means to recruit local workers, including\r\nhome-makers and part-time workers. However, not all jobs could be\r\ntaken up by older workers or part-time workers.
\r\n\r\n A week ago, the General\r\nAffairs Council Member of the Singapore Canvas, Chairs & Tables\r\nHire Service Association shared their predicament with me. Their\r\nmembers are involved in building tentages for all kinds of occasions,\r\nincluding weddings, wakes, night markets and all kinds of celebratory\r\nevents. The working hours are very long and the work is physically\r\ndemanding. The busiest periods are on weekends and public holidays.\r\nHence, it is extremely difficult to get local workers for this industry. Currently,\r\nas the Government will be reducing the Dependency Ratio Ceiling\r\nfor S pass workers, there will be an even greater tussle for local\r\nworkers, especially young workers who are willing to undertake such\r\nmanual labour. Employers are concerned that further down the road,\r\nthey would not find workers to fulfil their orders for the National\r\nDay and the Chinese seventh month events. The Singapore Canvas, Chairs\r\n& Tables Hire Service Association hopes that given these special\r\ncircumstances, those workers belonging to this trade could be grouped\r\nunder the construction sector, and prevent the reduction in foreign\r\nworkers from making a large impact on local customs and culture.
\r\nPage: 1349
\r\n\r\n Another major area requiring attention\r\nwould be the training of older workers. One of our Chamber's members\r\nin the manufacturing sector had begun to encourage its older workers\r\nto attend training courses some three years ago. However, some older\r\nworkers were more reluctant to attend the training, even when courses\r\nare arranged during working hours, and all fees are sponsored by\r\nthe company. The company had no choice but to make some rearrangements\r\nand let the older workers undertake less physically demanding work.\r\nIn the end, the older workers felt that this was an insult to them\r\nand did not cooperate. Thus, when the Government has decided to\r\nreduce the dependency on foreign workers, the training of older\r\nemployees must be supported by a tripartite effort involving employees,\r\nemployers and the Government.
\r\n\r\n I sincerely hope that\r\nin implementing the tightening in foreign worker policy, the Government\r\ncould exercise greater flexibility by considering the circumstances\r\nof each industry.
\r\n\r\n Second, on SMEs: the difficulty\r\nof survival. SMEs are the most affected by this year's Budget. Although\r\nindustrial restructuring is inevitable, we should try to mnimise\r\nthe impact on social cohesion, and allow some breathing space for\r\ntraditional industries that are still very welcome. Economic development\r\nis unstoppable, but once social cohesion is gone, it would be very\r\ndifficult to get it reinstated.
\r\n\r\n In January this year,\r\nin a Mediacorp Channel 8 programme called \"Tuesday Report\", there\r\nwas a report on Nam Hin Noodles Manufacturer run by Mr Pei Guang\r\nNan. Mr Pei continues to produce different types and flavours of\r\nnoodles according to his customers' requirements. Some street hawkers have\r\nmoved into food courts but continue to use noodles made from Mr\r\nPei's shop, enabling patrons to enjoy disappearing street flavours.\r\nMr Pei's noodle shop at Balestier Road uses machines to produce noodles\r\nand is a family-run business. Although it is a small outfit, its\r\nproducts are very popular. After decades in the business, he has\r\nbecome fast friends with many of his clients. Mr Pei worries that\r\nif the Government wants to widen the road, he would have to move.\r\nIn the current rental market, he fears not being able to find a\r\nsuitable location to continue with his business, because he would\r\nface many constraints in applying for licences in a new location.
\r\n\r\n Singapore has many similar\r\nsmall companies plying traditional trades like that of Nam Hin Noodles Manufacturer,\r\nwhich, besides providing good food and employment opportunities,\r\nalso work hard at preserving traditional food culture. I hope that\r\nthe Government's policy-making Ministries would view things from\r\na long-term perspective, and endeavour to build Singapore into a\r\ndiverse and vibrant metropolis. Besides the MNCs and large enterprises,\r\nwe hope that the Government would spare a thought for the SMEs,\r\ninclusive of those in traditional trades, so that they could have\r\na chance at survival. Literally speaking, SMEs should be given the\r\nchance to drink soup while large enterprises are consuming the entrée.\r\nSMEs' existence would not only provide employment opportunities.\r\nMore importantly, they have a part to play in creating a more vibrant\r\nsociety, offering more alternatives, and increasing social cohesion.
\r\n\r\n Next is about escalating\r\nrentals and increasing business costs. As with previous Budgets,\r\nthe Government would roll out some welcome policies in response\r\nto the needs of the private sector, for example, providing the SME\r\nCash Grant, and helping our enterprises to restructure their operations\r\nvia the Productivity and Innovation Credit Scheme (PIC). Such policies\r\nare beneficial to many local enterprises. However, the problems\r\nfaced by SMEs are the results of such policy changes. For example, JTC\r\nflatted factories were originally built to serve the needs of SMEs\r\nsince 1968, but after divestment in 2008, rentals have continued\r\nto rise. The property companies are not in the wrong. Once they\r\nare privatised, they would have to show profits to be accountable\r\nto their shareholders. But some consequences need to be borne by\r\nthe society as a whole. Could the Government provide alternatives for the SMEs and start-up\r\ncompanies? Apart from renting from large property companies, I recommend that\r\nthe Government could provide properties, not driven by commercial\r\ngain, to serve as incubating centres, to support local start-ups\r\nand SMEs.
\r\nPage: 1350
\r\n\r\n Business costs are continuing\r\nto rise rapidly, and this has proven to be detrimental for some\r\ntrades. From the beginning of last year, many bookstores, including\r\nlarge international and local bookstores, have folded due to the\r\nrental problem. Those which are still in business are languishing.\r\nFollowing the closure of Borders, the Harris bookstore belonging\r\nto the Popular chain and Page One have also just shut down. Page\r\nOne's 24 overseas outlets are doing very well, but its main bookstore\r\nin Singapore has terminated operations. Another small niche bookstore,\r\nBooksActualy, had to move three times because of the rental problem,\r\nand managed to find a good spot in Tiong Bahru. However, because\r\nthis little enclave has become a popular area for shops and eateries,\r\nthe landlord also intends to increase rents.
\r\n\r\n Bookstores are places\r\nwhere culture and literary knowledge can be transmitted. In the\r\nlarge malls in Singapore, there is very little differentiation in\r\nretail mix. Eateries and clothing shops, arcades are becoming more\r\ncommon, while it is almost impossible to find any shops to feed\r\nthe mind and the soul. This is not a healthy sign. In January, the\r\nSunbeam Theatre, the only privately-owned Cantonese opera house\r\nin Hong Kong, announced its imminent closure due to rental problems,\r\nand attracted widespread public attention. Eventually, the theatre\r\nwas preserved owing to public support and appeal. While Hong Kong\r\nis well-known for being very commercialised, it has bent over backwards\r\nto preserve such a cultural landmark. Could Singapore also consider\r\nthe long-term interests of its people by providing such a subsidy\r\nfor these more genteel and culturally-significant trades? Besides\r\nproviding Government subsidy, the community could also work together\r\nand prevent Singapore from becoming a society which pursues economic\r\ngain to the detriment of its cultural and gracious identity.
\r\n\r\n Third, on inter-Ministry\r\ncooperation, solving difficulties of enterprises. More often than\r\nnot, a Government policy could involve many different Ministries.\r\nAt such time, there should be a lead agency to push through the\r\nimplementation. For example, the National Productivity and Continuing\r\nEducation Council led by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and\r\nthe SME Committee led by Minister of State Teo Ser Luck are both\r\ngood examples. The various problems faced by our enterprises would\r\ninvolve the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Trade and Industry,\r\nMinistry of Manpower, and many others. Hence, I do hope that there\r\ncould be one over-arching agency to facilitate the coordination.
\r\n\r\n Allow me to cite an example\r\nrequiring a coordinating agency to take the helm. Recently, some\r\nlocal transport operators are getting very apprehensive. They are\r\nworried about manpower and space for their operations. For the first\r\ntime, the Government will be helping public transport operators\r\nto buy new buses to relieve daily congestion in public transport.\r\nBut those who will benefit are the listed companies which have already\r\nincreased bus fares eight times from July 2002 to October 2011,\r\nand revenues have increased annually. This year, the Government\r\nwill be setting aside $1.1 billion to fund the purchase of 800 buses,\r\nand this is certainly not a small amount. We hope that the bus fares\r\nwill not continue to rise. The main concern for school bus companies\r\nand private bus operators is that 800 new buses would require more\r\nthan 1,000 bus drivers. Where are these qualified drivers going\r\nto come from? If public buses need manpower, and they are unable\r\nto recruit foreign workers, then the school bus companies and private\r\nbus companies would face an even more challenging task in getting\r\nthe drivers they need. Moreover, these companies stand to lose not\r\nonly their qualified drivers to the public bus operators, but face\r\na double whammy of recruiting fewer foreign workers.
\r\n\r\n Last November, we arranged\r\nfor a ministerial dialogue, and invited 14 trade association members\r\nto take part. They hoped that the Government could open up some\r\nparking space for the benefit of the private bus operators. A representative\r\nfrom the Express Bus Agencies Association said that the express bus\r\nterminal at Beach Road was far too small, and therefore unable to\r\naccommodate the requirements of passengers. Currently, the related\r\nMinistry had installed surveillance cameras at the Golden Mile Complex express bus\r\nstand to control the parking of buses there. The express bus drivers\r\nhad been fined heavily. One fine is $70, and with more of such fines,\r\nthe companies' costs will go up. Participants at the dialogue suggested\r\nthat the Government allocate an area in Geylang Lorong 1 near the\r\nPeople's Association for an express bus terminal, to resolve the\r\novercrowding at the express bus stops and the fines for express\r\nbus drivers. Manpower shortage, the lack of a place to operate,\r\nincreasing fines – these are all problems which concern three Ministries,\r\nnamely the Ministry of Manpower, Ministry of Transport, and the\r\nMinistry of National Development. The companies in question are\r\nstill waiting for an appropriate solution.
\r\nPage: 1351
\r\n\r\n In summary, as I have\r\ndescribed, local enterprises, particularly the SMEs, will face a\r\ngreat deal of difficulties in the period of restructuring. If Singapore's\r\nbusiness costs continue to increase, it is more challenging for\r\nthe ultimate survival of SMEs, I fear that there will not only be\r\nfewer people willing to become entrepreneurs, but that the number\r\nof SMEs will also be reduced. If some trades vanish, workers would\r\nalso face structural unemployment, and this would create a new social\r\nproblem. From the businessman's viewpoint, whilst we hope to receive\r\nGovernment assistance, we should also continually improve the business\r\nmodel, raise productivity, treat workers well, and respect the contribution\r\nof the employees.
\r\n\r\n Frankly speaking, many\r\nbosses nowadays are heavily burdened by these pressures as they\r\nneed to address high business costs, manpower shortage, and striking\r\na good balance with employing foreign workers. While the employers\r\ntry to cultivate their employees' sense of belonging, they should\r\ntry their best to restructure the business model to achieve productivity.\r\nThis is the responsibility of the bosses, and indeed not only to\r\ntheir workers but to the community and the nation at large.
\r\n\r\n Based on the experience\r\nof the last few decades, the successful restructuring of Singapore's\r\neconomy has always relied on the close cooperation of the tripartite\r\nefforts among employees, employers and the Government. I sincerely\r\nhope that as we pursue the objective of increasing our productivity,\r\nand restructuring the labour force, we should stand united in the\r\ntrue spirit of tripartism to meet these challenges head-on.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Senior Minister of State for Information,\r\nCommunications and the Arts and the Environment and Water Resources\r\n(Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak\r\nin support of this Budget. Many of us here are familiar with house\r\nvisits. We visit our constituents, from house to house, checking\r\non their state of affair. Very often, we are greeted by a woman\r\nat the door. Typically, we greet each other and ask, \"How are you?\"\r\nFor most of them, we get the standard reply, \"I am fine.\" \"Ho\r\nbo?\" \"Ho!\" After conducting house visits for several\r\nyears, I have learnt not to take the reply for granted. I would\r\nlook for non-verbal clues from the resident. Does she look at ease?\r\nIs she in good physical and mental health? Is her household reasonably\r\nfurnished and maintained?
\r\n\r\n After these few years\r\nof doing house visits, there are several faces that had left a deep\r\nimprint in my mind.
\r\n\r\n The first, a young woman,\r\nnot much older than a child herself, with a young child in tow.\r\nWith a maturity far exceeding her age, she tells you of her desire\r\nto recover from her mistake in life choices made when she was younger.\r\nHaving dropped out of school prematurely, she can only take on low-skilled\r\njobs and, therefore, low-paying jobs. She is a tenant in the flat,\r\npaying a substantial part of her income as rent, as her father was not\r\nprepared to accommodate her. Her mother and siblings help from time\r\nto time but she relies largely on her pride to take life one day\r\nat a time.
\r\nPage: 1352
\r\n\r\n The second face belongs\r\nto a woman in her 40s, timid and tentative. She tried to appear\r\nstrong in front of her visitors but her sense of insecurity and\r\nunease was palpable. Her husband was retrenched recently and the\r\nfamily financial situation has been affected. She has not worked\r\nfor many years. Her sister has been helping out but, determined\r\nnot to rely on her for much longer, she wants to support her two\r\ndaughters who are studying in the polytechnic and secondary school.\r\nShe is looking for a job that is near her home and allows her to\r\nget back early in the evening to cook for her children.
\r\n\r\n The third and final one\r\nbelongs to a woman in her 50s. She is single, staying with her mother.\r\nBeing the unmarried child, she assumes the caregiver role for her\r\nelderly mother who needs regular medical care. Her mother is ageing\r\nand increasingly unwilling to get out of the house for fear of falling.\r\nShe has to assume most of the household chores, cook for the two\r\nof them, and accompany her mother to her medical appointments which\r\nare getting more frequent and complex, with multiple specialists\r\nin multiple hospitals. Her face showed her fatigue and her worry.\r\nHer worry is not just one of short-term nature. Her worry is also\r\nfor herself 20 years from now − who will look after her like she\r\nhas done for her mother? With very little savings left for herself\r\nafter her late father's medical expenses and her mother's expenses,\r\nshe has very little left in her Medisave and her savings. Who will\r\npay for her medical and retirement needs when she needs them most?
\r\n\r\n Sir, I welcome the Budget.\r\nThis Budget focuses on the need for an inclusive growth that leaves\r\nno one behind. This Budget signifies the Government's seriousness\r\nin following through the Prime Minister's vision for a better home\r\nand an inclusive society for Singapore. This year's Budget will\r\nhelp the women that I have just described. Allow me to explain.
\r\n\r\n I am delighted that this\r\nBudget made specific mention about helping companies attract local\r\nworkers and doing more to tap the latent pool of local manpower\r\nwhich is still available, including the homemakers. The Minister\r\nrecognised that attracting these Singaporeans require a few changes.\r\nJobs will have to be re-designed with the worker in mind. These\r\njobs will also have to pay enough for the workers to join the company\r\nand stay with the company. In addition, companies will need to put\r\nin place more flexible working hours, shift system and work arrangements,\r\nincluding working from home.
\r\n\r\n This will be challenging\r\nto companies which do not now have the administrative capabilities\r\nto manage a more complex HR and payroll function. The Budget recognises\r\nthese challenges. It has put forward SME Cash Grants and Productivity\r\nand Innovation Credit as schemes to help companies restructure.\r\nI hope that the schemes will be accessible to the SMEs and there\r\nwill be help from the Government agencies to improve the HR capabilities\r\nacross employers, across the entire system, including those in the\r\npeople sector.
\r\n\r\n Single mothers will benefit\r\nfrom these changes in particular. Since they have to shoulder both\r\nwork and family responsibilities on their own, many need a workplace\r\nthat provides flexible work arrangements while bringing home a regular\r\nincome.
\r\n\r\n For single working mothers\r\nwith young children, their children will need affordable childcare service.\r\nChildcare support was enhanced in 2011 with the income ceiling raised\r\nfrom $1,800 to $3,500 per month. This Budget will provide further\r\nfinancial support for children from less well-off families. Baby\r\nBonus, however, remained inaccessible to single mothers. As I was\r\ntold by one single mother just last night, \"Baby Bonus should be\r\nfor the education and healthcare of the baby, and not to reward\r\nthe parents for getting married\". A child-centric policy will help\r\nto level the starting point for her child.
\r\nPage: 1353
\r\n\r\n Even as a more flexible working arrangement\r\nmakes it more attractive for homemakers to return to work, their\r\nconcerns will be the need for a conducive care environment for their\r\nchildren after school, and supporting their children's development\r\nneeds outside school. The best way to allay these fears and help\r\nwomen return to work is to support the after-school care system\r\nand to provide more opportunities for affordable enrichment programmes.\r\nThis Budget has proposed raising the income criteria for subsidies\r\nand financial assistance for pre-school centres, MOE schools and\r\nstudent care centres. While we encourage families to find employment\r\nto improve their family income, families sometimes find their financial\r\nassistance reduced as the mother returns to work. The move to raise\r\nqualifying household income criteria will cushion the impact and\r\nreduce the disincentive for the homemaker to return to work.
\r\n\r\n Our system should also\r\ncontinue to support social mobility. Some children require additional\r\nhelp with their school work; some would like to excel in areas where\r\nthey have special talents, be it language, arts, sports, etc; and,\r\nin one case, an opportunity to participate in an overseas project.\r\nA resident of mine, young Mursyidah was selected to be part of her\r\nschool's Community Outreach Programme in Sabah for her leadership\r\nqualities, demonstration of good values and effort towards environment\r\nconservation. The total cost of the trip was $750. MOE's Internationalisation\r\nFund paid for $500, $200 could be withdrawn from Edusave account\r\nand the student would pay $50 in cash. In Mursyidah's case, the school\r\ntapped on the Opportunity Fund to pay for the trip, thus fulfilling\r\nthe dream of this young girl.
\r\n\r\n We should give all children\r\na fair chance to reach their goals. The top-up to the Edusave Endowment Fund,\r\nComCare Endowment Fund and the disbursement to the self-help groups\r\nand the CCC ComCare Fund will provide the financial resources needed\r\nto enable the system, the parents, the community, the children,\r\nas a whole to support our children. Self-help group CDAC, for example,\r\nhas been providing enrichment programmes in science, art and music\r\nfor the children from low-income families. Single mothers and their\r\nchildren, in particular, will benefit from such community help.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In Mandarin): [Please refer to\r\nPg 1405 for Vernacular Speeches.] As for women who are caring\r\nfor the elderly, the Budget to enhance the healthcare sector and\r\nadditional subsidy for the healthcare of the elderly is welcomed\r\nby many. The significant increase in subsidy for nursing homecare,\r\nhome-based care and monthly grant for foreign domestic helper provide\r\nassurance and relief to many Singaporeans who have elderly parents.\r\nIt provides much emotional and physical support to the care givers,\r\nmany of whom are women.
\r\n\r\n For the older women, financial\r\nsecurity is their biggest concern. The issue is that women tend\r\nto live longer, but have less savings for their retirement.
\r\n\r\n In general, Singapore\r\nwomen have a longer life expectancy than men. At age of 65 years,\r\nthe retirement age, women can expect to live another 22 years to\r\n87 years old, four more years longer than men. In Singapore today,\r\namong the more elderly aged 85 years and above, seven out of 10\r\nare women.
\r\n\r\n More elderly women live\r\nalone, as more remained unmarried, divorced or out-lived their spouses. The\r\nnumber of widows in Singapore is more than five times that of widowers.\r\nWithout the support of their spouses, the elderly women have to\r\ncope with their physical and financial needs on their own, especially\r\nthose who do not have children to depend on.
\r\n\r\n Women have much lower\r\naverage CPF balance. This is not surprising as women in the past\r\ntend to take up lower-paid jobs, had to leave their jobs to raise\r\ntheir families, or may be full-time homemakers since their marriage.
\r\nPage: 1354
\r\n\r\n I laud the Budget for setting out a comprehensive\r\npackage to support the elderly. It will benefit especially elderly\r\nwomen who do not have a safety net to fall back on. The increased\r\nhealthcare subsidies and top-up to their Medisave accounts may not\r\ncompletely remove their financial burden. But with the enhancement\r\nin our social policies, such as a top-up to Medifund, it provides\r\nthem with some assurance that they will not be left in the lurch\r\nwhen illness strikes. The GST Voucher comprising cash, Medisave\r\nand U-save will give the older Singaporeans peace of mind, knowing\r\nthat the help will be permanently there and they can be assured\r\nthat the Government and the society will give them the necessary\r\nassistance.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In English): The young single\r\nmother would be pleased to know that she will get more financial support\r\nfor the childcare arrangement of her child, more training opportunities\r\nand, therefore, better career options for herself. She will still\r\nhave to cope with high rental as housing options remain limited for\r\nher. Baby Bonus continued to be inaccessible. The mother of two\r\nteenage girls will have a better chance of getting a job that meets\r\nher needs, more financial help in GST Voucher, and better financial and\r\nsocial support for her family, including better education and more\r\nopportunities for her children. The single older woman will be pleased\r\nwith the additional options of home-based care and domestic foreign\r\nhelper for her elderly mother so that she can continue working and\r\nbuild up her retirement savings. She will also get additional financial\r\nhelp in the form of Medisave Top-up and GST voucher for her mother\r\nand herself with the peace of mind that the help will be there for\r\nmany years.
\r\n\r\n What is noteworthy is\r\nthat while this Budget has introduced many changes – permanent GST Vouchers,\r\nper capita income criteria, subsidy for home-based care, and so\r\non – some basic principles remained unchanged. This Budget put in\r\nplace a more robust framework to redistribute income so that the\r\nlower income segments of the society benefit more. But it goes beyond\r\nredistribution. It is about helping people to help themselves, achieving\r\nself-reliance in the long run. Childcare for the single mom so that\r\nshe can work and training opportunities for better paid jobs over\r\ntime; improved employability and more flexible work arrangements\r\nfor the middle-aged mother and opportunities for her teenage children\r\nto better their lives through education; support to care for her\r\nelderly mother so that the older single woman can remain gainfully\r\nemployed with peace of mind. Give them a leg-up, so that they can get\r\nback on their feet and be self-reliant again.
\r\n\r\n Family support remained\r\nthe other important tenet of our social policies. It would be better\r\nfor the single mother to stay with her family and for the elderly\r\nwomen to continue to be cared for at home with her other children\r\nchipping in to support her. These basic tenets are important distinctions\r\nbetween Singapore and other developed countries – that we, as families,\r\nassume the primary responsibility of caring for ourselves; that\r\nwe retain a strong work ethic and desire to be self-reliant. Women\r\nin Singapore believe in these principles. They take pride in themselves,\r\nwant to live independent lives, and take good care of their family.\r\nThey will be reassured knowing that the Government and the society\r\nwill provide support if and when they are unable to cope with life's\r\ndemands on their own. I believe this Budget will bring smiles to\r\ntheir faces. With this, I support the Budget.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to be part\r\nof this debate. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that the Government is\r\nsoftening its stance on welfarism and is taking the right steps\r\nin strengthening our social safety nets. We may not be a welfare\r\nstate in the Western sense of the term, but we should certainly\r\nbe a state concerned with the welfare of the people, especially\r\nthose left behind when Singapore was transformed into a global city\r\nin the past decade. I am also glad that the Government acknowledges\r\nthat our social compact cannot be left exposed to market forces.\r\nIn my speech today, I would like to raise three issues to help us\r\npush ourselves further in the right direction. The three issues\r\nare: one, empowering our social worker and other professionals in the\r\nsocial service sector; two, reaching out to the vulnerable; three,\r\nadopting a holistic approach to forging an inclusive society.
\r\nPage: 1355
\r\n\r\n First point: empowering\r\nour social workers and other professionals in social service sector.\r\nSir, to help the vulnerable, we need to empower those who are actually\r\nholding up the social safety nets to catch them. Social workers\r\nand other helping professionals, such as counsellors, are in the\r\nfrontline of forging the inclusive society and they have to be empowered\r\nto do it. We have long treated social workers like fire-fighters\r\nsquelching bush fires and told them to thrive on the passion to\r\nserve. We need to change our model. Passion is good and well, but\r\nsocial workers need to be recognised as talents deserving fair compensation,\r\nsocial respect, and optimal workloads.
\r\n\r\n The starting salary of\r\nhelping professionals, particularly social workers, is not sending\r\nthe right message that social work is a vocation deserving of high\r\nsocial respect. This will undermine the Government's announced efforts\r\nto groom more social workers. According to the National Council\r\nof Social Services, the expected starting salary of social workers\r\nranges from $2,550 to $2,750. In comparison, the starting salary\r\nrange of a degree-holding teacher begins above the social worker\r\nstarting salary range, at $2,770, and tops off at $3,250 for an\r\nHonours degree. This is almost 20% above an Honours degree-holding\r\nsocial worker's pay. Social workers are more like teachers in nature.\r\nSocial workers help the vulnerable pick up valuable life skills\r\nand attitudes so that they can help realise their own potential\r\nhuman capital. Hence, the wages of both social workers and teachers\r\nshould be comparable.
\r\n\r\n I recognise that the Government\r\nhas been raising recommended social worker salaries and rolling out\r\nprofessionalisation measures in the past few years. However, we\r\nneed to move faster and more decisively, just as the Government\r\ndid when the teaching vocation came under threat in the late 1990s. We\r\nshould make social worker compensation equivalent to teacher compensation.
\r\n\r\n There is also a structural\r\nissue here for the social services. Unlike the centralised education\r\nsystem, the social services are made up of a large voluntary sector.\r\nSocial workers who work in the frontline voluntary welfare organisations\r\ndo not enjoy the leverage of Government salary compensation, only recommended\r\nsalaries. Faced with better pay and opportunities elsewhere, social\r\nworkers have to make a painful decision to leave the frontline and\r\nmore sadly their passions, for better jobs to serve their own family\r\nneeds. I would like to propose that our Government consider funding\r\na Connect Plan that teachers now enjoy to retain social workers.\r\nAs the Ministry of Education puts it, \"dedication should never go poorly\r\nrewarded\".
\r\n\r\n It is good that the Government\r\naims to reduce the caseloads of social workers from 50 to 40. This\r\nis not different from reducing class sizes for more effective teaching.\r\nWe should aim to reduce caseloads further, not only by grooming\r\nmore social workers, but also reviewing the workload of social workers. We\r\nneed to reduce spurious administrative work so that social workers\r\ncan focus on their main task of helping the vulnerable.
\r\n\r\n Point two: reaching out\r\nto the vulnerable. Sir, I am concerned with the high application\r\nrejection rate for our ComCare programmes, which the Ministry of\r\nCommunity Development, Youth and Sports kindly provided in answer\r\nto my Parliamentary Questions a couple of weeks ago. The rejection\r\nrate for the Work Support Programme has stayed above 40% in the\r\nlast five years, while the ComCare Transitions Scheme has seen figures\r\nhovering around 30%. For the Work Support Programme, only about\r\na third of the rejected applicants were ineligible because they\r\nhad sufficient income or other resources. The rest were rejected\r\nfor other reasons, including not giving sufficient information for assessment,\r\ncould not be contacted, or not agreeing to the terms of assistance.
\r\nPage: 1356
\r\n\r\n The vulnerable are usually less educated,\r\nless confident and, therefore, more introverted than average Singaporeans.\r\nI have encountered constituents in need who have approached me during\r\nMPS are often worried about the application process and I have to\r\nwrite letters supporting them so that they can feel more confident\r\nin approaching ComCare officers. We need to make them feel safer\r\nabout applying, less anxious that it would be a demeaning exercise,\r\nwhere a rejection could be devastating to their already low confidence.\r\nI propose that the Government considers reviewing the ComCare application\r\nprocess to make it more applicant-centric.
\r\n\r\n We are a face-saving Asian\r\nsociety after all and most of us would not admit to being needy\r\nand asking for help unless there is a real felt need. Perhaps, it\r\nmay be better for CDC to err on the side of benevolence rather than\r\non the side of caution in our effort to build an inclusive society.\r\nThere is scope for improving on the rejection rate. We are glad\r\nto see that the rejection rate for the Public Assistance Scheme\r\nhas dropped from about 40% from 2007-2009 to 18% in 2011. Let us\r\ntry to do the same for the other ComCare schemes.
\r\n\r\n It is unfortunate that\r\nonly 6% of CDC investigative officers are social work trained, as\r\nthe officers have to make judgement-calls that require the aptitude\r\nof trained social workers. Officers should at least be trained and\r\nsupervised by social workers to know how to evaluate the needs of\r\nthe vulnerable with compassion. We should give applicants the benefit\r\nof the doubt when making the judgement on whether they are really\r\nin need.
\r\n\r\n Point three: holistic\r\napproach. Sir, we are glad that the Government now shares with us\r\nthe desire to foster an inclusive and strong society. However, to\r\nachieve this, we cannot just seek to tackle the challenges at the\r\nsymptomatic level. We must adopt a holistic approach. Families are\r\nthe foundation of a nation. Strengthening of the social safety net\r\nis a reactive approach waiting to catch those who are falling, which\r\nno doubt is necessary. We need to reduce the falling in the first\r\nplace. We should seek to eliminate vulnerability by building strong,\r\ncohesive families. Building a strong family should be a coordinated\r\ninter-Ministry effort to create family-centric housing and education\r\npolicies and a working environment conducive to quality family life.
\r\n\r\n Our top-most concern should\r\nbe work-life balance. A recent survey by Ernst and Young shows that the\r\ntop motivation at the workplace for local employees is not compensation\r\nbut work-life balance. The average hours worked per week has remained\r\npractically the same from 1990 to 2010, fluctuating between 46 and\r\n47 hours. In South Korea, the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation\r\nand Development) country with the longest working hours, due to\r\na concerted effort by the government to encourage more family time,\r\nthe work hours have declined in a decade from over 48 hours a week\r\nto 42 hours a week in 2010. The average hours worked per week for\r\nall OECD countries was 34 hours in 2010. The National Family Council\r\nreported that 63% of fathers surveyed reported work responsibilities\r\nas the biggest challenge to spending more time with their kids.\r\nWe are an anomaly among developed countries for working such long\r\nhours. The current productivity drive should take this into account\r\nand push for more productive shorter working hours rather than unproductive\r\nlong hours.
\r\n\r\n Beyond work-life balance,\r\nwe should be thinking harder about work-life integration. Work and family\r\nlife do not necessarily have to be trade-offs pitted against each\r\nother. Improved internet communications technology and the growth\r\nof the knowledge and service economy means that flexible work arrangements\r\nare now more possible than ever. This is something that our current\r\nproductivity drive can also look into encouraging.
\r\n\r\n For families with older\r\nchildren, we should encourage greater and deeper parental involvement\r\nin the social life of schools. Current parental involvement in education\r\nfocuses on homework and so-called \"enrichment\" programmes that are\r\nreally disguised assessment and tuition lessons. This is not healthy. We\r\nneed to get parents involved in a deeper engagement with the social,\r\ncultural and broad-based educational\r\nlife of the schools, rather than being narrowly focused on academic\r\nachievement. Already, almost all mainstream schools have a parent\r\nsupport group or parent-teacher association (PTA). But parents remain\r\nadjunct to the education process and are often seen as the trouble-shooting\r\nhelp for teachers. A PTA charter to further integrate parents and\r\nempower parents and teachers to work together for holistic childhood\r\neducation and social development could be studied by both MCYS and\r\nMOE and implemented.
\r\nPage: 1357
\r\n\r\n Last but not least, we\r\nneed to figure the elderly centrally in the fostering of strong\r\nfamilies. The elderly are crucial social and cultural legacy levers,\r\nso they need to be supported to spend time with the younger generation,\r\nwho need to inherit the intangible but invaluable social and cultural\r\nwealth from the elderly in order to maintain our society's moral\r\ncompass. We must be careful that the silver housing policy does\r\nnot diminish the transmission of social and cultural values. Already,\r\nthe proportion of younger married couples who prefer to live with\r\nor near their parents has dropped from 73% in 2003 to 53% in 2008,\r\nin just five years. Given the recent spate of not-in-my-backyard\r\nprotests against eldercare housing or facilities in HDB neighbourhoods,\r\nwe need to do a mindset change in both Government policy and outreach\r\nto make the elderly seen as positive contributors to neighbourhood\r\nlife rather than to be a social problem. A more consultative urban\r\nplanning process is called for, so that the HDB or other Government\r\nagencies could encourage the goodwill of neighbourhood communities\r\ntowards the elderly and facilitate the integration of the elderly\r\nin these communities. In conclusion, Sir, I believe that a more empowered\r\nsocial service sector, a more effective outreach to the vulnerable\r\nand a holistic approach towards more family-centric policies will\r\nbe able to steer Singapore towards a more inclusive society and\r\na stronger Singapore.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful for being allowed to join this debate.\r\nAllow me to start by making a few comments about economy and I will\r\nmove on to healthcare finance. It seems that most places one looks\r\nthese days, governments are ringing the bells for austerity, believing\r\nthat the asceticism this brings to their fiscal conduct will somehow\r\nsave their beleaguered economies. Not unreasonably, many have questioned\r\nthe wisdom of such an approach, pointing out that such unbridled\r\nbelt tightening may have very huge social and economic costs.
\r\n\r\n Because this Government\r\nhas acted prudently and decisively when it needed to, and because\r\nwe as a people have remained resolute and united when it mattered,\r\nwe are in the enviable position of not having to decide on what\r\nbenefits to cut or which services to curtail, but rather on how\r\nbest we can best increase these benefits and these services to our\r\npeople. I cannot think of any better guiding aim than those stated\r\nas the premise for this year's Budget – to build an inclusive society,\r\nand a stronger Singapore.
\r\n\r\n [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr\r\nCharles Chong) in the Chair]
\r\n\r\n There is austerity in\r\nthis Budget, however, and I think we all know where the austerity\r\nlies. I had a lot of feedback about this and I am sure other Members\r\nalso have the same. This is based on our future dependence on foreign\r\nworkers. There will certainly be pain in this but this is tough\r\nlove, and I fully support this Government's bold moves in addressing\r\nthis unhealthy reliance. Just to take analogy from my own work as\r\na doctor. I often warn my patients, healthy or otherwise, to avoid\r\nover-reliance on crutches and braces and other walking assistive\r\ndevices when they do not need them. The initial period after they\r\nleave these aids behind is difficult but with the proper guidance,\r\nthe patient recovers rapidly afterwards and grows from strength\r\nto strength. Contrast this to the patient who clings on to these crutches and this\r\npatient will surely, slowly deteriorate over time to the point at\r\nwhich any form of mobility becomes excruciating. And so we must\r\nact decisively to rehabilitate ourselves from this dependence on\r\nforeign labour, while our social and economic muscles are still\r\nhealthy and able to.
\r\nPage: 1358
\r\n\r\n A few Members of this\r\nHouse have also mentioned that a large part of this adjustment will\r\ninvolve us Singaporeans accepting that goods and services may, in\r\nthe future, become of less of cheap and good but more of fairly\r\npriced and good. I am sure that we as a country will not deny paying\r\na fair wage to our fellow Singaporeans who are doing all the services\r\nthat are necessary to us, whether it is looking after our sick,\r\ncooking our meals, bringing food to our tables or driving our buses.
\r\n\r\n There are many challenges\r\nthat will face our economy over the next few years. As a developed economy,\r\nour economic expansion will slow to a more sedate pace. This will\r\ntemper inflation and hopefully this will also temper income inequality.\r\nBut it will also have the negative effects of reining in salaries,\r\npayroll and also Government's spending in the future. Even as we\r\ntry to increase the salaries of those on the lower rungs of the\r\nincome ladder, and try to encourage more women and the elderly to remain\r\nengaged and active in our workforce, the changing complexion of\r\ntoday's economy will make these efforts ever more challenging. Jobs\r\nare becoming more and more specialised, and employment parameters\r\nare becoming more fragmented and more fluid. There might be fewer\r\nopportunities for full-time employment as more jobs could become\r\npart-time or contract-based. This will surely impact on how we structure\r\nour lives and prepare for our old age.
\r\n\r\n In the classic old economy,\r\nwhich is based mainly on manufacturing or service, the market capitalisation\r\nof any given company correlated well with its size in terms of the\r\nnumber you could employ. But this may no longer be the case. If\r\nwe look at a recent example, Facebook, which is poised to become\r\none of the world's largest companies in terms of market capitalisation,\r\nbut in terms of the employees that it can take in and the number\r\nof jobs it creates, it will be pretty small by Fortune 500 standards.\r\nSo, in the new economy, we can expect that successful businesses\r\nin general may not create as many jobs as businesses of the old\r\neconomy did, and headcounts are shrinking in the higher value segments.\r\nIn fact, in many companies, a sure-fire way of raising the stock\r\nprice is to trim the headcount. As payrolls shrink, employers will\r\nlook increasingly for not just competent but exceptional employees, and\r\nthis would be terrifying if they all shared Mark Zuckerberg's view,\r\nco-founder of the afore-mentioned Facebook, that such an exceptional\r\nemployee would \"not just be a little better than a good employee\r\nbut it will be someone who is 100 times better\". We have to be mindful\r\nof these changes as we prepare for the future.
\r\n\r\n It is not all doom and\r\ngloom and austerity for SMEs and I welcome, as many do, the beefed-up measures\r\nto support businesses, particularly SMEs, to achieve productivity\r\ngrowth. These are bold and substantive initiatives, and they must\r\nbe followed through, if are to achieve our stated aims of achieving a\r\n30% increase in needed incomes over the next 10 years. This initiative,\r\nI am sure, will help these businesses to cope better with business\r\ncost and labour concerns, amidst an increasingly competitive business\r\nenvironment. But what I also hope that this Government will continue\r\nto do is to monitor what extent gains in productivity are translated\r\ninto real wage growth for the workers. One major dissatisfaction\r\nwith capitalism nowadays is the perception that when companies do\r\nwell, particularly when this has been achieved on the backs of improvements\r\nin worker productivity, these gains have not been more equitably\r\ndistributed or shared amongst the employees. The assessment of businesses\r\nwhich have received Government grants, in particular, should continue\r\nto involve close scrutiny of how much their employees' salaries\r\nhave risen in relation to how well the company has done, and should\r\nbe an important criterion in approving further grants.
\r\n\r\n Thus, we must ensure that\r\nefficiency wages are really and, in fact, paid-out where they are\r\ndue. There is another final cautionary note and that is to say that,\r\nin mature economies, despite all our emphasis on productivity, the\r\nrelationship between productivity growth and wage growth becomes\r\na little bit less linear,\r\nand it becomes a little bit less predictable. In today's new knowledge-based\r\neconomy, the focus is shifting increasingly to innovation as a driver\r\nof growth. Innovation is what is increasingly carrying the premium,\r\nrather than pure productivity gains alone. It is certainly far more\r\ndifficult to spur innovation rather than productivity. But this\r\nchallenge can be met, as small countries like Israel, for instance,\r\nhave shown to some degree, by earning itself the moniker of the\r\n\"Start-Up Nation\".
\r\nPage: 1359
\r\n\r\n As we seek to restructure\r\nour economy for the future, these are clear and present challenges\r\nthat must be met. It is important that our Government persists with\r\nand expands measures to stimulate innovation and internationalisation,\r\nsuch as in the enhancement to the PIC Scheme, which many have already spoken\r\nabout, and continues to invest and to support research and development\r\nin all sectors of our economy. We need to continue building on this\r\nBudget and further refine the clear and comprehensive roadmap that\r\nwe have on how we want our economy to develop over the next 10 and\r\n15 years.
\r\n\r\n Just a quick side note\r\nnow on a topic which many have already touched on, and that is the\r\ndefence of social mobility in our society. I think we all agree\r\nthat, above all else, social mobility should be defended at all\r\ncosts. Everyone should be able to feel that he or she should have\r\nan opportunity to improve his or her lot; the loss of this expectation\r\nis a cardinal sign of a society in despair and a nation in decline.\r\nWe are doing a tremendous amount to ensure that all Singaporeans\r\nhave access to education, housing, healthcare, employment, and this\r\nBudget continues this theme. But, certainly, we can and we all agree\r\nthat we will do even more. We must fight against the perception\r\nthat there are too many barriers at various stages of individual\r\ndevelopment, both in schools and in the workplace. We must fight\r\nagainst social stratification. It is a setback that the phenomenon\r\nof working from the mailroom to the boardroom is becoming less and\r\nless a phenomenon but I suppose that comes with maturing of the\r\neconomy.
\r\n\r\n I welcome recent announcements\r\nand moves by the Ministry of Education to relook at the school admission\r\nprocess, particularly for primary schools, and also by the Faculty\r\nof Law which has said that it would review its admission process\r\nto encourage greater diversity while still adhering to the principles of\r\nmeritocracy. Social mobility is well and good, and we do well to\r\ntrumpet it but, finally, I would say that even though this is a\r\ngood Budget and it has done a lot to support the vulnerable segments\r\nof our society, we may need to relook, sooner rather than later,\r\nat the most vulnerable segments of our population. By this, I mean\r\nthose who are on the Public Assistance (PA) Scheme. Despite what\r\nwe do, we will have a segment of the population who desperately\r\nneeds help and, given that inflation and cost of living is going\r\nup, the amount of quantum given to this group of residents or citizens,\r\nwho by definition are unable to work, should be reviewed.
\r\n\r\n I would like to end here\r\nby making two observations on healthcare and, in particular, the\r\nfinancing structures. And with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, Sir,\r\nI would like to continue this segment in Mandarin, to keep a promise\r\nto a resident.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In Mandarin): [Please refer to\r\nPg 1406 for Vernacular Speeches.] The three Ms, namely Medisave, MediShield\r\nand Medifund are most useful for major illnesses and hospitalisation\r\nexpenses. However, they do have their limitations when it comes\r\nto outpatient treatment. The Ministry of Health has, in recent months,\r\nunveiled sweeping and welcome changes in outpatient and intermediate\r\nand long-term care, healthcare financing, and the good news continues\r\nin this Budget.
\r\n\r\n However, treatment of\r\nchronic illnesses in specialist outpatient clinics remains relatively unsupported,\r\nand long-term follow-up by paediatric, cardiology and cancer specialists\r\npresents a significant financial burden to many patients. This problem,\r\nindeed, has become a very heavy burden to many families. I believe\r\nthat the problem should be addressed by a two-prong approach. The\r\nfirst is to develop the primary care sector so that, as far as possible,\r\nchronic conditions may be managed by our GPs and polyclinics rather than by specialists,\r\nand this would also reduce the load at our hospitals. The second\r\nis to develop an insurance-based or managed care system for specialist\r\noutpatient care, and this may be an extension of existing insurance\r\nschemes.
\r\nPage: 1360
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In English): Back to English,\r\nSir. My final point pertains to a complex issue. Again, several\r\nhon Members have already brought this up. This pertains to the level\r\nand quality of healthcare that is extended to Singaporeans and,\r\nin particular, to our seniors, and this is a very pressing issue.\r\nIf you visit us in Queenstown, you actually get an idea of how Singapore's\r\npopulation will look like in 2030, when about one in five of us\r\nwill be above 65 years of age and the question here is not just\r\nabout how long we live or whether we are free of illness, but also\r\nhow well we live, and I wish to put on record here a comment and\r\nagain another request from some of my residents that they wish me\r\nto put on record their thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister and his\r\nteam and the Government to, and I quote, \"to help the growing number\r\nof older Singaporeans live comfortably\".
\r\n\r\n Medical progress can sometimes\r\nbe breathtaking and the quality of healthcare does not always mean that\r\nit is correlated to how much we spend. The hon Member Mr Liang Eng\r\nHwa and a few other Members have debated a bit on healthcare spending.\r\nWe do welcome the announcement that healthcare spending will increase\r\ngradually over the years to $8 billion. This is a welcome move.\r\nBut on the back of this, we as a country and a society will have\r\nto decide what level of healthcare and to what extent healthcare\r\nwould be considered humane and acceptable to everyone in the population.\r\nWe are not just talking about basic healthcare in our country, and\r\nwhen we are comparing affordability across different healthcare\r\nsystems, it is very important for us not just to look at costs and\r\ncoverage at base value but to really scrutinise the type of healthcare\r\nand the quality of the healthcare that is delivered.
\r\n\r\n When we talk about medical\r\nprogress, there are many choices that have to be made. Let us say\r\nyou have a pill that is able to treat hypertension and is as effective\r\nas another pill, but you only have to take this pill once a day\r\nor maybe even once a month, whereas the other pill you have to take\r\nfour times a day. Now, the first pill, which is more convenient,\r\ncosts four to five times that of the other pill. The question then\r\nremains who has to pay for this increase in cost. Is it up to society\r\nand the taxpayers, or should the patient himself have to pay?
\r\n\r\n Then there are other\r\ntreatments. In my line of work, an elderly lady would come and see\r\na doctor, let us say, with some arthritis in the knees and this\r\nlady wants to go dancing or she wants to go to the market by herself\r\nwithout using a walking stick. Twenty years ago, when I was a medical\r\nstudent, the correct answer would be to restrict her activities,\r\nmake do with a walking stick and just stay at home and knit or watch\r\nthe TV. Nowadays, that is still a viable proposition but our elders\r\nwant to stay more active. Many of them may opt for a knee replacement\r\nwhich is, of course, a far more expensive proposition.
\r\n\r\n These are not life-threatening\r\nillnesses but they hark back to the root of what we feel is quality healthcare\r\nand the quality of the way in which we grow old. These are difficult\r\nquestions that we have to answer and we have not even touched on\r\nend-of-life issues which are even more emotive and require a lot\r\nmore deliberation on our part. But certainly, we, as a society,\r\nwill have to over the years come to an agreement on what all of\r\nthese things mean to us and how much value we place on all these\r\nthings. We certainly have to consider all these in terms of their\r\ncosts and benefits. And these deliberations should be tempered by\r\na very, very large dose of humanity.
\r\n\r\n In conclusion, I believe\r\nthis to be a Budget that builds on the strong foundations laid by\r\nprevious Budgets and supports many of the issues raised during the\r\nDebate last year on the President's Address to this House. It is,\r\nindeed, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, about \"opportunity,\r\nimproving ourselves, compassion\". It is a pro-Singaporean and it\r\nis a pro-Singapore Budget. With this, I support the Budget.
\r\nPage: 1361
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Pasir Ris-Punggol)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to thank you for allowing me to\r\nspeak. Let me begin in Mandarin, as requested by my residents.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In Mandarin): [Please refer to\r\nPg 1407-1408 for Vernacular Speeches.] The 2012 Budget is targeted\r\nand forward-looking, with measures focused on the objective of building\r\na more inclusive, sustainable and harmonious society.
\r\n\r\n The Budget's assistance\r\npackage is targeted at the elderly, those with disabilities and\r\nlow-income families. This is in line with the egalitarian ideals\r\nprescribed in the Confucian Classic Book of Rites (\"Li Ji\"),\r\nwhereby the elderly are provided for till their death, the able-bodied\r\nare gainfully employed, the young acquire skills, while widows,\r\norphans, the childless and those who are disabled by disease are\r\nall taken care of.
\r\n\r\n I would first like to\r\ntalk about how the Budget takes care of the elderly.
\r\n\r\n Many elderly residents\r\napplaud the move to raise the CPF contribution rates of older workers,\r\nand provision of a Special Employment Credit to encourage employers\r\nto employ older workers. These measures took care of older workers\r\nand, at the same time, encouraged employers to employ older workers.\r\nIn addition, earned income tax relief for the elderly has also doubled.\r\nI hope that in the near future, the concept of a \"retirement age\"\r\nwill eventually disappear from Singapore's labour market. Employers\r\nwill then judge workers based on their ability and not their age.\r\nIn this way, Singaporeans who wish to remain in their jobs can continue\r\nto work as long as they are able to. However, even then, the CPF\r\nBoard should avoid extending the CPF withdrawal age further. After\r\nall, repeated changes may disrupt the retirement plans of CPF members.
\r\n\r\n The Silver Housing Bonus\r\nwill provide an additional option for the elderly to monetise their\r\nHDB flats for retirement, as those who downgrade to 3-room or smaller\r\nflats will be given a bonus of up to $20,000. Our elderly can then\r\nhave more money for retirement.
\r\n\r\n The Government will also\r\nimplement a series of caring schemes to enhance affordability of healthcare.\r\nThese include increasing the budget for healthcare in the next five\r\nyears, from $4 billion annually to $8 billion; increasing hospital\r\nbeds to 3,700 and doubling the capacity for long-term care; increasing\r\nhealthcare subsidies; providing a monthly grant of $120 for families\r\nemploying foreign domestic workers to take care of their elderly\r\nfamily members; providing households who install safety features\r\nat home for their elderly, with a grant of around $2,000; and waiving\r\nthe GST for long-term care. With the adjustments in subsidies for\r\nlong-term care, for families within the same income group, the subsidies\r\nfor home-based care and community-based care will be higher than\r\nsubsidies for nursing homes. These measures will help tremendously\r\nin encouraging families to allow their elderly family members to\r\nage in place.
\r\n\r\n One family that will benefit\r\nfrom the measures is the Ong family in my constituency. They live\r\nin a 4-room rental flat. Their 75-year-old father has dementia,\r\nwhile their mother of the same age is immobile. Both their sons\r\nare single and their income is not high, totaling to $2,500. The\r\ncouple has a daughter who is staying home after having undergone\r\na surgery recently. A domestic helper is helping her to take care\r\nof her elderly parents. Being able to receive the monthly grant\r\nof $120 to hire a foreign domestic worker will help them significantly.
\r\n\r\n A resident who wrote an\r\nemail to me previously, requested that I suggest to the Government\r\nto waive the GST for long-term care. Before his mother passed away,\r\nthe cost of long-term care and medical treatment for her was a huge\r\nexpense, and a heavy financial burden on the family. The GST on\r\nlong-term care is\r\na double whammy. In future, this new measure will benefit many families.\r\nI hope that healthcare institutions providing long-term care will\r\nco-operate and not seize the opportunity to raise charges.
\r\nPage: 1362
\r\n\r\n Asian societies are all\r\nfacing the challenge of an ageing population. China worries about\r\n\"ageing before becoming rich\", the Hong Kong population is also\r\nageing. In Singapore, the social structure is also ageing. This\r\nyear's Budget is focused on taking better care of our elderly, so\r\nthat they can age gracefully in their retirement years. As mentioned\r\nabove, the Government measures have taken into consideration the\r\nvarious needs of the elderly, and have provided companies and families\r\nwith more subsidies. Whether it is with regard to allowing the elderly\r\nto continue working, or receiving home-based care, the purpose is\r\nto allow the elderly to stay in-touch with society, to age with\r\ngrace and dignity.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In English): Sir, the various\r\nmeasures for the elderly, disabled and the poor have introduced\r\nmore assurance to those groups of Singaporeans that they will not\r\nbe left behind. Many of my residents from the lower and the middle\r\nincome groups told me that what they desire most in the midst of\r\nall the rapid changes taking place around them is certainty. They\r\ncrave most for certainty of property prices and medical costs.
\r\n\r\n For most Singaporeans,\r\na HDB flat will be their only property asset and home. To see the\r\nrate at which HDB flat prices are rising strikes panic into the\r\nhearts of many young and upgrading families. Certainly, the cooling\r\nmeasures in recent months by the Ministry of National Development\r\nhave helped to ease their anxiety. However, many voiced concerns\r\nthat they may not be able to keep up with the mortgage payments\r\nshould one or more breadwinners lose their jobs in the uncertain\r\nglobalised market. Currently, the BTO prices are set at about five\r\nyears of newlywed first timers' annual income. This is not an unreasonable\r\nprice range but I would like to appeal for the Government to consider\r\nbuilding more affordable basic flats and 2-room and 3-room flats\r\nwith shorter leases, such as 30 years and 60 years, to offer more\r\noptions for singles and smaller families from lower income and even\r\nmiddle income groups. Such options will enable them to better manage\r\nand control costs for themselves. Having more basic flats without\r\nthe bells and whistles would encourage more Singaporeans to spend\r\nwithin their means and set aside more cash and CPF savings for their\r\nretirement instead having a higher portion of it locked into their\r\nproperty.
\r\n\r\n I find the current trend\r\namong the younger couples to buy the biggest flat beyond what they\r\ncan afford worrying. It is far better to buy one well within their\r\nmeans and upgrade when they have more savings later. Even with our\r\neconomy so healthy and at almost full employment, 2,090 residents\r\nwere retrenched in the second and third quarters of 2011. Of these,\r\n1,290 were PMETs.
\r\n\r\n Besides, building more\r\nsmall flats, especially in mature estates, will enable the elderly\r\nto live near their children and promote family bonding. There is\r\na small group of low-income Singaporeans who do not have any property\r\nasset at all. They are either still waiting for HDB rental flats\r\nor are renting from the open market as they have missed the qualifying\r\ncriteria. They are struggling with the higher rentals and I hope\r\nthe Government would look into measures to assist them. Generally,\r\nthe higher cost of living – higher utility bills, as a result of\r\noil price rises, transport costs and food costs – is pushing them\r\ninto financial hardship and debts. It is more and more of a struggle\r\nfor them to make ends meet.
\r\n\r\n It is not the residents\r\nwho want better control over rising property prices, many business\r\nowners are also in difficulty with rising property rentals. In view\r\nof the many additional costs that our SMEs have to bear, due to\r\nthe recent policy changes for foreign workers, would the Government\r\nconsider stabilising the rentals of commercial and industrial properties\r\nthrough JTC and HDB? In my view, JTC and HDB should be playing this\r\nprimary role in maintaining affordable rental in these properties\r\nso as to support and nurture our SMEs.
\r\nPage: 1363
\r\n\r\n Another area where unexpected expenditure\r\ncan cause hardship to a family is medical cost. It does not take\r\na major illness to cause hardship. A few illnesses in the family\r\nmay easily knock a family's budgeting off course. In addition, not\r\nall are covered by insurance, including MediShield, and even those who\r\nare or may have particular diseases and afflictions which are not\r\ncovered by the policy they have signed up for. Presently, we have\r\nmanaged medical costs through our polyclinics and Government hospitals.\r\nHowever, many residents tell me that queues and the wait can be\r\nlong. Although the implementation of the Community Health Assist\r\nScheme will help to alleviate the situation, I hope the Ministry\r\nwill consider taking further action to increase the recruitment\r\nand retention of medical professionals and personnel in the public\r\nsector.
\r\n\r\n Last but not least, I\r\nwould like to speak on jobs for Singaporeans. SMEs understand that\r\nwe have to reduce our dependency on foreign workers. They understand\r\nthat they have to increase productivity. In fact, foreign workers\r\nfrom Malaysia and China are beginning to choose to not come to Singapore\r\nas they have opportunities in their home countries. However, many\r\ncompanies are still at a loss as to where they should get help to\r\nrecruit local workers and to increase productivity. The other area\r\nto improve upon is the execution and the delivery of the many schemes\r\nto help SMEs. They know that there are many schemes available but\r\nfind it confusing to navigate and apply for. We should standardise\r\nand simplify the process to assist them.
\r\n\r\n On one hand, it is a happy\r\nproblem – full employment, lots of job orders but shortage of workers.\r\nOn this situation, new business opportunities arise, for example,\r\nthey are centralising dishwashing services. For coffee shops and\r\nhotels who cannot find workers to wash their utensils and crockery,\r\nthey now have a solution. When bigger companies cannot find the\r\nlabour to execute their projects, they outsource to smaller companies.\r\nWe benefit from the new business opportunities. On the other hand,\r\nthey can really do with some help with recruitment. Would the Government\r\nconsider setting up a centralised agency to help companies with\r\nlabour shortage to match-make with those local workers? Yes, there\r\nis a job directory on WDA's website which listed both public and\r\nprivate sector job portals. However, this is only accessible to\r\nthe educated and computer-savvy. Many workers do not have the ability\r\nor skill to take advantage of and utilise this facility. It would\r\nbe desirable if we have a bricks-and-mortar department with staff\r\nto assist Singaporean workers match up with the local companies\r\nwith labour shortage. Such an arrangement would be particularly\r\nbeneficial for workers in lowest wage groups, including cleaners.
\r\n\r\n I was appalled to find\r\nout from a Straits Times report on Sunday that only 27 public\r\nsector agencies make accreditation a criterion when they select\r\ncleaning companies. Considering that we have 14 Ministries, 65 Statutory\r\nBoards and nine Organs of State, the public sector has the potential\r\nto make a real impact to bring up the cleaning sector and set higher\r\nstandards for productivity – standards of delivery and treatment\r\nof workers. I strongly urge the Government to take a resolute step\r\nto make accreditation mandatory – only cleaning companies which\r\nhave accreditation are to be used. The Government must look into\r\nand monitor the work conditions and treatment of the workers very\r\nclosely. Even better, all cleaning workers should be unionised.\r\nI suppose the union would like it.
\r\n\r\n It is highly regrettable\r\nthat, in recent years, due to outsourcing, the same cleaner is subject\r\nto lower and lower wages and benefits and contract progress due\r\nto stiff competition among cleaning companies. In the past, cleaners\r\nin the public sector were considered part of the Government service\r\nand enjoyed the accompanying employment benefits. This illustrates\r\nthat outsourcing is not quite the panacea to higher specialisation\r\nand efficiency. In addition, there are externalities, the side effects\r\nfrom outsourcing which are not borne by the supplier nor the consumer.\r\nThey are borne by the very worker who delivered the service. Every\r\ndollar saved is at their expense, the weakest and the most vulnerable\r\nmember of our society, trapped in the vicious cycle of poverty.\r\nThat is not right. It is time for us to make the necessary changes to restore\r\nthe balance, ensure fair treatment and decent pay for decent work.\r\nWith that, I support the Budget.
\r\nPage: 1364
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Deputy Speaker\r\n : Order.\r\nHon Members should select the silent mode in their cell phones.\r\nThank you. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim\r\n(Nee Soon)\r\n : Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing\r\nme to speak during this debate. Essentially, I feel that Budget\r\n2012 is a continuation of our national psyche of instilling attributes\r\nof inclusiveness, hard work, resilience, skills upgrading and saving\r\nfor the long run as part of the Singapore spirit that will bring\r\nour nation's ability to adapt and respond to future challenges and\r\nopportunities. Much has been debated about the Budget by other Members\r\nof the House. Kindly allow me to add my perspective to this debate.\r\nFirstly, in Malay.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In Malay): [Please refer to Pg\r\n1409-1410 for Vernacular Speeches.] Sir, since becoming a Member of\r\nParliament, I have seen how our Government have put forward a series\r\nof progressive and inclusive Budgets catering to the various segments\r\nof Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n Therefore, I am puzzled\r\nby the statements of Members of the Workers' Party like the hon\r\nMr Chen Show Mao and Mr Faisal Manap, who questioned this issue\r\nof inclusiveness. Coincidentally, I have made a detailed study on\r\nthis issue while preparing this speech. If we study the previous\r\nBudgets closely, we will discover that there are many elements of\r\ninclusiveness in them. And if we google the words \"inclusive\" and\r\n\"Singapore Government\", we will find many results, that is, around\r\n30 million results. So the answer is clear and obvious.
\r\n\r\n These Budgets have been\r\nforward-looking, with the sole intent of laying the groundwork for Singaporeans\r\nto compete, meet the challenges and reap the opportunities of the\r\never-changing and evolving economic landscape. The Budgets, through\r\nthe years, have been instrumental in improving the overall competitiveness\r\nand resilience of the people. This ensures that no Singaporean is\r\nleft behind.
\r\n\r\n Sir, this inclusiveness\r\nensures that all Singaporeans, regardless of race and religion,\r\nyoung and old, and all backgrounds, benefit from the Budget. With\r\nthe Government attuned to the different segments that have different\r\nneeds, I am glad that this year's Budget, like the ones in the past,\r\nwill open up more room for us to receive benefits from the various\r\nschemes for people from all backgrounds, including our Malay community.
\r\n\r\n I am grateful that this\r\nBudget's mission includes those who are still in school, looking\r\nfor jobs or upgrading themselves, and the elderly to continue working.\r\nIt is based on the concept of taking a positive view so that the\r\nquality of life of Singaporeans and their families is comfortable.
\r\n\r\n What is more important,\r\nit provides the opportunities for the Malays to realise their desires\r\nand dreams to improve themselves to a higher level so that they\r\nhave a better future. The schemes presented in this Budget, especially\r\nthe Special Employment Credit scheme, together with the Elderly\r\n& Disability Grants, support older and disabled Singaporeans.\r\nApart from providing opportunities for this segment of the population,\r\nthis Budget provides a long term commitment as well as builds an\r\ninclusive society.
\r\n\r\n The Special Employment\r\nCredit scheme application over the next five years, in particular,\r\nwill encourage companies to manage costs and engage older Singaporean\r\nworkers. For these workers, it will provide them an opportunity\r\nto build their retirement nest and stay employed. These initiatives,\r\ntogether with other measures like the available training programmes,\r\nwill provide more opportunities for Singaporeans to work and rise\r\nup in their career.
\r\nPage: 1365
\r\n\r\n I would like to urge our community to\r\nwork hard and excel in whatever jobs they are doing. Our different\r\nbackgrounds and jobs should not hinder us, as long as we stay positive\r\nand be passionate in doing our job, we will do well.
\r\n\r\n In terms of education,\r\ndespite the successes of Malay students and increasing efforts of\r\nthe community to ensure every child receives quality education,\r\nthis Budget would further ensure that students would not be left\r\nout, due to the various opportunities created by our schools through\r\nthe many enrichment and development programmes available.
\r\n\r\n Measures, such as the\r\npre-school subsidy, review of the MOE Financial Assistance Schemes\r\nand top-ups to the Edusave Endowment Fund, will broaden the opportunities\r\nfor every child to pursue his or her interests and strengths to\r\nscale the many peaks of excellence that our education system provides. Hence,\r\nI urge that we make use of these schemes and work hard for our children's\r\neducation.
\r\n\r\n I remember my father used\r\nto tell me that I should focus on my studies and leave the financial\r\nmatters to him. Instead, he will work hard to finance the education\r\nof my siblings. Apart from applying for bursaries, my father and\r\nmother would take on two to three jobs in a day, to ensure that\r\nwe are able to spend more time and focus fully on our studies so\r\nthat we are more effective and successful in our chosen fields.
\r\n\r\n I have often stressed\r\nto my constituents, that when parents put employability and education\r\nat the forefront of their family plans, they are putting themselves\r\non the road to success and can become self-reliant.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, the Malay\r\ncommunity would continue to develop and grow if it embraces the opportunities\r\nand potential benefits this Budget provides. It is evident that\r\nthis Budget provides a timely opportunity that would enable the\r\ncommunity to move up the social ladder.
\r\n\r\n The Malay community should\r\ntake this opportunity to upgrade themselves and develop the attributes which\r\nI mentioned earlier, that is, skills upgrading, education and being\r\nemployable well beyond their working years and contribute both socially\r\nand emotionally towards the community's development. If more of\r\nus continue to improve ourselves, we will continue to grow as part\r\nof the Singapore society. This would, in turn, ensure that we have\r\nwhat it takes to build a better life for ourselves and our families. Sir,\r\nallow me to continue my speech in English.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In English): Sir, first,\r\nI would give an example of a company called Camel Nuts. This is\r\nan example of how they have increased productivity through innovation,\r\ntechnology and mindset development. Sir, I have received feedback\r\nthat the Government should do more to help the SMEs to increase\r\ntheir productivity as many companies felt that the tightening of\r\nforeign worker quotas would open up more difficulties for businesses\r\nat a time of global economic uncertainty. With careful planning,\r\ndynamic companies would be well-placed to ride the wave of productivity.\r\nOtherwise, they may find themselves gradually being left behind\r\nin a re-structured economy of higher-value and more innovative players. Ignoring\r\nproductivity enhancements would be to our own peril. I would like\r\nto share with the House on how a local company, Seng Hua Hng Foodstuff\r\nPte Ltd, famously known as Camel Nuts, has adapted as an SME to\r\nmeet the challenges of the New Economy.
\r\n\r\n Camel Nuts is a 38-year-old\r\nSingaporean company which has used SPRING Singapore's Integrated Management\r\nof Productivity Activities (IMPACT) assessment tool to identify\r\nareas for improvement and productivity gains and has since adopted\r\nthe Lean Six Sigma into its factory layout and processes to successfully\r\nimprove productivity. In addition, the company has also leveraged\r\non grants from SPRING\r\nSingapore to invest in machines and equipment to progressively automate\r\ntheir processes and reduce their reliance on foreign workers and\r\ncater for long-term growth planning.
\r\nPage: 1366
\r\n\r\n However, its Managing\r\nDirector, Mr Poh Ah Seng, is aware that state-of-the-art technology\r\nand methodologies alone are not sufficient to achieve productivity\r\ngains. In his attempt to upgrade the company, he asked all his managers\r\nto read a book entitled \"The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement\"'\r\nby Eliyahu M Goldratt to develop their mindset and introduced them\r\nto the Theory of Constraints – I have the book here – and the commonsense\r\napproach in finding productivity gains in the workplace. In his\r\nown words, Mr Poh said, \"Just by using a commonsense approach and\r\novercoming the constraint in our mind that things cannot be improved,\r\nwe are able to increase productivity and do more with less.\"
\r\n\r\n Sir, the journey of Camel\r\nNuts, a well-known Singapore brand, is an example of how an SME embraces\r\nthe new business landscape and provides employability for its workers\r\nby upgrading themselves and changing their mindsets to increase\r\nproductivity. It remains committed to its workers through innovation\r\nand R&D. It hires the elderly, the disabled and manages and\r\nprovides opportunities to the low-income to upgrade their skills,\r\nstay relevant and committed to the company's values and purpose.\r\nI feel that the approach taken by Camel Nuts and the principles\r\ndiscussed in Mr Goldratt's book have been and can be aptly applied\r\nto Singapore and our businesses, always making improvements despite\r\nour constraints. This will ensure that we continuously improve and\r\ngrow as an individual, family, organisation and as a nation.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I am pleased that\r\nwe are anticipating the impending \"silver tsunami\" impact of our\r\nageing society. Many appropriate measures have been introduced in\r\nthis year's Budget. I feel that the Government could also propose\r\nincentives for the elderly who lead active lifestyles through the\r\ncreation of a reward scheme for them to attend health talks and\r\nscreenings, participate in health-related events where they can\r\naccumulate points to redeem for vouchers or cash benefits. This\r\nwould motivate the elderly to earn investments to their health.\r\nAlthough there are localised reward schemes to promote certain programmes,\r\nsuch as the Northwest CDC Brisk Walk Club, I feel that a more broad-based\r\nreward scheme that promotes healthy lifestyle activities can be\r\nimplemented to further enhance our health promotion efforts. The\r\nGovernment should also consider measures to support and incentivise\r\ninnovation in providing health support services using technology.\r\nRecently, The \r\n Straits Times reported about telemedicine.\r\nWe should also encourage initiatives in the medical sector to support\r\nthe elderly living at home in e-ordering medicines, e-visiting GPs,\r\nmanaging dietary needs and personal health.
\r\n\r\n Sir, before I end my speech,\r\nas mentioned in my speech in Malay, I am puzzled by what was said\r\nby the hon. Members of the Workers' Party, Mr Chen Show Mao and\r\nMr Faisal Manap, calling for inclusiveness. Sir, I happened to be\r\ndoing some research when I was writing this speech about the issue of\r\ninclusiveness. I looked through all the past Budget debates and\r\nI happened to find the efforts and policies relating to inclusiveness.\r\nI found the level of depth given by the Government in ensuring that no\r\none is left behind. After hearing the speeches, I went to Google\r\nthe words \"inclusive\" and \"Singapore Government\", and I got about\r\nmore than 13 million results coming from it.
\r\n\r\n Sir, in conclusion, this\r\nBudget resembles the Singapore Way of being a forward-looking Government\r\nthat continues to demonstrate its ability to deliver good governance\r\nso that its people can realise their aspirations and goals. It reflects\r\nour values and approach of managing challenges and opportunities,\r\nthat we take no short cuts, no populist moves but it is all about\r\ntaking a longer perspective with Singaporeans being at the heart\r\nof it all. Sir, on that note, I support the Budget.
\r\nPage: 1367
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr\r\nYee Jenn Jong (Non-Constituency Member)\r\n : Mr Deputy\r\nSpeaker, Sir, I welcome the noticeable shift from previous Budgets,\r\nwhich concentrated mostly on economic growth, towards more social\r\nprogrammes in this Budget. Over the last decade, our society faced\r\nmany challenges, such as widening income inequality, rising inflation\r\nand slower social mobility. Wages of low and lower middle income\r\nearners have stagnated or grew much slower than that of our highest\r\nincome earners. Our over reliance on market-driven policies has\r\nresulted in deficiencies in the provision of social goods.
\r\n\r\n Refocusing on the weak,\r\ndisabled and elderly amongst us is timely. The Government has to\r\nstep up to mitigate the adverse effects of the widening income inequality\r\nby proactively providing essential social goods and services. This\r\nBudget is a first step. Moving forward, we need to tread between\r\ngrowth and equity; between individual's and society's responsibility.\r\nHow far will we go in our journey to be inclusive? How much do we\r\nprovide for in elderly care and medical costs? What is affordable\r\npublic housing? What levels of social security are we comfortable\r\nwith? These questions must be debated upon as our nation defines\r\na new socio-economic model going forward.
\r\n\r\n Next, I would like to\r\ntouch on Small and Medium Enterprises, a subject that is close to\r\nmy heart as I operate in this space. There are a number of assistance\r\nschemes in this Budget for SMEs. We have not been short of schemes\r\nfor SMEs in the past, especially in the form of grants. While these\r\ncan provide some slight help, given the challenging environment\r\nSMEs operate in, they are like aspirins for short-term pain relief.\r\nWe need to look deeper beyond assistances and tackle directly the\r\nimportant issues confronting SMEs.
\r\n\r\n In preparing for this\r\nsection on SMEs, I recall a hike I made into the primary rainforest\r\nof Sarawak some years ago. Walking into the rainforest on a hot\r\nday, I noticed dim lighting and a distinct lack of undergrowth.\r\nWith sunlight blocked by the canopy of the giant trees, smaller\r\nplants could not flourish. SMEs operate in challenging environments.\r\nIndustrial rent increased at more than three times inflation rate\r\nat 16% last year. This increase is the highest level in the past\r\n14 years. Retail rent rates have risen steadily too. Industrial\r\nand retail spaces are now dominated by REITS. I join Members Inderjit\r\nSingh and Mr Teo Siong Seng to echo my concerns about the effects\r\nof a decade of the proliferation of REITS on rent. Could retail\r\nrent increases be partly driven by Retail REITS enhancing their\r\nnegotiation position given common market practice that they can\r\nobtain the retailer's gross retail turnover data? I urge serious review\r\non the effects of REITS on SMEs.
\r\n\r\n Going forward, SMEs will\r\nfind it harder and more costly to hire suitable manpower. In certain industries,\r\nthere will be continued competition from the big boys. The Budget\r\nprovides for assistance in mergers and acquisitions (M&As).\r\nSome SMEs may be forced to close or merge. SMEs form 99% of our\r\nbusiness entities and employ some 63% of our workforce. Jobs will\r\nbe at risk as a result of closures and mergers. We need to brace\r\nourselves for a rough ride in the SME space in the next five years\r\nas the economy restructures. We need to be prepared to help those\r\nwhose jobs will be lost during this period of restructuring.
\r\n\r\n We dream of the next big\r\nthing to fly the Singapore enterprise flag globally. How do we achieve\r\nthat? Going back to the rainforest analogy, how do we get smaller\r\nplants to grow? They need air, water, good soil and sunlight. The\r\nseeds themselves must also be of good quality. Companies need a\r\npositive business climate, which can be promoted by good Government\r\npolicies, just as plants need air and water for sustainability.\r\nWe do have fairly positive policies that allow companies to get\r\nstarted quickly and favourable tax structures. We need to constantly\r\nlook ahead to ensure our environment stays small-business-friendly.
\r\nPage: 1368
\r\n\r\n The marketplace is the soil the plants\r\ngrow in. We may not have a large domestic market, but we do have\r\na domestic market that can support our SMEs. It would help if the\r\nGovernment can make the soil richer by stimulating domestic consumption\r\nfrom time to time as necessary. The seed represents the soundness\r\nof each company's business ideas as well as the talents it has.\r\nGood programmes to cultivate our young to be more innovative and\r\nentrepreneurial can help seed improvements for our future SMEs.
\r\n\r\n SMEs need space to grow,\r\njust as plants need space for sunlight to come through in the rainforest.\r\nI noticed that in the rainforest, where there were patches that\r\nthe giant trees were absent for whatever reasons, there were thriving\r\nsmaller plants. The space vacated by the giants had allowed smaller\r\nplants to flourish. I had spoken previously on this. I will agree\r\nto disagree with some Members of this House as to whether there\r\nis crowding out by large trees, the industry giants. Beyond arguing\r\nabout crowding out by large companies, I would like our Government\r\nto create fresh spaces for SMEs to grow. It can do so by being a\r\nsignificant player in the economy to drive the creation of innovative\r\nSME-led solutions in certain key sectors.
\r\n\r\n For example, the Government's\r\ncall for consumer and first-user of innovative solutions to be developed\r\nby local enterprises in the 2010 ESC report, backed by a $450 million\r\nco-innovation fund, is a step in the right direction. We can do\r\nmore.
\r\n\r\n There is danger that there\r\nmay be risk aversion by Government officers to buy solutions from\r\nSMEs for fear of having to answer for failures, even if SMEs can\r\nmeet the specifications and offer lower prices than larger companies.\r\nWe need to prevent this mindset. One possibility is to have smaller\r\ntenders that only SMEs can participate in. If there are no SMEs\r\nwho can fulfil the requirements, then the tenders can be opened\r\nto the larger industry players.
\r\n\r\n We can identify certain\r\nareas where there is substantial Government demand and a strategic\r\nreason for us to have our home-grown innovative solutions. A positive\r\nexample that comes to my mind is in water technology. We could have\r\nimported all the technologies we require but it was good that we\r\nalso chose to go with some local players to allow them to grow and\r\ncompete in similar projects internationally. We need more of such\r\nsuccesses.
\r\n\r\n We have many public building\r\nprojects ongoing now. We can use this opportunity to aggressively push\r\nthe development of innovative home-grown green technology to be\r\nincorporated into the buildings. We could also use it to push for\r\nproductivity improvements in our construction industry by insisting\r\non productivity conditions and rewarding for innovation in productivity\r\nenhancements.
\r\n\r\n I also like to see policies\r\nrequiring the public sector to favour green procurements. This can\r\nfavour the development of our local suppliers to meet green standards\r\nthat will allow them to compete for projects in countries that have\r\nalready implemented such policies. Green procurement policies are currently\r\ngaining traction in places such as Taiwan, Thailand, Canada, Japan\r\nand Korea. We can even dovetail this initiative with that of the\r\nRenovation and Refurbishment Deduction Scheme by having better tax\r\ndeductions for retail and food and beverage (F&B) outlets that\r\nadopt renovations that are eco-friendly.
\r\n\r\n I was encouraged recently\r\nto learn that a local SME, Greenpac (S) Pte Ltd, had developed an environmentally-friendly\r\npackaging solution for a global eye-care leader, CIBA Vision, that\r\nhas won the international WorldStar Packaging 2010 Award. I learnt\r\nthat not only was the solution eco-friendly, it also saved space,\r\nresulting in lower transportation costs and eliminated unnecessary\r\nunpacking and re-packing, which resulted in productivity gains for\r\nthe client.
\r\n\r\n There was a call to use\r\ngreen lenses in Government procurement in the 2010 ESC report. I\r\nlike to see greater speed in legislation and execution of this,\r\nand to use it to cultivate local SME expertise in this area. We can\r\ncertainly develop more local SMEs to become world leaders in the\r\npromising green technology industry.
\r\nPage: 1369
\r\n\r\n Sir, I have confidence\r\nin the innovativeness of our SMEs to rise to the challenges when\r\nspaces are open up for them to demonstrate innovative solutions\r\nto meet our public projects' needs.
\r\n\r\n I like to end with a story.\r\nI took a walk outside this House recently and noted the inscription\r\non the statue of Sir Stamford Raffles by the Singapore River, which\r\nis just down this direction [indicating]. It says on the\r\ninscription, \"On this historic site, Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles\r\nfirst landed in Singapore on 28th January 1819 and with genius and\r\nperception changed the destiny of Singapore from an obscure fishing\r\nvillage to a great seaport and modern metropolis.\"
\r\n\r\n Singapore has moved into\r\na new phase of our development. The world has moved into a new century. There\r\nis a great need in this 21st century to have our people to be ingenious\r\nand perceptive to spot gems of opportunities caused by constant\r\nupheavals. There will be plenty of this, caused by constant technological\r\nchanges, political changes and shifts in economic power. We live\r\nin an exciting world. Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, became\r\nthe world's youngest self-made billionaire at just 23 years old,\r\nfour years after starting his business in the dormitory of his university.\r\nSuch opportunity and speed are only possible today with constant\r\ntechnological changes that have broken down old barriers and level\r\nthe playing field for innovative newcomers. In this innovation-driven\r\nera, we need to empower our people through mindset change to achieve\r\nquantum leaps in productivity improvements.
\r\n\r\n Sir, we need people full\r\nof creativity, innovativeness, perception and daring to find the\r\nnext Angry Bird and Facebook in us. Sir Stamford Raffles took risk\r\nwith Singapore, a small and undeveloped fishing village. In this\r\nage and time, we need to find in ourselves the genius, perception\r\nand risk-taking spirit to discover brave new worlds out there.
\r\n\r\n I conclude by saying that\r\nsignificant changes lie ahead as our economy restructures. Our forefathers had\r\nworked diligently to get us to where we are. We need to brace ourselves\r\nfor the changes to come, and find faith in our abilities to rise\r\nabove these challenges, as we had done so in the past.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): (In Mandarin):\r\n[Please refer to Pg 1411-1412 for Vernacular Speeches.] \r\n Mr Deputy Speaker,\r\nSir, I would like to tell a story about a compassionate and inclusive society.\r\nThis story took place 21 years ago, right here in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,\r\nlast Sunday, I attended the 21st birthday party of a girl with scaly\r\nskin – Huang Baoping. Her father said, \"We couldn't believe that\r\nshe could celebrate her 21st birthday because when she was born,\r\nthe doctor said she may only live for two weeks, perhaps at the\r\nmost two months, and later the prognosis became 10 years.\"
\r\n\r\n Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,\r\nBaoping is now 21 years old. With the care and support from the\r\nsociety and her family, she found a job. Her mother said, \"We couldn't\r\nbelieve that she can work.\"
\r\n\r\n This is indeed an inclusive\r\nsociety.
\r\n\r\n When Baoping was born\r\n21 years ago, her skin peeled daily and looked like fish scales,\r\nthus she was called the girl with scaly skin. She had to take medicines\r\nand injections everyday, with monthly medical expenses that can\r\ngo up to thousands of dollars. She also had arthritis. When her\r\nstory appeared in Shin Min\r\nDaily then, the public donated generously to her and, upon receiving\r\nsufficient donations, her parents said they had enough and even\r\ndonated the extra funds to the Chinese Development Assistance Council.\r\nThe couple decided to bring up Baoping against all odds and had\r\nnever complained about their plight.
\r\nPage: 1370
\r\n\r\n This is the photograph\r\nof Baoping when she was eight months old and during that time, as\r\nthere was medical subsidy, she received special treatment in the\r\nhospital and could afford the medical expenses. As she grew up gradually,\r\nwe can see her skin peeled and shed daily. Under such circumstances,\r\nshe grew older and was eventually able to attend PCF Kindergarten\r\nlike any normal child.
\r\n\r\n This is the photograph\r\nof Baoping in the PCF Kindergaten. Later, like everyone else, she\r\nwent to Primary school and Secondary school. But she suffers pain\r\nwhenever she walks due to her arthritis, thus everyday her father\r\nwould send her to the bus stop on a bicycle, then she takes a bus\r\nto school, and, after school, her mother would fetch her from the\r\nbus stop on a bicycle. After secondary school, she attended ITE\r\nSimei and learnt a skill. Now, she can work from home on a computer.\r\nBut she has to face the realities of life. Her struggles are lifelong.
\r\n\r\n Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,\r\nBaoping comes from a low-income family. And over the last 20 over\r\nyears, because of our inclusive society, she received much help\r\non her medical treatments and also benefited from the MOE Financial\r\nAssistance Scheme so that she need not worry about expenses, such\r\nas textbooks, school fees and uniforms. And now, she finally enters\r\na new phase in life. She is a working adult. Thus, it is commendable\r\nthat the Finance Minister, in presenting the Budget this year, has increased\r\nthe income ceiling for MOE Financial Assistance Scheme to allow\r\n80,000 families, up from 40,000, to benefit from the Scheme.
\r\n\r\n At the end of the Budget\r\nStatement, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam played a motivational\r\nvideo about how Singaporeans strive for the best. The video featured\r\nseveral Singaporeans, some from low-income families, some are older\r\nworkers, and others have disabled family members. But these people\r\nwere full of confidence and were motivated to work hard and do good.\r\nMeanwhile, they benefited from the Government's various assistance\r\nschemes for the poor and needy. Amongst them, the most touching\r\nstory was Madam Wu Qiaozhen. When she finally witnessed her husband\r\nstand up on his feet after receiving physiotherapy, she said, \"I\r\noften told my daughter, there is compassion in this society.\"
\r\n\r\n Yes, we are a compassionate\r\nsociety. This inclusive society will eventually help those who are crippled\r\nto stand on their feet, allow older workers to regain confidence\r\nand dignity, and allow low-income earners to have job prospect.\r\nAnd it is in this prospect can we build a stronger and more inclusive society.
\r\n\r\n Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,\r\ntwo days ago, I attended a dialogue on the Budget. Unlike previous\r\nyears, people no longer talk about who gets a bigger red packet,\r\nbut rather they want to understand from various aspects how the\r\nGovernment will help these three groups of Singaporeans – the low-income\r\nfamilies, older Singaporeans and families with disabled members.\r\nThey supported the Budget but they also had some questions. Why\r\ndo we need to provide $1.1 billion for public transport operators\r\nto buy new buses? How does the Government ensure that bus services\r\nwould improve and fares would not increase? And I, too, would like\r\nto ask the Finance Minister whether the Government would ensure\r\nthat the bus companies would increase drivers' wages, otherwise\r\nhow are they going to employ another 1,000 bus drivers? If we cannot\r\nfind more Singaporeans to become bus drivers, we would have to employ\r\nover 1,000 foreign drivers. Of course, we need some foreign drivers\r\nin the team, but we need to ensure that Singaporean drivers can\r\nhave higher wages.
\r\nPage: 1371
\r\n\r\n Older workers are also grateful to the\r\nGovernment for increasing their CPF contribution rate, so that they\r\nwill have higher savings. As for the self-employed, such as taxi\r\ndrivers, they would like to thank the Finance Minister for increasing\r\ntheir training subsidy.
\r\n\r\n I would like to raise\r\na point – some Singaporeans, particularly the Budget's targeted\r\nbeneficiaries, are unclear or even ignorant about how the new policies\r\nwill benefit them. We should think hard and come up with practical\r\nways of communicating the message to them. For example, the Primary\r\nCare Partnership Scheme implemented last year is a good policy.\r\nBut many people did not know about this scheme, neither did they\r\napply for it or enjoy its benefits. The scheme is now renamed \"Community Health\r\nAssistance Scheme\".
\r\n\r\n Two days ago, Prime Minister\r\nLee mentioned this scheme during a dialogue in our constituency\r\nand found out that not many people knew about this scheme and its\r\ndetails. As a Chinese saying goes, \"good news are often kept within\r\nthe walls but bad news spreads quickly and widely\". So, I hope the Government\r\nwould be able to spread the good news far and about and be bold\r\nin sharing the bad news directly. The Government can be wordy and\r\ndetailed in their internal documents, but for the key messages to\r\nthe people, particularly the benefits for the low-income earners,\r\nolder Singaporeans and the disabled, they should be \"short and sweet\r\nand easy to understand\".
\r\n\r\n So, I ask the Finance\r\nMinister, will the Government be \"short and sweet\" in communicating\r\nthe new Budget Statement to Singaporeans, particularly the low-income\r\nearners, older Singaporeans and the disabled, so that they can easily\r\nunderstand it? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, most Singaporeans support\r\nthis Budget but they hope everyone would know more about it and\r\nunderstand it readily. I support this motion.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang)\r\n :\r\nMr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to start my speech in Malay. (In Malay): [Please\r\nrefer to Pg 1413 for Vernacular Speeches.\r\n ] The 2012 Budget is a balanced one\r\nthat meets the current needs and long-term challenges. I hope that\r\nthe allocated amount this time will bring benefits to the elderly\r\nas well as those in the low-income group.
\r\n\r\n I also hope that, through\r\nthe long-term plans of this 2012 Budget, we can generate more job opportunities\r\nand better pay, especially for low-wage workers, housewives who\r\nwish to enter the labour market and older citizens who are still\r\nactive.
\r\n\r\n Therefore, I would like\r\nto urge the Malay community to take advantage of every available opportunity\r\nand programme, and work towards improving and upgrading themselves\r\nwith the various opportunities that are available.
\r\n\r\n This year, we see more\r\nof our Malay/Muslim students entering the the Mendaki Tuition Scheme (MTS),\r\nuntil for the first time ever, there is a long waiting list. This\r\nis a positive sign that more parents want to see their children\r\nsucceed because they realise that education is the main key to a\r\nsuccessful life.
\r\n\r\n The Government has done\r\nmuch to increase the allocation for education. However, I would\r\nlike to suggest that more support be given to the low-income group\r\nto help their children improve their lives. This enhanced assistance\r\ncan be made in the form of a cash grant for certain bodies like\r\nMENDAKI, to fund programmes like the MTS that can make an impact\r\ntowards our community's progress.
\r\nPage: 1372
\r\n\r\n MENDAKI, as well as other Malay/Muslim\r\nbodies, play an important role in improving the community's social\r\nstanding, by providing opportunities to children from the less fortunate\r\nfamilies, for them to attend tuition and enrichment classes.
\r\n\r\n Here, I hope that the\r\nGovernment can further ease the way for the Malay/Muslim community\r\nin Singapore to continue progressing and achieve a good standard\r\nof living.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In English): Mr Deputy Speaker,\r\nSir, I would first like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance\r\nMinister, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, for an enlightened Budget Speech\r\ndelivered on 17 February 2012. I am pleased that with this Budget,\r\nwhich provides a number of benefits for the elderly as well as the\r\nmiddle and lower income groups, will help many Singaporeans. It\r\nis only right and fair for the Government to remain prudent in using\r\ntaxpayer dollars – in kind and social benefits – so as to deliver\r\nthe desired social compact for citizens. Representing my constituents\r\nin the Chua Chu Kang GRC, I am glad to be given this opportunity\r\nto give my perspectives on Budget 2012.
\r\n\r\n Overall, I think that\r\nthe Budget 2012 is a balanced Budget – aiming to address some of\r\nthe basic needs of the day, for example, rising costs of inflation,\r\nthe increasing needs of the elderly as well as for the long-term\r\ninterests of our country. By doing so, we can give our people that\r\nsense of security that the Government cares for our longer term\r\nwell-being and cultivates a balanced society – and not just one that\r\nis focused on GDP growth. Many are therefore heartened that there\r\nhas been some re-think of our policies to allow for more active\r\nintervention to alleviate the stresses of those in the lower rungs\r\nof society.
\r\n\r\n There are three areas\r\nof the Budget that I would like to cover today: (i) the rise of\r\nthe dual economy: bridging the income disparity and concerns with\r\nthe \"one-size-fits-all\" productivity drive; (ii) the welfare of\r\nelderly: \"lifestyle security\" for the elderly; and (iii) the new\r\nsocial compact: compassion versus competitiveness.
\r\n\r\n Firstly, we have to recognise\r\nthat the old economic thinking that GDP growth translates to citizen's wealth\r\ndoes not apply today. For example, in the USA, two-thirds of the\r\nnation's total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top\r\n1% of US households, and that top 1% held a larger share of income\r\nin 2007 than at any time since 1928, according to the Centre on\r\nBudget and Priority Policies' Report dated 9 September 2009. USA\r\ntoday has a Gini coefficient of 0.45. In Singapore, we are facing\r\nthis issue. Our Gini coefficient has risen from 0.442 in 2000 to\r\n0.472 in 2010, according to the report, Department of Statistics\r\n2010.
\r\n\r\n At the lower income end,\r\nwages of the lowest 10% of the income scale have remained stagnant\r\nfor the past decade. Some have even experienced earning declines,\r\nas reported in The Straits Times on 7 February 2012, that\r\nin 2000, the median gross wage for cleaners and labourers was at\r\n$1,277. By 2010, it fell to $960. On the other hand, the number\r\nof individuals who earn at least $10,000 a month in Singapore has\r\njumped from 48,400 to nearly 140,000 in a decade. Singapore today\r\nhas the highest proportion of millionaires – one in six households.\r\nSome have highlighted that Singapore, as a small economy, is more\r\nsusceptible to global trends and influences and, hence, the more\r\npronounced rising inequality. But what can we do to manage this\r\ninequality better? While we can add more to smoothen out the path\r\nfor greater mobility, as Deputy Prime Minister Tharman rightly pointed\r\nout, it will get more difficult to keep up this mobility in the\r\nyears to come. There is therefore a need to provide more direct help\r\nfor the average person to tackle the issue of cost of living. We\r\nneed to ensure that there is space for lower-skilled or retired\r\nSingaporeans to make a living and enjoy the fruits of the nation's\r\nwealth. It must be remembered that no one can reach the high levels\r\nof productivity to cope with high costs of living and doing business\r\nhere.
\r\nPage: 1373
\r\n\r\n Looking at our Budget of the future, I\r\nfear that our economic model seems to be heading one way – the way\r\nof higher productivity and higher costs of living. I think that\r\nwe may have a policy clash – while the Government pushes for more\r\nproductive, highly skilled economy, Singaporeans are caught in a tension\r\nbecause a dual economy seems to have evolved in Singapore. On one\r\nhand, we have structural changes brought about by globalisation,\r\nskills-biased talent, and a maturing economy. On the other hand,\r\nwe have businesses and workforces that also cater to the domestic\r\nmarket and the less-skilled population that have not been able to\r\nadapt. We are a society with also different make-up of abilities\r\nand interests. Thus, our productivity drive cannot be a \"one-size-fits-all\"\r\napproach and hope that the \"other\" economy will sort itself out,\r\ndisappear or ends up overseas.
\r\n\r\n Over the years, globalisation\r\nand policies on tax, CPF and immigration – while necessary to increase competitiveness\r\n– may have also accentuated some of these divergent forces. We need\r\nto find more sustainable economic measures that can be provided\r\nto give the poorest workers a decent wage, which is depressed by\r\nthe forces of free markets. Our Budget transfers have served us\r\nwell and well-justified to support the Government's position against\r\nminimum wage. However, I fear that our reliance on this tool over\r\nthe long term will create more stresses on the middle class, especially\r\non basic needs of housing, healthcare, transport and education.
\r\n\r\n I move on to our local\r\nSMEs. I understand and agree that we have to continuously improve\r\nthe productivity levels of our companies to stay competitive. I\r\nfully support the Budget's tightening on foreign manpower to give\r\nour citizens a better chance of employment and better wages. However, speaking\r\nto business owners, many SMEs are impacted by the increases in foreign\r\nmanpower levies and, more so, the tightening of foreign labour.
\r\n\r\n It is one thing to say\r\nto let market forces decide, to determine the fate of our local\r\nbusinesses, be they in manufacturing, retail or food and beverage\r\nindustries. But it is quite another thing to count the thousands\r\nof Singaporean jobs likely to be lost should these SMEs fail or\r\nmove overseas to operate their businesses because they cannot be\r\ncompetitive here due to the high costs. It may be worthwhile to\r\ntrack among the listed Singapore companies, how many have already\r\nmoved their core and administrative operations out of Singapore\r\nand is this trend on the increase?
\r\n\r\n Recently, a concern was\r\nraised when it emerged online that SMRT was still hiring bus drivers\r\nfrom China due to shortage of drivers. This raised the perception\r\nof double standards that the productivity drive imposed on SMEs\r\nand businesses were not applied as stringently across the board.\r\nIn MOT's reply in Parliament earlier this month, SMRT and SBS employ\r\nclose to 40% foreign bus drivers and this has been an upward trend\r\nin the past two years. Public companies such as SMRT and SBS should\r\nbe the ones setting the standards – that the focus should be on\r\ngiving local recruitment first priority and to put forth an attractive\r\nwage structure and job condition. I also agree with Member Seng\r\nHan Thong on the fact that we should look at the wages of our bus\r\ndrivers and transport workers. After all, the Government is already\r\nputting $1.1 billion in new investment to co-finance the purchase\r\nof 800 new buses. Much effort is being put into transforming the\r\nsecurity, landscaping and cleaning industries. This is a good opportunity\r\nto transform the public transport sector as well, to make jobs there\r\nmore attractive for Singaporeans. And let us build more of such\r\nsectors from here on.
\r\n\r\n However, there are also\r\nsome sectors which I think Singaporeans wish to continue to enjoy\r\nlow-cost services. Productivity measures and foreign worker tightening\r\nare likely to mean that business cost increases will be passed on\r\nto consumers. Many are concerned about potential cost of living\r\nincreases as a result. Sectors such as Food and Beverage and retail\r\nserve many Singaporeans. In fact, we commonly refer to shopping\r\nand food to be our national pastimes. So, there are many business\r\nowners in these sectors feeling the strain of not being able to\r\nrecruit and not able to service clients effectively. Most are already impacted\r\nby rising rentals, and it is hard not to see these sectors being\r\nable to sustain and serve our local population at current cost.
\r\nPage: 1374
\r\n\r\n Sir, I would like to recommend\r\nthat the Government also closely monitor the impact on foreign manpower\r\ntightening measures on the Food and Beverage (F&B) and retail\r\nsectors and review the rate of tightening on foreign manpower needs\r\nto be slowed. Price increases or the lack of affordable options will\r\nonly serve to create more tensions as it impact services closest\r\nto the common Singaporeans. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, productivity\r\nis a function of output and costs. Our approach to productivity\r\nhas always been about increasing business and workforce output.\r\nHowever, perhaps, the Government can enlighten us if we have also\r\ntruly explored and put as much emphasis on reducing our costs –\r\ncosts of living and costs of doing business here, which also translates\r\nto the expectation of costs of wages.
\r\n\r\n While Budget 2012 tries\r\nto balance the costs increase with schemes such as the PIC and other\r\ncredits and grants. These are short-term measures and I cannot see\r\nthem being sustainable without burdening taxpayers or drawing our\r\nreserves in the long term. What I fear most is if policymakers have\r\nmade a foregone conclusion that prices can only go up – and that\r\nwe have to find ways to subsidise the increases for the lower segments\r\nin the long term. I am particularly concerned for middle-income\r\ngroup and PMETs as they are bluntly impacted by cost increases and\r\nmost of the times do not qualify for many of the subsidies. We cannot\r\nignore the fact that they too need options to enjoy a decent standard\r\nof living in Singapore. It is also important to reduce financial\r\nburden and enhance affordability so that more in the different rungs\r\nof the social ladder can benefit from the wider economic pie. I\r\nhope that our policymakers also make it a priority to look at our\r\neconomic structure to find areas where we can bring our costs down\r\n– especially in the areas of necessities such as housing, utilities,\r\nhealthcare, education, transport. This will ease cost pressures\r\nand survival stresses on citizens and businesses. There are also long-term\r\nimplications of our sense of security of our future here in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n Budget 2012 has given\r\na number of benefits for the elderly, especially through the Special Employment\r\nCredit (SEC) and Silver Housing Bonus Scheme, which will help them\r\nunlock the savings in their homes, so as to boost retirement income.\r\nWe have to recognise that more and more elderly these days cannot\r\nrely on their children to support them. Many of the Government's\r\nsocial assistance schemes abide by the principles that the family\r\nis the first line of support. But this assumption is changing. According\r\nto NCSS and MCYS, a 2005 study showed that only less than 50% or\r\n44% of residents aged above 55 relied on their children for financial\r\nsupport, up from 64% in 1995. This downward trend is expected to\r\ncontinue.
\r\n\r\n The SEC is a move in the\r\nright direction to encourage employment of older Singaporeans, but\r\nthere are also some practical realities that need to be considered.\r\nAccording to MOM's 2010 Labour Force report, about 61% of the number\r\nof elderly, or those aged 55 and above, are employed, but they were concentrated\r\nin the lowest income brackets of below S$1,500 a month. Even with\r\nmore seniors rejoining the workforce, with their limited incomes,\r\nit is difficult for them to cope with the rising costs to maintain the\r\nstandard of living that they have today in the future.
\r\n\r\n The mindsets of employers\r\nstill have some way to go with regard to employing and creating\r\nthe right working conditions for our seniors. Fortunately, the majority\r\nof Singapore's elderly own some assets. While the most common of\r\nthese are savings and fixed deposits, their largest assets are the\r\nhomes that they live in. The Silver Housing Bonus Scheme is a good\r\nmove. But many elderly who own HDB flats tend to be less willing\r\nto uproot themselves and to downgrade into smaller flats in another\r\narea. Many of their children are also likely to have purchased flats\r\nnearby. We need to have a more flexible solution to help our seniors\r\nto retain a roof over their heads and at the same time enjoy \"lifestyle\r\nsecurity\", over the next few years. While allowing the elderly to\r\nmonetise or unlock value from their assets is a good move. However,\r\nas recently reported, today, the adoption of the Lease Buy-back\r\nScheme has not been good. However, perhaps, the target segment to\r\ntry this programme should have been different.
\r\nPage: 1375
\r\n\r\n In this regard, perhaps, the Government\r\ncould consider extending this scheme to the owners of larger HDB\r\nflats, that is, the 4-room and larger HDB flats. The scheme should\r\nbe made available for older Singaporeans in larger flats to monetise\r\ntheir needs. The existing position that larger flat owners can downgrade\r\nto monetise their assets involves high risks in market cycles and\r\ncash transactions. The Lease Buy-back Scheme is a safer, more rational\r\nalternative. The adoption of the Lease Buy-back Scheme may also\r\nbe better among the middle-income population as the amounts monetised\r\nfrom larger flats are likely to be higher and the education profile\r\nof the flat owners may mean that they are better able to appreciate how\r\nthe schemes will benefit them.
\r\n\r\n Raising taxes to allow\r\nmore social spending on our ageing population is not sustainable,\r\nas it will burden taxpayers and erode our competitiveness. Thus,\r\nthe Government should continue to adopt more creative solutions\r\nbeyond taxation, to ease or enhance the cashflow of our seniors.
\r\n\r\n The development of a permanent\r\nlow-income segment is a concern that affects all communities in Singapore.\r\nIf this group do not see any social mobility in their livelihoods,\r\nthey will lose confidence in their future as they sense no economic\r\nsecurity for them. So, it is critical that our policies continue\r\nto help the less well-to-do Singaporeans in our society, and we\r\nshould be ready to provide them with even greater support, especially\r\nthe \"big-ticket\" items in life – for example, more housing subsidies\r\nfor first-time homebuyers, childcare support, healthcare, education,\r\nespecially tertiary. This will give them and their children a boost\r\nup in social ladder. This can also be positive social multipliers\r\n– as our people will then have a better sense of security, more\r\ncommitment to raise their families here and willingness to contribute\r\nback to society.
\r\n\r\n Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,\r\nwe face new challenges which calls for a new social compact today\r\nfor social sustainability. Addressing the interconnected challenges\r\nof the poor, stagnant wages, rising income disparity, lower social\r\nmobility, and a growing feeling of reduced well-being in this new environment\r\nwill require not just policy tweaks. What we need is a broader,\r\nmore holistic re-thinking of Singapore's economic and social policies\r\nto find the right balance between economic growth and social sustainability.\r\nIf Singaporeans feel insecure for long, we will risk losing the\r\nfaith of the people in our system. This will not be good for Singapore\r\nand can create even more social problems, deepen divisiveness and\r\nultimately lead to permanent fissions in our social fabric. We have\r\nto think of what we want Singapore to be over the next 10, 20 years\r\nand it is important for the Government to work more proactively\r\nwith its people to ensure socially desirable outcomes that meet\r\nthe preferences and aspirations of all Singaporeans. Mr Deputy Speaker,\r\nSir, I support the motion.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade)\r\n :\r\nMr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask about the Concept Plan\r\n2011. Every 10 years, we have a collective look and we ask ourselves,\r\nwhat kind of Singapore would we like? In the past, this sort of\r\nquestion would have had fairly definite answers – in the long term,\r\nwe will have this many people, we will aspire to the Swiss standard\r\nof living, and so on. We have aspirational goals defined in material,\r\nobjective and realistic terms. Now, we do not quite have such a\r\nconcept of Year X. Now, there are new rules and new paradigms. In\r\nfact, now Concept Plan 2011 does not appear in 2011! I am hoping\r\nthat we will get to see it sometime in 2012. But of course, the question\r\nstill remains – what kind of Singapore do we want? The answers are\r\nvastly different. More complex, more intriguing, yet in a way, more\r\nurgent than ever before.
\r\n\r\n Sir, each year, the Budget\r\nis the way for our country to put its money where its mouth is.\r\nTo make real its dreams and vision, to make substantial commitments\r\nto plans and predictions. Budget 2012 has seen a significant shift of focus and\r\napproach to cover older Singaporeans, in particular, and to also include\r\nthe middle-income group. As we push for inclusive growth, as we\r\npush to improve and increase the social mobility of all Singaporeans,\r\nwe should not forget that we need to keep an eye out on growing our\r\neconomy and ensuring as high an employment rate for all citizens,\r\nand in the process, strive to improve job and wage prospects for\r\nall. In laying out its vision for the concept, the Minister for\r\nNational Development had pointed out five key ideas: economic growth\r\nopportunities; good quality living environment; an inclusive society\r\nwhere the needs of various sectors of the population are taken care\r\nof; a sustainable Singapore that balances growth with responsible\r\nenvironmental management and an endearing home where people have\r\na strong sense of belonging to Singapore.
\r\nPage: 1376
\r\n\r\n In a sense, these five\r\nhave always been the key issues for us – economy, work, happiness,\r\nprosperity, progress. But moving ahead, I ask the Government to\r\nconsider three key changes that need to be taken into account for\r\nthe future.
\r\n\r\n First, from optimal to\r\nbeing \"good enough\". I call this \"satisficing\". Sir, one key thing\r\nI feel we ought to do is to take a broader, more enlightened and\r\ntolerant stance in policy-making. It is the notion of \"satisficing\"\r\nrather than satisfying. Let us talk about floods, for example. One\r\nkey piece of data provides perspective – our PUB has done an incredible\r\njob of reducing the flood-prone area from 3,200 hectares in the\r\n1970s to 56 hectares today and only 40 hectares by next year. This\r\nmeans that only 0.0005% of Singapore, or an area the size of the\r\nNight Safari, is at risk of being flooded.
\r\n\r\n Now, how much risk is\r\nthere of us being flooded? A typical risk matrix is that \"risk will\r\nbe defined as a combination of probability or likelihood and consequence\",\r\nso for the Mathematicians: \"Flood Risk = Probability of Flooding\r\nx Consequence of Flooding\". In other words, high risk can occur\r\neither from frequent floods that have relatively limited consequences\r\nor from rare floods that have great consequences. The first are\r\nthe sorts of floods in Singapore last year, wet stores and feet\r\nfor half an hour in Orchard Road; and the second, far more disastrous,\r\nwith severe costs in life and homes, such as the 2005 floods in\r\nNew Orleans. It is true that Singapore may be \"high risk\" under\r\nthis calculation but to just trust the final number without appreciating\r\nthe type of risk is a mistake. Singapore may have a high probability\r\nof flooding, but with relatively small consequences. Surely, the\r\npreparedness – both in terms of infrastructure and psychology –\r\nneeds to be different.
\r\n\r\n Sir, we might benefit\r\nfrom an alternative perspective, which is the need to increase citizen\r\nresilience. Given the random nature of floods and the near impossibility\r\nof total prevention, what level of protection do we want, and what\r\nlevel of discomfort can we tolerate? Is $750 million too high a\r\nprice to be paid for what we went through last year? Singapore,\r\nof course, will have to be prepared to bear with something not quite\r\nthe ideal. It is \"satisficing\" – a function of our imperfect knowledge\r\nand limited resources.
\r\n\r\n Roads are another area\r\nwe need to review. A commentator, Eric Jaffe, wrote in an article\r\nfor Atlantic Cities in December last year. He said, \"Many\r\ndesigners size a road or intersection to be free-flowing for the\r\nworst hour of the day. Sized to accommodate cars during the highest\r\npeak hour, such streets will be €˜overdesigned' for the other 23\r\nhours of the day and will always function poorly for the surrounding community.\"\r\nSir, I am a driver, and I hate jams as much as the next man. Sometimes,\r\nI curse – quietly and to myself of course – that I wish there were\r\nwider roads. But I may have to accept that this is the price to\r\npay for larger parks, for better homes, for larger trees and the\r\nfantastic biodiversity we have. Do we need to design roads that\r\ncompletely address the problem of congestion, or can we learn to\r\nlive with some traffic jams, not too bad, not too long traffic jams\r\nduring peak hours? Of course, we can have more roads, or we can\r\nhave fewer cars. To me, the latter seems a better alternative. Perhaps,\r\nit is time for us to continue to tackle more on the oversupply of\r\ncars, rather than the undersupply of roads.
\r\n\r\n Second, from solving problems\r\nto negotiation. Sir, even as we recognise that there are increasingly tighter\r\nlimits for decision making, the process of how decisions are reached\r\nmust change. I must say that I\r\nadmire the assorted \"political watchers\" and \"pundits\" out there\r\nwho always seem to have a brainwave about how to tackle issues –\r\nwhile the rest of us, Opposition MPs included, we work the ground,\r\nwe scratch our heads, we hold our residents' hands as we try and\r\nwork through seemingly hopeless situations late into the night at\r\nour MPS. Some problems are really intractable. And once decisions\r\nare made, rules are set, the cost of opening up the discussion,\r\nof undoing what has been done – that is not easy. Sir, our policies\r\nare blunt instruments by and large – they do mostly good, but they\r\ncan also be a little hard to a very few.
\r\nPage: 1377
\r\n\r\n Taking a very micro-view,\r\nmutual gains, negotiation effort, can help. For example, parking\r\nproblems in any private estate. Let me relate what happened in one\r\nof the private estates in my constituency. Many residents were upset\r\nas parking spaces are limited, and whenever people try to sneak\r\ninto an illegal spot, the Traffic Police are called and summonses\r\nare issued. Perhaps, it was due to intolerance, inconsiderate parking;\r\nperhaps, due to new residents who moved in and did not know other\r\nlong-time residents well enough and so ties with community and neighbours\r\nthere were not so strong. Perhaps, all that was needed was for everyone\r\nto seek to understand each other's perspectives.
\r\n\r\n What I did was to link\r\nthem all up, engage all of them in some dialogues initially via\r\nemail and eventually a face-to-face meeting with all of them at\r\none of the owners' home. We shared openly the issues at hand, implored\r\nall to listen, to better appreciate and understand each other's\r\nperspectives – that really there was no right or wrong. But we all\r\nagreed that as a community, we could take the first and most important\r\nstep to help solve our own local problems. So, we drew up a list\r\nof ground rules for these residents to agree and to adhere to. Now,\r\ncalls to Traffic Police will only be made as a super last resort and\r\nalso by the internal neighbourhood committee. We exchanged and collectively\r\ndrew up this set of rules. We hope to implement these next month\r\nand we will in fact be having a street party soon amongst the residents\r\nthere and I look forward to joining them at this street party next\r\nSaturday. The solution is really nothing new – I told them this\r\nwas called \"neighbourliness\"!
\r\n\r\n I adopted the same approach\r\nwith another group of residents in another private estate, also\r\nregarding parking issues about a year and a half ago. So far, the\r\noutcome has been positive and the neighbourliness spirit is better\r\nthan before. Sir, we have a background set of rules and regulations\r\ndesigned for parking offences – but to enforce them, all the time\r\nwithout regard for nuances of relationships and interests at hand\r\nis unhelpful. Besides, if we call the Traffic Police out for every\r\nlittle disagreement, I can imagine the state of the Home Affairs'\r\nbudget the next year!
\r\n\r\n Likewise, lift upgrading.\r\nSome flats were designed a long time ago, such that now to provide\r\nfull lift access, it creates \"problems\" for others such as blocked\r\nviews. So, in my case I again engaged each block of residents who\r\nare affected, had dialogues with them, explained and hoped. As a\r\nresult, all of them have a better appreciation of the problem and\r\nthe very difficult issues that confront the desire to provide full\r\nlift accessibility for all residents in their block. I have about\r\neight such blocks requiring eight such sessions. In some cases,\r\nI had to have another two or three follow-up dialogues. Time-consuming\r\nno doubt but, to me and, I believe, to many others, necessary and\r\nuseful. I do not know if it will all turn out well because they\r\nare all different and some are still pending but I think we all\r\nwould want to work out some solution which will not satisfy everyone\r\nbut which they will all hopefully understand. This is what I call\r\n\"satisficing\" – some satisfaction, some sacrifice. And I think by\r\nand large, we are understanding and reasonable when we are engaged\r\nand we have all the information needed to make a decision.
\r\n\r\n With this negotiation\r\nand open conversation concept, we can also make the point, without moralising,\r\nthat Singaporeans can take ownership and responsibility for things\r\nwhich they are accountable for. It could be about pet ownership\r\nabandonment, leaving dog poo all over the place, leaving a disused\r\nbicycle in the void deck, high-rise littering, parking improperly\r\nor not giving way to the elderly. We make mistakes, we admit them,\r\nwe apologise and we help each other along.
\r\nPage: 1378
\r\n\r\n My third and final point\r\nis about hard infrastructure and the limits of growth. Sir, the\r\nSingapore we want can be created in our minds and hearts, but the\r\nreality is still some 700 square kilometres we have to work with.\r\nSir, the URA takes 6.5 million as a planning parameter. We are not\r\nyet at 6 million and already feeling the heat. We are cheek to jowl,\r\nand fighting and scrambling for what is yours or mine – jobs, homes,\r\na seat on the bus or the train. At the same time, the \"community\"\r\napproach that has served us so well in the past may not work now\r\n– as we develop discrete and fragmented identities – it has recently,\r\nsometimes unfortunately become a zero sum game, in part borne by\r\na sense of deprivation at the rising inequality. Sir, inequality\r\nis an insidious and creeping problem and I will address this more fully\r\nin my MCYS cut. In my mind, if we do not reduce this scourge, it\r\nwill poison everything else that we do.
\r\n\r\n But for now, I want to\r\nconcentrate on the notion of limits. Are we reaching the biophysical\r\nlimits of growth and do we want to stop at a certain point? This\r\nis an important question because at the end of it all, we come back\r\nto the most important question: what kind of Singapore do we want?\r\nThis Government through this Budget has made some significant moves\r\nand signal its intention to have more inclusive growth and build\r\na more inclusive society. It is and will continue to be always work\r\nin progress.
\r\n\r\n The limits are biophysical\r\nas I have said, but in a sense they are also a function of the complexity\r\nof society today – not just in Singapore, but the world over. In\r\nthe analysis of the Challenger tragedy in US, the Enron collapse\r\nand the recent Western financial crisis, we see the fragility of\r\ncomplex systems. They are what Yale Professor Charles Perrow call\r\n\"normal accidents\" – accidents caused by the way minor events interacted\r\nto produce major disasters.
\r\n\r\n \"Normal\" does not mean\r\nroutine or frequent. It just means that it can occur within the\r\nnormal functioning of a complex system. As journalist Malcolm Gladwell\r\nsays, when accidents of this sort happen, there is \"no one to blame,\r\nno dark secret to unearth, no recourse but to re-create an entire\r\nsystem in place of one that had inexplicably failed\". Well, he is\r\nwrong about the lack of recourse, of course, because the most obvious\r\nand yet most difficult is to recalibrate our response to disasters.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I have spoken about\r\nthe need for resilience as above. I was trying to come up with a\r\nfigure – is $10 million enough to grow a stiff spine? Maybe $20\r\nmillion, $30 million. $1 billion – the same amount we spend on a\r\nnew Garden by the Bay? So, how do we ensure a good response to a\r\ncrisis? Given what I said earlier about over provision, I really\r\nhesitate to name a figure.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the main reason for\r\nnot having a figure is that this sort of policy needs to be embedded\r\nwithin many others. And I feel, in fact I know, we are going in\r\nthe right direction with Budget 2012. For sure, there are still\r\nmany moves and policy refinements and even overhauls that will come\r\nup, going forward. I have in my address highlighted some of the\r\naspects that need to be studied in greater detail.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the kind of Singapore\r\nwe want is a rationally imperfect, complex one, in which accidents\r\nwill happen, and which satisfaction is mixed liberally with sacrifice.\r\nSir, it is not a platonic world, but it is our home, and if no homes\r\nare perfect, at least ours will be one that is warm and safe; and\r\nwhere we are all part of a family. Sir, I support this Budget.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang)\r\n :\r\nMr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget. Sir, many Singaporeans\r\nhave voiced support for this year's Budget. Many have called it\r\nan \"inclusive Budget\" targeted at restructuring our economy, helping\r\nthe low-income and elderly Singaporeans. The Budget is indeed a step in the\r\nright direction to build an inclusive society and a stronger Singapore.\r\nHowever, the targeted approach in assistance always fails to fulfil\r\nthe needs and aspirations of certain segments of our population.\r\nThat is why we can still see media reports of SMEs and different\r\ngroups of Singaporeans asking for more subsidies or assistance from\r\nthe Government.
\r\nPage: 1379
\r\n\r\n Sir, a Budget which targets\r\non helping certain segments of the population will always tend to\r\nmake the rest feel \"short-changed\", thus resulting in unhappiness\r\namong Singaporeans. To address this unhappiness, I would propose\r\nto the Finance Minister to consider adding a \"sharing\" component\r\nin the Budget. Despite having attained an economic growth of 4.9%\r\nin 2011 and a budget surplus of $2.3 billion, there is no \"Growth\r\nDividend\" to recognise the efforts of all Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n Sir, may I ask the Finance\r\nMinister: (1) what is the purpose of the Growth Dividend?; (2) under\r\nwhat circumstances will the Government give out Growth Dividend?;\r\nand (3) why is no Growth Dividend given out to Singaporeans this\r\nyear?
\r\n\r\n Sir, the Growth Dividend\r\nis a good mechanism for the Government to share our Budget surplus\r\nwith Singaporeans regardless of age, income or the annual value\r\nof their property. In times of economic crisis, the Government encourages\r\nSingaporeans to take tough economic measures to cut costs. Therefore,\r\nwhen there is economic growth and budget surplus, there should also\r\nbe Growth Dividend to recognise Singaporeans' contributions.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I support the permanent\r\nGST Vouchers to help lower income Singaporeans. At the same time,\r\nI would urge the Finance Minister to consider providing Growth Dividend\r\nto Singaporeans. In this way, it provides a fairer distribution\r\nof budget surplus to all Singaporeans while helping the lower income groups.\r\nThis is what I would call the \"share and care\" approach for budgeting.
\r\n\r\n Sir, although the proposed\r\nBudget is inclusive, there is a lack of measures to promote a caring\r\nsociety where Singaporeans will care for one another and others.\r\nWe need to build a strong economy. We need to build an inclusive\r\nsociety. But what is more important is to nurture more caring Singaporeans\r\nand Singapore companies.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I am heartened to\r\nread a letter in the Forum page in the Straits Times dated\r\n24 February 2012 titled, \"Thanks for saving my wife's life: SIA\r\npassenger\". The professionalism and care shown by the SIA crew of\r\nFlight SQ 322 in saving a passenger's life is indeed commendable.\r\nSir, we need more caring Singapore companies and more good Singaporean\r\nSamaritans to build a caring society.
\r\n\r\n Thus, I would urge the\r\nFinance Minister to consider the following suggestions to nurture\r\ncaring Singapore companies and Singaporeans:
\r\n\r\n (1) Supporting firms which\r\nemploy older Singapore workers. Sir, I support the Special Employment Credit\r\n(SEC) for older workers above 50 years old and the reduction of\r\ndependency ratio for foreign workers. But I am concerned that it\r\nwill have undesirable side effects resulting in firms employing\r\nmore \"phantom older workers\" to meet the reduced dependency ratio\r\nand profit from the SEC. Although the SEC may encourage more firms\r\nto retain or recruit older workers, it may not result in older workers getting\r\nbetter pay and employment terms. Furthermore, SMEs may not benefit\r\nmuch from the SEC as they do not employ many older workers. Therefore,\r\nI would urge the Finance Minister to consider adopting a two-tier\r\nSEC for SMEs and larger firms. A higher SEC for SMEs will give them\r\na more level playing field and further incentivise them to provide\r\nmore job opportunities for older Singaporeans.
\r\nPage: 1380
\r\n\r\n Sir, we can also help Singapore firms\r\nto take care of their older workers in two areas. First, we can increase\r\nthe skills and pay of older workers through the companies. I would\r\nurge the Finance Minister to consider providing a Special Training\r\nCredit to encourage firms to send their older workers for continual\r\nskills upgrading. Second, we should provide more SEC for firms which\r\nemploy older workers earning a basic salary of $1,000 or more. Sir,\r\nthe SEC has an income ceiling of $3,000 but no minimum salary criteria\r\nto protect low wage older workers. As such, older workers may not\r\nbe able to earn more.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I share the concern\r\nraised by the Finance Minister on the low wage of some Singaporean workers,\r\nespecially cleaners. Over the last three years, the 14 PAP Town\r\nCouncils spearheaded a Job Redesign Programme with NTUC to help\r\nraise the skills, productivity and wages of cleaners working in\r\nthe Town Councils. At the start of the programme, we faced many\r\nchallenges as cleaners were not well trained, their morale and salary\r\nwere low, and cleaning firms were not keen to upgrade the skills\r\nof their workers. Furthermore, the wage of cleaners was often affected\r\nor suppressed by the competitive bidding for cleaning contracts.
\r\n\r\n Sir, to address these\r\nchallenges, the Town Councils developed a three-pronged approach,\r\nnamely: (1) redesign the tender specifications; (2) incorporate\r\na performance evaluation system; and (3) modify our tender evaluation\r\ncriteria for cleaning contracts. The changes help us to increase\r\nthe skills of our cleaners, raise their productivity and salary.\r\nAt the same time, cleaners are more motivated to provide better\r\ncleaning services to our residents.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I hope the Finance\r\nMinister will adopt a two-tier SEC and set a minimum salary criteria\r\nto help older Singapore workers get better salary.
\r\n\r\n (2) Supporting Corporate\r\nSocial Responsibility and Philanthropy. Sir, to build a caring society,\r\nwe need more successful companies and individuals to come forward\r\nto help the needy in our community. We should also encourage more\r\nstart-ups of voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), and incentivise more\r\nSingaporeans to make donations to help the sick and needy in our\r\nsociety. Sir, at this juncture, let me share with Members the experience\r\nof North West CDC in encouraging companies and individuals to make\r\nmonthly donations of at least $100 per month to help our needy.
\r\n\r\n In May 2008, North West\r\nCDC started the Club-100 @ North West to foster philanthropy spirit among\r\nSingaporeans. We identified a cause for the donations and conveyed\r\nthe message that all donations will go towards the North West Food\r\nAid Fund which provides food rations and vouchers to over 700 needy\r\nhouseholds monthly. To date, we are pleased to report that Club-100\r\n@ North West has 300 members, contributing half a million dollars\r\na year to help our needy.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the Government can\r\ndo more to encourage corporate social responsibility and philanthropy. Besides\r\nproviding the 2.5 times income tax exemption, I would urge the Government\r\nto provide a one-to-one matching grant subject to a certain cap\r\nfor donations made to VWOs with Charity or IPC status. At the same\r\ntime, the Government can be a VWO venture capitalist to provide\r\nseed money for VWO start-ups. More tax exemption can also be provided\r\nto encourage individuals to make monthly donations. The returns\r\nfor such investment will be a more caring society with many helping\r\nhands.
\r\n\r\n (3) Supporting 3Ps efforts\r\nto build a caring community. Sir, the building of a caring community requires\r\nthe efforts of the 3Ps (Public, Private and People) sectors. We\r\nmust continue to encourage more initiatives by the 3Ps to spearhead\r\n\"Caring Community\" programmes or services. The Government, business\r\ncommunity and our people must take ownership to achieve the same\r\ndesired outcome − a caring community where Singaporeans will take\r\ncare of one another.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the CDCs can serve\r\nas a useful channel to match 3Ps projects in the community. The\r\nexperience of the CDCs in identifying the needs of the community\r\nwill ensure better outcomes for 3Ps projects. In this aspect, I hope\r\nthat the Government will allocate resources and initiate more 3Ps\r\nprojects to strengthen the partnership of the 3Ps. This will build\r\ncapabilities in the community and sustain more community programmes\r\nand services.
\r\nPage: 1381
\r\n\r\n Sir, nurturing more caring\r\nSingaporeans and promoting socially responsible businesses will definitely\r\nadd more happy hours to the lives of Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Deputy Speaker\r\n : Order.\r\nDeputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, resumption of debate, what\r\nday?
\r\nPage: 1381
\r\nPage: 1382
\r\n\r\n \r\n 1 \r\n \r\n Mr Gan Thiam Poh\r\n asked\r\nthe Prime Minister (a) what is the percentage breakdown of our 1.39 million\r\nnon-resident population in terms of (i) foreign professionals; (ii)\r\nmid-level skilled foreigners; (iii) skilled and semi-skilled foreigners;\r\n(iv) foreigners' dependants; and (v) foreign students; and (b) what\r\nis the percentage breakdown by country of origin for (i) the 1.39\r\nmillion non-residents; and (ii) the 0.53 million permanent residents.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister)\r\n :\r\nOur non-resident population was 1.39 million as at June 2011. The\r\npercentage breakdown of the non-resident population by pass types\r\nis in Table 1.
\r\n\r\n \r\n Table 1: Percentage\r\nBreakdown of Non-Resident Population (As at June 2011)\r\n
\r\n\r\n| Non-Residents | \r\nJune 2011 (%) | \r\n
|---|---|
| Employment Pass\r\nHolders | \r\n12% | \r\n
| S Pass Holders | \r\n8% | \r\n
| Work Permit Holders\r\n(1) | \r\n60% | \r\n
| Dependants of\r\nSingapore Citizens, Permanent Residents and Work Pass Holders (2) | \r\n14% | \r\n
| Foreign Students\r\n(3) | \r\n6% | \r\n
| Total (4) | \r\n100% | \r\n
\r\n Note 1: Includes foreign\r\ndomestic workers.
\r\n\r\n Note 2: Holders of Dependant\r\nPasses and Long Term Visit Passes
\r\n\r\n Note 3: Student Pass holders\r\nin MOE schools/post-secondary education institutions, foreign system\r\nschools and private education institutions
\r\n\r\n Note 4: Excludes Work\r\nPasses that are in process.
\r\n\r\n Foreign domestic workers\r\nand construction workers make up the majority of Work Permit holders.
\r\n\r\n The percentage breakdown\r\nby country of origin of the 1.39 million non-residents and 0.53\r\nmillion permanent residents is in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.
\r\n\r\n \r\n Table 2: Percentage\r\nBreakdown by Country of Origin of Non-Resident Population (As as\r\nJune 2011)\r\n
\r\n\r\n| Non-Residents | \r\nJune 2011 (%) | \r\n
|---|---|
| Southeast Asian\r\ncountries | \r\n46% | \r\n
| Other Asian countries | \r\n47% | \r\n
| Other countries | \r\n7% | \r\n
| Total | \r\n100% | \r\n
\r\n \r\n Table 3: Percentage\r\nBreakdown by Country of Origin of Permanent Resident Population\r\n(As at June 2011)\r\n
\r\n\r\n \r\nPage: 1383
\r\n\r\n \r\n 2 \r\n \r\n Mr Gan Thiam Poh\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance if he can provide a\r\nbreakdown of the top 1,000 Singaporean individual income earners\r\nbased on tax returns for the Year of Assessment 2011, segmented\r\nby number and percentage of the highest educational qualification obtained\r\nand the age group to which each of them belongs.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam\r\n :\r\nThe Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) does not collect\r\nthe data on taxpayers' educational qualification in the tax returns.\r\nAs for the age breakdown of the top 1,000 Singaporean taxpayers\r\nwho filed tax returns for the Year of Assessment 2011, 23% are below\r\n45 years old, 60% are between the ages of 45 and 59, and 17% are\r\n60 years old and above.
\r\nPage: 1383
\r\n\r\n \r\n 3 \r\n \r\n Mr Gan Thiam Poh\r\n asked\r\nthe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower whether the Government\r\nwill consider to gazette Thaipusam as one of the public holidays\r\nin Singapore.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam\r\n :\r\nThere are currently 11 days of public holidays in Singapore. These\r\npublic holidays were chosen in consultation with the major religious\r\ngroups, and represent a careful balancing of the interests amongst\r\nthe various groups in our society.
\r\n\r\n In the past, there have\r\nbeen requests to deem other significant days or festivals observed\r\nby various groups of Singaporeans as public holidays, such as Lao-Tzu's\r\nBirthday for the Taoists, Thaipusam and the Hindu New Year for the\r\nHindus, and Women's Day.
\r\n\r\n There is a long-accepted,\r\ncommon understanding with regard to the number and configuration\r\nof our public holidays, and it would be sensible to maintain this.\r\nFurther, an increase in the number of public holidays will raise\r\nbusiness costs and affect Singapore's economic competitiveness.\r\nThis was a major consideration when the current 11 public holidays\r\nwere first decided on and remains relevant today.
\r\nPage: 1383
\r\nPage: 1384
\r\n\r\n \r\n 5 \r\n \r\n Mr Pritam Singh\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Law on a yearly basis from 1994 onwards, how many exemptions\r\nhave been granted by the Ministry to external law degree holders\r\nwho wish to be exempted from the policy of their degrees not being\r\nrecognised for admission to the Singapore Bar.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr K Shanmugam\r\n : To be qualified\r\nto be admitted to the Bar in Singapore, an applicant is required to\r\nhave obtained a recognised law degree. External law degrees are\r\nnot recognised in this context. External law degree graduates may,\r\nhowever, receive exemptions in a limited number of cases. In exercising\r\nsuch discretion, the Minister for Law takes into account factors\r\nsuch as how well candidates have performed academically as well\r\nas whether they have substantial experience in the legal sector.
\r\n\r\n Since 1994, 11 exemptions\r\nhave been granted to external degree holders. One was granted in\r\n2009, three in 2010, and seven in 2011.
\r\nPage: 1384
\r\n\r\n \r\n 6 \r\n \r\n Mrs Lina Chiam\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Health from 2008 to 2011 (a) what is the total\r\namount of monies owed by patients in restructured hospitals; (b)\r\nwhat is the number of patients who owed hospital bills in respect\r\nof (i) permanent residents and foreigners; and (ii) Singaporeans;\r\nand (c) what means does the restructured hospitals use to collect\r\nthese unpaid bills.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Gan Kim Yong\r\n : More than\r\n96% of the restructured hospital patients settle their bills within\r\ntwo months. The total arrears owed by patients that exceeded two\r\nmonths, on a cumulative basis, was $75 million as at end-2008 and\r\nabout $110 million as at end-2011. These figures include arrears\r\nbrought forward from prior years. They also include patients who\r\nare paying their outstanding bills by instalments, or are awaiting\r\nassessment for financial assistance by the hospitals. A significant\r\npart of the arrears are eventually recovered or paid up over time,\r\nbut a portion will become bad debt and have to be written off. The\r\ntotal amount written off in FY2008, FY2009 and FY2010 was $27 million,\r\n$26 million and $37 million respectively.
\r\n\r\n For 2011 bills alone,\r\nas at end-2011, there were 136,000 bills outstanding for two months\r\nor more\r\n 1\r\n , translating to $48 million in total arrears. Eighty-three\r\npercent of these outstanding bills were incurred by Singaporean\r\npatients.
\r\n\r\n Generally, the hospitals\r\nwill send patients a reminder if they do not settle their bills\r\nwithin a month. There will be subsequent reminders in the following\r\nmonths, if necessary, by mail and telephone. When there is still\r\nno response, some hospitals may refer the case to an authorised\r\ndebt collection agency to collect the arrears on their behalf. At\r\nany time, should a patient express problems paying his or her hospital\r\nbill, the hospital will assess the case and explore options for\r\nfinancial assistance, such as instalment payments or Medifund assistance.
\r\nPage: 1385
\r\n\r\n \r\n 7 \r\n \r\n Mr Gan Thiam Poh\r\n asked\r\nthe Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider adding a\r\nLRT station on the existing Sengkang LRT track along Sengkang East\r\nAvenue next to Park Green Condominium and Block 102, Rivervale Walk.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Lui Tuck Yew\r\n : Today,\r\nthe residents in the vicinity of Park Green Condominium and Block\r\n102, Rivervale Walk are already served by two existing LRT stations\r\n(SE4 Kangkar and SE5 Ranggung), which are located within a walking\r\ndistance of 400 metres to 500 metres. The residents are also served by\r\ntwo bus-stops (B11 and B12) along Sengkang East Ave, where Service\r\n119 connects the residents to the transport node and amenities at\r\nthe Sengkang Town Centre and provides a direct link to Heartland Mall\r\nand the food centre at Kovan.
\r\n\r\n LTA has also assessed\r\nthat it would not be technically possible to add a station in the\r\nvicinity. As the LRT alignment in the area is curved, there is an\r\ninsufficient length of straight track to accommodate an additional\r\nstation.
\r\n\r\n I assure the Member that\r\nLTA, together with the relevant agencies like the Urban Redevelopment Authority\r\n(URA) and Housing Development Board (HDB), regularly reviews transport\r\nplans to serve developments in the area. LTA will also continue\r\nto work with the public transport operators to enhance public transport\r\nservices in a timely manner.
\r\n \r\nPage: 1386
\r\n \r\nPage: 1387
\r\n \r\nPage: 1388
\r\n \r\nPage: 1392
\r\n \r\nPage: 1393
\r\n \r\nPage: 1394
\r\n \r\nPage: 1396
\r\n\r\n Vernacular\r\nSpeech by Assoc\r\nProf Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim \r\n
\r\nPage: 1398
\r\n \r\nPage: 1400
\r\n \r\n