1 Ms Sun Xueling asked\tthe Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) whether the merger of the SkillsFuture and Jobs Bank portals will incorporate a review function for training providers to ensure outcome-based training provisions; (b) whether the merged portal can include internship opportunities for young Singaporeans; (c) whether the merged portal can include personality assessments that gauge the fit of the user to jobs as opposed to just skills; and (d) whether jobs listed in the Jobs Bank are regularly updated to ensure relevance.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Education (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills)): Madam, the Individual Learning Portfolio (ILP) is designed to be a one-stop online portal which empowers individuals to make informed learning and career choices. There will be platforms for individuals to review and provide feedback on the training programmes available on the ILP, and information on training outcomes will be published on the portal.
As internship opportunities are managed by the respective Institutes of Higher Learning, the ILP is currently not built with such a feature. Notwithstanding this, should the need arise to do so in the future, we can consider building it in subsequent phases of the ILP.
The ILP will also have tools and resources that will enable individuals to assess their career interests, skills gaps and work values. Based on individuals' profiling results from these tools, they can then explore possible jobs and training programmes to prepare themselves for those jobs.
Besides discovering one's career interest and identifying skills gaps, individuals can also view and apply for jobs via the Jobs Bank, which will be integrated into the ILP. Jobs listed in the Jobs Bank are regularly updated as each job posting is only valid for a maximum period of 30 days. Employers can renew expired job postings, assuming suitable candidates are not found. Job postings that have expired are automatically removed. This ensures that the list of available jobs in the Jobs Bank is up-to-date.
The ILP will be rolled out in stages, starting from 2017, and we will share more details in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feedback Received from Earn and Learn Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Ms Sun Xueling asked\tthe Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) (a) whether he can provide an update on the feedback received on Earn and Learn Programmes (ELP) in 2016; (b) whether the Ministry has been able to place 400 Polytechnic and ITE graduates across all the ELPs in 2016; and (c) which are the most sought after ELPs and whether they match existing manpower projections of the Industry Transformation Maps.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Education (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills)): Madam, the SkillsFuture Earn and Learn Programme (ELP) was launched as a work-learn initiative to support fresh polytechnic and ITE graduates in their transition to the workplace and into sectors which they have been trained for.
In 2016, over 500 Polytechnic and ITE graduates were placed with companies across various ELPs. This is more than the 400 placements targeted for 2016. We have received positive feedback from both employers and trainees who have participated in the ELP.
There are currently 40 ELPs across 23 sectors including those where the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) are being developed. The most popular ELPs are in sectors such as Hotel, ICT and Logistics, where ITMs are developed.
MOE will continue to work with the respective sector agencies to introduce more work-learn programmes to support training and lifelong learning.
\tMs Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol):\tI thank the Parliamentary Secretary. I would like to enquire what is the process to obtain feedback from the trainees about their experience for the programme.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim:\tMdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. The trainers, even the lecturers, have a close engagement with the students and participants, and at the end of it, they would also obtain feedback from the participants. We also work with the companies to see how we can get feedback, and at the same time, to better and improve the service delivery of the training institutes, as well as how we can enhance the learning experience of the participants.
\tMs Sun Xueling:\tI would like to enquire how does the Ministry ensure that what the trainee goes for during the programme, is an add-on to what he or she has learnt in school, that it is really Earn and Learn, in the sense that they are learning on top of what they have learnt in school.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim:\tIt is a developmental process whereby we make sure what they learn is also linked to what they are doing at their workplace. It is not only about looking at what they have learnt, but also what they are going to do, what they are doing and at the same time, we cannot run from the fact that there are certain basic things that we need to remind them, and to link to what they had learnt before. It is an integral and integrated process whereby we want to manage the whole process of learning seamlessly.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines):\tI thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his clarification. While ELP has been important to bringing new talent into the industries, but there has been union feedback that the entry pay for some of these industries are not attractive, thereby limiting the attractiveness of ELPs, as a whole. Will the Ministry consider, in the upcoming ELPs, to allow greater parity and for the pay to catch up with market conditions?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim:\tI thank Mr Desmond Choo for the feedback. We will take it back. As Members know, the ELP is a new initiative. We will learn along the way and we are committed to improving the arrangements as well as how we can make the ELP more attractive to the participants.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Algae Blooms and Oil Spills on Aim to Increase Locally Farmed Fish in Local Consumption","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Leon Perera asked\tthe Minister for National Development (a) what impact did algae blooms and the recent oil spill have on AVA's target for locally farmed fish to comprise 15% of local fish consumption; (b) what measures are taken to help coastal fish farmers cope with the aftermath of these events; and (c) what measures are taken to help fish farmers change their production methods so that they are more efficient and less susceptible to algae blooms and oil spills.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mdm Speaker, plankton blooms and the recent oil spill have impacted some local fish farmers. However, these events have not detracted from our push to achieve 15% local production. Local fish production increased from 4,205 tonnes in 2014 or 8% of local consumption, to 4,851 tonnes in 2016 or 10% of local consumption. Having said that, I would add that AVA is currently reviewing the longer term targets for local food production, and working with industry and various stakeholders to develop concepts towards transforming the local farming industry.
The Government assisted the affected farms following these plankton bloom and oil spill events. After the plankton blooms in 2014 and 2015, AVA extended subsidies to help affected farms to restock their fish. During the oil spill, AVA deployed oil absorbent pads and canvas to protect our farms. AVA is now assisting affected farmers with their claims against the ship's insurers.
AVA has put in place several measures to help our farmers manage longer term environmental risks. First, AVA has developed a real-time online water quality monitoring system that our farmers can access through their mobile phones. This helps them monitor water quality information like plankton counts and dissolved oxygen. AVA also provides SMS alerts to farmers when adverse conditions are detected so that precautionary measures can be taken.
Second, AVA continues to assist farmers in tailoring individual contingency plans. To-date, almost 50 farms have worked with AVA to develop customised contingency plans to mitigate adverse conditions.
Third, AVA has used the Co-Innovation Partnership Programme to co-fund the development and adoption of new farming technologies like closed containment aquaculture systems (CCAS). These technologies reduce the vulnerability of fish stocks to environmental risks. Several farms have already adopted these systems and AVA continues to share these technologies with the rest of the industry through briefings and workshops.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member):\tI thank the Senior Minister of State for his very detailed reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Were there any affected farmers who did not avail themselves to the help that was given, and if so, is AVA aware of the reasons why, and is AVA looking into that? Secondly, in terms of achieving the target for production of fish locally, is the AVA also looking into vertical farming or urban farming, and will that also contribute to the target, and are there some measures in place to have that complement the coastal fish farming and other types of fish farming? Thirdly, is AVA exploring the possibility of deploying insurance products to help in risk-pooling among the farmers? I am not sure if there is a possibility but has that been explored with the insurance sector and with the farms?
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his three supplementary questions. For the first, I do not have the details as to who did not avail themselves of help. AVA, in the aftermath of both events, went out to all the farms, and reached out to all the affected farms. As far as the oil spill is concerned, they went to all the farms in the eastern area and offered absorbent pads and canvas to help them screen off their stock. I am not sure if we are in a position to know who needed help and did not ask for it, and why they did not request for assistance. But AVA proactively offered help. If the Member is aware of any farmer who did not seek assistance but requires it, please let us know.
The second question was on vertical farming of fish. If the Member would be interested to know, there is a Tropical Marine Science Institute (TMSI) on St John's Island under NUS and they work with AVA to explore various technologies and innovations that can help our fish farming industry progress and be more productive. I do not know specifically for a fact whether vertical fish farming is being contemplated. But AVA is exploring with TMSI and other relevant institutes and agencies to explore various options for fish farmers to enhance their productivity.
On the third question of insurance, a couple of years back, I did visit some fish farms and they did raise the issue of insurance to protect their stock. I think we start from measures that the fish farmers can put in place to protect their stock and these measures need to be seen in the light of what AVA offers, for example, close containment of cultured systems, and other measures to help them protect their stock, out at sea, for instance. Once they have put that in place, then, looking at the question of insurance, something that AVA is actively looking at. It is not a straightforward matter because you need to have an adequate risk pool, and insurers need to be assured that the farmers take appropriate self-help measures to reduce the risks. But certainly, that is something that is being actively looked at.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funds for Culling Animals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked\tthe Minister for National Development (a) for each year in the past three years, how much does the Ministry spend on culling dogs, cats and monkeys respectively; (b) whether the Ministry expects an increase in culling expenditure in the next three years; (c) whether the Ministry has conducted scientific research on the effectiveness of culling on population control; and (d) whether the Ministry is conducting scientific research into measures other than culling to address the human-animal conflicts.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Madam, AVA takes a multi-pronged approach, involving various stakeholders, to manage the animal population and mitigate health and safety concerns.
It first undertakes a professional assessment of potential threats that animals might pose to public health and safety. If there are no significant public health and safety concerns, AVA will work with the public to mitigate any potential nuisance issues. If there are significant health and safety concerns, then AVA will have to act. Where feasible, it will work with stakeholders, including the animal welfare groups and organisations like Wildlife Reserves Singapore, to relocate or rehome these animals. Culling is used only as a last resort, a point which my colleague Minister of State Koh Poh Koon had made at the last Sitting.
AVA does not track the expenditure it incurs on culling animals as this is only a very small part of AVA's overall work.
AVA will continue to conduct relevant studies and research to inform its policies and facilitate a science-based approach to animal management. For example, AVA engaged a team of local and overseas academics in November 2015 to start a three-year stray dog study. This study will estimate the stray dog population in Singapore, look at the ecological and biological aspects of stray dogs, and determine the efficacy of various population management options like sterilisation. AVA has also been carrying out similar studies on birds, as well as conducting trials to test the effectiveness of various bird deterrent methods. Our animal welfare groups are also pitching in. For example, conducting sterilisation on Pulau Ubin as well as Jurong Island.
We also need the community to do their part in helping to reduce potential animal-human conflicts in our society. For example, if everyone practises responsible pet ownership and refrains from feeding strays, the number of stray animals will fall and present a much smaller problem. AVA has been and will continue to work with various animal welfare groups on public education for responsible pet ownership.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply and I also thank him for starting the study of stray dogs in Singapore. I am looking forward to the results of that study.
I have three points of clarification. One, can the Senior Minister of State clarify how much does AVA pay the contractors for each dog, cat or monkey caught? Second, the Senior Minister of State mentioned about the professional assessment. Can I check who does these assessments as well as how they are actually conducted? Thirdly, and a point which is in the Parliamentary Question (PQ), can the Senior Minister of State clarify whether AVA expects an increase in expenditure for culling over the next three years?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Madam, for the first question, I do not have specific figures for each type of animal that the Member mentioned but I am aware that the total budget for animal management operations for 2016 was $800,000.
The second question is about how AVA does the assessment. AVA officers will conduct the assessment. They will look at the nature of the complaint or feedback and verify the facts. Surveillance, whether by AVA officers or by the deployment of cameras, is also often used. Information on the population of animals, their activities, their proximity to human habitation and their interactions with humans factor into these assessments. Taken together, this information informs AVA's responses.
As for the Member's third question about whether AVA expects expenditure to increase in the coming years, I do not think we are able to project. It depends on the risks and whether human-animal conflicts rise or fall, and whether public education helps mitigate that along with the animal welfare groups' efforts in working with us to rehome animals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints of Excessive Charging by Doctors in Private Practice","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked\tthe Minister for Health (a) in the past five years, how many reports of excessive charging by doctors in private practice have been received by the Ministry; (b) whether there is a trend of doctors abusing their patients' medical insurance coverage by overcharging them; and (c) what measures can be taken to regulate such a practice.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Health): Mdm Speaker, MOH receives feedback on a variety of issues, including on doctor fees and charges. Occasionally, there are cases relating to alleged over-charging.
Doctors are ethically responsible for charging fair and reasonable fees to their patients. The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG) requires doctors to charge reasonably and ensure that their fees are transparent and made known to patients in advance. The SMC can take disciplinary action against errant doctors who do not meet these requirements, and has done so before.
MOH is working with healthcare providers on ways to improve fee transparency. MOH has published \"Total Hospital Bill\" data for common conditions and \"Total Operation Fees\" for common surgical procedures for both public and private hospitals. MOH also requires all hospitals to provide patients with financial counselling upon admission. In the outpatient setting, MOH requires all GP and dental clinics under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) to issue itemised bills to CHAS patients, from January this year. These measures ensure more fee transparency and enable patients to make more informed decisions.
MOH is also studying the recommendations from the Health Insurance Task Force (HITF) relating to over-charging.
Each of us have to play our part to keep our healthcare costs sustainable, while ensuring that patients continue to have access to good quality and appropriate healthcare.
\tMs K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Madam, I have two supplementary questions. One on the role of community pharmacists. A lot of times in the GP clinics, the highest cost burden for the patient is the prescription cost, medication cost. Is the Ministry considering expanding the role of community pharmacists where pharmacists are given the prescribing rights as well as able are to provide cost effective medication for the patients?
The second question is: will the Minister consider having survey outcomes listed on the website for GPs that provide general common ailments and how much they charge the patients?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Ms Thanaletchimi for the two supplementary questions. On the role of community pharmacists, MOH does study the role of community pharmacists, focusing more on the areas of public education such as educating patients on prevention of certain diseases as well as the proper use of certain medications. However, with regard to prescription rights, this is one area that MOH will have to seriously consider the pros and cons, because we do receive feedback from patients that when they see a doctor and collect their prescriptive medicine from the doctor, it adds to a lot of convenience, rather than to have them to travel to a pharmacy elsewhere to buy the medication.
With regard to publishing the fees of GPs, this is an area that MOH is currently looking into.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. I think the Minister of State did not answer on my question of how many reports were received in the last five years for excessive charging by doctors.
The second supplementary question is: besides overcharging them, I also receive feedback from residents that doctors issue non-standard drugs to the Pioneer Generation (PG), which they have to pay out of their own pocket. I would like to ask whether the Ministry monitors the issuance of non-standard drugs, or any substitution can be done, so that it does not cost a strain on residents' pockets.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Er Dr Lee for the two supplementary questions. On the first clarification on the data collected, I would like to inform the Member that due to the change in data collection system and the classification of bill-related feedback, we are unable to compare accurately the figures year-on-year over the past five years. However, for the data collected over the past two years, there was an average of about 160 cases of bill-related feedback from both the public as well as the private medical institutions. In 2016, 23 cases received through emails were specific to overcharging, of which 90% are private medical institution related. Ten percent are public healthcare institutions.
With regard to the Member's second question on the appropriateness of prescribing non-standard drugs, I would just like to remind and also reiterate that doctors should and must prescribe appropriately, and it should be in the interest and well-being of the patients and not for personal financial gains. For patients, especially PG patients who need to be on non-standard drugs and who cannot afford the cost of the medication, there is always the Medication Assistance Fund, which helps these eligible patients to pay for expensive drugs that are not in the standard list. I want to encourage these patients if they do encounter any difficulty in their medication bills, to apply for the Medication Assistance Fund. I would also like to inform the Member that MOH has also set up an Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE). This agency issues guidelines on the use of cost effective drugs for treatment of common medical conditions, and these will be implemented in time to come.
\tMr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Madam, just two supplementary questions. The first is: on the expanded role of pharmacists, I think the suggestion is for the pharmacists to be alternatives to doctors to prescribe simple medicine. For example, in Europe, many pharmacists are confident prescribing medicine for, say, common colds, simple symptoms, as long as you tell them you have no drug allergies.
The second is a suggestion to also consider, perhaps, expanding the role of nurse practitioners to deal with common complaints, because I suspect a very large part of the GPs' load is with very standard ailments, which an experienced nurse practitioner could also handle, and both of these would probably reduce cost for patients.
\tDr Lam Pin Min:\tI would like to thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. For the one on community pharmacists, yes, currently, pharmacists are already allowed to prescribe certain drugs. For example, simple drugs like those for the treatment of common cold and running nose, community pharmacists are allowed to prescribe such drugs. As to the suggestion of enhancing the role of nurse practitioners, we are already doing that. Many nurse practitioners in the polyclinics, as well as in the hospitals, do perform these expanded role, part of which actually superimposes with those of a doctor's, for management of simple conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Advice on Lasting Power of Attorney at Nursing Homes and Step-down Care Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked\tthe Minister for Health in respect of the elderly in nursing homes and step-down care institutions (a) whether the Ministry can consider providing awareness, education and counselling services on the need for a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) to them; and (b) whether the Ministry and the Agency for Integrated Care can work with the legal fraternity and assist to extend greater accessibility to pro-bono legal services to those requiring LPAs.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Health): Mdm Speaker, the Ministry of Health and the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) have been working with the Office of Public Guardian (OPG) to reach out to aged care providers and the public to raise awareness on the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA).
We have reached out to staff in close to three-quarters of all nursing homes on Advance Care Planning (ACP) which can include the planning for an LPA so that care decisions can be in line with an individual's wishes in the event of mental incapacity.
AIC conducts regular talks and case discussions with aged care providers to raise awareness on legal issues such as the LPA. For example, in October 2016, AIC partnered All Saints Home and the Pro Bono Services Office of the Law Society of Singapore to organise a seminar to provide nursing home staff a basic understanding of legal concepts such as the LPA, Mental Capacity Act and the Maintenance of Parents Act. Close to 120 staff from more than half of local nursing home providers attended the event.
Separately, AIC is also working with the Pro Bono Services Office lawyers and aged care providers to offer legal clinics. These legal clinics will provide pro-bono services and consultation on legal issues, including the LPA, for nursing home staff as well as residents and their family members.
We will continue to work on increasing the awareness of LPA and making LPA more accessible for the elderly.
Mdm Speaker: Order, end of Question Time. Introduction of Bills. Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 7-12, 14 and 16 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 13, 15 and 17-16 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supply Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund and the Development Fund of the sums necessary to meet the estimated expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supplementary Supply (FY 2016) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to make supplementary provision to meet additional expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trustees (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Trustees Act (Chapter 337 of the 2005 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Companies Act (Chapter 50 of the 2006 Revised Edition) and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Limited Liability Partnerships (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A of the 2006 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rearrangement of Business","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader (Mr Desmond Lee): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That notwithstanding Standing Order No 26(1) and No 89(3), the Second Reading of the Patents (Amendment) Bill, Architects (Amendment) Bill and Early Childhood Development Centres Bill be taken before today's resumption of debate on the FY 2017/2018 Budget Statement\".
Madam, Standing Order No 26(1) states that once an order is made for Bills to be taken after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2017/2018, as made to the House by the respective Ministers in charge of the aforementioned Bills after their First Reading on 6 February 2017, such an order cannot be moved earlier but only later. As the Debate on the FY 2017/2018 Budget Statement is a Business of Supply, and Standing Order 89(3) requires that Supply business must be the first order of the day on the allotted days, no businesses can precede the Debate on the Budget Statement.
The agreement of the House is, therefore, sought to suspend both these Standing Orders to allow the aforementioned Bills to be read for the Second time before the resumption of debate on the FY 2017/2018 Budget Statement. This is in view of the total number of Bills that need to be read in this House during this period of sittings.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
Resolved, \"That, notwithstanding Standing Order No 26(1) and No 89(3), the Second Reading of the Patents (Amendment) Bill, Architects (Amendment) Bill and Early Childhood Development Centres Bill be taken before the resumption of debate on the FY 2017/2018 Budget Statement on 28 February 2017.\" − [Mr Desmond Lee]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Patents (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Innovation is crucial for our nation's continued economic growth. It allows our enterprises to create new products and services, and gives them a competitive edge over their rivals. Enterprises need to be able to effectively protect and commercialise their intellectual property (IP) to preserve their competitive edge. The Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) recognised this when it stated that a strong IP ecosystem is needed to support innovation and technology adoption.
The Patents (Amendment) Bill introduces several improvements to our patent system. These amendments allow our patent system to better support innovators.
Madam, the main features of the Bill are as follows.
First, we will broaden the grace period provision to better allow inventors to protect their inventions, while facilitating the spread of new ideas and technologies.
Second, we will close the foreign route to obtaining a patent in Singapore to improve the quality and consistency of granted patents.
Third, we will implement procedural amendments to allow applicants greater flexibility in the application process and to improve operational efficiency at the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS).
Let me first touch on broadening the grace period provision for patent applications. To provide some background, let me briefly describe IPOS' patent search and examination process.
Before a patent is granted for an invention, it must be \"new\" and \"inventive\". An IPOS examiner searches publicly available information at the time of the patent application to understand the current state of technology. This is known as the \"state of the art\". The examiner then examines the invention in the patent application against the \"state of the art\" to determine whether the invention is, indeed, new and inventive. This is the standard practice for all patent offices around the world.
Under this system, if an inventor publicly discloses his invention before applying for a patent, this information will form part of the \"state of the art\". So, when he subsequently applies for a patent, the invention may not be assessed to be new or inventive.
The Patents Act contains a \"grace period provision\" that allows for limited circumstances under which the disclosure of an invention will not be considered part of the \"state of the art\". For example, if the invention is disclosed at one of the international exhibitions on a limited list, or is disclosed in the publication of a learned society, it will not be included in the \"state of the art\" if the application is filed within 12 months of the disclosure.
This grace period provision encourages knowledge sharing and promotes learning while preserving the inventor's commercial interests.
Clause 2 of the Patents (Amendment) Bill expands the situations covered by the grace period provision. Clause 2(b) will allow any disclosure of the invention originating from the inventor to be covered by the grace period provision. In other words, the grace period provision will not be limited to disclosures at specific international exhibitions or in a learned society publication.
This broadening of the grace period provision is in line with practices in the US, Australia, Japan and Korea. It updates our legislation so that our patents regime can be more consistent with modern realities and practices.
Advances in communication technology have connected people across the globe in ways not previously envisaged, and disclosures of technology occur in many situations not contemplated by the current Act. For example, inventors may need to reveal the invention to potential investors, or share it online to reach out to a larger community of experts. It should be emphasised that disclosing an invention before applying for a patent still carries risks. Not all jurisdictions have a similarly broad grace period provision. We would, therefore, strongly encourage inventors to always be judicious about disclosing their inventions before applying for a patent. IPOS will work with stakeholders and IP professionals to ensure that this message is conveyed clearly to patent applicants.
I now turn to the amendments in clause 3 of the present Bill relating to the closure of the foreign route to obtaining a patent in Singapore. This is another step in our quest to improve the quality of patents granted in Singapore.
In 2013, IPOS' in-house patent examination unit commenced operations, marking the first time Singapore had the capabilities to examine our patent applications. In February 2014, we tightened our patent system to only allow a patent to be granted if it meets the patentability requirements in our law.
However, at that point of time, we allowed patent applicants to rely on foreign examination reports for the same invention to enter our system. We are now proposing to close this route so that all patent applications are fully examined by our examiners against our standards of patentability. This will increase the quality of our granted patents and marks the further maturation of our patent system.
Let me explain how closing the foreign route improves the quality of patents granted in Singapore. Patent applications undergo search and examination before a patent is granted. There are currently three search and examination routes in Singapore:
First, under the \"local route\", the full search and examination is conducted by IPOS.
Second, under the \"mixed route\", applicants submit the search report issued by the foreign patent office for the same invention, and IPOS conducts only the examination.
Third, under the \"foreign route\", applicants submit the full search and examination report issued by a foreign patent office for the same invention, and IPOS conducts only a limited-scope Supplementary Examination.
The limited-scope Supplementary Examination does not cover the same grounds as a full examination. In particular, the invention is not assessed on the key requirements of being new and inventive. Thus, patents may be granted under the foreign route for inventions that would not have met the standards for patentability under the local or mixed route. This is because these foreign route patents were assessed to be new and inventive by a foreign patent office, whose standards may differ from Singapore's.
Clause 3(a) of the present Bill, therefore, closes the foreign route option. For patent applications filed on or after the prescribed date, they must go through either the local or mixed route. Patents will be granted only after full examination based on Singapore's laws and practices. This will, therefore, ensure the quality of Singapore granted patents and increase stakeholders' confidence in the validity of these patents.
This amendment aligns our patent system with that of major jurisdictions, such as the US, Japan and Europe, who do not provide for the foreign route mechanism and require all patent applications to be fully examined by their patent offices.
IPOS has been actively engaging the patent profession on the closure of the foreign route. With this change, local patent agents and IP lawyers will adjust their practice to take on higher value work as all the patent applications they handle will have to undergo full examination by IPOS.
The Patents (Amendment) Bill will also implement procedural improvements to the application process. Clause 3(c) will allow patent applications greater flexibility in switching between search and examination routes. This will make our patent application process more applicant-friendly.
Clause 3(d) will allow IPOS to treat an application as abandoned if the applicant does not, after receiving a search report, request for an examination report within the prescribed time frame. This will improve IPOS' operational efficiency. It will also facilitate the release of new ideas and technologies for the public's use if the patent applicant is no longer interested in obtaining protection.
The Bill implements a number of improvements to the patent application process. It is part of our efforts to better support the national innovation agenda by helping companies protect and sharpen their competitive edge, grow and create good jobs in Singapore. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Speaker, innovation, entrepreneurship and new ideas are key ingredients in a vibrant economy. It is our duty to ensure the intellectual property surrounding these are firmly protected on our shores. The law on patents is a key jigsaw piece in the protection of these intellectual rights. I, therefore, rise in support of this Bill.
Singapore has come a long way in its Intellectual Property laws. From our early years as a nation, Singapore has strengthened our laws, such that they support our changing economy. Information, innovation and proprietary rights are key aspects of our present and future economy. Therefore, the safe protection of Intellectual Property is crucial.
Patents are particularly important. They allow innovations to be protected, and I should declare here my interest as a litigator whose practice includes, in part, IP litigation.
In terms of filing patents, Singapore has entered into important international treaties to establish and advance Singapore's status as an IP hub, such as the TRIPS Agreement, or the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
Singapore's strong laws protect and promote innovation and have attracted parties from other countries to register with us.
Since our early years, we have moved from re-registration of UK Patents to outsourcing the search and examination process to operationalising our very own office (IPOS International) to handle the search and examination process. The Patent Prosecution Highway allows fast and efficient search processes by collaboration with other countries, such as Japan, US, Australia, Germany, UK, Korea, China and Mexico. In fact, Singapore's search and examination reports may be delivered within 60 to 90 days. Singapore is also the first Supplementary International Search (SIS) Authority to carry out searches in Chinese.
Furthermore, IPOS International has become recognised by the World Intellectual Property Organisation as an International Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority (ISA/IPEA). These important and foundational steps were key to the promotion of Singapore as a safe and predictable IP Hub based on the rule of law. These steps have allowed us to enhance our IP regulatory framework even further. Hence, the amendments today that we debate.
This Bill broadly seeks to: (i) ensure the high standard of Singapore's patents by the closure of the foreign route; and (ii) broaden the grace period for the determination of novelty.
Firstly, clause 3 of the Bill marks the closure of the foreign route. Under that foreign route, Singapore relies on the search and examination report of other countries and does a supplementary examination. This second, allforeign, route is based on the reliance on the final results of the search and examination report of a corresponding application, corresponding international application, or related national phase application. It works on the presumption that the reports are reliable and accurate. But, to ensure the quality of patents, it is better, if not much better, if we conduct the substantive evaluation ourselves.
Having said this, we should not underestimate the load. Instead, we should approach the task with a large amount of preparation. On this related issue, could the Minister kindly elaborate on what has been done to ensure that even with the closure of the foreign route, Singapore will continue to be an attractive place, and an attractive financial place to file patents. Would the Minister also confirm that we have reliable resources to meet any demand at cost effective prices?
A second amendment is to be found in clause 2 of this Bill. That clause seeks to broaden the grace period for the determination of novelty. This allows the inventor to disclose information without jeopardising his patent application. As a result, inventors may very well be able to attract investors or publish scientific papers without needing to wait for a patent. This gives innovation a safe space in which innovators can seek funding without compromising the protection of their inventions.
It has been reported that the revised IP Hub Masterplan that caters to entrepreneurship and innovation will be released in April. This is to be welcomed. Keeping abreast with the shifts in our economy is important, especially the protection of intellectual property. However, this cannot be done without a reliable regulatory framework in the form of IP laws.
This Bill is one such law. It will further consolidate Singapore's position as an IP Hub and, Mdm Speaker, I therefore support it.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, Singapore has come a long way from being described as \"the piracy capital of the world\" in the 1980s, to having an Intellectual Property regime that is consistently ranked in international surveys as one of the best in the world.
I rise in support of these amendments which balances strengthening the IP rights regime which encourages investment in R&D and innovation, while recognising that excessive protection of products or services that are not truly novel can hinder innovation and entrepreneurship.
This Bill discontinues the supplementary examination route and requires at least the examination to be done in Singapore. This creates a more rigorous check on the quality of patents, and ensures that successful patents are truly deserving of legal protection.
I also welcome the new section 14(4)(e) which broadens the 12-month \"grace period\" exception to determining whether an invention is novel, as this takes into account business needs and practical realities.
First, it is entirely plausible for a would-be inventor to disclose details of his invention in reasonable circumstances outside the narrow exceptions listed in section 14(4) to (7). Previous case law has set a high standard that novelty would be ruined as long as even one member of the public has unrestricted use of the information. This is problematic especially where would-be inventors, in their excitement or by slip of tongue, informally discuss details of the invention with family members or close friends. The heavy penalty of unpatentability and the wastage of months or years of working worth large sums of money is unfair, and the law should be flexible enough to allow for such minor disclosures to be excused.
Second, the two narrow exceptions for prior disclosure, namely display at an international exhibition or by description in a paper read before a learned society, are unduly restrictive. It is conceivable that would-be inventors make disclosures that are entirely reasonable for their professions, especially in the scientific fields. For example, scientists often give journalistic interviews or write scientific journals on laboratory breakthroughs that they have discovered, even before commercialisation of a product from the said discovery. Such disclosures are commonplace in STEM academia, where articles in prestigious journals could determine the standing of a scientist in his community. To have no invention patentable from such a disclosure would unfairly impose a period of silence on the scientist, who may only publicly disclose his breakthrough until after the date of patent filing.
I wish to raise just one point for clarification. The new section 14(4)(e) refers to \"disclosure of matter constituting an invention to the public\" while existing sections 14(4)(a) to (d) merely refer to \"disclosure\". Can the Senior Minister of State clarify if there is any substantive difference in terms of what amounts to disclosure between the wording in section 14(4)(a) to (d), and that of 14(4)(e)? Do we retain the common law understanding that disclosure even to one person not under an obligation of confidence constitutes disclosure to the public?
Mdm Speaker, the amendments are welcomed changes, which create a patent landscape conducive for Singapore's transformation into an innovative economy. I look forward to more local innovators taking advantage of and flourishing under our robust intellectual property protection regime.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken, for their support of the Bill. Mr de Souza asked about initiatives to ensure that Singapore remains an attractive place to file patents. IPOS has arrangements with patent offices around the world to allow applicants to use a Singapore patent examination report to expedite applications in other jurisdictions.
First, there are the various Patent Prosecution Highways (PPHs) that Mr de Souza mentioned. These arrangements cover important markets like China, US, Europe, Japan, Korea and Australia. IPOS is also part of a similar arrangement in ASEAN, known as the ASEAN Patent Examination Co-operation (ASPEC) programme. All in, the PPHs and ASPEC cover more than 30 jurisdictions. IPOS also has an agreement with Cambodia to allow the re-registration of a Singapore patent in Cambodia. Hence, with a Singapore granted patent, a business can access a combined market of over 20 million people.
In February, IPOS also announced reductions in its patent search and examination fees. The fee for requesting a search and examination report will decrease by 25% with effect from 1 April. A further discount will be given when the applicant chooses to rely on the search report or preliminary examination report issued by IPOS as an International Searching Authority (ISA) and Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). All these connections to larger markets outside Singapore are aimed at making Singapore an attractive place to file patents.
In addition, we are also positioning Singapore to capture patent work, even when applicants are looking to file patents in other jurisdictions, and not in Singapore. Being a PCT International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authority, IPOS is able to provide search and examination services to applicants who file in other jurisdictions via the PCT.
Besides Singapore, IPOS can do this PCT examination work for applicants from US, Japan, Mexico, Indonesia, Vietnam and Cambodia. Further, given the large Chinese market, IPOS' ability to search Chinese patent documents can be an additional attraction for these PCT applicants. Through these measures, IPOS hopes to attract patent work to Singapore, even in cases where an applicant might decide not to file in Singapore. This will create more work for IP professionals, such as patent agents.
Mr de Souza also asked whether we are adequately resourced to handle the increased workload from applicants switching to the local mixed routes: yes, we are. There are two aspects to this. First, MinLaw and IPOS will continue to ensure that there is a sufficient pipeline of skilled IP manpower to provide patent agent services. In this regard, IPOS and UniSIM have announced the launch of a Master in IP and Innovation Management this year. Graduates from the patent agent specialisation track of this programme can go on to take the Patent Agents Qualifying Examinations to become patent agents.
Second, IPOS' patent search and examination unit has more than 100 examiners with expertise across a wide range of technologies. The unit will be able to handle the anticipated increase in work.
From PCT statistics, IPOS is the top, out of 21 international authorities, in terms of timeliness to issue International Search Reports.
Mr Ng had a point for clarification regarding the new section 14(4)(e) inserted by clause 2(b) of the Bill. Sections 14(4)(a) to (e) each describes different circumstances of disclosure to the public that are to be disregarded during the determination of the \"state of the art\" which the examiner considers in assessing whether the invention is \"new\" and \"inventive\". Section 14(4)(e) is intended to extend the circumstances of disclosure that are to be disregarded beyond those stated in the current section 14(4)(a) to 14(4)(d). For all the grounds in section 14(4)(a) to (e), disclosure even to one person not under the obligation of confidentiality constitutes disclosure to the public. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Architects (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
The Architects Act was enacted (a) to provide a framework for the registration of architects; (b) to regulate the qualifications and practice of architects; and (c) to enable the Board of Architects (BOA) to licence corporations, partnerships and limited liability partnerships.
The last set of amendments to the Architects Act took effect on 1 December 2005, which included enlarging the composition of the BOA and enhancing its disciplinary process.
Today, with globalisation, more architects are likely to provide architectural services in foreign countries and territories in addition to their country or territory of registration. In particular, many of our locally registered architects are well recognised for their skills and professionalism, and many of them are already expanding their businesses overseas.
Hence, we need to amend the Architects Act to facilitate our locally registered architects to provide architectural services overseas. At the same time, we must regulate foreign architects that provide architectural services in Singapore.
The proposed changes in the Bill will seek to give effect to arrangements made between the BOA and the appropriate foreign registration authority of any country or territory outside Singapore, for the mutual recognition of the qualifications and standards adopted by each of the parties to the arrangement regarding the practice of architecture. It will also enhance disciplinary proceedings and penalties and allow limited partnerships to provide architectural services in Singapore.
Let me go through these in turn. Firstly, on Mutual Recognition Arrangements.
For locally registered architects seeking to practise overseas, they must first be recognised in Singapore before they engage in the practice of architecture in a participating overseas jurisdiction. By that, we mean any country or territory outside Singapore in relation to which a mutual recognition arrangement is in force.
The need for such domestic recognition is a standard feature of the mutual recognition arrangements we have currently with various jurisdictions. For example, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand have a Trilateral Agreement under the APEC Architect Framework. Singapore has also signed the ASEAN Mutual Recognition Arrangement on Architectural Services with other ASEAN member countries. Such a domestic recognition allows for the qualifications and experience obtained by an architect in the country or territory where he or she is already registered to be recognised by the participating overseas jurisdictions. This will make it easier for Singapore-registered architects to practise abroad in a participating jurisdiction and will open up opportunities for them overseas.
Likewise, a foreign architect from a participating jurisdiction can be registered in Singapore to engage in the practice of architecture in Singapore subject to the following conditions. First, the foreign architect must meet the registration requirements as agreed to by the BOA and the registration authority of the participating overseas jurisdiction, pass the necessary examinations as approved by the BOA, and also pay a prescribed fee.
The amended act will also allow the BOA to impose any prohibitions, restrictions or conditions as to the practice of architecture in Singapore when registering a foreign architect. For example, the BOA may impose a restriction on a foreign architect to only provide architectural services in Singapore in collaboration with a local registered architect with a valid practicing certificate on a project basis, rather than doing so independently.
I will also like to take this opportunity to clarify that an architect providing architectural services independently in Singapore as a Qualified Person is required to be a registered architect with the BOA and must have a valid practicing certificate. This does not change even with the amendments in this Bill.
Next, on Disciplinary Proceedings and Penalties, the proposed changes in this Bill also seek to enhance the disciplinary proceedings and penalties currently provided, which include the following:
(a) BOA will be allowed to appoint independent investigators where necessary, to enable the Board to more effectively deal with disciplinary proceedings;
(b) The maximum penalties for certain offences in the Architects Act will be raised to ensure sufficient deterrence;
(c) A new offence is created under the new section 12(1A), which makes it an offence for a person to engage the architectural services of another person in relation to any building works unless the other person is authorised under the Act to supply architectural services; and
(d) A person will not be allowed to use the word \"architect\" or any of its derivatives as part of the name of an architectural practice if the person is not authorised under the Act to supply architectural services independently. This is to avoid misleading the public that the person is authorised to provide architectural services.
Thirdly, on Licensing of Limited Partnerships.
In view of the fact that the Limited Partnership Act was enacted in 2008 to provide for the establishment and registration of limited partnerships, the Architects Act is now also being updated to allow for the licensing of limited partnerships that provide architectural services in Singapore.
Finally, Madam, the amendments proposed in this Bill are timely − they will enable our Architects to operate more effectively in a globalised world, and also ensure that the BOA continues to play an effective role in supporting the growth of the profession.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I commend the stricter regulations brought about by this Bill. It also expands the powers given to the Board of Architects to ensure architects in Singapore stay in line thus strengthening honest work in the profession.
I support the enhancements to the current Act, and the new definitions introduced to offer clarity to the practice. Architects I have spoken to inform that industry practitioners have already been practicing along these lines even before regulations were set in stone, but codifying these good practices into law is a progressive step forward.
Madam, I have three comments to make, based on conversations I have had with architects. Firstly, can the Minister clarify why there is a need to increase the maximum penalty the Board can impose on a registered architect from the current $10,000 to $50,000? Has there been a rise in cases in recent years?
Secondly, with the amendments to section 6, I assume it will now be easier for architects in Singapore to do quality work overseas, benefiting less developed countries in our region. Singapore is more advanced and sophisticated in our Building Legislations and Codes of Practice, and this Bill will now place Singapore in a better position to bring our expertise to areas which could benefit from technical support.
With the amendments, foreign registered architects will also be able to work in Singapore. The APEC Architect Framework allows registered architects in each of the countries to work independently, while ASEAN architects under the ASEAN Framework Agreement have to work in collaboration with a licensed Singapore architectural firm or practice.
The safeguards are different depending on the agreements. Can the Minister clarify what is the required registration process with the Board? Minister has mentioned this earlier but I understand that architects from APEC have to take a domain-specific test. What about architects from ASEAN?
In Singapore, some submissions by architects to authorities include a self-declaration to confirm that the qualified person has duly complied with the requirements from the authorities. If something goes wrong, architects may lose their licence and be removed from the Board.
If something goes wrong, for projects done by overseas architects under this \"mutual recognition\" scheme, what penalty would that incur? Do they lose the practice licence obtained in their country?
Training and exposure for architects in less-developed countries may not be adequate to familiarise them with Singapore's building codes and standards. If there are no tight controls to limit the overseas architects to practise in Singapore, the standard of architectural practice here could be affected.
Architecture is already a very competitive market with limited jobs and many firms, and some architects overseas quote cheaper fees, offering poorer quality work. As such, how can we offer mutual recognition, yet protect the profession in Singapore?
Lastly, the Board can appoint a public officer, or any other person, to investigate offenses against architects. Investigators have the power of search and require persons to provide information for investigations. This confers extensive powers to investigators.
Can the Minister clarify who he envisages \"any other persons\" to be? Perhaps, investigators should only be limited to employees of the Board, who will be more familiar with the rules and regulations.
Madam, these comments notwithstanding, architects have a professional responsibility towards society and I stand in support of the Bill.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Madam, I rise in support of the Bill. The Bill sets out the general qualifications and requirements for architect registration. It brings about improvements to safeguard the interest of both the architects providing and the clients who sought their services. Essentially, the amendment to the Bill allows for the recognition of architect qualification and standards with the arrangement between the Board of Architects and those territories or countries outside Singapore.
This will indeed open up more opportunities for these professionals and allow them to extend their expertise and services overseas with lesser hurdles. At this stage, I wish to seek the following clarification on the amendments. In regard to section 4C, if a tie occurs in the voting of president, how will the tie be decided?
Section 11(2), which explains the recovery of payment from architect. How can a person recover the amount paid to an unauthorised architect? Will he/she have to file a civil suit to recover his/her money? As stated in section 31(k), will the appointed investigator be allowed to authorise or appoint a team of support for the investigation work? And which Ministry oversees this Act?
Section 15A, which is a new section that spells the recognition of registered architects in any participating jurisdiction. Is this restricted to foreign architect to obtain any of the qualification listed in the Board of Architects website? And importantly, how do we preserve the standards of overseas architects that are practising in Singapore vis-a-vis the Singapore architects?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken and also for their support of the Bill.
Ms K Thanaletchimi and Mr Louis Ng sought several clarifications on the administration of the Architects Act, and I will clarify the queries that they have. Let me start with Ms Thanaletchimi's query on the election process for the President of the Board of Architects (BOA).
If there is a tie of votes, that she had asked, another round of secret ballot will be carried out. And should there be another tie of votes, the successful candidate will be determined by the drawing of lots. This is already set out in the rules of the Procedure for the Election of the President of BOA. So, this is already in place. And in fact, these rules are read out before the commencement of any voting.
Ms Thanaletchimi also sought a clarification on section 11 of the Act, about the recovery process; should the person pay money to an unauthorised architect and how would they recover the money in a court. Indeed, as she has asked, the person would have to file a civil suit to recover the money paid to the unauthorised architect and this is consistent with the recovery process for other professions as well.
Ms Thanaletchimi asked about qualifications. The new section 15A provides for the recognition of local registered architects who intend to supply or offer to supply architectural services in any participating jurisdiction. For anyone, including foreign architects who are seeking registration under section 15(1)(a) and 15(1)(b) to practise in Singapore, the qualifications recognised by the BOA are already listed on its website. They can refer to that for any clarification.
Mr Louis Ng sought clarifications on the registration process under the new section 15(2A) for foreign architects from a participating jurisdiction. Let me briefly set out what this process entails.
First, a foreign architect will need to be qualified and recognised in his/her own country; the original country or territory of registration for mutual recognition, based on the agreed criteria set out in the mutual agreements between the BOA and the registration authority of the participating jurisdiction.
Following that, the foreign architect will have to pass the examination set by BOA to ensure that he/she has the knowledge of the practice laws, rules and regulations and other conditions of practising in Singapore, and then pay the prescribed fee, before this architect is entitled for registration under the new section 15(2A).
The need to pass an examination set by the BOA before the foreign architect can seek registration will hence also apply to ASEAN architects recognised under the ASEAN Mutual Recognition Arrangement on Architectural Services. This was the query that Mr Louis Ng asked. So, yes, ASEAN architects will also have to take the exams. And I think with these examinations, that is the way we can ensure standards are not compromised.
Mr Louis Ng also enquired about penalties for foreign architects who are registered with the BOA under the new section 15(2A), and how we can offer mutual recognition while protecting the profession in Singapore. Perhaps, I would like to explain this in two parts because there are foreign architects who qualify to practise independently in Singapore under the new section 15(2A). These foreign architects who can qualify to practise independently, will be required to maintain a valid practicing certificate and they will be subjected to the same disciplinary procedures and penalties as anyone who is registered under the existing section 15(1) with a valid practicing certificate.
At the same time, the offences committed will be reported to the foreign architect's original country or territory of registration, where the relevant authorities there will also follow up with the relevant penalties. So, this is for the first category of foreign architects who can qualify to practise independently.
The second category of foreign architects are those who can only practise in collaboration with a local registered architect on a project basis. They will not be issued a practicing certificate by BOA and so they are not Qualified Persons who can offer architectural services independently in Singapore.
For this category of foreign architects, in the event of a suspected offence, BOA will write to the foreign architect's original country or territory of registration. The foreign architect will then be subjected to the investigation and disciplinary proceedings and relevant penalties imposed by the relevant authorities there.
BOA can also reject future applications from such a foreign architect to register for collaborations depending on the seriousness of the offence committed, because a new registration for practising in collaboration with a locally registered architect is required for every new project. So, if an offence is committed, BOA will take that into consideration before issuing any new registration.
Next, on the increase in penalty which is something Mr Louis Ng asked about. This increase in the maximum penalty is to ensure that there is sufficient deterrence against any potential wrong-doings. In fact, the higher level of penalty has also been benchmarked and is similar to that imposed by other professional boards in the medical and legal professions.
Both Mr Louis Ng and Ms Thanaletchimi sought clarifications for the new section 31(K), which empowers BOA to appoint investigators to investigate into the commission of an offence under the Act. I would like to explain how this process will work out.
Under the current Act, BOA will form an investigation committee which will be chaired by a Board member and comprise of two other registered architects with more than 10 years of practising experience, and a layperson. The investigation committee is in charge of evaluating the findings and making a recommendation to the Board on the investigation.
The new section 31(K) allows BOA to appoint an investigator or more than one investigator to assist the investigation committee, such as assisting to obtain evidences. Such a person may be a retired police officer who is familiar with our laws and knows how to conduct proper investigation and search for evidences.
The Board of Architects and the investigation committee will make their own independent decisions and disciplinary decisions after the hearing. But appeals on the Board of Architects' decisions can be made to the Minister. This is an answer to Ms Thanaletchimi's query.
Madam, I believe that I have addressed the issues raised by the Members. I would like to once again thank them for their support for this Bill. With that, Madam, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Lawrence Wong]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Early Childhood Development Centres Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin):\tMadam Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a second time\". With your permission, Mdm Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the document that illustrates the points that I will cover in my speech.
Mdm Speaker:\tYes, please. [Copies of the handout were distributed to hon Members]
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: As part of the Government's commitment to give every child a good start and to make Singapore a great place for families, we have undertaken various efforts to raise the affordability, accessibility and quality of our early childhood sector. In support of this, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) was established in 2013 to regulate and develop the sector.
To be effective, ECDA has to work in close partnership with the operators of around 1,800 childcare centres and kindergartens in Singapore. Today, parents of over 165,000 children entrust their children to these centres each day.
Such trust is possible because of committed and passionate teachers, as well as quality centres − and all this is underpinned by a sound and robust regulatory framework that upholds quality.
Regulatory standards underpin the foundation of a good quality pre-school, much like the stacking ring toy that we played with when we were young. The one with the concentric circles, increasingly smaller. We find that in pre-schools today, it is a toy that helps children to develop their fine motor skills, it comes in different colours and so on. The biggest ring is at the base, and it forms a foundation.
The Early Childhood Development Centres (ECDC) Bill seeks exactly to be that strong and reliable base for the sector − to consistently provide good quality programmes that give our young parents peace of mind when it comes to the safety, well-being and development of their children. In short, this Bill will ensure higher and more consistent quality standards across the early childhood sector.
Before I go into the key provisions of the Bill, I wish to thank Members of this House, the early childhood sector and the public for your support and valuable suggestions.
The proposals in the Bill were made through extensive consultations over the past two years with operators, parents, teachers, early childhood experts, industry partners and the general public. Parents that came for ECDA's focus group discussions − I think they came to appreciate and realise the amount of effort that operators and teachers have to put in to ensure that their pre-school is safe and conducive for their children's development. ECDA received strong support on the need to raise centre quality, and we also calibrated our proposals based on the feedback received from the different stakeholders.
Mdm Speaker, let me now move on to the key provisions of the Bill.
You will notice that the Bill focuses on early childhood development − we emphasise holistic care and education as an integral part of our children's growth. In this regard, childcare centres and kindergartens will be collectively regulated as \"early childhood development centres\" under a common licensing framework, which this harmonised Bill is better able to support, rather than being separately regulated under the Child Care Centres Act and Education Act, as they are today.
What this means is that, instead of the current \"lifetime subscription\" model for kindergartens, where they are registered one-off under the Education Act, all centres will now run on the \"renewal subscription\" model, which is already the practice for childcare centres today under the Child Care Centres Act. Centres essentially will be approved to operate for a period of time, and will be re-assessed when they renew their licence tenures. This requires centres to consciously put in effort to maintain their standards to continue their operations for another tenure. Key areas of focus include physical space norms and design, environment safety and hygiene, programme staff quality and of course staff-to-child ratios.
Under the new framework, we will increase the maximum licence tenure to three years, up from the current two years for childcare centres. Better quality centres will be awarded longer licence tenures, and this will incentivise them and encourage them to perform better. The new three-year licence tenure recognises the strong core of centres with consistently good regulatory track records of at least two consecutive two-year licences − this is a substantial portion of childcare centres, at over 500 centres today. ECDA officers will continue to conduct unannounced visits to centres periodically to ensure that centres maintain their standards.
The focus of this Bill is to regulate what we currently define today to be childcare centres and kindergartens. The Bill therefore provides for the exclusion and exemption of premises where specialised services are provided to a niche group. It also excludes centres regulated under other legislations for distinctly different purposes, or operated by or on behalf of the Government, and hence directly accountable to this House. Examples include enrichment centres, standalone foreign system kindergartens, kindergartens affiliated with foreign-system primary schools, or kindergartens by the Ministry of Education. Such entities are currently not under ECDA's purview, and will similarly not come under this new Act.
As many of us can agree, people, especially teachers, are at the heart of every early childhood development centre. Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill have provisions to enable better and more consistent quality of staff who interact with children, especially early childhood professionals, given their important role during children's formative years.
For example, the Bill will ensure that all principals and teachers meet the prevailing professional qualification requirements before assuming their appointments.
In addition, all persons working in centres will also need to be approved by ECDA for their suitability before they can start work at centres. This will cover, for example, principals and teachers, cooks and cleaners, as well as enrichment vendor staff. All individuals will be assessed on their track record, especially pertaining to children's safety.
One benefit of a common regulatory framework across the early childhood sector is a common administrative process to register staff. This facilitates our teachers' movement between childcare centres and kindergartens, which many teachers had called for earlier. I also believe that this regulatory framework will further enhance the professional standing and standards of our early childhood educators.
Nevertheless, my Ministry is very mindful of the manpower and other ground constraints faced by operators. They have given us feedback, and we do understand them. As a regulator, ECDA will strive to ensure that its administrative processes are efficient and that its regulatory requirements are responsive to operators' needs, while ensuring sevice quality and the safety of our children.
For example, ECDA is exploring allowing non-teaching staff, such as cooks and cleaners, to support trained teachers in supervising outdoor play time. The constant dialogue that we have with the sector must continue, so that the feedback can come back to us and this allows us to calibrate these proposals.
As with any enterprise, good governance and management are critical success factors for early childhood development centres. Under clause 19, ECDA will continue to prohibit unsuitable persons, such as those with poor regulatory track records, from managing the centre's business as board directors or chief executive officers, et cetera. The new Bill will further prohibit recalcitrant operators, whose licences had been revoked, from operating centres under another proxy. This allows ECDA to prevent such persons from continuing to misdirect centres. ECDA will also penalise licensees for knowingly allowing such unsuitable persons from managing their centre's business. As the operating environment of the early childhood sector is dynamic and needs to be updated from time to time, clause 51 of the Bill will provide for subsidiary legislation to effect more specific operational requirements. This will provide more clarity on the responsibilities of operators and centres.
Under the subsidiary legislation, we intend to enhance some requirements and introduce new ones to raise quality standards. We will continue to consult the sector on this. We will take reference from sector best practices and ECDA's prevailing guidelines. For example, as announced by the NurtureSG Taskforce last week, centres with full-day programmes will need to conduct at least one hour of physical activities daily, up from half-hour currently, and half-hour of which has to be conducted outdoors. Exposure to the outdoors will be beneficial for our children in preventing the early onset of myopia.
Even as we raise standards in the sector, we will streamline certain requirements which are no longer applicable, for greater efficiency − especially those that place unnecessary administrative burden on our teachers. The sector warmly welcomed these proposals when we consulted them earlier this month.
Just as how the Bill provides requirements for the set-up of centres, the Bill also provides requirements for the orderly closure of centres, under clauses 14 and 18. This is in view that, in the past, there had been cases where centres abruptly close. While this has been few, the impact on parents and children involved can be quite significant. Thus, to minimise such occurrences, ECDA will be empowered to require centres to put in place measures to ensure orderly closure. These include giving parents and teachers advance notice of the upcoming service disruption and ceasing the enrolment of new children to the centre.
Operators have worked hard to build the trust of parents by meeting the baseline standards. Today, errant operators form a small minority of the sector but they undermine the hard work of the rest of the sector.
ECDA takes regulatory breaches seriously and a more comprehensive and graduated penalty framework will enable ECDA to effectively and swiftly enforce requirements to safeguard the safety and well-being of our young children. That is our foremost priority. More importantly, it serves as a deterrence against errant practices and behaviours.
With this new penalty framework, administrative lapses will be decriminalised and replaced with administrative regulatory sanctions. This will allow us a wider suite of regulatory sanctions ranging from public censures, administrative financial penalties of up to $5,000, a security deposit, remedial measures and a shortening of licence tenure. The type of penalty imposed eventually will depend on the severity of the breach and whether it was a repeated occurrence. The penalty will be proportionate to the breach. At the same time, I would like to reassure operators that ECDA will continue to adopt a measured and developmental approach in enforcing requirements by advising centres to rectify problems.
One new regulatory sanction I would like to elaborate on is the requirement of a security deposit. I am aware that operators are concerned about this requirement. The current intention is for the security deposit to apply only to the small number of centres with poor track records, such as centres with two consecutive six-month licences, which is the lowest licence standard. This security deposit is intended to spur such centres to raise their standards.
We are also mindful that the security deposit amount should be calibrated appropriately, and not be overly onerous on the centres. We are looking at a $10,000 amount, which is twice the administrative financial penalty amount for contraventions. I encourage centres with a six-month licence to take their regulatory gaps seriously, and to rectify their breaches quickly, so as to avoid being required to put up a security deposit.
At the same time, the Bill provides for criminal penalty for contraventions which pose more serious risk to the safety and well-being of our children. For example, the operation of unlicensed centres. Under the Bill, such contraventions will incur a fine of up to $10,000 and/or an imprisonment term of up to 12 months. The maximum fine amount has been adjusted to align with recent legislations like the Private Education Act. Certain offences will be made compoundable at up to half of the maximum fine amount under clause 42.
Before ECDA determines any contraventions, its officers will investigate the cases thoroughly and establish the facts from a variety of sources. Very often, a child may be involved in a case, which makes investigations more complex. Hence, ECDA officers will need enhanced investigative powers to effectively carry out their duties under the Bill.
Beyond the current powers to inspect centres, ECDA officers, under clause 37, will be empowered to search centres, interview persons, take photographs and videos of the centre, and obtain the necessary documents from the centre. These are powers similar to those available to other regulators in Singapore. As we put these powers in place, we will establish internal processes to ensure that ECDA officers carry out their investigations fairly.
I have just outlined the broad regulatory framework. We are expecting to commence the Act over the next year after gazetting the detailed regulatory requirements in subsidiary legislation, and publishing the administrative procedures in the Codes of Practice.
As kindergartens are less familiar with a licensing regime, under clause 54 of the Bill, kindergartens will be given one year from the commencement of the Act to obtain their licences. Since 2015, ECDA has also been conducting sector briefings to explain and consult on the new requirements, as well as conducting customised on-site guidance for kindergartens.
In fact, I understand that actually many kindergartens have already been making adjustments to prepare for the new framework. From my interactions with the sector, I am confident that almost all our operators would be able to meet these requirements.
I believe that clear and appropriate regulatory requirements are crucial in raising standards in the early childhood sector. For example, during my visit to Creative Thinkers Kindergarten in August last year, the principal, Ms Sakinah Dollah shared that a clear, common understanding among the principals, teachers and support staff of ECDA's regulatory requirements will help centres to organise themselves better and to improve.
Mdm Speaker, to summarise, the Early Childhood Development Centres Bill is an important milestone in raising the quality of early childhood care and education in Singapore, so that we can give every child a good start. It will provide parents with greater confidence that we are making Singapore a great place to raise families. We received strong support from parents, teachers and operators on the need for this enhanced regulatory framework.
The Bill proposes, first, a common licensing framework for childcare centres and kindergartens. Second, all persons working in centres will need to be approved by ECDA to ensure their suitability to work with young children. In addition, there will also be clearer and more consistent requirements to guide centres in their operations. Finally, the requirements will be enforced through a more comprehensive and graduated enforcement framework with enhanced investigative powers to strengthen ECDA's oversight of the sector. ECDA will also work with centres closely to facilitate a smooth transition.
To conclude, the proposals in the Bill will help to set a firm and consistent foundation, positioning the early childhood sector well for the future. It complements the many, many efforts by the Government to partner the sector to improve the quality, accessibility and affordability of early childhood development services in Singapore. With that, Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mdm Speaker, the early childhood sector in Singapore has expanded significantly over the years. While we now have more choices of operators and services, quality and standards can differ greatly. I stand in support of the Bill to further regulate the sector to improve the quality of these centres and to protect the safety and well-being of our children.
One of the key provisions in this Bill is for all centres to be licensed. Licensing should improve quality. But we should be mindful of compliance costs. How will ECDA mitigate against centre operators from passing on compliance costs to parents? Right now, the fee variation is significant − from over $600 per month to $2,000 per month in high-end childcare centres. Both Anchor Operator and Partner Operator (POP) schemes are useful in moderating fees. However, fees of others outside of such schemes might continue to rise. Will further steps be taken to moderate the costs by having more centres involved in these schemes? Or should centres justify significant fee increases to ECDA?
Mdm Speaker, let me continue in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, many young families have to cope with the high cost of living − anything from daily living expenses, maintenance of parents and expenses to take care of their young children. The cost impact can be quite high for the young parents. Both husband and wife must work to maintain the cost of living. Childcare centres, therefore, have become a necessity for young families. Currently, Singaporeans can enjoy a $300 basic subsidy. From April 2013, the Government provided an additional subsidy for families with income below $7,500. This is at the 40th percentile. From 2011 to 2015, the median fee of a full-time childcare centre has increased 25%, but the subsidy given to middle-income families has remained at $300 since 2008. I urge the Government to give a higher subsidy during this period of economic downturn to mitigate the financial burdens of young parents.
There are also women who cannot take up full-time jobs due to family needs. However, current policies only allow non-working mothers to receive a subsidy of up to $300. While the intention to encourage mothers to go back to work is good, many mothers have no choice but to stay at home, especially those who have to take care of their parents and young children. What is more, there isn't much flexible work in Singapore. These mothers may face even heavier financial burdens. I hope the Government can increase the basic subsidy for non-working mothers, a gesture which can be seen as \"sending coal amidst snow\".
(In English): Mdm Speaker, let me resume in English. Another aspect of this Bill looks at ensuring holistic care and education of our children. This is critical and laudable. Recent studies show that obesity in school children has risen from 10% in 2000 to 12% in 2014. Our war on obesity and diabetes must start with our young children. The NurtureSG taskforce has given thoughtful and important recommendations. They include ensuring that children have adequate exercise, sleep and healthier food. I hope these recommendations can be adopted widely because healthy lifestyles need to start at a young age. I hope that ECDA will require operators to provide healthy and well-balanced meals for the children under their care.
Madam, I would also like to better understand how ECDA intends to support centres in improving their curriculum or standardising core components. Having a \"better\" curriculum certainly goes beyond preparing for primary school education. It is also about life values and developing a love for learning. Because of the centricity of early childhood education to a child's future learning, there would be value in ensuring certain core components are taught in the curriculum. Would ECDA consider such limited standardisation?
Improving the curriculum also means that teachers will have to be properly trained and equipped. Since this Bill also provides for teachers to have greater professional standing, what kind of support will ECDA offer to smaller centres that are lacking in manpower and may face challenges in getting their teaching staff to go for courses and further training? Will centre operators also be required to review the salary of their teachers and staff, and consider increasing their salaries as they become more professional?
Notwithstanding the above suggestions, the Bill is important and critical for nurturing the next generation of younger Singaporeans. I support the Bill.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, I am a father of two young boys, the oldest in Kindergarten 1 and the youngest likely to enter Nursery 1 next year. I am thus speaking from the point of view as a parent and I support the Bill. I support the Bill for two reasons.
First, the proposed legislation would formalise many of the existing good regulatory practices that are already in place and tweak some to maintain a good balance.
Second, and more importantly today, the proposed legislation opens up the possibilities of developing the pre-school sector. In this regard, I will speak of the three potentials of enhancing innovation, professionalism and affordability in the pre-school sector.
But before I do so, I want to clear a nagging issue with the Minister, which has been bothering me since I read the Early Childhood Development Agency's response to the specific feedback back in November 2015. The explanation given by ECDA to the exemption of Ministry of Education (MOE) Kindergartens from the regulatory framework is that this is in line with the fact that the Council for Private Education regulates private education institutions under the Private Education Act, while all national schools, Polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education come under MOE.
Now, this argument is rather weak. On what grounds should the regulation of the pre-school sector be organised in a similar way as the education sector? The two sectors are very different in purpose and pedagogies. The pre-school sector entails the application of childcare skills as well as holistic education approaches that recognise the difference between early childhood development and late childhood education.
Furthermore, in the education sector, the national schools serve as the primary and centralised arbiter of standards and allocation of public resources, with private schools only playing the role of augmenting public-led education to raise our young people to become productive workers, enterprising leaders and good citizens. Since the November 2015 response by ECDA, the Council for Private Education has been turned into the Committee for Private Education and absorbed into SkillsFuture Singapore.
There is no equivalence in the pre-school sector. The pre-school sector is a lot more diverse and decentralised. Even as the Council, the CPE was no equivalent to the ECDA, which regulated almost the entire pre-school sector except the few MOE kindergartens. It is certainly no equivalent now as the Committee. ECDA, not MOE, sets the standards. MOE is only one of the players in the pre-school sector. Symmetry may be beautiful, but it is wrong in this application.
What we need to ask instead are the role and function of MOE kindergartens in the pre-school sector, and whether the role and function, therefore, justify the exemption. If MOE kindergartens cater to a specific constituency, say, low-income families, but seeks to be consistent in standards with the ECDC Act and SPARK, then there is no justification for the exemption.
There is also the strange suggestion in the ECDA public consultation response that since MOE is directly accountable to Parliament, there is no need for the inclusion of the MOE kindergartens under the regulatory framework. Surely, Parliament cannot be expected to perform the role of ECDA, since it is a legislative body and cannot play a regulatory function to closely hold MOE kindergartens to consistent standards.
Let me turn now to the three potentials. The first is the potential of enhancing innovation. It is good that ECDA will be empowered to regulate the curriculum of childcare centres and kindergartens under the licensing regime. It is also a positive thing that ECDA said in its public consultation response that broad guidelines would ensure the programmes are developmentally appropriate while giving centres the flexibility to customise lesson plans.
I believe this is a crucial stance to maintain and I would urge ECDA to keep this openness to the diversity of early childhood education models. I also hope ECDA would consult widely with stakeholders, professional bodies and educational experts before rejecting any particular curriculum, so as to protect the diversity as much as possible.
The pre-school sector is poised to be a field of innovation. There are some interesting innovations on this front spearheaded by the Lien Foundation. There is an inclusive pre-school set up by Lien Foundation and the Asian Women's Welfare Association for typically developing children and children with special needs to learn and play together. There is also the collaboration between Lien Foundation and NTUC First Campus to develop model pre-schools for the heartlands, and for training teachers and conducting research on early childhood education.
The Lien Foundation examples are well-publicised examples. They are not the only examples of innovation. Many smaller pre-schools are quietly innovating. The regulatory framework must remain broad-based and not primed for consolidating and centralising the pre-school sector, and ECDA must remain open-minded and consultative to continue to encourage the innovation.
The second potential is the potential for enhancing the professionalism of early childhood educators. It is good that ECDA will be overseeing the registration of early childhood professionals and the accreditation of early childhood training programmes for now. I believe it is right that ECDA gently rejected the call for an independent professional body to register the programme staff, as there is no such body that can properly perform such a task at this point in time.
However, having said this, I believe there is scope to aim to increase the participation of professional bodies in the registration of professionals and accreditation of the programmes, so as to develop the overall professionalism of the pre-school sector.
It is a positive thing that ECDA develops the standards for registration and course accreditation in consultation with stakeholders, representatives of the professionals and the education experts. But taking input for implementation is not the same as opening up the process to participation by the professional bodies so that these bodies could grow and develop.
The development of these professional bodies should not be neglected by ECDA. These bodies play an important role in providing platforms for the sharing of expertise and innovation, and the exchange of knowledge and best practices. In the spirit of Budget 2017, ECDA would do well to aim to forge and deepen partnerships with these professional bodies, so that the pre-school sector could also prepare for the future economy so as to prepare our children for the future economy.
The third potential is the potential for enhancing the affordability of early childhood education. Research has shown that pre-school education is crucial for reducing inequality. Children who are ill-prepared and lacking the foundation for formal schooling tend to do badly in school, while putting a child in pre-school improves her chances of graduating from college. Affordable quality pre-school education is, therefore, the great leveller, improving the odds of low-income families to break out of the poverty trap.
One of the main fears related to this legislation is the increase of regulatory and compliance costs that would be passed on to parents through increased fees. In its public consultation response, ECDA reassured the public that regulatory costs would be low for operators who have been complying with existing regulations. This is fair enough, since much of the regulatory framework is already in place and this legislation is a formalisation and consolidation of the existing regulations.
Nevertheless, there will be some regulatory costs and knock-on effects on fees. This, therefore, presents the Government with the opportunity to review its subsidy schemes, especially with the view of ensuring low-income families can afford pre-school education for their children.
In this respect, I would like to call for two things. The first is for the per capita income eligibility criteria for the Additional Infant and Child Care Subsidies and the Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme to be based on four or more family members in the same household, including at least two dependents, rather than on the existing five or more family members with more than two dependents. The four family members with two dependents demographic is more aligned with the low-income family profile. This will allow more low-income families to benefit from more subsidies in a context where fees are under cost pressures to go up.
The second is to open up KiFAS subsidies to eligible parents of children enrolled in kindergartens operated by Partner Operators and Voluntary Welfare Organisations. The Partner Operators complement Anchor Operators in keeping fees affordable while ensuring the quality of the programmes. Likewise, kindergartens operated by VWOs are non-profit institutions and help keep fees affordable. I do not see any reason to keep Partner Operators and VWO operators out of KiFAS. The subsidies would not benefit the operators, only the low-income families who would have a greater selection of kindergartens to choose from.
Mdm Speaker, I hope this Bill will set the stage for enhancing the innovation, professionalism and affordability of the pre-school sector. Notwithstanding the unjustified oddity of exempting MOE kindergartens from a good regulatory framework, I support the Bill.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill for it is much needed and timely. In order for parents to have the added possibility of the mother returning to the workforce, the quality of the care of their children is, understandably, extremely important. Hence, the enhanced regulatory framework to ensure excellence in care and education is crucial.
Through an enhanced regulatory framework, this Bill seeks to ensure and advance the quality of care and education in the pre-school sector. This is important as more young parents in Singapore look to pre-school centres for care management. As pre-school centres are geographically spread out across Singapore, centre-based care becomes more convenient and attractive to parents. Furthermore, as more women and seniors participate in the workforce, the need for quality preschool services has increased. There is a real need to increase the support for young parents who may prefer centre-based care over care given by domestic workers or nannies.
This need to ensure quality is especially important as more parents require longer hours of care for even younger children. What I am referring to is the shift in enrolment numbers from kindergartens to childcare centres. Kindergartens are normally half-day, while childcare centres provide longer hours. Last year, it was noted that over the past three years, kindergarten enrolment dropped by about 6% and the number of kindergartens dropped from 500 to 480. On the other hand, childcare enrolment shot up by about 50%, from 76,000 to about 100,000. Furthermore, the demand for infant care for children under 18 months has increased. Since 2012, the number of infants enrolled in infant care has increased by 60%, now accounting for about 10% of the infants. This trend is projected to increase in the next few years, especially since increasing centre-based infant care featured in the Budget Statement last week. These changes necessitate an enhanced regulatory framework to ensure continued excellence in a growing and important service sector.
This Bill seeks to maintain and advance the quality of care and education by pre-school centres through various angles, with the child's well-being as a priority. For example, clause 6 of this Bill introduces a licensing framework for both kinds of pre-school centres. This furthers the accountability with regard to kindergartens, which were previously able to come under a one-off registration process. Another example is found in clause 10(3)(e), which may require licensees to undergo an audit.
Further, clause 12 provides that a security deposit may be required and may be calibrated according to the licensee's track record and its likelihood to attract regulatory action proceedings. This adds another accountability mechanism ‒ this time, a financial one.
The Bill also deals with the leadership of the early childhood development centre. Under clause 8(3), it places importance on the key appointment holder's character and the fitness to operate in an application for a licence, while clause 19 ensures that this is continued by a possible disqualification of a key appointment holder.
Besides safety, quality education is ensured at multiple stages and levels, including grant of licence under clause 10(3)(b), and the educators deployed and employed under clauses 23 and 30.
This Bill also provides for measures to help protect the children's wellbeing. For example, clause 17 empowers the Chief Licensing Officer to issue directions to act in a certain fashion or refrain from doing something with immediate effect if there are circumstances that may endanger the safety, wellbeing and welfare of children or other individuals at the early childhood development centre.
Another key aspect of this Bill which I support is to ensure the reliability and continuity of the care centre. It is imperative that parents are not stuck in stressful limbo when a centre closes. Therefore, the initiative under this new law to mandate that assistance be provided to parents for alternative care placements and education arrangements, when a centre closes, is key. It is for this reason that clause 18(4)(g) is to be supported.
In conclusion, this Bill is a timely move that advances the quality of care and education in the early childhood years.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Madam, the Bill seeks to regulate the operation of early childhood development centres. It contains the regulatory framework for operators of early childhood development centres. It provides the approval framework for those performing the duties and approval framework for third-party education providers.
The Bill is also a timely and forward-looking one as it takes effect with the repeal of the Childcare Centres Act.
Madam, I would like to seek the following clarifications in regard to the Bill. Section 3 states that the Act does not apply to certain centres. Why does this Act not apply to pre-schools run by the Government, such as the Ministry of Education Kindergartens? Should it not be that standards be applied to both the Government and privately-run pre-schools? Section 17 spells out the directions concerning the safety and well-being of children. Thus, the licensee who fails to comply will be imposed a fine of up to $10,000 or not exceeding 12 months' imprisonment. How does an agency make sure that every licensee complies with the directions and not wait until someone whistle-blows or complains?
Section 23 states the approval for performance of and deployment of individuals to perform prescribed duties. Pre-school teachers play an important role in detecting developmental issues among children. Will there be training for teachers in caring for children with special needs? Also, the Bill does not provide much reference or guide on the qualifications and experience required for such teachers. What other fees or charges are to be paid in respect of the services and other areas mentioned in section 51 under \"Regulations\"? Madam, notwithstanding these, I rise in support of the Bill.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, it is important that we regulate our early childhood development centres sensibly and responsibly to ensure good outcomes for our precious children who will carry the light of Singapore forward into the future. While I do not oppose the intent of this Bill, I shall raise questions about specific provisions and its implementation.
Firstly, the requirements spelt out in this Bill, for example, on registration of personnel under clause 25 in the context of the shortage of qualified childcare teachers as well as the greater administrative requirements may trigger many smaller independent centres to either merge with or be acquired by larger players, or else close down altogether. I am concerned about the status of smaller centres that may offer niche services, for example, to children with special needs.
Madam, the quality of education and childcare services should come first. The interest of children should come first, ahead of industry considerations. But at the same time, if we foster an industry landscape which is effectively an oligopoly of the AOPs, POPs and MOE kindergartens, that may pose some risks in terms of losing an element of diversity and of competition. Diversity is important, particularly in respect of centres catering to children with special needs, as I mentioned.
In fact, the year 2000, Dr Aline Wong, then Senior Minister of State for Education said and I quote, \"Today, different pre-school providers with their different philosophies and approaches to child development offer a wide range of pre-school education models in Singapore. There is merit in this arrangement as it promotes healthy competition and provides a futile arena or innovative practices.\" I would like to ask the Ministry: does it expect a major consolidation in the industry as a result of this Bill? And if so, what will be done to ensure that this takes place in a way that protects diversity and choice while also safeguarding the interests of the children? For example, will other Government agencies like SPRING, reach out to the sector to provide advice and the systems in respect M&A or alliance possibilities?
Next, on licencing requirements. Will ECDA demonstrate flexibility on a case-by-case basis in line with the spirit of the regulations? The case in point may be where individual teachers may possess good qualifications from institutes abroad or at home and could be required to undertake an abridged or accelerated form of the current PQAC accredited advanced diploma that is required. Will ECDA practise flexibility and accept different pathways to accreditation of personnel, taking into question individual professional qualifications and their experience, or will it rigidly require all professionals to conform to the same PQAC accredited pathway?
Next, will the Ministry consider setting up an independent advisory body to inform policy formulation? This was the recommendation from a study authored by Dr Lynn Ang for the Lien Foundation in 2012 referring to the pre-school sector. And I quote from the study, \"While the increasing Government involvement to regulate the sector is generally welcomed by most participants in the study, there is a concern that the overwhelming influence of Government may stifle the independent voices of pre-school teachers and other stakeholders. As such, a consultative approach to policy development and implementation is seen as key in galvanising support and moving the sector forward.
One example of a consultative approach could entail the setting up of an independent advisory body comprising representatives from different key stakeholders such as pre-school teachers, service providers, teacher training providers, health professionals, family educators, community workers, social workers, parents, voluntary welfare organisations (VWO) and other relevant agencies and experts who are involved in the care and education of young children.\"
Madam, such a consultative approach to policy formation recommended by experts as I quoted above is advisable given the rapid pace of research and innovation in this field.
Since the Opening of the Thirteenth Parliament in January 2016, the Government has stated that one of its key themes is partnership. Such consultative policy formation and implementation would demonstrate that such commitments are being honoured in practice and not only in rhetoric.
Next, as my colleague Assoc Prof Daniel Goh has argued, the exemption for MOE kindergartens is hard to accept. In its consultation paper of 20 November 2015, ECDA said that the MOE kindergartens are exempt because of strict oversight from MOE headquarters and because MOE is accountable to Parliament. This seems to conflict two functions − broad oversight on the one hand and operational inspection responsibility to ensure quality standards and service delivery on the other.
If indeed MOE's regulation of MOE kindergartens is more strict than the standards required under the ECDA Act, that is problematic from the standpoint of equity. If it is on par with the standards required under this Bill, will it not be more reasonable and efficient to transfer supervisory oversight over MOE kindergartens to ECDA, thus alleviating the oversight burden on the part of MOE headquarters and levelling the inspection and enforcement playing field.
And lastly, Madam, I would like to make a very exploratory suggestion. The quality of pre-school education has been shown to be a critical factor in determining educational success downstream. This was argued by an EIU report entitled \"Starting Well\" commissioned by the Lien Foundation in 2012. The same well-known report placed Singapore 30th in the global ranking of pre-school education quality, and 21st in terms of affordability. We do face a challenge of inequality in Singapore with Gini coefficients above the forty level. These have been coming down which is a positive development, but they are still very high by the standards of other developed countries.
Madam, breaking the poverty cycle should be a priority for Singapore. Not only is this right thing to do from the standpoint of social justice, not only will this help cement social solidarity and protect us from the divisive politics that is being seen in some other countries in the world today, it will also help unlock talent that could power our economic future, fire our imagination and inspire our spirits. One of the children in a large poor family living in an HDB rental flat today could be the next Ron Sim or Sim Wong Woo, the next Joseph Schooling, Yip Pin Xiu or Theresa Goh, the next Iskandar Jalil, the next Catherine Lim.
We know how important it is to ingrain good learning habits at a very young age. Children who miss the boat because their families lack the money or understanding to invest in their pre-school years, will struggle in Primary school and are likely to become demoralised, widening the gap with their peers. This could be why the director of a social service centre I spoke to shared that he is now seeing cases which are the children of the at-risk clients he served over 20 years ago.
It is well-accepted that programmes that reward poor families for keeping their children in school can play a helpful role in breaking the poverty cycle. The pioneering programme globally in this respect was the Bolsa Familia programme in Brazil which has inspired many similar programmes around the world.
The Bolsa Familia basically incentivises, and I am saying this at the risk of some over-simplification, but the Bolsa Familia basically incentivises poor families to keep their children in school. It is also well-known that many other developed countries offer or partly free pre-school education. In Sweden, all children receive at least 525 hours per year free of charge, beginning from when the child reaches the age of three.
In the longer term, and as a first step, will the Ministry explore the idea of making a more aggressive financial intervention to provide free, good quality kindergarten and childcare to all at-risk children in poor families, perhaps tied to certain conditions? There is already an initiative which the Minister launched previously − KidSTART − that can serve as platform for a more expansionary vision here.
Moreover, there is anecdotal evidence that children from many poor, low-income families, sometimes attend kindergartens or childcare centres only a few times a month which is the minimum to continue receiving the KiFAS or CFAC subsidies. In other words, absenteeism by children from poor families may be very high. Will the Ministry conduct a study of this absenteeism phenomenon and also consider policies to address this? Such policies could include making pre-school compulsory or providing some conditional benefit to parents from such families to ensure high attendance rates which is the idea behind the Bolsa Familia policy. Thank you.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, this Bill aims to raise the overall quality of early childhood care and education through a harmonised regulatory framework for kindergartens and childcare centres. I welcome this Bill as it seeks to ensure higher and consistent standards across the early childhood care education sector.
As the number of young families having both parents working become increasingly common, the need for childcare or infant care becomes more urgent. I am glad that this Bill will give young parents assurance that the safety and welfare of their children will be protected and that the childcare centres their children attend will be professional and of high quality. Apart from the various monetary incentives the Government has provided, I think this is a right step towards providing a more holistic approach to encourage and help young couples start their family.
Mdm Speaker, I would like to offer three suggestions for consideration. First, I would like to suggest that the Early Childhood Development Agency, or ECDA, works with the Ministry of Education to co-locate primary schools and childcare centres. The main benefit will be that young parents who send their elder child to school need not make a separate trip to send their younger child to a childcare centre. These parents will also have the option of engaging the school bus service to send both children.
My second suggestion is regarding training. Early childhood educators must attend an ECDA-recognised course or diploma programme conducted at ITEs, Polytechnics or ECDA-accredited training agencies such as SEED Institute or MMI Academy. To further alleviate the shortage of childcare staff, can the Ministry consider setting up a new institution to train more early childhood educators?
My third suggestion is also regarding staffing, which is a big issue as many childcare centres have trouble hiring staff. I observe that currently, childcare staff is relatively young. I would like to ask ECDA if it can consider doing a HR study to see how to reach out to those who have been retrenched or may be considering a mid-career change to join this industry. This will be a win-win situation as it will help alleviate manpower shortage faced by childcare centres as well as help our middle-age workers.
To conclude, we need to do everything we can to provide the high quality early childhood care and education that every child deserves. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, early childhood education takes place during the formative years, a time when a child is most receptive to learning. It is crucial to their development and sets the cornerstone of their adult years. It is good that the Government is constantly reviewing the needs of this sector. I support this Bill which I feel will help to improve the learning experience and development of the children in their pre-school years.
I am pleased to note that relevant authorities are now empowered with more investigation powers. It also should be a requirement across the board that a robust system be in place to screen all staff who work at the centres. Background records must be accessible and up to date. Certainly, anyone with a history of hurting children or have pedophilic tendencies must be weeded out. I hope the Ministry will share the measures taken to do this.
I would like to raise some potential issues with these rules. As with all changes, transition is often a matter of concern, especially for the smaller centres where they could be facing manpower and resource constraints to cope with the change. Can the Minister share with the House how this transition period can be best managed, such that the provision of childcare and education will not be disrupted in any centre? We are already facing childcare shortages, especially in new BTO areas where families are younger. This Bill should not make the shortages worse.
Under this Bill, for a centre to engage a third-party education provider, it is mandatory to apply to the Chief Licensing Officer (CLO). I propose that third-party education providers should also be licensed, and the centres can then take their pick from a list of the licensed providers at any given time. This would be more efficient when a centre needs to engage providers on an ad-hoc basis.
Under the same proposed rule, centres cannot give guest speakers, performers and the like any rewards without a licence. Can we make this rule more flexible, as not all talents can afford to be generous with their time?
In light of the current staff shortage in the industry, those who are undergoing training should be allowed to function as relief teachers or teaching assistants. This will give them valuable hands-on exposure, while helping to ease the manpower crunch. Of course, a longer-term solution to the manpower crunch is to review the salaries of childcare teachers, especially the disparity with MOE teachers.
I note with concern that some centres are exempted from this Bill. They include MOE pre-schools and kindergartens. Why? Why are MOE pre-schools and kindergartens exempted? Is this double standards? Is it that they are unable to meet the KPI? I think there should be more uniformity across schools catering to the same type of education level. This means subjecting MOE pre-schools and kindergartens to the same Act, or else subjecting the private pre-schools and kindergartens to the same requirements as the MOE's. In fact, I think it is good to subject MOE pre-schools and kindergartens under this same Act. This can ensure that whatever requested by ECDA is practical, is something that can be done. In fact, if there is anything that is not practical, something that needs to be fine-tuned, MOE can then whisper to ECDA.
Enrichment centres, therapy services, standalone playgroups, children gyms and student care services are also exempted. These are common places where children are sent to for learning and to be cared for. There must be adequate regulations to protect their well-being, health and safety. I request that while they do not need to comply with all the rules in this Bill, the Government should look into a simpler set of rules for them. For example, their staff should also be registered.
Please let me summarise in Chinese.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Both the parents and childcare centres are concerned about whether they will be affected by the new regulations. For example, if a smaller centre did not apply a permit in time, will the authorities help them to make sure that students are not affected?
In addition, some centres are exempted from this Bill including MOE kindergartens. Why is so? Why are MOE kindergartens not regulated under this Bill? Is this not double standard? I understand that these kindergartens already have a set of stringent rules in place but consumers may feel that the Government did not apply the same standard, or that some kindergartens are better than the others. I feel that there should be uniformity when it comes to educating children of the same age. In fact, centres under MOE should set an example to make sure that ECDA's requirements are practical and reasonable.
Other types of pre-school education centres such as children's gyms and enrichment centres are also exempted from the Bill. Can the Government stipulate a set of simpler rules to protect the children when they are at these places too?
Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Currently, there are over 1,300 childcare centres in Singapore, with close to 500 of them offering infant care services at the same premises.
Together with about 500 kindergartens, they provide pre-school services so that our children can receive quality care and education in their foundation years. Amongst them, there are Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) as well as bigger ones with more than 10 branches each. Regardless of the scale, it is important that all operators deliver high levels of professional care and services. Under this Bill, operators with ill practices will either shape up or exit the market.
The tightening of the regulatory framework to raise centre quality by safeguarding the well-being of the children and, to a certain extent, the staff, is to be applauded.
Madam, I would like to also declare my interest as the Executive Secretary of the Education Services Union. At the union, we, too, received complaints against the management of childcare centres by early childhood educators. These concern issues with regard to salaries and even abdication of responsibilities by the management. These incidents serve as reminders on the need for a rigorous system to ensure that lapses in management can be detected early or prevented.
I feel that we do need to avoid some unintended consequences and strengthen work in other areas. Firstly, with tighter compliance, some early childhood educators are concerned that operators may unfairly pass on all responsibilities to them in cases where non-compliance or gaps are detected. It is disconcerting to the educators if it is perceived that operators command the rights and can transfer all or a majority of the responsibilities to their staff. Hence, I urge the Ministry and the trade association to take a firm stance against operators who do so. We, in the union, stand ready to work with the Ministry and trade association to work out proper guidelines when operators conduct checks and inquiries.
At the same time, I hope the licensing framework also takes into account where there is evidence of unfair treatment meted out by the operators against their staff. Will the Ministry consider having measures to encourage whistle-blowers from among the centres to come forward and share their insights if they know of any ill practices?
Furthermore, sudden and unexpected closure of centres has also resulted in loss of income for the teachers and staff. I know of operators who have been cited by the authorities to pay staff who are owed wages but they have been uncooperative.
I hope the regulatory agency will be given more muscle to compel the operators to comply, rather than having the staff to resort to filing civil claims. In this context, the Ministry can coordinate with the Ministry of Manpower or the union to find out more details.
Secondly, on unintended consequences, smaller operators with limited resources may also find it tough as they gear up to comply with the new regulatory requirements. Many of them are genuine in wanting to provide and deliver professional quality care to their children.
We should not end up with only big players who are the only ones who can meet the requirements. I hope the Ministry and trade association can work together to assist smaller operators transform their operations, not just to meet the higher compliance requirements but also to ensure that their staff upgrade, their operations are streamlined, and they take advantage of available technology.
Finally, a less than desirable situation will see even bigger operators raise fees to deal with higher compliance costs. I can understand that operators need additional resources and time towards putting in place administrative tracking to fulfil the compliance requirements.
I hope that under the strategies identified by the Committee on the Future Economy, assistance will be available to help centre operators do more with the same resources. This should help to bring about significant improvements in the overall efficiency for both the operators as well as the sector. Madam, I support this Bill.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. Regulating childcare centres and kindergartens under a single framework ensures consistency in the enforcement of standards and other operational requirements. I congratulate the Ministry for a well-thought through piece of legislation, and commend the effort to engage all stakeholders in the process of drafting this Bill. In this regard, I hope that the Ministry will consider seriously some suggestions on the planning of pre-school centres.
On top of setting high standards and enforcement measures for operations, health and safety and teaching methods, we ought to recognise that our pre-school centres cannot help families effectively if they are not there where they are needed and when they are needed.
It is, therefore, important for our pre-school centres to be located at accessible and convenient venues. There can be better planning in advance so that the building of new childcare centres and new Build-to-Order flats can take place almost simultaneously. This will ensure that there will be sufficient places for the enrolment of children in the estates.
More often than not, the building of flats and childcare centres/kindergartens do not take place concurrently, and parents would have to opt for other childcare centres around their neighbourhood, most of which may also be located further away. For a few housing estates with high childcare demand, the long waiting list for the choice childcare centres is a great source of frustration amongst parents.
More and more families these days have both parents who are working. We cannot assume that there is a grandparent or domestic helper available in every household to take care of the child in the event that there is no vacancy.
In addition, we must consider the role of grandparents who are involved in childcare. Often, these grandparents are the ones who send their grandchildren to school. By building the new childcare centres alongside the BTO HDB flats, it will ensure convenience for these senior citizens who would otherwise have to walk long distances or take public transport with the children to and from the centres.
I hope for a greater degree of coordination between MND, including agencies like HDB, and MSF, so that the issue of childcare vacancies does not burden parents, especially when we want to encourage young parents to consider having another child.
Finally, when building childcare centres, we should also plan ahead for the health and exercise requirements of our pre-school centres. Given the new recommendation by the NutureSG Committee for pre-school children to have at least one hour of physical activity per day, incorporating facilities within the childcare centre to enable this would be essential. This will promote a more active lifestyle amongst the pre-school children. By learning the importance of healthy eating and exercising, the children would be able to inculcate these good habits from young. Hopefully, these measures will decrease the number of obese children entering Primary school in the future.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Mdm Speaker, as we encourage families to have more children, the need for caregivers rises correspondingly. These days, most young families are dual-income, and children would be placed with the childcare centres very early in their lives.
In the past, children are placed at the childcare centres for shorter hours, like those equivalent to a play school or a kindergarten. Today, the role of these childhood development centres have expanded both in terms of the scope and extent of caregiving. Many centres are not simply learning and interactive grounds for our young infants, but also seen as preparatory school before they begin formal education. With more demand, different options of child-minding facilities have emerged over the years. However, often, there are inconsistencies among the operators. With parents placing more responsibilities and expectations on our centres, it is thus necessary to have a framework that regulates and guides the basic operations.
I see this effort as a first step to ensure the minimum standards amongst operators in order to facilitate an equivalent early childhood development centre. In doing so, there will be a few areas where potential concerns that may arise, and I seek the clarifications from the Minister, and would like to provide some suggestions.
One, cost of operation. Will the cost of operating a centre increase in tandem with the need to comply with these new regulations? While it is understandable to have a range of prices from different centres that cater to varying groups and it is the parents' choice to decide what best meets the needs of their child, the affordability of these centres must always remain accessible to a broad group of children.
Two, availability of resources. Does the Ministry have an indicator of the impact these new rules will have on our existing centres and the new centres to be built? Under current conditions, there is already a shortage of certified persons who can perform duties in a childcare centre. For some centres, the intake of the children is much lesser than the enrolment capacity allowed as they have insufficient staff-to-student ratio. As I understand it, sometimes, the intake was managed in accordance with the availability of staff to ensure that each child can safely progress from nursery to kindergarten within the same centre. Depending on the allowable duties specified subsequently, this may further worsen the staffing situation.
Would the Ministry consider different sets of qualification criteria for non-teaching staff where relevant experience, rather than ECDA's recognised educator certifications are being used? Can the ratio of non-teaching staff be increased to assist the teachers from the workload of having to care, teach and manage the administrative tasks? An appropriate balance can be made in accordance to the classes of licence that will be issued. I believe this may help to strike a better balance, create employment and relief some of our short-term staffing shortages in the industry.
Three, compliance. In this Bill, there is no mention on the frequency of audits and whether a standard checklist will be made available for the centre's staff to have information documented and prepared on an on-going basis. This will help reduce the administrative load and preparation time of our centres when it comes to audit as they are usually operating close to 5.5 days each week.
Four, serious violation and cessation of operators. As much as we hope this will not happen to any of the centres, but pre-emptive measures must be taken to safeguard the children and staff. What is the notice period that will be given to the parents and staff should such an incident arise? Both the staff and parents will need assistance and adequate time to look for alternatives, if available. With the current vacancies limitation, finding a suitable alternate arrangement may prove to be a tall challenge.
Five, the third-party education service providers. Businesses of third-party education service providers have flourished in the pre-school sector over the past few years. More are set to join this industry. While there is nothing wrong in providing options and variety for children to learn, the approach in which it is offered has created inequality amongst the children.
Today, in many centres, these additional curricula are optional classes. Sometimes, the classes are held within the centre, and other times at external locations. The issue is that not all families can afford their children for additional classes. These children often have to sit out or take rest breaks while seeing their friends continue to be engaged and learning. It is unknown to us what psychological effect this may have on a young child. Furthermore, we should not be practising differing standards on the children at that tender age. Thus, I urge the Ministry to reconsider if there is a need to have additional classes conducted by third-party service providers, unless the learning opportunity is given to every child enrolled.
Mdm Speaker, children are our country's most valuable resource and every child should have equal opportunity to experience and to learn. The framework that we seek to introduce here will be a step in the right direction. I hope this will bring about more consistency and give our parents some peace of mind. I support the Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill and I thank the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) for the extensive public consultation it has conducted. Notwithstanding the many positives in the Bill, I would like to seek several clarifications from the Minister, many of which have actually been raised already.
Firstly, the decision to include licence conditions is certainly a good move as it is testament to the effort to ensure that the quality of early childhood development centres is maintained. However, it appears that an audit of an Early Childhood Development Centre (ECDC) may not be compulsory. Can the Minister clarify under what circumstances would an audit be required? I do understand that ECDA already conducts such audits, and the officers generally visit centres at least once a year. Why not then codify this into the Act?
Secondly, mandating the provision of a security deposit would be helpful in incentivising a licensee to operate within the boundaries of the relevant laws and regulations. Can the Minister clarify why we are not making the provision of a security deposit compulsory for all licensees?
In cases where a security deposit is required, can the Minister clarify under what circumstances will the security deposit be forfeited? In addition, can the Minister provide a range of the amount of security deposit required?
Thirdly, the requirement of a licensee to give the CLO prior notice before ceasing operations or surrendering a licence is a good mechanism in this Bill. This gives parents time to search for alternative ECDCs for their children. Can the Minister specify the minimum notice period for the licensee to issue such a notice?
Fourth, I understand that MOE kindergartens are not regulated under this Bill. Many Members in this House have also shared the same concern. While ECDA has provided explanations publicly about this, I urge the Minister to reconsider as it does seems like there are double standards here. This new Act should apply to all parties, regardless of whether they are operated privately or by the Government.
Lastly, Mdm Speaker, I understand that on curriculum, we will continue to provide broad guidelines to ensure that programmes are developmentally appropriate. I urge the Minister to ensure that we do not become too focused on academics. These are children who are under seven years old. I see that there are already assessment books for kindergarten children and I see that there are already tuition classes for them as well.
We must remember that for these children, play is important and perhaps should be the focus of our ECDCs. Dr David Whitebread from the University of Cambridge stated in his paper \"The importance of play\" that:
\"What is increasingly recognised within the research and policy communities, however, is that one vital ingredient in supporting healthy intellectual, emotional and social development in young children is the provision of opportunities and the support for play.\"
His view is also supported by the European Parliament who on 12 May 2011 adopted a resolution on \"Early Years Learning\" in the European Union, which notes that the early years of childhood are critical for children's development and highlights that \"in addition to education, all children have the right to rest, leisure and play\".
I hope that this is the direction we are heading in − that we remember that they are kids after all, and kids need to play.
Mdm Speaker, as we enact this piece of legislation, perhaps it is timely to remember that the best teachers are the parents and the best ECDC is really our homes. This, we cannot legislate. We cannot legislate that parents spend time with their children nor can we legislate that parents impart the rights values to their children.
This is entirely up to us parents and the lessons we teach our children is far more important than the lessons in school. Ultimately, children copy what their parents do and it is their parents' behaviours that shape theirs the most.
We cannot spend every minute with our children but perhaps an important time is bedtime. My daughter's favourite bedtime story is \"The things I love about bed time\". I must have read this story close to 100 times now. On Sunday night, she fell asleep after I read her this story and for the first time I read the notes for parents and care-givers at the end of the book. I should have read that much earlier but at least I am honest.
It said \"spending time with your child as they prepare for bed is a wonderful opportunity to develop and maintain a close and loving bond.
Playing a fun bedtime game, sharing a story, listening to them recount their favourite moments of the day, discussing dreams and future events they are looking forward to, praising them for a task well done, and telling them how much you love them − all of these things create an environment in which you child will feel happy, safe, secure, loved and valued.
Ultimately, these are simple rituals that contribute to an increase in the positive emotion of your child. For you as the parent, this is precious time in which you can be consciously and constructively be involved in building a positive state of mind. Your child will hopefully internalise this optimism and it will guide them on a path to a full and happy life.\"
I have to admit that I wish I read more bedtime stories to my daughter and in writing this speech, it made me reflect on this and I hope that all parents think about this as well − think about how important a role we play as parents and as teachers.
I look forward to reading this book another hundred more times to my daughter and well another 200 hundred times to my twins. In fact, I read them both this story this morning and they probably heard the story many times already when they were in my wife's womb.
Mdm Speaker, it seems that whenever there is a Bill by MSF, I have something to share about my parenthood journey and this time, I am happy to share that my twins were born last week. They were so eager to come into this world that they came two months early. These two little girls gave us quite a scare last week and to be honest, it has not been an easy week.
I have actually told the twins that last year, I asked Minister Heng whether he can backdate the start of the First Step Grant which was announced during Budget 2016. I told the twins that Minister said \"no\" and so, I urged them to please be born after the Committee of Supply debates, after any new parenthood policies are announced.
As always, children never listen and so I pray that for any new policies that Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo and Minister Tan Chuan-Jin will be announcing shortly, the start date will be the beginning of this year and not with immediate effect from the date of the announcement.
On a positive note, I now have three daughters whose birthdays are about a week apart. So, we can have one birthday party for three kids. That is perhaps the best \"budget\".
Mdm Speaker, this Bill is an important step forward for early childhood education but we must remember that it is only a part of the equation. We must remember this quote by George Santayana, and it reads: \"A child educated only at school is an uneducated child.\"
Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mdm Speaker :\tDr Chia Shi-Lu. Not here. Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Our childcare centres and kindergartens are as varied as the uniforms, or lack of, for the children in their care. There is a wide range of fees, programmes and facilities. Yet all of them must meet certain health, safety and teaching standards to ensure that the children are well cared for and ready for our Primary schools. Hence, I fully support regulating all pre-schools under a single regulatory framework for consistency.
The new framework will further safeguard the interests of our children and their parents through requirements, such as getting operators to clearly state their registration and admission processes and giving parents sufficient notice if they decide to increase their fees. I am happy to note that centres will continue to have the flexibility to customise their lesson plans within broad guidelines which ensure that the programmes are developmentally appropriate.
However, the Bill does not address how the Ministry will ensure that centres charge reasonable fees. Some centres claim that they offer unique, high quality programmes and charge fees which can match our Universities' tuition fees. Although this is a free market, some degree of control from the Ministry would be helpful.
I was reassured to find out that new administrative requirements are clear and will not be too onerous upon the operators. Operators should have no difficulty adhering to the new regulations, minimising operational inefficiencies and costs, while safeguarding centre quality and standards. Notwithstanding, I would like to ask the Minister whether operators will be expected to employ designated operation, administrative or compliance staff to ensure that they are running their centres according to the new framework.
Due to the proposed longer licence tenure, I urge the Ministry to conduct unannounced audits more regularly.
Currently, such audits are conducted at least once a year. Would the Ministry consider increasing the frequency to at least twice yearly to ensure that centres maintain their standards?
I am also concerned about the impact of temporary centre closures in the event of disease outbreaks. There are clear conditions under which centres will be permitted to start running again. However, during the closures, many families will be left in difficulty, due to more dual-income families and grandparents staying in the workforce longer. Finding someone or somewhere to take care of their children will be a big challenge. I hope the Ministry will address this and share what contingency plans it has for such situations.
Finally, I hope the Ministry will provide more guidance and support to operators in caring for children with special needs within their centres. Embracing such children and helping them to integrate into the pre-school community should be the way forward, instead of segregating them.
If the parents feel confident enough to enrol them, it means that their conditions are usually manageable with some conditional help and empathy. While they will need extra care and concern, if the Ministry can facilitate operators' partnership with referred specialists, the interests of these children will be safeguarded.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, the traditional light-touch approach that the Singapore Government has adopted in the early childhood industry has, in my opinion, worked well. This has led to the flourishing of the early childhood education landscape where parents can send their children to different schools with different pedagogies that cater to differing needs, wants and aspirations.
Over time, however, that has led to an adverse impact where children, depending on their social economic status, could possibly have different starting points in life depending on the pre-school, kindergarten or childcare centre that they attend.
While I think that aggressive interventions and heavy regulations in the early childhood sector are not necessary at this point in time and the element of choice for parents is important, it would undeniably be useful for the MOE and MSF to set a basic curriculum and establish a regulated baseline pedagogy and certain level of quality to ensure our children, regardless of social economic background, have the opportunity to enjoy a certain basic standard of quality early childhood education.
I see that the amendments proposed in the Bill as a positive step where the Government is sticking to its light-touch approach, yet at the same time, adjusting the system so that it continue to serve broad interests of the community by offering diversity and choice to parents. I would now like to touch on three amendments to the Bill that I think resonate with me the most.
Aside from having a well-developed curriculum that emphasises learning through exploration and play, the quality of educators is perhaps the next most important factor that determines whether children will have an enriching early childhood education.
I am glad that the Bill will strengthen what the Minister calls a robust regulatory framework on the operations of an Early Childhood Development Centre, or ECDC. This, in my opinion, will complement the on-going initiatives to elevate the service standards of the industry. Currently, it is mandatory for all teachers and allied educators to undergo supervised training so that they have the proper qualifications to teach in a pre-school. It would thus be appropriate to impose a similar regulatory framework to curb the proliferation of schools that are not run by licensed operators.
In the same spirit of creating a stronger safeguard, I would urge the Government to consider defining and clarifying what constitutes an ECDC. Would home-based classes that focus on delivering structured curriculum be considered an ECDC under the Bill? Or would enrichment centres that conduct speech and drama classes or creative thinking for pre-schoolers be considered as ECDCs? How would specialised set-ups such as those providing occupational therapy or unique training for special needs children be classified? I think it is important for us to be granular in our approach and define in unambiguous terms what an ECDC is.
At the current moment, there are several avenues and channels for aspiring early childhood educators to get trained in the field. The amendment to clause 23, where approval must explicitly be sought for persons who perform duties at ECDCs, will further enhance the quality of early childhood education by ensuring that all teachers and allied educators have the relevant qualifications and skills to teach our pre-schoolers.
Presently, aspiring early childhood educators can get trained at early childhood diploma programmes in the Polytechnics and via training provided at the SEED Institute. In line with the SkillsFuture initiative and the Committee on the Future Economy's recommendation to acquire and utilise deep skills, I hope that there will be more avenues for our aspiring early childhood educators to be trained.
In particular, I would like to suggest that incentives be given to mid-career switchers to attend mid-career conversion courses that induct them quickly into the sector. In my opinion, mid-career switchers can be a valuable source of manpower to a sector that is currently experiencing a labour crunch. In fact, many mid-career executives are parents themselves, and they can bring with them important parenting skills that can help improve the overall standards of care and classroom delivery.
Aside from creating training platforms for early childhood educators to attain the much needed foundational skills, I hope that the Government can put in place some form of continuous education programme so that our educators can continue to upgrade their skill set over time and be in sync with the latest teaching methods and pedagogies.
This is especially important for those who wish to deepen their career in the field and eventually take on a leadership role in their respective schools and it is also in line with our SkillsFuture initiative and the Committee on the Future Economy's strategic thrust mentioned earlier.
Specialised continuous education will create multiple pathways of career progression by giving early childhood educators the platform to hone and deepen their skills in specific areas of interest, such as pedagogy development, developmental psychology, or even early childhood assessment and intervention. The deepening of skill sets will naturally allow these educators to have meaningful career progression and be paid a higher wage when they become specialists in their field.
The amendments to clause 29 that stipulates the regulatory requirements imposed on ECDCs when they deploy third-party education service providers is a step in the right directions towards raising safety and quality standards.
ECDCs, in their course of operations, will inevitably work with third-party education service providers to offer enrichment or physical education programmes. In instances such as these, it is important that third party education service providers be thoroughly assessed for their suitability and whether they have the right level of competency to offer such services.
It would disastrous if classes such as gymnastics are being conducted by untrained third-party providers who do not have the right level of competency or awareness about safety. Children are exposed to higher risk of getting hurt when they attend classes conducted by these unqualified trainers and it is important that we assess all such trainers thoroughly to minimise such risk.
As an addendum to the Bill, I hope that the Government can clarify whether clause 29 will be applied to vendors who provide non-educational service to the ECDCs, for example, Food & Beverage vendors who supply food to the centres.
Going further, would the Government consider mandating vendors that supply food to children in pre-schools and Primary schools to provide a well-balanced diet that is suitable for young children? It might thus be fruitful for the Health Promotion Board and MOE to jointly work on a regulatory and certification framework, together with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), to assess vendors that provide F&B to pre-schools, childcare centres and kindergartens, so that our children can enjoy nutritious and well-balanced meals in schools.
Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, the various amendments tabled in the Bill are meant to help tighten the current licensing framework. I believe these amendments will align the sector towards achieving a common standard, while the sector moves towards attaining a higher quality of service.
As a parent of two young children, I am heartened and reassured by the amendments in this Bill. As a parliamentarian, I conclude my speech in support of the Bill.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members of this House for their suggestions and support of the Bill.
Clearly, it is without a doubt that many of us recognise the importance of early childhood development, not just because we are parents but a lot of studies have shown the impact that good development work can have on children. The Member of Parliament, Mr Louis Ng, reminded all of us that it is not just from the early childhood development centres, but really, at home as well. This is something important for us to remember.
A fair number of points raised here that do not pertain to the Bill, but they are important points with regard to the importance of the early childhood effort. I will address some of these subsequently in a few days' time during the Committee of Supply debates; others, I will address them on other occasions. But I will take the opportunity to make some general points to address some of the perspectives highlighted by some Members.
What is clear is this − the early childhood component for our children is vital, which is why we set up the Early Childhood Development Agency. It is an independent agency but jointly overseen between the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF). Both Ministries are very intimately involved. As I will illustrate later, MOE plays a very significant role in developing the curriculum and learning pedagogies and the rest of the industry take reference from it.
It is also important to note that this whole set-up is not just driven from the top. There is a lot of effort in engaging the various stakeholders. We cannot do it without that, because it is a very varied space and there are many different schools of thought. Some of the examples that Mr Leon Perera highlighted, for example from Lien Foundation and the many different trials that are on-going, these are strongly supported by ECDA. We do want to explore the different ways of education. You may not want a single approach, because there are many different schools of thought. They are effective in different ways, and they are effective for different children. We want to see how these different curricula can play out how we can implement it, and how we can scale it, not necessarily across the board. In some instances, we want to scale it across the board; in some instances, in very boutique areas where it addresses the needs of specific children.
We work with different stakeholders. For the special needs sector, one of the concerns highlighted was whether, as a result of these moves, it would impact some of the smaller players. From a purely intellectual and theoretical basis, I would agree that it would sound sensible to allow a thousand flowers to bloom and to have many different players. But having a very practical perspective on this, from dealing with the industry with many different players, I will say that the reality is not quite the same. There are very good small players. I visited a number of them - very interesting programmes but unfortunately, probably not able to scale up because a lot of its success is centred around the person who is driving the programme. It is very manpower intensive, which may be difficult to scale. We want to be able to encourage some of these centres to continue. But there are also child care centres which leave much room for improvement and really do need to level up.
So, I would agree that we want to encourage experimentation, but we also want to ensure that our children receive a good standard of education and care, which is the main objective of this effort. It is an important sector, which is why we are doing what we are doing. It is important to engage all the different players. It is also important for us to explore but, at the same time, have a certain structure and approach, and that is the way we have taken it.
I am very heartened and encouraged by the strong recognition by all of you on the importance of this Bill. Notwithstanding the various comments, Members clearly recognise that there is that need to ensure higher and more consistent quality standards across the early childhood sector. This can be done without necessarily squeezing out some of the smaller players.
I am sure that many of our early childhood professionals and operators are similarly encouraged. The process has taken over two years, because it is a very involved process. We did not want to drive it down from the top; many different stakeholders have been consulted. Where there were areas of concern, we have gone back and forth for a slightly longer period of time to take on board their feedback. What I am encouraged by is, like many Members, many of the stakeholders are strongly supportive of us taking this step.
I believe that this Bill is a step in the right direction, because we do need to give every child a good start and to make Singapore a good place to raise families. On a point raised by Assoc Prof Daniel Goh with regard to lower income children, I would completely agree with that early childhood is important for all children, but for children who come from particularly challenged backgrounds, it becomes even more critical. That is also why we set up ECDA. We realise that in those early years, for those of us who are able to provide our children with exposure and development, our children are able to grow and develop well before they reach Primary school. But we realise that there is a gap.
For some of the children who come from more disadvantaged backgrounds, they enter Primary 1 with a fairly significant gap from the rest of their peers. Some are able to bridge that and carry on and run, but others struggle and might not be able to bridge that gap. Hence, it is important to impose, to some degree, a level of standard in terms of affordability, accessibility and quality of pre-schools, to make sure that as many children are levelled up as much as possible.
The way we have structured subsidies which also seeks to ensure that lower-income families will not end up not sending their children to pre-school because they cannot afford it. Even down to a couple of dollars, children will be able to attend some of these establishments. Importantly, KidSTART is aimed at working with children from this segment. It is in a pilot stage with 1,000 families but we intend to see it through and expand it; this is where it is not just in terms of the early childhood development centre itself, but actually an all-encompassing approach to see how we hand-hold and work with the families along the journey.
So, I want to assure the Members of this House that there is very little doubt in our minds about the importance of this effort, and especially the work to be done with the lower income families.
Mr Christopher de Souza remarked that the Bill is much needed and timely. It is definitely so. A sound and robust regulatory framework guides centres and safeguards the sector against errant practices and behaviours. This sets a strong foundation for the sector to further innovate teaching and learning practices and to develop higher quality programmes. Many of the smaller centres appreciate the fact that some of these guidelines and some of these parameters are set, as these allow them to bring themselves up to a higher standard, because they do not have the scale or the resources necessarily to level themselves up on their own.
I thank the Members very much for all the various suggestions. Let me address some of those in the manpower sphere. For instance, Miss Cheryl Chan suggested considering alternatives to paper qualifications when determining staff suitability. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh suggested increasing the participation of professional bodies in the registering of professionals and accreditation of programmes. He also suggested that it is important for us to consider those who have qualifications from overseas. Mr Yee Chia Hsing suggested a new training institute to ensure sufficient teachers in the sector.
Indeed, we share our Members' concerns on the manpower constraints and this is one area we are paying very close attention to. In recent years, ECDA has rolled out a range of initiatives to attract, retain and develop good early childhood professionals. Many of these initiatives have been co-created with partners, such as SkillsFuture Singapore, pre-school operators, industry and professional associations and the union.
We note Assoc Prof Daniel Goh's suggestion for greater participation of professionals in the process of accrediting training courses and qualifications. This is already done in the development of teacher registration and course accreditation standards where our early childhood professional representatives and subject matter experts are invited to provide their expertise.
With regard to recognising those who have qualifications from overseas, we do encourage the respective childcare centres and kindergartens to put forward the names of these individuals so that we can evaluate them on a case-by-case basis.
Through the ramping up of subsidised training places, including the work-and-study arrangements for mid-career entrants and ECDA's Training Awards for aspiring teachers, we are seeing a very encouraging response, such as higher enrolment numbers in the early childhood Polytechnic courses and more mid-career entrants joining the sector. To echo Mr Darryl David's emphasis, in fact, many are mid-career entrants. No matter what we do in this sector, frankly, without people, this is not going to work. Some of these steps have been taken. The response has been encouraging, but we are not letting up on that front. We need to keep up at making sure that we not only bring in numbers but ensure the quality of the people who are coming in as well. Many of them are very passionate, the mid-career ones especially, because they have reached a stage of their lives where they are looking at doing something different. Some of them are parents themselves who recognise the importance of early childhood development, and we really welcome them on board the sector.
For the teaching staff, including infant educarers, ECDA has, in recent years, moved to open alternate entry pathways for them to upgrade professionally. When in-service educators apply for training courses, ECDA recognises their prior learning and working experiences beyond their paper qualifications. That is something that Miss Cheryl Chan raised, and we will continue to move in this direction.
We will touch more on these efforts to support the manpower needs of the sector, to provide more accessible, affordable and quality pre-school places at the upcoming Committee of Supply debates.
On curriculum requirements, some Members, such as Mr Desmond Choo, noted that our pre-school sector provides a diverse range of programmes for parents to choose from, so as to best cater to their preferences and the different needs of their young children.
Under the Bill, we will continue requiring centres to have programmes that are age-appropriate and holistic. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh would be glad to know that within the regulatory framework, centres will continue to have the flexibility to innovate and customise their specific curriculum to suit the needs of the children. In fact, this is to be encouraged. For good practices we will be more than happy to take them onboard and see how best to introduce them to more establishments.
In the examples cited, ECDA has certainly supported many of these ideas, and we will continue to do so. As a reference, centres can refer to MOE's Nurturing Early Learners Curriculum Framework when designing and implementing their kindergarten curriculum. Learning through play is a key component for the framework. For those who are concerned that we are over-schoolifying the whole process − no, we are very mindful that play is a very important part of early childhood development.
In fact, MOE is a very important player in this whole effort. They are driving the curriculum framework development; again, not only on their own, but also leveraging on the experiences of other subject matter experts on this. And certainly play is a very key component of their emphasis as well, which is why MOE has stepped in to look at MOE Kindergarten as well. And I will address the issue later with regard to their exemption.
For the early years, of three years old and below, centres can refer to ECDA's Early Years Development Framework. This framework also takes a strong alignment with the MOE framework.
With regard to nutritional and outdoor physical time requirements highlighted by some Members, I agree with Mr Desmond Choo that increasing access to healthier food options for pre-school children will help them develop good dietary habits for life. We should do that at home, and not just depend on the pre-school. We do what we can at pre-school, but home is where it all starts. It is very important to remember that I do not need a Bill for good parenting to take place, and, frankly, the best influences come at home. So, let us not forget that.
I also second Mr Louis Ng's point that we should provide more opportunities for children to play. As mentioned earlier, play is a very central focus in the curriculum, especially playing outdoors. Studies have shown clearly that having outdoor activities makes a lot of difference in terms of preventing myopia, and in developing a more resilient and hardier population; this is something that we welcome.
As announced by the NurtureSG Taskforce last week, ECDA will specify more detailed nutritional requirements to ensure that children receive nutritious, balanced and varied meals. We urge families to also look out for these guidelines to follow them at home. This includes not allowing centres to serve sugary drinks and deep-fried food, and catering for the regular provision of fruits and calcium-rich food. The physical activity time for full-day programmes will also be increased to an hour daily, up from half an hour today, and half an hour at least to be conducted outdoors and more, if you can.
As I have earlier explained, this Bill will also provide for subsidiary legislation to be gazetted. Members have highlighted: \"how do we do this, that or the other?\" A lot of these will come in the form of subsidiary legislation that will be gazetted. Certainly, the suggestions that have been put forward today will be taken on board as we finalise some of these detailed requirements.
Of course, there are concerns that many Members have raised, and I am fully aware that there will be challenges. It is not straightforward. When you put in place new measures, it is not an effortless process. But it is an important one and stakeholders recognise it; centres recognise that it is necessary, and they have also flagged out their concerns to us. This was expressed by many Members, including Ms Thanaletchimi, Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Darryl David, Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Yee Chia Hsing, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Ang Hin Kee, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Leon Perera.
Many of these concerns have also been expressed during our many different consultation sessions with the public and operators. Let me briefly summarise these concerns.
One, which Mr Leon Perera specifically highlighted, was whether the higher cost will impact on the continued operations, and whether this is compelling a consolidation of centres, and forcing some of the smaller players to close, especially those catering to children with special needs.
Secondly, there is a potentially higher cost to operators, especially the smaller ones. Does it in turn translate to higher fees for parents and administrative burden on operators and teachers?
With regard to the closure aspect, we expect most kindergartens would smoothly transit to the new Act. We have reached out to many different players, including the smaller ones. They recognise the importance and some of the challenges. Since 2015, many kindergartens, with the support of ECDA, have already started making preparations to meet the new licensing requirements. We have been in constant dialogue. Our whole effort is not about penalising and weeding out the smaller players. It is actually about helping those in the industry who are passionate about educating our children. How do we help them to level up? It is very much, as I have mentioned earlier, a developmental approach that we are taking.
In addition, kindergartens will be given up to a year after the gazetting of regulations under the new Act, which is expected to be about late 2017 or early 2018, for them to obtain their licences. That said, there will be closures because, every year, we do have a number of kindergartens and child care centres that will close or have a change in licensees for various business reasons. Some kindergartens also convert to child care centres to better serve the needs of parents.
Just a very quick note ‒ we work very closely also with the special needs sector. So, we are very mindful. We are working very closely with many of the special needs centres, and many of them do not have a huge concern in transiting to this new regime. In fact, many of the very progressive and interesting child care centres and kindergartens are trying out different types of approaches. In fact, many of them are fairly well-run, which is why, in many ways, they are doing what they are doing. These establishments do not have a problem transiting to the new regime under this Bill.
These are all very important concerns. ECDA is also undertaking many other initiatives to support the sector in this whole transition process. To continue, as we have mentioned, affordability remains a key cornerstone of our whole approach. So, ensuring quality and affordable early childhood development services for parents remains paramount.
Apart from broad-based support that ECDA has been providing to the sector to meet the new requirements, I would like to assure Members that we will take a gradual and calibrated approach.
Some Members have raised the issue of potential fee increases arising from the higher requirements, and their impact on families. Indeed, common wisdom would highlight that there is a trade-off between being cheap, good and fast. In fact, some Members have also asked, \"Why are we doing inspections once a year? Let's do it twice a year?\" So, there is a balance needed. We recognise a need to ensure standards and to level up the sector. At the same time, how do you balance that against onerous requirements? As can be seen from Members' inputs, there will be tensions, and trade-offs will invariably be done.
Firstly, let us look at how we can make the regulations that are important, flexible and streamlined at the same time. How do we do it? As we have highlighted in the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE), it is about the doing. How do we actively do this? We have been practising that in terms of ECDA's engagement with the sector, and we have been able to put this into practice as far as we can and, at the same time, not compromising on quality.
ECDA has field-tested the requirements on a variety of centres, both large and small, to see how it can be operationalised. I would like to assure this House that the requirements in the Bill and the regulatory framework are calibrated with that in mind, to meet some of these higher order requirements but, at the same time, try not to increase costs unnecessarily by making requirements flexible, so that it is not onerous. We are quite assured that it should pretty much unfold in that direction. For those who do have challenges, we will work closely with them.
For example, we have a new longer three-year licence tenure which is intended to reduce the administrative costs of centres with consistently good regulatory track records. Mr Louis Ng highlighted that centres will need to undergo regular assessments before their licence renewals to demonstrate that they have maintained their standards. We encourage centres to meet the standards, and if they do, they can have a three-year licence. In addition, ECDA will continue to conduct unannounced audits. Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested we should do more audits. For those who have challenges, we will pay closer attention, and we will visit them more often to help them level up their standards. But we do need to strike a balance and I think Members appreciate that.
As I have mentioned earlier, many of the new requirements have already been implemented as part of the sector's best practices. Hence, it is not as if with the introduction of this Bill, a whole new slew of initiatives is coming in. Actually, many of these have been unfolding in various forms in the past couple of years.
For example, ECDA's advisory recommends centres to have air purifiers during haze periods. ECDA is looking into making this requirement in subsidiary legislation. In fact, as a result of the effort in the past one to two years, many centres are already well-prepared for this, especially as ECDA has earlier provided funding support to centres to procure air purifiers during severe haze episodes.
We also do not plan to increase regulatory requirements around staffing numbers and space allocation, which are the main cost factors for centres. We believe that the prevailing requirements are adequate in our current context.
Some flexibility has also been catered for these requirements, as new requirements are added. For example, Miss Cheryl Chan suggested allowing non-teaching staff to support teachers more. I mentioned earlier that there is no reason why the operational staff cannot help trained teachers supervise outdoor play time. Centres can also use neighbourhood playgrounds to fulfil their outdoor space requirements. In fact, ECDA has even gone down to help centres look at how to manage their costs. For example, for the requirement on first-aid kits, ECDA has looked into the items and the quantity of each item. While the first-aid kit items are not going to drive costs up in a significant way, ECDA has gone into details to work with various centres, especially the smaller ones who are reaching out because they do not have the resources and the set-up to look at some of the good practices in detail. ECDA's advantage is that, because of their oversight over the rest of the sector, ECDA can bring into play many good practices which can be imparted to other players.
We have also extended funding support to the not-for-profit kindergartens to help them defray staff immunisation and also minor renovation costs.
In addition to these, given that affordability is a concern to many parents, ECDA has also ramped up the supply of more quality and affordable places. This is something I have been talking about regularly, and this includes more places offered by Anchor and Partner Operators. We have also made subsidy enhancements in recent years, and we note Assoc Prof Daniel Goh's suggestion to expand the support given, especially for lower-income families. That is something that we completely agree is important. A lot of it will come under the KidSTART effort, which is something that I have mentioned before. We intend to make sure that it succeeds and takes off on a more extensive basis.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Desmond Choo asked for the Government to have some degree of control over fees to ensure that fees are affordable to parents. Today, there are quality targets and fee caps on the Anchor Operator and Partner Operator centres, which serve nearly half of the sector. For the remaining operators, we see the need for operators to determine their own fees, as their programmes may have different cost structures, and they may need to adjust their fees from time to time to ensure business sustainability.
While the Bill will not determine the fees of different pre-schools − this will be addressed separately − we will continue to require centres to provide sufficient early notification of any plans to increase fees and explain the fee increase to parents. This will help to ensure that fee increases are done in a transparent and fair manner. With regard to the affordability of fees, that will be dealt with separately and I will talk about that in the Committee of Supply debates.
Following feedback from parents, ECDA is also looking into requiring centres to publish incidental charges − these are the finer regulatory details − such as field trips, supplementary enrichment activities and to make enrichment activities optional, which means centres must continue to provide classes for children who do not opt for these programmes. This approach creates greater flexibility and fee transparency for parents, allowing parents to make informed choices and manage their costs better.
Administrative workload is something that many of us are concerned with. It is a valid concern and that is something that we are very mindful of as we embark on this journey with this Bill. We certainly want teachers to spend more quality time on our children than on administration. When you speak to teachers, what they want to do is to teach, not to spend time doing administration. But we also realise that to run a system in a systematic way, where you not just teach well but are also able to replicate that on a sustainable basis, you need structures and processes. Hence, it is important for us to not run away from that, but to make sure that it is not onerous.
ECDA has taken a focused effort to streamline administration and make it flexible as I mentioned earlier. For example, over the past year, we have been working with the sector to streamline the new regulatory standards checklist for operators' own preparatory self-assessments, so that they know what to look out for.
To Mr Gan Thiam Poh's query, we do not require operators to employ designated administrative or compliance staff. Most operators should be able to manage the new framework with their existing resources. We have spoken to many of them, in terms of how they envisage themselves adapting to address the needs of this Bill. Besides streamlining the regulatory standards checklist, ECDA has also released a series of very useful templates that centres can use to guide and track their day-to-day operations. ECDA will also be enhancing its IT systems to allow centres to interface with ECDA more seamlessly on regulatory matters. Technology can go some ways to make this more efficient and easier for centres.
We agree with Mr Ang Hin Kee's suggestion on the value of tapping on technology to keep costs down and free up teachers' time for our children. Beyond streamlining requirements, ECDA has collaborated with the Association for Early Childhood and Training Services and the Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore to identify smart solutions to help teachers with their daily administrative duties, such as temperature and attendance taking. As we embark on the journey towards Smart Nation, it should encompass all manners of activities that we are undertaking. These solutions were showcased at the Early Childhood Conference in September last year, and many operators have signed up since.
With regard to the exclusion of MOE kindergartens, Ms Thanaletchimi, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, Er Lee Bee Wah and Mr Louis Ng raised the question about why MOE is excluded. I can understand the concerns raised. Let me make a couple of points. ECDA is an agency that is overseen by MOE and MSF. Both Ministries take a very active interest and role in shaping this space. This is the reason why ECDA was set up. We are very clear that the formative years are vital. Education is a long journey. We have in place our Primary, Secondary, Tertiary education, and so on. That continues to be improved. What we have prior to ECDA was a space which was left to the market. We thought it was important for us to step in. This is why it is not just an MOE effort, but both MOE and MSF are stepping into that space.
MOE continues to drive the curriculum in very significant ways; MOE is not just focused on Primary school education. There is a need to look at the pedagogy that is involved leading up to that stage. As a result of being involved in MOE kindergartens, MOE is also looking at how that whole continuum extends into the early Primary school years, including how to harmonise this whole effort and how that streamlines into longer-term development effort for education.
MOE is not a fringe player coming in, or one of those small establishments that has no background. They have been intimately involved in the process from day one. MOE kindergartens will fulfil ECDA's requirements along with the rest of the industry.
The ECDC Act is intended to regulate the standards of private kindergartens and childcare providers. The MOE kindergartens are run directly by the Government, and they have an Act that governs it, similar to the way MOE runs Primary schools, Secondary schools and Junior Colleges. This is not to say that MOE runs their kindergartens the same way that Primary schools are run. They should be run differently − the approach is different.
The MOE Kindergartens will continue to be regulated under the Education Act along with other national schools. This is an approach similar to how we approach the other parts of the education space. MOE maintains strict oversight of the MOE Kindergartens and will be directly accountable, as they are accountable to this House, with regard to broader education. On the one hand, Members feel that by bringing them on board under the Early Childhood Development Centres Bill would be sensible − and I can understand that − on the other hand, there is another Act that is already governing them. MOE is also intimately involved, and they will meet the requirements that are demanded of the rest of the other centres as well.
With regard to Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Louis Ng's questions on closure arrangements, ECDA is studying the advance notification period for centres who intend to cease their operations, which will happen from time to time for various reasons. We agree that sufficient time is needed for parents to look for alternatives. In determining the notification period, ECDA must strike a balance with the feasibility of the time period for centres - because there are real practical concerns from their perspective as well, and centres would not wish to prematurely alarm parents - and at the same time balance with the need for early warning. We will see how we can work that out.
To Ms Thanaletchimi's question, we will maintain prevailing professional qualification requirements and this information is available on ECDA's website for all to refer to. As I mentioned earlier, for those who have other qualifications that do not quite fit, if the centre feels that they want to put the person forward, the centre can do so and we can look at it on a case-by-case basis.
To clarify on Mr Darryl David's point on third-party enrichment vendor staff suitability, we will start by making simple assessments of these individuals' track record. We do not intend to specify any professional qualifications required of these individuals, since these enrichment classes are optional and encompass a very wide range of niche activities from sports, drama to cooking to whatever it may be. It will not be addressed within this Bill, but it is something that we will look at and work with the sector to see to what degree we want to define the requirements for some of these individuals concerned.
To Ms Thanaletchimi's question on directions for emergencies, ECDA intends to issue directions under clause 17 only for emergency cases, such as hazardous haze episodes, where children's safety are at stake and centres need to act swiftly to safeguard their well-being. As such, it is a criminal offence for any non-compliance, liable up to a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment of 12 months as determined by the Courts.
I note Mr Gan Thiam Poh's concern on the impact of temporary closures arising from disease outbreaks on parents. I would like to assure Members that it will only be invoked as a last resort, or only during emergency circumstances. To support working parents, the Government has also enhanced child and infant care leave provisions over the years.
With regard to the security deposit, this is something that Mr Louis Ng raised, I have also touched on the application of the security deposit as well as the proposed amount. We are applying the security deposit on a small number of centres with poor regulatory track records as a form of assurance from them on their commitment to improve, while recognising that the majority of our sector by and large is performing well. Should there be a need in the future, this approach can be reviewed and we are open to it. The security bond may be forfeited as a form of regulatory sanction against breaches as provided for under clause 16.
I note some of the other issues in the early childhood sector that were raised by Members. As I mentioned, some of these are beyond the scope of the Bill. Regarding more support for centres and early childhood teachers caring for children with special needs, as raised by some Members, ECDA and my Ministry will continue to work with training institutes and educational providers to equip pre-school teachers with the necessary skills to support children with developmental needs, such as rolling out professional development courses for in-service pre-school teachers who want to enhance their skills in this area.
We are quite assured that for centres that are operating in this space, transiting to the new arrangement should not be a problem. On the concerns whether putting in place some of these requirements will force some of these special needs centres to go out of business − that is very unlikely to happen.
On the co-location of centres with Primary schools, as raised by Mr Yee Chia Hsing, many of the MOE kindergartens are already located within Primary schools, bringing convenience to parents who have children in both MOE kindergartens and the Primary schools that they are located in. That is the approach that MOE is looking at with regard to the MOE kindergartens.
On employment terms and disputes between centres and their teachers, as raised by Mr Ang Hin Kee, we thank Mr Ang and the Education Services Union for the good work in supporting our early childhood teachers who found themselves caught in unfortunate circumstances. Early childhood professionals could also approach the Ministry of Manpower to file a complaint against violations of the Employment Act.
These concerns are important as they support the overall functioning of the sector as well as some of the points that I mentioned earlier. But the Bill focuses on ensuring children's safety, well-being and welfare in centres. I will also be talking about some of these concerns during the Committee of Supply debate, and we will have other debates on some of those topics in this House in the future.
In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, the early childhood sector has made very important and good progress in recent years. This Bill is a very important milestone in our journey in raising the quality of early childhood care and education in Singapore, for our children, our families and, from a national perspective, for our future.
This Bill will complement the many initiatives that the Government has introduced to enhance the quality, accessibility and affordability of early childhood development services. This will ensure that every child, regardless of his or her background, can have a good start in life. It is important for us to ensure that every child has that good start. It will also further strengthen our commitment to make Singapore a good place to raise families.
Again, just to reiterate, we do not need a Bill to make sure that we raise strong families. This is something that all of us can do. It takes a whole nation to play a part. I think if we are able to put our hearts and soul into this, both at home and in the sector, we have every reason to be optimistic for our future. Because once you lay a strong foundation, there is a high probability and a good chance that our young children can grow up to be responsible citizens and contribute back significantly to our nation.
Once again, I thank Members of this House for their support of this Bill and the very meaningful debate today. Thank you very much.
Mdm Speaker :\tMr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Madam. Just two brief clarification questions to the Minister. The first is just to be a bit more specific on the requirements for licensing of personnel within the early childhood sector. For those individuals who have strong qualifications either from abroad or locally, would the Ministry actually consider an abridged or accelerated version of the PQAC-accredited advance diploma to allow them to serve?
The second clarification is really in regard to the point raised I raised about absenteeism. If such a system is not already in place, will the Ministry consider requiring early childhood centres to flag out to the Ministry, children who are persistently absent as potential candidates for KidSTART when that programme is expanded in the future?
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for his two supplementary questions. With regard to the first, indeed, we will look at the individuals' qualifications that may not fit our criteria today, especially qualifications from overseas. We will look at whether in their case, is a more truncated programme or a more accelerated programme possible. There is a balance that needs to be struck. But it is something that we are open to look at.
With regard to the second question, it is a very important one. It is important for us to realise that part of the challenge is that while we may make some of these schemes and subsidies available, the challenge is with the children's attendance. Because you will find that for some families, and for a range of reasons - there is not one reason particularly - intermittent attendance is actually worrying. The opportunities for the development and exposure is there for the children, but for whatever reasons, the children do not attend. We do know some of the factors that are involved. In fact, this is something that I am quite particular about personally. As part of our effort with KidSTART, working with the families, it is not just about the children, it is about the family too. So, addressing absenteeism, ensuring the children have regular attendance in pre-schools will be a very important component of this effort. Once we are able to do that, it will hold a very long way. It is not just about working on the children part. We need to work with the family. So, I completely agree with that.
Mdm Speaker :\tMr Dennis Tan, please keep your clarification short.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member):\tThank you, Madam. Just a quick clarification for the Minister. Will the new regulations lead to increased compliance cost which may in turn lead to increased fees payable by parents? I am asking this because, currently, I think the existing fees are already a burden to many parents and I would like to know how the Ministry will manage this.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, I have attempted to address this at length during my speech but it is worth repeating. From a perspective, one could naturally imagine how this could lead to higher compliance cost, and so on.
We do not anticipate there to be significant cost increases as a result of this Act. Why do we say this? In the process of coming up with this Act, we have been working very closely with the industry on how to unfold this, how these various measures would kick-in in very practical terms. Child care centres today, for example, already operate under a licensing regime. We are not starting from ground-zero. We have already embarked on that journey, and many of these players are already quite far in that journey. We are now, in some sense, formalising it. ECDA is also streamlining its regulatory requirements. We are very mindful as we implement this new Act. Even as we implement this, the requirements are not cast in stone now. Along the way, there may be push-back from the industry as certain unknown processes may turn out to be more cumbersome than they need to be and they add to costs, for this, we will look at it and see how to best calibrate it.
For kindergartens, for example, ECDA will provide more time for them to transit, and as I mentioned, they will be given an additional one year from the time that the Act kicks in formally. We do not expect the compliance cost to be onerous, and therefore, we are not expecting the Act to translate to higher fees.
It is important and I would say this, because I also do not want centres to then say, \"Oh, there is a new Bill; so no choice we have to increase fees.\" Just a message to everyone, the new Bill should not lead to fee increases.
Generally, the main cost drivers for pre-schools are rental and teachers' salaries. And we have no plans to change our space and teacher per child requirement as they are currently satisfactory. It is very important to take note of that. This, hopefully, is also for centres to take note that the main cost drivers are not changed under these requirements.
ECDA is also studying other ways to lower cost of operations, for example, providing more flexibility in manpower deployment, something that we will be looking at to support the sector, by allowing operational staff to assist trained teachers, and so on. This space continues to evolve and we intend to strengthen it in many different ways not addressed under the Bill. These approaches that we are taking would also help centres carry out their responsibilities effectively without unnecessarily incurring costs in a very significant way.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tan Chuan-Jin]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mdm Speaker: I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.55 pm. Order. Order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.35 pm until 3.55 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm.
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Debate on Annual Budget Statement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [20 February 2017], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018.\" – [Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to start the debate.
The general response from the businesses to this year's budget has not been positive. From the media reports, we have read strong statements from the SBF, SCCCI, ASME and the other TACs expressing disappointments with the Budget for not doing enough to help businesses cope with the immediate challenges.
It is understandable and natural for businesses to always seek an even better business environment. It happens in all countries to varying degrees and for as long as we can remember.
I did some quick homework to satisfy myself as to whether this barrage of criticisms by the businesses are fair and justifiable, or whether the Finance Minister is indeed doing the right thing from an economic management and, of course, from a prudence standpoint.
So, let us start with the most recent economic numbers to see if the economy is indeed in a dismal state.
In the latest fourth quarter GDP numbers, the economy grew 12.3% quarter-on-quarter. It is the strongest quarterly growth recorded in six years and it translates into a 2.9% year-on-year growth for the fourth quarter. Granted that the key driver from the surge in growth came mainly from two manufacturing sectors; namely the semiconductor and the pharmaceutical sector, but we can expect spill-over effects to other sectors supporting these two sectors such as precision engineering, transport, warehousing, financial and other supporting services.
Importantly, we have also seen credible growth from the services sector which account for about two-thirds of the economy. The sector grew by 8.4% quarter-on-quarter and 1% year-on-year.
So, clearly, from a data standpoint, we are not seeing the sort of sharp contraction similar to what we saw in recent downturns. And hence, it may not warrant the Government to roll out a massive rescue package to save the economy but rather to continue with and enhance existing schemes to assist businesses which include the cash schemes, like the Wage Credit and the additional SEC. These are in addition to the other assistance measures in the Budget, some of which were recommended by the CFE. So, in my view, the Finance Minister has struck the appropriate balance here.
However, it is worth noting that we are seeing the new realities of our economy setting in. Firstly, the uneven nature of the growth and secondly, the overall low and flat growth trajectory. This probably explained why some businesses are feeling downbeat. In particular, businesses are beginning to feel effects of life under a slower 2% growth environment; compare to what used to be a 3% to 5% growth a few years ago.
It is showing up in their order books in the form of fewer orders and as a result, more competition and compressed margins, while at the same time, seeing business costs continuously creeping up.
If we further overlay the picture with the employment situation, then we are beginning to see troubling signs that we ought to be concerned with.
For the fourth quarter, last year, total employment grew by only a lower 1,900 compare to 2,700 in the previous quarter and much lower than the 16,100 of the same quarter in 2015. This could be due to a combination of cyclical downturn in some sectors and structural shifts taking place within the economy which leads to higher job mismatches. As we intensify digitisation, we can expect possible job losses but there will also be new jobs created for those who can adapt.
Under such circumstances, giving out broad-based short-term cash grants to businesses will not reverse these trends. It requires a whole-of-system approach to deal with the challenge.
The CFE and Budget 2017 do have a host of recommendations and measures to address this development, including the Adapt and Grow initiatives and specific industry transformation support.
For the businesses, the perennial concerns are still about the costs of doing business in Singapore. I do agree that the increase in water prices and the diesel duty do not help the situation; even as the businesses can understand the reason for the hikes.
For example, I read last Thursday in Lianhe Wanbao about how the food industry and food manufacturers are most concerned with the hikes as both water and diesel are their major inputs in the food production chain and there are no direct rebates in the Budget to help them.
We do know that there is no turning back on having less air pollutive fuel and to have better air quality, that is what we want. We want better environment. We also know that the cost of an additional drop of water will cost more as we tap more of the expensive sources of water going forward.
These are irreversible trends. Rather than look for short-term painkillers, let us tackle the problem head-on and collectively work on longer term alternative solutions. For example, in the case of water, perhaps the food industry's Industry Transformation Map (ITM) can be the platform where industry players and all stakeholders come together to seek longer term solutions; and working with PUB and A*STAR for both R&D and resource support.
Mdm Speaker, this year's Budget carries with it the added vital task of implementing the recommendations from the CFE and the all-important mission of renewing our economy. Hence, necessarily Budget 2017 would be more heavily weighted in the areas of economic transformation and setting our sights on the medium- to long-term horizon.
The GPC for Finance, Trade and Industry supports the key thrust of the strategies outlined by the CFE to decisively position Singapore to capture the opportunities of the future economic landscape.
The comprehensive set of recommendations is a good start to deepen transformation. We noted that a number of the suggestions put up by the GPC; primarily in the supply-side areas, were also in the report. Some have critiqued that the CFE report offer no new ground-breaking ideas and that it was lacking in detailed execution plans.
It is indeed not the usual approach. However, we are in uncharted territory. In this new fast-pace ever-changing landscape, having a well thought out strategy and clear directions as to where we should go will put us in a pole position. But the important next step is to develop quick response capabilities that can react swiftly and seize opportunities whenever they present itself; and these opportunities are likely to come in shorter cycles with greater injects of newer unknowns in play.
Many of the key ideas of the CFE were well-shared and ventilated during the one year of public engagement and hence most of the recommendations come as no surprises, though they are not any less impactful. We know that this is the to-do list on hand and what is more crucial is to get as many done as soon as possible and to do it well. That will make a transformational difference.
Since not everything is cast in stone and more plans are being hatched on the move, I hope the Government can still take new ideas on board to transform the economy, and I have some of my thoughts and suggestions here today.
Building strong digital capabilities is among the foremost priorities. We must quickly capitalise on our competitive edge to stay way ahead of the curve, so that we can exploit the powerful multiplying effect that digitisation can bring. Jack Ma recently said that Alibaba aims to be the fifth largest economy in the world with its e-commerce platform and digital connectivity. So, the sky is the limit in this space.
We need to accelerate adoption of digital technologies by SMEs. There is no other more enterprise-centric way to carry this out than to go one-on-one with enterprises, offering step-by-step advice on the technologies to use at each stage of the growth, roping in resources from IMDA, SPRING and other lead agencies, giving some funding to those that are ready to pilot emerging ICT solutions and starting with sectors that are in greatest need to improve productivity. All that I have just said is actually what the SME Go Digital Programme is all about and that is the way to go.
At the national level, the Government should also see building nation-wide digital capabilities and infrastructure as a public good and to go beyond just playing the enabling role. Often, decisive actions are needed to fast track or build such capabilities ahead of time. Private sector may not always be commercially aligned to the ultimate National objectives and may have other nuances or take longer to mobilise, for example. A case in point is the setting up of the National digital payments system, which was suggested by the GPC to CFE, where leaving it to the private sector may take ages to happen, given the multiple commercial stakeholders involved.
The Government should also hasten the proliferation of sharing economy platforms, enabling trade and e-commerce connectivity across and up and down the economy.
In the area of innovations, the GPC believe that enterprises should leverage on R&D as a key competitiveness driver. Through the ITM platforms, more R&D support such as RIE2020 can be made available to promising local enterprises to develop breakthrough and trendsetting products and services. Currently, most of our R&D resources are being utilised by very large companies. We need to \"bite-sized\" this R&D funding support so that it is within the scope of smaller enterprises and through ITMs to cluster businesses together to seek joint solutions to common challenges, such as water and carbon emissions.
Mdm Speaker, the Global Innovation Alliance and SkillsFuture Leadership Development initiatives are sound attempts to build international innovation networks. In the new landscape, superior global connectivity will be the key success factor. It can expand Singapore's economic spaces and add excitement and vibrancy notwithstanding a slower 2% to 3% home-based growth.
On internationalisations, given recent global political developments and the anti-free trade sentiments in Europe and the US, we clearly need to further expand and diversify beyond traditional markets.
There is scope to pursue more opportunities within the ASEAN markets; riding on the growing middle class and its expanding infrastructural needs. We would need to further expand consular and IE Singapore's presence in these locations, expand air-links and develop closer multi-faceted ties including setting up more location based business councils with the local jurisdictions.
Amidst all these initiatives, the oxygen for businesses to scale up, innovate and to venture overseas is funding and capital, which was also addressed in the CFE report.
Besides the international financing schemes such as IFS which has been enhanced, we must also have available long-term risk capital and seed funding to take direct equity stakes in promising local enterprises or ventures with the aim to help companies expand the regional footprint and anchor value in Singapore.
Hence, I welcome the setting up of the $600 million International Partnership Fund (IPF). Indeed, this is one of the bold ideas of the CFE. Under this initiative, the Government will commit capital through a Temasek-linked fund to co-invest with a Singapore-based company. Such equity injection, which tends to be longer term in horizon, would be a good source of patient capital as well as a confidence and rating boost for the company. It also gives the Government a greater handle in keeping the company's HQ and core operations rooted in Singapore. And should the company's owner decides to cash out and sell their stakes, the Government's equity stake in the company would better able to help retain the value in Singapore. These requirements should be clearly stated in the investment mandate.
Besides the state investment agencies as provider of patient capital, the GPC also urged the Government to encourage locally established and \"patriotic\" foundations and family offices to be another source of capital for local enterprises' efforts to boost innovative capabilities and scale up. We have seen that in some countries, for example, in Sweden, there is this Wallenburg Foundation who will invest in companies to pursue their own Sweden national interest.
Mdm Speaker, cost of space is often cited as an impediment to start-ups and new enterprises. We should expand the availability of low-cost spaces. Last year, France opened Europe's biggest accelerators with space for 1,000 start-ups in a refurbished Paris train station. There are many more such newly set up accelerators in Europe today, very much like our Blk 71.
State land that are earmarked for medium- to long-term use could be leased out on short-term leases with temporary built-in structures.
Also, from overseas experience, precincts near the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) tend to be good fertile ground for like-minded innovators to gravitate and a community of innovators to spontaneously form.
I hope MND can consider making available unused buildings or spaces in locations near IHLs, such as Clementi and West Coast, which is near to NUS, Dover Road, near Singapore Polytechnic, to foster closer social networking and economy shaping between IHLs and the innovators.
On skills, Mdm Speaker, the key word in CFE and Budget 2017 is to go deep. The message is loud and clear. So, while I can appreciate the need to make training more accessible via e-learning platforms, I am not sure that a modularised and technology-enabled training programme can achieve the right depth and rigour to meet needs of the market place. But I fully agree we need to strengthen on-the-job skills utilisation and to urge employers and TACs to take the lead in the design and structuring of skills upgrade. The nexus between skills acquisition and utilisation will be better aligned if employers and TACs take ownership.
In addition, I hope that the Government will also consider three other suggestions related to skills and jobs that the GPC has earlier put up.
Firstly, we should allow more flexibility in admission for mid-career applicants to enter ITEs, Polytechnics and Universities. Matured students with their rich life and workplace experience can bring useful perspectives to the classroom, even as they learn new skills there. I like a particular line in the CFE report, which said \"we need to go beyond the pursuit of the highest possible academic qualifications early in life to focus on acquiring and using knowledge and skills throughout our lives.\" I hope MOE and the IHLs can start making changes in this area and turn these words into actions.
Also, I hope companies can be incentivised to provide sabbatical leave to long-serving employees who may wish to take stock of their accumulated skills and experience, take learning breaks to re-skill and re-energise. This is consistent with enhancing long-term employability in the future economy. Many of the Fortune 500 companies already have such practices.
Secondly, to expand post-Secondary education options with more Polytechnic and ITE places and also to expand the range of course offerings. We should also review the curriculum of Junior Colleges and to consider placing a greater emphasis on applied learning, beyond just as pre-University education. It is also timely to study and weigh the long-term benefits of national A-level exams in the new future landscape.
Thirdly, we should carry out deeper analysis on EP and S-Pass data to understand the skills and expectation mismatches within the workforce. After all, these are real observable data on why we could not find Singaporeans to fill those jobs. With the deeper understanding, we can map out the right skills development programme to reduce mismatches.
Information gaps are among the reason why there are mismatches between employers and employees. I am glad that the CFE and Budget 2017 have undertaken to step up the functionality and user experience of the national Jobs Bank. We need to harness the value of the whole-of-economy data to do a better job, matching jobs.
Mdm Speaker, in the interest of time, I will not speak on the ITM but I will cover them during the COS for MTI.
The transition to a more entrepreneurial, more international and more innovative economy will obviously come with risks. And the best way to mitigate these new risks is to always maintain a strong financial position; ready to act with effective measures when the situation warrants and have the internal resilience to weather external shocks that will definitely come time and again.
Amidst all these, we must maintain social cohesion, alongside capable political leadership. As individuals take on more career risk and the nature of work changes due to innovations, there may be the need to further strengthen the social safety nets while maximising opportunities for Singapore workers. We must avoid the discontentment and divisions that we recently saw happening in Europe and the US to globalisation.
Mdm Speaker, the Budget is a package of good policy intentions and in the Singapore's context, almost always medium- to long-term in focus. In the last 10 years of Budget which I have debated as a Member of this House, I can only remember one year where the Budget was almost entirely short term. That was in 2009 when the economy contracted by 17% the quarter preceding and a negative growth of 2% to 5% was forecasted for that year. The circumstances then warranted decisive and timely action by the Government to save jobs and to help businesses and the centrepiece item for that year's Budget was the $4.9 billion Resilience Package.
Everyone would love to have a Budget package with tasty, immediate goodies. I would love it too. However, we would find our fruits tastier, if they were harvested through hard work and prudence from plans put in place many Budgets ago. That has been the spirit of Singapore Budgets since our Independence, and has been core to our values. We should continue to do it this way; even in the future economy. Madam, I support the Budget.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in the Budget debate. Madam, as we discuss this year's Budget, we cannot ignore the changes and how these changes are impacting Singapore, our lives − economically, socially, culturally and even our environment. The intensity of the pace, scope and scale of this change is what is different. The rapid changes are driven by the combination of globalisation and technology that is removing the constraints of geographic boundaries and limitations and blurring the lines between the physical and our digital world. Reactions and feedback to the Budget reflect the anxieties and optimism that people are feeling with the impact that these changes are bringing.
It is against this landscape of rapid global changes, new opportunities and challenges and a maturing economy that Minister Heng had emphasised that we need to reposition ourselves for the future.
He had categorically stated that measures for Budget 2017 for our economy, society and fiscal policies must \"take a learning and adaptive approach\". He said that we will \"try new methods, continue with them when they work well, cut losses when they do not, and draw on feedback and experience to adjust and refine our plans. That is the Singapore way\".
This \"learning and adaptive approach\" may be uncomfortable, and I think the feedback we received have indicated that it is uncomfortable for many of us, as we are used to certainty and clear plans. But given the pace, scale and impact of these changes we are seeing, none of us, not even the Government, can predict the future. Rather we must take some bets directionally, and that enables us to be ready but be prepared to adjust and adapt to the changes that will unfold. It is no longer simply about picking the right bets, having the right skills and then just executing. With the uncertainties that unfold, nurturing a culture of learning and having the mindset and flexibility to adjust and adapt will be key. Otherwise, we will be irrelevant.
The measures in this Budget focus on the quality of growth in a future economy that is anchored on building the capabilities of enterprises, deep skills in our people and enabling innovation. I believe that together with the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs), these are the right strategies to enable the businesses and our people to stay relevant and thrive in the future.
But to achieve deep capabilities, skills and innovation is not easy, because it will require structural changes and partnerships. Partnerships between large and small enterprises, local and foreign, educational and research institutions, trade associations, unions and the Government.
I would like to touch on two points in my speech. One is the strategy for economic growth and innovation, and the other around ensuring caring society and inclusive growth in helping those impacted by the transformation.
To build enterprise capability, the Budget outlined the need for enterprises to use digital technology, embrace innovation and scale up. It is evident that enterprises, both large and small, cannot ignore leveraging digital technology to transform their businesses. Many are already facing the impact of the disruption brought about by technology. The introduction of the SMEs Go Digital Programme to help SMEs adopt digital technology and solutions is a necessary initiative. Although many SMEs today do see the benefits of leveraging digital technology to transform their businesses and address the changing business environment, many do not have the skills or resources to do so and have not done so, or do not even have the plans to do so.
Klaus Schwab, and I thought he shared this very well and I wanted to share the thoughts that he shared about the Fourth Industrial Revolution, because he talked about the demand and supply side impact on businesses. On the supply side, what he shared was that new technologies in many industries are creating entirely new ways of serving existing needs, enabling new ways of working and significantly disrupting existing industry value chains. Access to global digital platforms for research, development, on marketing, sales, and distribution, have enabled new entrants to compete and thrive by improving the quality, speed, or price of what they deliver.
On the demand side, technology has also enabled a change in how products and services are being consumed and new services and business models are emerging to address demands and creating new markets. Obvious examples that many of us are familiar with is online shopping, from Grab to Uber, to Deliveroo, to Airbnb, just to mention a few. These are giving competition to established incumbents, both large and small, from all industries whether it is retail, transportation, F&B, hospitality, learning. The barriers to entry has been lowered and new entrants are driving new demands and addressing new demands areas as well.
Going digital is important but I do want to stress the point that we must be cognizant that it is not about going digital. Rather, becoming a digital business is a means to an end. It is key that our enterprises, both large and small, as they embark on their digital transformation, keep the consumer at the centre of their strategy. The importance of using data as a key business currency to understand and get insights of both the demand and supply side opportunities and challenges, will be key for businesses, and being able to stay relevant.
As our businesses leverage digital platforms as well, they need to continue to build credibility and trust. Keeping data secure and ensuring that their digital platforms stay secure will be critical. Building cyber security skills is an area that all business will require. But for SMEs, this is going to be an extremely challenging area given the challenges they are already facing in the adoption of digital technology. The SMEs Go Digital Programme needs to have clear plans on how our SMEs can build digital resilience as they leverage digital technology.
Another area I would like to touch on is driving transformation and growth need strong leadership. As we know, successful reinvention, business change and innovation require strong leadership. The introduction of the SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative is definitely welcomed. But I do see that the emphasis of the programme seems to be on developing these leaders to support companies expanding overseas and going global. And I think that is important, but it is also important to stress the need that this initiative gives similar attention to building capable leaders to lead and drive businesses in Singapore. In order for our businesses to expand and scale, they need strong leaders to make decisions, transform and grow the businesses locally. There are good examples of MNCs already doing this. There are those examples today, but we need more. Because with the pace of change, this needs to be done.
Let me touch on an area that I feel needs some focus, given the current economic climate and our businesses transformation platforms. There are real fears amongst our workforce that these changes will not only disrupt jobs but displace jobs.
The measures announced in the Budget and the on-going measures to help our people access, acquire and deepen skills are needed and welcomed.
I am not going to speak about the specific measures but I like to touch on one segment of the workforce, that is the middle income and middle-aged. While there are other segments of the workforce impacted by the disruption, this is a talent base that is significantly impacted by the transformation of businesses. With an ageing population, a highly-educated workforce and PMETs forming more than 50% of our workforce, this group will need attention to manage the transition in work to different roles, or across industries or from employment to becoming entrepreneurs. Across several economies, we are already seeing a growing discontent amongst those in the middle income. We must ensure that the measures are effective in enabling this segment to deepen their skills and adapt and grow. Driving innovation will require deep skills.
I want to also share a point that we need to ensure that this group continues to see that the opportunities that they have are not about transitioning, and not just about finding employment, but that they can find fulfilling jobs and see opportunity to improve their lives and that of their families. The then US Vice-President Joe Biden in a keynote address at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2016 told participants \"the middle class is about possibilities − the possibilities for anyone willing to work hard to achieve a decent life\". He said that a thriving and growing middle class has been the main reason for social stability in the world's democracies.
It is our own responsibility to make sure that this group continues to be able to drive, because they are impacted with the changes that were seeing in businesses. I strongly believe that if we strengthen the Singapore Core, and give our people confidence and hope in the future, we will have a culture of growth and learning, but we must continue to remain open. Because it is only when we are able to stay open, can Singapore benefit from strong partnerships and learn from foreign companies, both large and small.
I would like to touch on one last point about making sure that we help those who are lagging adapt to the changes. On the point of definition of who needs help and how the help is extended. When distributing rebates and subsidies given, we do all understand the finite resources and budgets. I do agree that there must be criteria for qualification. Our current approach uses size and value of housing type as the primary factor for qualification. The criterion is also not based on ownership, but on the type of housing you live in. While logical, this may no longer be as valid or accurate. There are some living in HDB flats who may not be worse off than someone living in a private property.
This is not a straightforward matter and it will need further study what it needs to be addressed. But I do feel that we need to relook at our approach. I am not asking that we grow the size of the number of people getting help as it will not be fiscally sustainable to do so. What I am requesting is that we relook at the distribution to ensure that those who need help do receive it.
On social inclusion, as we build a society that is moving on and moving on fast, I think it is important, another aspect of inclusion is about helping people feel that their contributions matter. We do already have many platforms of recognising people from all walks of life and professions and we must continue to do so. I recall NS50 is a recent example of a platform to recognise the efforts of National Servicemen past and present including bringing them together and sharing their experiences. Because it is through the experiences, having the platforms that we can feel part of, that would make people feel included and bring us forward together.
Mdm Speaker, Budget 2017 as with all Budgets, is about the future. I have spoken on many occasions in this House of ensuring that Singaporeans continue to have \"hope\" and see Singapore as the home and place for each and every one of us to aspire and build a better life for ourselves and our families. We have seen in recent times how many economies are driven by fear and anxiety and facing pressures to become more protectionist. To this point, it is apt that the theme for this year's Budget is \"Moving Forward Together\".
The journey we are embarking is not going to be easy. But while there are challenges, there will be opportunities. This Budget is a rallying call for us on the need to build our capabilities and pull together to ensure that Singapore and Singaporeans continues to grow and thrive in an uncertain and rapidly changing world, but recognise that we must remain open, so that we can continue to learn, partner and benefit from all that is happening around us. So, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget. Thank you.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, Singapore's economy is at a crossroads. In the past, lies an economy driven by foreign direct investment, state initiatives and capital and labour inputs. In the future, lies the dream of an economy driven more by productivity and innovation, local enterprises and private initiative. How do we move from A to B?
The Committee of Future Economy (CFE) outlined a few broad strategies. Some have criticised these for being too broad, but I do acknowledge that there are details contained in the Industry Transformation Maps and other Governmental statements outside the CFE report.
There was also not a great deal that was new in the CFE report. A few new ideas, like the Global Innovation Alliance, for example, but not many. For the most part, the CFE referred to and affirmed existing initiatives.
I do acknowledge, however, that we should not value novelty for novelty's sake. If indeed, what we are doing now has little room for improvement because it is delivering results, then so be it. But is what we are doing now delivering the results that we need?
Madam, our economic growth in 2015 and 2016 was about 2%, the slowest since the financial crisis year of 2009. As at December 2016, jobseekers continue to outnumber job vacancies in Singapore for the first time since 2012. Low headline unemployment belies deepening insecurity in the job market, with rising redundancies, reports of under-employment and more people taking up jobs in the less secure gig economy, not all from choice. As it is well known, productivity performance in recent times, has been poor and far below our target. And according to one city-level study cited by the Prime Minister in 2012, our per capita GDP is not even among the top 20 cities worldwide.
Madam, let us take another indicator − net births of companies. That refers to the formation minus cessation of companies, companies, generally being larger, and more economically-weighty entities than proprietorships. In the last three months of 2016, the net births of companies have plunged. Since December 2015, this indicator has registered negative net births of companies four times − in four months out of 13. The total net births figure for 2016 was about 6,000. For the previous four years, it ranged between 12,000 and 21,000. In fact, in the last 10 years, this figure has fallen below 10,000 only twice. In 2009, the year of financial crisis, and last year, 2016.
Madam, our SME sector employs two-thirds of Singaporeans. The SME sector situation is seriously challenged at the present moment.
Madam, we all want Singapore to be exceptional, to be a shining Red Dot. But how can we make sure that the Red Dot does not dim for our children and our grandchildren? What was lacking in the CFE report was a deep self-examination about why we are producing these kinds of results? From deep self-examination, and even self-criticism, could come fresh thinking.
Our drive towards high productivity is not new. It began decades ago. Yet we have produced weak results. United States, Korea, Hong Kong and Australia have better real productivity growth compound on annual basis from 2004 to 2014, according to one analysis published in The Straits Times on 24 April 2016.
Madam, we recognise the problem with our total fertility rate (TFR) in the 1980s, and yet we have not succeeded in reversing the decline, so much so that our TFR today is among the very lowest in the developed world. Yet other developed countries have reversed their TFR decline, such as Japan, France and some Scandinavian countries.
To take a micro example of what I am referring to here, Budget 2017 announced a new SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative (LDI) to groom corporate leaders, which is good. Yet an initiative to groom Singaporeans to become leaders in global companies had already been announced several years back. What lessons were learnt from that?
Turning now to Budget 2017, is it a Budget that deals with the economic situation we are in? The Minister for Finance said that 2016 was an expansionary budget, meaning to say, in crude terms, and at the risk of some over-simplification, that the state was pumping in more money into the economy than was taking out, because the basic deficit was $5.6 billion in 2016. In 2017, the basic deficit is projected to be $8.2 billion or about 2% of GDP, which would imply an expansionary budget again, even if the deficit turns out to be smaller by a few billions due to conservative budgeting, as it almost certainly will be.
But what if we properly reflect the cash going out of the economy to the state in the form of land sales, projected to be $8.2 billion in 2017, net of other elements that may not be reflected, such as the actual cash spending of endowments and funds. Once all of these items are accounted for, is the Budget as expansionary as the basic deficit of $8.2 billion would suggest?
I would like to ask the Government if it can include a section in future Budget Books that presents our National Budget and quantifies the surplus or deficit according to the methodology prescribed by the IMF. Such transparency is important to enable Singaporeans to make up their own minds, as to whether future Budgets are indeed an effective response to current economic realities.
Madam, the recent Budgets from the Government have tended to follow a pattern − racking up a surplus in the early part of the Parliamentary term and then incurring deficit spending towards the end of the term, close to the General Elections. So much so that some economists now openly predict the Budgets in certain years will be election year Budgets that spend off the accumulated surplus from the preceding term of Parliament.
Has the Government held back on fiscal stimulus in 2017, so as to keep ammunition in reserve for closer to the Elections? Seven hundred million dollars in construction projects have been brought forward. Has the Government considered bringing forward projects in other areas of expenditure than construction − ICT projects, for example? This will provide a greater and more sectorally-balanced stimulus.
My colleagues will comment and discuss in detail on the water price hike and other price hikes and taxes. But let me make a few observations now. The timing of these price hikes seems more synchronised to the political cycle than to the economic cycle. The economy is facing numerous problems and net births of companies are plunging. Is this the right time to raise electricity tarrif, to raise the gas price, to raise parking fees, and last but not least, to raise the water price? All within the space of a few months?
Madam, what is the justification for these price hikes and their timing? Hitting the economy with these multiple price hikes within the space of a few months may make good political sense, because people have three years to forget them, before the next General Election. But do they make good economic sense?
Why introduce all these price hikes now at the time of relative economic fragility, when they could tip some SMEs at the margins over the edge, when they increase the hardships faced by Singaporeans beset by job market insecurities? Why not introduce some of them later when there is an up-swing in external demand?
Next, I will speak about local enterprises. Budget 2017 has not make a decisive shift towards building local enterprises as an engine of value-creation, alongside MNCs and Government-linked companies (GLCs). This is a huge missed opportunity.
There are some initiatives to address SME funding, and there are some new measures announced at this Budget, for example, tweaks to the Internationalisation Financing Scheme (IFS) and the new Globalisation Fund. These are welcomed moves to be sure, but is this enough to uncage our local firms?
Commercial and industrial rents and land costs are still very high relative to the region. When this was debated in COS 2016, the reply was that we do not need more measures, because the retail and industrial space market was already softening due to market forces.
However, the Government should understand that for entrepreneurs, it is not all about the costs today, but what will be the costs tomorrow? An entrepreneur will not invest blood, sweat and tears to build the business, only to see commercial rentals surge due to market forces and wipe out his/her commercial viability in five or 10 years' time. They think about the long-term future outlook. A larger share of JTC in commercial and industrial space and a smaller share held by REITS, as was the case in the past, or another similar suite of policies, would help to underscore that long-term assurance to entrepreneurs and would-be entrepreneurs.
Madam, we also need to step up education about entrepreneurship to our students, and I have raised this in past Parliamentary Questions. Time does not permit me to delve too deeply on this subject, but we can and should do more to enable our students to understand how entrepreneurship is both a viable and a socially meaningful calling. Right now, I fear that most of our aspiring students dream of becoming civil servants or working in an MNC.
And on funding, in New Zealand, for example, an SME can obtain a bank loan for an M&A project overseas based on a certain P/E or price-earnings ratio. In countries like Switzerland, Germany and Japan, local banks have close ties to local companies in particular states or prefectures, and both parties see a commonality of long-term interest. Is such funding easy to obtain in Singapore?
Of course, I fully recognise that not all ideas and companies are fundable. But that is precisely the point. Should we not make our support to companies much more selective − with much more generous support at higher caps, given to companies which truly have the track record of results, and the acumen and the ambition to succeed globally, with that sort of support being scaled down, if the results are not delivered, or if the results do not benefit Singapore? Should we not move decisively away from schemes of administration mindset to a results-driven mindset in SME development?
It is this kind of tough-minded results-driven approach which enabled Japan and Korea to groom world-leading companies in the 1960s and 1970s. Companies that, to this day, employ many people in their home countries both directly and indirectly, in the form of complex chains of suppliers and sub-contractors.
Madam, one of the opportunities missed by the CFE and Budget 2017 is about fostering risk-taking. It is no coincidence that the countries with the most innovative companies and disruptors are also the countries which have a larger role for social safety nets and risk-pooling.
There are two aspects that stand out. One is managing the risks of redundancies from ever shortening product life-cycles and continuous disruption. Here, Ms Sylvia Lim has proposed the redundancy insurance scheme during the Budget Debate 2016.
The second is retirement adequacy. Most Singaporeans do not have enough in their CPF to live on when they retire. As the Prime Minister discussed in his National Day Rally speech in 2013, necessitating some kind of monetisation of their HDB flat, which is not always an easy straight-forward or happy process, or continuing to work till they are much older. This is due to high property prices depleting the CPF Ordinary Account.
Managing these risks are important if a globalised open economy and society are to thrive. We must create enough security and confidence for Singaporeans to become the disruptors, and not the disrupted. There have been some measures announced to address these issues over the past few years, but the basic structural impediments remain.
Most households are exposed to cyclical economic risks without robust safety nets and risk-pooling, reinforcing a tendency to focus on short-term cash flow. This makes it less likely that they will set up companies, less likely that they will take risks to innovate, less likely that they will take time off work for education, re-skilling or training, because they cannot afford to.
And lastly, Madam, our education system excels at training literacy and numeracy to a high standard. The Government takes pride in our PISA scores. But equally important to competitive success in the 21st century are \"skills\" like lateral thinking, creative problem-solving, leadership, communication and self-confidence, as I spoke about during COS 2016.
Can we sustain the current high academic content workload and add the cultivation of these softer attributes on top, like the icing on a cake? Will our students be able to cope with these demands?
Some recent research suggests that there is generally an inverse correlation between a country's PISA score and that country's GEM score which measures entrepreneurial qualities. An over-emphasis on high stakes academic testing may hold back the cultivation of these elusive entrepreneurial qualities.
I am not arguing that we should reduce our PISA scores in the hope that our GEM score will go up, nor am I saying that having both a high PISA and GEM score is impossible. In fact, Finland is one such outlier country which has high scores on both metrics.
But in striving for very high academic standards we must always measure, publish and debate the impact of that academic workload on the cultivation of other qualities in our young people to ensure the right balance.
My colleague Mr Png Eng Huat has spoken about the need to study the reasons behind the vast tuition industry in Singapore. Raw academic performance can always be inflated upwards with enough academic pressure from schools and families, enough tuition, model answers, 10-year series and discipline. But to what end? Are we helping our children compete in the world of disruption that they will live in when they grow up?
Madam, in conclusion, while we do recognise the positive moves in Budget 2017, we question the timing of some of the measures that will raise costs as well as their necessity and justification. We question whether more can be done to support a beleaguered economy at this time. And above all, we question the missed opportunities to make decisive bold moves in local enterprise development, risk-pooling and education to pivot Singapore towards truly finding its place in the sun in the 21st century.
Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, Members of Parliament, good afternoon! Today, my topic is − Successfully transforming the Singapore economy amidst adversity.
To complement the Committee of the Future Economy's mid- and long-term strategies, this year's Budget has unveiled some concrete solutions, centred on innovation, digital economy and internationalisation to build up Singapore's mid- to long-term core competitiveness. This is a far-sighted approach.
After the Budget Statement, as President of SCCCI, I have heard many feedbacks from businesses. They are more concerned about short-term measures. After the Government announced the increase of water tariff and diesel tax, some related industries immediately felt the impact. Water cost affects millions of users, and would have an impact on every industry. The Government has decided to raise water tariffs to ensure the sustainability of our supply, and to defray the costs of building NEWater and desalination plants, as well as the operational cost of water supply. But businesses feel that infrastructure is part of public service, and the Government should not compute this on a commercial basis.
The major concern of businesses is operating costs, while the Government's concern is the nation's mid- to long-term competitiveness. How to strike a balance can be challenging. Currently, Singapore's external business environment is changing. Countries which were previously more advanced than we were, are now becoming less expensive; countries which were less expensive than us, have become more advanced. Our Singapore companies have to innovate in order to adapt to this new business environment.
The Government encourages companies to innovate and internationalise. This is the right approach. At the same time, businesses also hope that the Government could apply a new mindset to plan its expenditures. Going forward, there are still many areas that need expenditure, such as social development, healthcare, environmental protection, defence and foreign affairs. In order to increase revenue, the Government is likely to continue to adjust other taxes.
Let us look at some numbers. In 2011, the Government's total expenditure was $46.6 billion, and by 2017 it had increased to $75.1 billion, which is more than 60%. Government revenue comes from two sources, one is taxes and fees, and the other is Government's investment returns. The economic outlook will not be rosy in the days ahead. If businesses cannot raise their competitiveness and increase their profits, tax revenues will not increase. Similarly, the Government's investments are inextricably linked to the economic situation. If the economy is weak, there would be no magical formula to turn stone into gold.
Two idioms come into my mind. One is \"broaden the sources of income and cut costs\" and the other is \"live within our means\". The meaning of the first idiom is to increase income and save on spending; the second idiom means to spend based on one's income. As the saying goes, \"If a man has nothing to worry about in the long-term, he will definitely have something in the short-term to worry about.\" We have domestic and external factors to consider.
The domestic factor is that for many years now, we keep increasing the budget on certain areas, but the results cannot be seen. Now, should not we begin to review if this is the right way of spending? Just because it was correct before does not mean it is correct now. Our thinking should not be based on what we are used to. We should avoid \"being blinded by group-think\" − here I am quoting Minister Chan Chun Sing.
Externally, there is a protectionist wave emerging globally, and the wave is becoming increasingly stronger. Hence, we should prepare ourselves to address this adversity. Given the unpredictability of the external environment, not increasing business costs, maintaining Singapore companies' competitiveness, strengthening the profitability of companies would mean increasing the national revenue.
Mdm Speaker, adversity is not to be afraid. Compared to more than 50 years ago, Singapore is overall much stronger. We have advanced infrastructure, top-class port and airport, and an extensive network of undersea cables, and a comprehensive financial, legal and education system. Many MNCs have set up their regional headquarters in Singapore. Our own companies should also use Singapore as their regional headquarters and venture overseas boldly. The Government should give support to those local companies which have the gumption and willing to go do so, be they traditional industries or emerging industries. No one should be left behind.
I hope the Government would do its best to reduce business costs. At the same time, businesses should also review the internal factors which could contribute to their operation problems to see whether it is their product quality and service standards that are not up to the mark, or it is their business model that is outdated. During this economic transformation period, companies, especially Chambers and trades associations, should play a more proactive role. They should work closely with the Government, based on their industry's specific circumstances. Everyone should come together to think of ways to revive and promote the Singapore spirit, a spirit which has steered Singapore into success in the nation building days, to overcome adversity and head towards success!
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget. There are many things that I like about this year's Budget. I like the fact that the Government is trying to prepare Singapore for the future economy and to sustain employment for the seniors. I like the budgetary provisions to help all of us build an inclusive society and to strengthen our economy. The CFE's recommendations are important and relevant proposals. If well executed, they will help Singaporeans prepare ourselves for the future economy.
I also believe that the young couples hoping to start a family would appreciate the generous increase in housing grants. It is a clear indication that the Government cares for our younger generation. I hope that younger Singaporeans hoping to start a new family will consider the option of buying a resale flat with the increased housing grant. I also want to say that I appreciate the increase in GST Voucher, U-save rebates, the cash special payment and the increase in S&CC rebates. All these would provide much needed relief for the average Singaporeans who face a higher cost of living expenses.
The additional support of up to $100 million for the VWOs, $6 million for the self-help groups and the support for people with disabilities and mental health conditions send a very strong signal that this budget is to enable all of us as Singaporeans to move forward together.
However, Madam, allow me to express the concerns of many smaller businesses which are facing serious struggles to survive in an unpredictable economy and who are also facing declining sales. The reality is that not every business is not doing well over the past few years. Some of these businessmen were hoping that Budget 2017 would provide them with some form of financial relief or reduced costs.
However, it seems that their hopes may not materialise. The feedback which I have received is that many of the budgetary measures in this year's Budget would only help a specific segment of the business community. The focus of the Government is to strengthen capabilities for the future. Thus, for some of the smaller businesses, this year's Budget may not be a major event. It has little positive impact for them. And instead, some of the measures taken to protect the environment and the water price increases may hurt them more.
I do not believe that businesses are hoping for a handout from the Government. What they are appealing for is a business climate which is less costly and friendlier to businesses. As it stands, property related costs is still very high. I urge the Government to consider some additional measures, for example, a rental rebate for all tenancies where JTC or HDB is the landlord, or a property tax relief which landlords of private properties must pass on to their tenants.
Although there is a SME working capital loan, the feedback is that not many SMEs are aware of the loan or how it works. There is also the perception that it is not easy to get such loans. How can the Government do more to reach out to the many SMEs who are looking for a lifeline for their businesses? Can the Government elaborate on their plans to conduct more outreach to the SME on all the available help? Would the Government also consider a one year stay on all foreign workers' levy (FWL) hike until the economic situation has stabilised?
Next, allow me to express my concern for the middle income Singaporeans. I have a large number of such middle income residents in my constituency. Many of them are PMETs who are living in condos or five-room flats. I also have a number of retirees living in private homes which they had bought many years ago after saving for many years.
For this category of residents, they feel that they have been left out in this Budget. They feel penalised simply because they were trying their best to live their aspirations in the past. For the retirees, they have no income and are relying on their savings, their pension or on their children to provide for them. For the PMETs, their income is unlikely to rise due to wage freeze in many companies.
Yet, these retirees and the middle income PMETs, they will face increases in water pricing; increases in car park charges and increases in S&CC charges. Some of the PMETs may also face job insecurity.
This group will not benefit from many of the support measures of Budget 2017. If they stay in HDB flats, they may receive a smaller S&CC rebate. If they stay in private properties, they will not benefit from the GST U-Save vouchers, the S&CC rebate or the GST cash special payment. And the retirees also do not benefit from the tax rebate.
So, I urge the Government to consider ways in which we can allow the retirees and middle income Singaporeans to share or enjoy the growth of the country and to move forward together as a nation. We should find other more equitable ways to share and re-distribute the country's wealth rather than rely on the home type as a proxy for measurement of their wealth.
Let us do more for the middle income so that they too can find the theme for this year's Budget − \"Moving forward Together\" − a meaningful theme for them as well.
Finally, I also want to urge the Minister to consider a stay on water price increases for this year. There is never a good time to raise prices for utilities. However, increasing the price of water in times of economic uncertainty is definitely not a good time. Let me stress that I totally agree with the Finance Minister that water is critical to our survival and we need to take adequate measures to conserve water. But sadly, the 30% increase in water prices seems to have distracted from the main intent of the Budget. And due to rumour-mongering, many people seem to have been so caught up and so concerned over this 30% water price increase such that they seem to have forgotten or ignored the various other measures that the Government has introduced to help Singaporeans mitigate the price increase.
Thus, it seems to have distracted many of us from the much important message that all Singaporeans need to focus on, which is how to plan our future, how to develop stronger capabilities in a fast changing world. That is the main message of the Budget but seemingly, when I go for feedback sessions, everybody's first question is about the water price increase. And I felt that it is really an unnecessary distraction for all of us.
If it is really not possible to defer the water price increase, then I hope that the Government would consider measures to ensure that businessmen do not profiteer from this water price increase. And this may be similar to the Committee Against Profiteering (CAP) which was set up some years ago, when GST was raised.
Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, my initial reaction to the Minister of Finance's Budget Statement last Monday was deep dissatisfaction and disappointment.
I thought a lot about it in the next few days. Was I disappointed because this Budget contained relatively few goodies for SMEs, workers and consumers? This was the first question that crossed my mind. Many businesses and Singaporeans expressed the same sentiment, as reported in the papers and as can be read online on social media.
It is understandable. This time round, the support given by the Government is targeted rather than broad-based. We have gotten too used to spectacular Budgets with goodies for everybody and the fireworks of snazzy phrases, pictures and presentations. Yet, there is nothing positively spectacular in this Budget. Instead, the negatives stand out in ominous light, especially the big 30% hike in water prices.
I stared at the \"Budget in Brief\" for a very long time, putting aside my sentiments, trying to make rational sense of the Budget, to see the pattern and trend that have to be there. So, I stared and stared. Then, it came to me, this is a \"Wait and See\" Budget.
It clicked. This is why Minister Heng opened the Budget Statement signalling a time of VUCA − the volatility of populist politics, the uncertainty of economic protectionism, the complexity of technological disruptions, the ambiguities of the changing global order.
In such a context, it is prudent to wait and see before committing national resources to a set path with a clear destination. When everything is up in the air, we need to wait and see, to keenly observe the trajectories of the things being thrown up to decide which gems to catch and how to catch them.
Wait and see does not mean to do nothing. I read an article in the Harvard Business Review that helped me see the pattern and logic of the \"Budget in Brief\" I was staring at. This was an article written by two United States Marine Corps officers who switched careers to become business consultants. They wrote, and I quote:
\"As Marine officers, we always ate last, ensuring others had food on their plates before ours were filled. During down-time, we kept our teams busy with training opportunities so they could broaden their skills, which also curtailed complacency. When it was dark and cold in the field, we made a point of being present on the lines, not hiding out in a warm tent, to show our teams we were right there with them. Through our actions, we demonstrated that we were willing to go without food, free time and comfort to ensure our people knew they were supported. The result? Our teams felt cared for and valued, and they demonstrated their loyalty through their initiative and engagement.\"
Waiting means to keep ourselves busy with training and development. Thus, many of the Budget initiatives are focused on the long-term development of business capabilities and enhancing the affordability and accessibility of training for our workers.
Seeing means to be vigilant and being prepared to respond quickly to opportunities and exigencies. Thus, many of the Budget initiatives have to do with road-mapping and transformation-mapping, and prototyping, testing and experimenting.
As the Marine officers related, waiting and seeing also means cultivating strong bonds of trust through shared engagements. Thus, many of the Budget initiatives emphasise partnership, alliances and integrated spaces.
If I were to summarise this \"Wait and See\" Budget into three main thrusts, they are: (i) training and development; (ii) mapping and testing, and (iii) partnership and team building. Despite my initial disappointment and dissatisfaction, I believe this Budget is making the right moves of waiting and seeing in these three thrusts.
But I do not think we should dismiss the negative sentiments of disappointments and dissatisfaction with this Budget. They are also signals to possible deficiencies and gaps in the Budget.
I believe they point to one defect that the Government can do a lot better to address. This is the psychological effect of insecurity induced by the VUCA environment. It is getting very dark and cold in the field and ordinary Singaporeans are feeling unsettled by the uncertainty. We need to understand and alleviate this psychological insecurity.
There are three ways to improve the psychological security and mental well-being of ordinary Singaporeans, even as they are exhorted to train and develop themselves as they wait and see. First, we should maximise the availability and accessibility of the training programmes as far as possible. Second, we need to strengthen the safety nets for middle-income households who are financially squeezed on several fronts and threatened by employment insecurity. Third, we should transform the current management culture of top-down leadership to one of service-based leadership, which is more conducive to fostering real partnerships of trust.
The first way to improve psychological security is to maximise the availability and accessibility of training and development for workers. We should not under-estimate the sense of security that comes with knowing that there are many options available to us for deepening our skills or changing tracks to pursue new dreams. I have three substantive points to make in this respect.
The Adapt and Grow programmes are excellent for promoting functional skills and the practical placement of jobseekers. But we should not forget the psychological impact of the various conditions and restrictions that the programmes place on workers. For example, young PMEs have to wait for six months of unemployment before they become eligible for the Career Support Programme.
The new Attach and Train initiative is interesting. Notwithstanding the details to be elaborated later by the Minister for Manpower, I ask that the Government pay close attention to the psychological aspects of attached participants, as there is a risk that the attachments could backfire if participants find themselves treated as mere interns and not as valued would-be employees.
Regarding the Global Innovation Alliance, going forward, it would be good to open up the Innovators Academy to mid-career workers who would like to explore opportunities and build up experiences in innovation. Many entrepreneurs are not born straight from the universities, but become enterprising innovators after accumulating years of experience in the marketplace.
Regarding Continuing Education and Training degree programmes, this would be a good time to accelerate the placement of adult learners in part-time programmes in our universities to 10% of each cohort from 2015 onwards as recommended by the 2012 Committee on University Education Pathways.
I understand our six universities have been launching various types of work-study programmes with SkillsFuture support and in partnership with industry. But many of these programmes are understandably starting out slow and small, and targeted at young adults heading to university and not adult learners. I hope this would accelerate to cater to adult learners who defer their university education to later and even to mid-career switchers, especially since the size of cohorts heading to university would start to shrink due to plunging birth rates two decades ago.
The second way to improve psychological security is to strengthen the safety nets for middle income households. The 30% hike in water price and the carbon tax when implemented, will have knock-on effects on the costs of living, as all areas of everyday life are affected by the use of water and electricity.
Middle income households do not have the benefit of the enhanced financial transfers to low-income households to soften the impact of the water price increase. Compared to low-income and high-income households, middle income Singaporeans will feel the head-on impact of the increase in costs of living most strongly.
In this respect, the Personal Income Tax Rebate of 20% capped at $500 does not benefit the middle income worker as much as the high-income earners. For example, a worker earning the median gross monthly income with a taxable income of around $40,000 will only receive $110 tax rebate. On the flip side, high-income earners will be receiving the full $500 tax rebate. This effectively means that the Government will be subsidising the expenses of high-income earners many times more than the middle income workers. Middle income workers need the rebates a lot more in order to soften the impact of the water price increases and the knock-on increases in costs of living.
Middle income workers are also facing higher risks of retrenchment and under-employment. While the Adapt and Grow programmes help to mitigate the fallout from retrenchment and encourage retrenched workers to reskill and return to employment, the Budget could do better to provide for short-term relief to allow workers to find their feet and not be mired in temporary cash-flow problems that could distract them from training and job-seeking. The Government could consider introducing redundancy insurance to even out the risks of retrenchment and provide short-term support. Short-term tax deferments would also help retrenched workers to manage their cash flows.
The third way to improve psychological security is to promote service-based leadership. Management thinker Robert Greenleaf introduced the concept in 1970 in his famous essay, \"The Servant as Leader\". In contrast to traditional leadership involving the top-down exercise of power and the taking of individual credit from the team's work, the service-based leader focuses on the growth of the people they are leading and the well-being of the communities they serve in.
The SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative announced by Minister Heng is an excellent initiative. It is a belated recognition that we need to consciously cultivate Singaporean leaders in all our industries. We have focused on talents who could follow through the logic of development and faithfully execute the plans. What we need now are thought leaders and visionaries who could inspire teams of talents and workers to collectively chart and create new pathways of growth.
However, to maximise the return of investment in leadership to ordinary Singaporeans, we should focus on cultivating service-based leaders. Traditional leaders who are focused on their own power and achievement may well achieve the same level of growth as service-based leaders, but the benefits will not be equitably distributed to workers and the community. On the other hand, because service-based leaders are committed to the personal and professional growth of their workers, growth will benefit everyone.
In turn, this will foster committed and engaged workers who will use their initiative and give their best and all to the team's efforts. The two Marine officers I quoted at the beginning of my speech, consciously applied this concept of service-based leadership to build up a cohesive team of well-trained and deeply committed warriors. Instead of producing an elitist group of leaders commanding regular troops, they forged an elite fighting unit.
Conversely, traditional leaders will treat workers as expendable units to be constantly evaluated for their performance and stigmatised and culled if they no longer meet certain standards. I think it is very clear how this can be detrimental to the psychological security of our workers, with ripple effects beyond the affected companies and industries, as can be seen in the Surbana terminations.
I believe this is the missing ingredient in our drive to improve productivity and inspire engaged workers. Thus, I urge the Government to emphasise service-based leadership in its industry transformation mapping exercises, in the SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative and in the Future Economy programmes to deepen partnerships to share expertise and solutions.
Mdm Speaker, I have come to accept this \"Wait and See\" Budget for what it is. It is down-time and the Government is encouraging Singaporeans to get busy with training and development, mapping and testing, partnering and team building. We are preparing for the fight to come.
But it is also getting dark and cold in the field. It is unnerving to many Singaporeans. The price hikes and the looming tax increases do not help. A sense of insecurity is setting in. Other than the three ways to improve psychological security even as we train and prepare, I have highlighted above, there are two things that the Government, the political leaders, can do.
First, we are still not getting a sense of the big picture of the changes in the global order and how Singapore features in this big picture. What are the different scenarios of the future we are facing? We seem to be still focused on internationalisation, but do we have a plan if nationalistic protectionism takes root and spread? What are the worst-case scenarios and the known unknowns, and how should we prepare for these? We need to have a shared understanding of what we are fighting and what we are fighting for.
Second, as the example of the two Marine officers show, when it gets dark and cold in the field, being present on the lines with the troops and not hiding out in a warm tent is a tremendous demonstration to our people that they are being fully supported and truly valued. It is not my place to lecture the Government leaders on what they should be doing to be present on the lines with the workers and small businesses, but it is my duty to register that there is a need for it.
Mdm Speaker:\tDr Tan Wu Meng, you have a clarification?
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I just have a couple of clarifications that I would like to ask about the evolving corpus of the Workers' Party economic model.
I understand that the previous speaker Mr Perera had mentioned land sales could be lost revenue. I was wondering if Assoc Prof Goh might elaborate on what he views as an appropriate level of land sales to front our current Budget. For example, what percentage of land to sell in this term of Government, and what percentage of GDP the sales should be?
Secondly, I was also wondering in terms of supporting our SMEs and standing with our people, as Assoc Prof Goh has mentioned, what his view would be on the optimal level of foreign manpower in our SME sector? Should be it more, less, or the same amount as we have today? Thank you.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong:\tMdm Speaker, I have not mentioned these two points in my speech. So, I am not sure what I am supposed to clarify.
Mdm Speaker :\tDr Tan, do you want to respond to that?
Dr Tan Wu Meng:\tThe point was raised by Assoc Prof Goh's colleague earlier, and there is a thread about standing with our people and our SMEs. So, I was wondering whether these points might be clarified at some point.
Mdm Speaker:\tMr Perera or Assoc Prof Goh, would you like to respond? Mr Leon Perera, do you want to make any clarification?
Mr Leon Perera: I thank the hon Member for raising those points. On the first point, he asked about the optimal level of land sales. In our speeches, we have not put forward a model of land sales nor have we put forward an alternative Budget model.
What we have asked for previously is to understand the expansionary or contractionary effect of all the measures in the Budget, including land sales, including possible cash spending from the Government and funds that may not be reflected in the basic and primary deficit as well as the overall surplus or deficit. We want to have that clarity because that is needed to assess to what extent the Budget is really expansionary.
On the second point, this is something that we did not touch on in our speech. I think for SME development, we did give a number of ideas and suggestions. I do not think we brought up our proposals on manpower per se in the speeches that we made. So, I do not wish to comment on that at this point. I direct the Member's attention to ideas and suggestions we made about local SME development.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mdm Speaker, Budget 2017 strikes a delicate balance between providing sufficient support to bridge near term challenges and taking bold steps to invest in new capabilities in our firms and workers for a brighter future. Businesses had expected more help in this Budget to ride out the challenging operating environment. Support is promised, but in a targeted manner, instead of being as broad-based as in the past − I support that this is a more efficient approach.
When studying the Budget financials, we should all be concerned about our weakening fiscal position. For five consecutive years, total growth in revenue has outstripped growth in operating revenue, and our Budget is getting tighter every year. This is the third consecutive Budget that reflects a basic deficit. We expect only a modest overall surplus of $1.9 billion after taking into account the significant Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) of $14.1 billion from past reserves. Additional funds that were afforded by the inclusion of Temasek in the NIRC starting year 2016, not too long ago, appears to have been exhausted quickly − this is worrying.
The Finance Minister spoke about the implications of rising long-term expenditures, particularly in healthcare and infrastructure, and the need to prepare options to strengthen the revenue base. This has rekindled fears of new and higher taxes, including GST hikes. There are those who would advocate tapping our reserves further, and others like myself who would call for a cap on how much we should take from NIRC to fund our expenses. Clearly, Singapore must find a sustainable fiscal footing for our future generations and we need a thorough review of both expenditure and revenue.
On expenditure front, I applaud the Finance Minister for sending out a strong signal of fiscal prudence, with the permanent 2% downward adjustment from the budget caps of all Ministries and Organs of State. I would like to ask the Minister what other budget mechanisms are in place to encourage savings across the Ministries, including rationalising roles and functions of agencies as well as extracting cost synergies from cross-agency collaboration. Madam, even as the Government continues to enhance the social safety net, we must keep up the disciplines of means-testing, targeted supported and co-payment, to preserve the value of personal responsibility.
Madam, a healthy and growing economy is the only sure way to sustain a healthy revenue stream. I am encouraged by the efforts of the Committee of Future Economy (CFE). The seven strategies put forward by CFE form a comprehensive plan to capture the opportunities of the future economic landscape. But it is one thing to strategise, but quite another to execute. The 22 sets, I counted, of recommendations spelt out in the CFE report all seem to be the right things to do. But, taken together, I cannot help but felt a little overwhelm with the long list of tasks ahead to reposition Singapore. From deepening our knowledge of markets, acquiring better skills, strengthening innovation ecosystems, to developing and implementing 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs). These lofty objectives demand significant change and adaptation involving Government agencies, companies and people, working in unison. How Singapore executes as a team, with each pulling its own weight, will make the difference.
A common theme in the CFE's recommendations is for the Government to create enabling environments, within which companies become nimbler and more innovative, to cope with the rapid pace of innovation and increasing competition around the world. In this context, I commend the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) for leading the way. To meet their ambition of building a Smart Financial Centre, MAS instituted the concept of \"regulatory sandboxes\" to enable fintech experiments and trials of promising innovations, to be tested in the market with appropriate safeguards.
The sweeping reforms announced recently by MAS have made it easier for smaller firms and budding entrepreneurs to secure financing for their businesses. MAS intends to simplify the venture capital regime, introduce dual-class share structures, strengthen the role of finance companies and develop private market platforms. It is also actively laying down technology infrastructure to drive innovation, including an electronic trade finance platform, infrastructure to enable the pervasive use of e-payments and an industry know-your-customer utility, the first of its kind that I know of, that will greatly improve productivity of banks when on-boarding clients and managing money laundering risks. These wide-ranging policy measures set a great example of forward-looking regulations which creates a dynamic ecosystem that enables growth and innovation. If more sectors adopt a similar approach, it will go a long way towards enhancing Singapore's vibrancy and competitiveness, and accelerate our pivot towards the future economy.
Madam, the Government should critically review how it can help businesses manage operating costs. The high cost of rentals is often quoted as prohibiting the setting up of new businesses and the survival of businesses. Is there a way for entrepreneurs to be offered affordable premises to kick-start their businesses, in the same way that the Government actively intervenes to keep housing affordable with HDB flats, and food prices affordable using hawker centres?
JTC Launch Pads is a great initiative, but we need more platforms where businesses can operate in low-rent spaces acting as public offices located across Singapore. I would like to ask the Government to consider deploying some of their vacant properties for this purpose. From a recent Parliamentary Question, I understand there are as many as 1,000 Government properties that are vacant, pending lease, redevelopment or demolition, some of which stay vacant for extended periods of time.
State lands that have been earmarked for medium-to-long-term use could also be leased out on short leases with temporary built-up structures. Making some of these premises accessible as public offices, at nominal rent for a limited period of time, will help businesses bootstrap their operations and develop the critical mass needed before they transition to private market rentals.
In this year's Budget, there are many initiatives to help businesses scale their operations, go international, go digital and innovate. With the development of ITMs for 23 sectors, covering 80% of our economy, the Government has offered support to all sectors, not just selected ones, to seize growth opportunities and make the necessary transition. Through ITMs, industries with good growth prospects can take advantage of global opportunities and technology whilst domestically-focused industries, such as food services, will get support to increase productivity and upgrade jobs. So, regardless of which sector it is in, every business has a fighting chance of realising their fullest potential and reposition themselves for a brighter future.
Madam, our people will need to move in lockstep with these changes, if they are to thrive in this new economy. It is heart-breaking to encounter stories of families impacted by retrenchments, and my sense is that increasing numbers of PMEs, especially older ones, are being displaced. Whilst I appreciate that Adapt and Grow has launched an extensive set of programmes to help workers take on new jobs, I call on the Government to consider some short-term measures to help families cope during this transition. For example, during periods of unemployment, would the Government consider suspending the retrenched workers' payment of income tax instalments and allow some flexible use of CPF to pay mortgages, so as to help them keep their homes?
The Economist magazine published a special report in January on the need for lifelong learning. It is apparent that if 21st century economies are not to create a massive underclass, policymakers need to urgently work out how to help their citizens learn while they earn. The need for new and constantly updated skills in the new economy is universal, and many countries are ill-equipped to do so. Unfortunately, lifelong learning in most societies is undertaken by those who are already doing well, and is therefore likely to widen the gap of inequality rather than narrow it. Singapore had the foresight to launch the SkillsFuture movement nationwide in 2014 as our next wave of development, and we must make sure our approach is an inclusive one, benefiting all Singaporeans along the journey.
Mdm Speaker, even as we work to continuously enhance the SkillsFuture system, it is critical for Singaporeans to expect that their current full-time jobs may be disrupted, and take ownership of preparing for their next careers well before their current ones becomes obsolete. My worry is that not enough of us accept this as a personal risk and do not proactively seek to future-proof ourselves. Some of those who lost their jobs may have found relief as Uber drivers − itself a fortuitous result of industry disruption − but I fear this too could be a short-lived job, with the advancement of self-driving technologies. Jobs are hybridising. With longer life expectancy and unending shifts in the jobs market, the ability to learn will be the key skill to nurture, along with the willingness to do so.
Madam, Budget 2017 has drawn us a map to reposition Singapore strongly. The path ahead will not be easy, there are mountains to climb and rivers to cross, whilst the weather changes constantly. But we will not travel alone. Our firms and our people must be the agents of change, taking greater charge of our own destinies, learning and improving, whilst the Government fosters enabling environments in which to grow and thrive. Whether we succeed in reaching our destination depends on how we prepare together, support each other and keep pace with one another as we stay the path. I support the Budget.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member):\tMdm Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin.
I am very concerned with some of the measures announced in this year's Budget. First of all, the increase of water tariffs by 30% and the imposition of water consumption tax.
In this year's Budget, the announcement by Finance Minister to raise water tariffs by 30% left many Singaporeans anxious. Not only was the increase of water tariffs sudden, the scale of increase is also higher than expected. At the same time, the Government has also decided to impose a water consumption tax, which will increase the burden of the people during this water tariff hike.
Although the Government has said that it will be giving rebates to some families through GST vouchers U-Save rebates, most Singaporeans and industrial/commercial users will be affected, as they do not fulfil the criteria to enjoy rebates or will be receiving only token rebates. Companies and industries that uses a lot of water, such as the F&B industries, will be affected the most. I am concerned that this large increase in water prices will have adverse knock-on effects, leading to price hikes of other daily necessities and increasing the cost of living, which will in turn, increase the burden of the people. How can the Government ensure that the rise in water tariffs will not lead to price increases at hawker centres, coffee shops and other products?
Many industrial and commercial activities require the use of water. This rise in water tariffs mean that operating costs and living expenses will increase. With uncertainties in our economic prospects and growth, the hike in water tariffs will make the situation worse. So, I would like to know if the Government will offer assistance to industries that will be adversely affected by the increase in water tariffs, especially those that require a lot of water.
What puzzles me, is that the Finance Minister has mentioned in his Budget Statement, that water is essential to our survival, so the pricing of water must reflect the higher production cost of desalinated water and NEWater. My question is, we have had desalination and NEWater plants for some time now. In recent years, water reservoirs, desalination plant and water supply from Malaysia and other water issues have been better resolved. We already have more choices when it comes to water supply. Then, why the sudden mention of higher cost of water? Why was this not mentioned in recent years?
Second, I am also very concerned about the increase in diesel tax by 10 cents per litre, which applies to car diesel, industrial diesel and bio-diesel. The reasons given for the increase in diesel tax are firstly, diesel is a source of pollution; and secondly, to encourage users to reduce consumption by imposing diesel taxes. I can understand and agree with the problem of pollution, but I do question the timing and scale of increasing diesel tax. I believe that it is not the right time to increase diesel tax under the current difficult economic situation.
The tax increase will cause diesel prices to go up, and this will directly affect transport costs, such as those of taxis and buses, as well as school buses and buses ferrying workers. Can the Government assure the people that our transport cost will not increase? Can the short-term road tax rebates ensure that transport costs will not increase?
The Finance Minister has also announced a cut in Special Tax for diesel cars. For taxis, even if taxi companies were to return the savings of $850 from the reduced special diesel tax to taxi drivers, the taxi drivers would still have to come up with cash to make up for the increase in diesel prices. This is calculated based on the distance of 250 km to 500 km that a taxi needs to travel every day, assuming they will need to consume 25 litres to 50 litres of diesel a day.
Diesel is the general fuel for delivery trucks, vans, lorries and other heavy vehicles. With the 10-cent increase for every litre, transport and delivery costs will also increase, and this will also affect the operating costs of businesses that depend directly or indirectly on transport services.
Mdm Speaker, after the budget was announced on the 20th of February, the general consensus among businesses is that SMEs and Singapore-based companies are not getting sufficient help from this Budget amidst the difficult and uncertain economic climate. The increase of diesel tax at this point will only add on to their operating cost.
In view of the economic uncertainties and anxieties over job prospects, it is regrettable that the measures announced by the Government in this budget have not given the people a stronger sense of security. Instead, they have increased the cost of living of the people.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio):\tThank you, Mdm Speaker. The world today is quite different from the one that many of us are used to. Many countries that were once champions of globalisation and trade are experiencing fundamental shifts in their political orientation and attitudes towards globalisation.
[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
Economically, the VUCA environment that businesses are operating in has led to the shortening of business cycles and the increasing occurrence of creative destruction. The biggest causalities of these changes are jobs. Employees in every sector and industry are at risk of experiencing structural unemployment that resulted from skill obsolesce. The danger of being replaced by automations or algorithms is real. In view of these economic headwinds and strategic challenges, we must continue to safeguard the employment of Singaporeans by creating good jobs and by helping our economy transit into the next phase.
While we are living in the VUCA environment, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, earlier on our colleague Assoc Prof Daniel Goh mentioned this image of us living in darkness and in fear. I think, perhaps, that may be exaggerating the image somewhat. I do not believe that we are living in a wait-and-see mode, but rather using the analogy of military exercises, it is more of a mode that we are anticipating what will happen, we are preparing for what could come up next. This is something that I feel very strongly about.
It is easy to take a big broad brush and try to solve a situation by bombarding with artillery, for example. What you end up with is you have very much collateral destruction. I think the Prime Minister is aware of the impact of too much artillery in a situation.
I prefer to see us not so much as Marines but a Seal Team Six, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, whereby we work fast, we work sharp, we are small, we are nimble, we are strategic. And we are far from a people cowering in fear and darkness. I believe that we use this time to focus, we use this time to regroup, we plan our strategy and we move forward.
So, this year's Budget is really a strategic one that aims to help Singapore grow despite this global uncertainty that we are living in. It also reflects a paradigmatic change in how the Government views our economy. The shift from the traditional intensive-driven Budget to the current strategies-driven one demonstrates the Government's appreciation that Singapore's economy is, indeed, becoming increasingly more complex and intertwined with the rest of the world. We need to take a mid- to long-term view of our economy and implement a Budget that will continue to meet our long-term objectives.
Yes, there are several \"pain points\" in this year's Budget where the prices of some goods and services have to be adjusted to reflect the cost of providing those services or to increase social awareness about environmental sustainability. But these \"pain points\", however, are also mitigated by the various grants and subsidies that that Government will implement. These policies will ensure that those in our society who need an extra helping hand should not be in a significantly worse off position after the adjustments. I would like to elaborate on some initiatives in the Budget that I think will help to continue to steer Singapore on this right path to keep us going as that \"nimble\" Seal Team Six.
First of all, helping SMEs. We all agree that SMEs form the bulk of the number of businesses in our economy. Despite their significant contributions to our economy, however, our SMEs do face serious challenges moving forward.
First, many continue to lack in their digital capabilities and the ability to tap on newer technologies to improve productivity and service delivery. Second, they lack the resources and expertise to truly internationalise. Finally, there are few, if any, holistic industry-wide initiatives to help them transit their businesses to the new economy. I am glad that the Government is cognisant of these challenges and the Budget has targeted programmes to help our SMEs overcome them.
It is crucial that we help our SMEs scale up their digital capabilities in the era of e-commerce and \"click 'n' mortar\" businesses. While it is unlikely that digital platforms and online business models will completely supplant traditional modes of business, our SMEs cannot afford to assume that they can continue to operate the way that they have been operating. So, the implementation of the Industry Digital Plans and the setting up of the SME Technology Hub will provide our SMEs with the much needed baseline assistance to digitalise their businesses, and I am eager to hear more details from MCI during the COS debate.
We should, however, go beyond this baseline assistance. The crux to a successful digital transformation is to have a talent pool that businesses can tap into. This is especially important for SMEs since SMEs are traditionally not the first choice of employment for many of our graduates. While the Government can help to nurture a pool of digital talent, I believe SMEs themselves need to ensure that they can provide a good career path for these talents.
The career paths in SMEs can be increased by potentially increasing their level of internationalisation. An SME with regional or global presence is definitely in a better position to offer attractive careers to digital talents and also other professionals, as the scope and nature of their operations will offer the requisite job challenge and development opportunities. The International Partnership Fund proposed in the Budget will help catalyse the regionalisation of our SMEs. The devil, of course, is in the details of implementation.
The Government is not in the business of picking winners and losers, so guidelines and assessment processes must be put in place to ensure that the funds that are set aside are used to support SMEs that have the best potential to internationalise. The assessment criteria and methods must be appropriate and transparent, and support must be given to high-potential SMEs regardless of their size.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak a little on supporting families in housing. The Government has, in recent years, implemented a number of different measures to help Singaporeans own their own homes. I am glad that this year's Budget has continued on this trajectory by providing greater financial support to Singaporeans who wish to purchase a flat in the resale market. This group of Singaporeans are typically those who wish to start their family and also want to live near their parents for the supportive network.
The current CPF housing grants for both 4- and 5-room flats are similar at $30,000. The new grant structure, however, would provide those who purchase a 4-room flat a higher grant than those who purchase a 5-room flat. While I appreciate the rationale that the Government would not want to subsidise those who purchase bigger flats too much, as they are likely be from a higher income group, I think we cannot ignore that some consumers might choose to purchase a 4-room flat due to the fact that it is more expensive than a 5-room flat because of its location, age and other factors. Conversely, some consumers with a lower income might have to purchase a 5-room flat, as opposed to a more expensive 4-room flat in other locations, due to their family requirements as well.
In view of these idiosyncrasies, would the Government consider providing a percentage-grant based on the purchase price of the flat? But this amount would be subject to an absolute ceiling amount, and whichever amount is then higher would be given to the qualifying purchaser as the housing grant.
On to household measures, Mr Deputy Speaker. The recent Budget saw increases in the prices of water and diesel, and soon, Town Councils will be increasing their S&CC rates to meet rising costs, especially with regard to servicing and eventually replacing lifts.
Singaporeans are concerned that that is too many bullets to bite at a go. Although Singapore has experienced modest GDP growth over the past few years with real median wage growing by 2.6% per annum, from 2009 to 2016, the impact of these growth figures has not be felt equally across all sectors of the economy and strata of the society. Indeed, some segments of the population are concerned that the recent increases would pose additional constraints on their finances, and these concerns are somewhat justified.
I am thus heartened to know that the Budget has provided various avenues of support through the form of GST Vouchers, S&CC rebates, and personal income tax rebates. As Singapore's economy enters a period of low growth and more employees are at risk of losing their job due to structural changes in the economy, I hope that the Government will review its existing assistance schemes from time to time so that it remains responsive to the needs of the people.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this year's Budget is unique in its approach in laying the necessary foundations to support Singapore's growth for the next five to 10 years. Rather than having a broad-based Budget that hopes to raise all boats by lifting the overall level of the tide, the Budget is measured and its initiatives are targeted at giving specific help to those that need help the most.
More importantly, it reflects the Singapore ethos of fiscal prudence and the belief that the future of Singapore depends on the strong partnership between Government, business and people. And I stress again, we are people that are not cowering in the dark or in the cold and the wet, we are people that are getting ready and preparing ourselves, whatever may come next. It is not so much wait and see but being prepared.
I believe that implemented well, this year's Budget, together with the recommendations of the Committee on the Future Economy, will form a roadmap that will help us to navigate the global uncertainty and possible economic headwinds that Singapore will face. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I conclude my speech in support of the Budget.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have three points to make in my speech.
First, in connection with the Government's measures to support businesses, I wish to highlight the cash flow problems faced by some SMEs arising from big companies holding back on prompt settlement of their invoices.
From feedback received, some big companies leverage on their economic power against SMEs by delaying payment on invoices for goods and services. If the shoe was on the other foot, these big companies may not hesitate to impose interest for late payment in addition to the principal amounts.
Micro SMEs are in particular vulnerable because, on one hand, they do not want to upset the commercial relationship with the big companies. Yet, on the other hand, especially in a period of slow economic growth, the delay in payment may tip the SMEs to cash flow difficulties, higher litigation risk and even insolvency.
To ameliorate the effect on these SMEs, I have two suggestions.
First, I wonder if the Government could consider extending the scope of the SME Working Capital Loan, under which the Government assumes the risk for loan defaults, to allow SMEs to collateralise their receivables owed by big companies for loans at low interest rates. This would give SMEs more flexibility in managing their cash flow. Whilst factoring arrangements may be available to SMEs, this comes at a cost and means a further erosion of their profit margin.
Second, I suggest that the framework in the BCA Security of Payment Act for the building and construction industry, which allows the employer to make payments directly to a subcontractor when the main contractor fails to do so, be extended to other industries where such multi-tiered relationships also exist. In this way, SMEs may, in appropriate situations, utilise the framework to obtain payment on overdue invoices.
The next point I wish to make concerns the Wage Credit Scheme. Under this Scheme, the Government co-funds 40% of wage increases for Singaporean employees earning gross monthly salaries of $4,000, which is roughly about the 50th percentile of wages in Singapore, and below. This Scheme is extended by two years under the Government's plan to continue supporting businesses.
As may be recalled, the Wage Credit Scheme was introduced in Budget 2013. The purpose behind the Scheme is to help businesses cope with rising wage costs in a tight labour market. The idea is to encourage businesses to invest in and make productivity gains. These gains are to be shared with the employees.
In light of the Government's decision to extend the Scheme, may I please ask if the assessment in this economic climate is still that the businesses are continuing to face a tight labour market vis-Ã-vis employees at the 50th percentile of wages and below?
Also, I would be grateful if the Minister could please let us know whether the effort to improve productivity amongst the businesses participating in the Scheme is paying off. I do appreciate it may be difficult to get details or data on a specific industry basis but, perhaps, at least at the general level.
Without the linkage to productivity and sharing of the gains with the employees, we run the danger of providing just a wage subsidy which, given the second extension of this Scheme, may become a crutch for the Government. This is something we should avoid.
Finally, I refer to the Government's plan to implement a carbon tax at a rate of between $10 and $20 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions from 2019 on upstream emitters. I note that the industry consultation on the proposed carbon tax will take place from March 2017 with the final carbon tax and exact implementation schedule decided thereafter.
In principle, I support the premise behind the imposition of a carbon tax; that Singapore should do her part to address climate change, to create a sustainable environmental future for our children and generations after.
Indicating a carbon tax range, as opposed to a specific rate, however, may create some uncertainty as companies would not be in a position to properly make business decisions in anticipation of the precise carbon tax rate which can be anywhere between 10% and 20% per year. This may have knock-on effects, for example, companies prematurely passing costs to consumers in advance of the implementation of the tax, something we must certainly guard against, or not provisioning or investing sufficiently to mitigate the effects of the carbon tax on their businesses.
As a comparison, with respect to Goods and Services Tax (GST), the Government issued a White Paper on GST on 9 February 1993, in which the 3% rate was stated. Thereafter, the GST Bill was introduced later in the same month with the rate of 3% also stipulated in the Bill itself. Further, during the debate of the GST Bill in Parliament the following month, the Government gave an undertaking that the GST rate of 3% would not be changed for at least five years.
For the above reasons, I respectfully suggest that the consultations be speeded up and a decision be made as soon as practicable on the precise carbon tax rate, the implementation schedule and the measures to ease the transition for affected companies. With the uncertainty removed, the companies will be able to focus on the improvements they need to make to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Notwithstanding the points that I have made, I support the Budget. In my view, the hon Minister for Finance has, in his speech, properly identified the main economic challenges that we face as a country and clearly outlined a rigorous plan to strengthen our economy and allow us, as a nation, to continue to move forward together.
In this regard, I respectfully disagree with the hon Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Goh's categorisation of this Budget as a minimalist Budget. A cursory review of these Budget details will reveal otherwise. Just for an example, $600 million is being set aside for the Wage Credit Scheme to allow companies to use this Scheme to pay wage rises for Singaporeans. In particular, the serious investment in relation to helping Singaporeans deepen their skills, companies to deepen their partnerships, and to basically look out for opportunities in the digitalisation space.
So, this is far from being a static Budget. It is a Budget that would allow us to reposition ourselves and focus on the opportunities for the future.
The Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (Mr S Iswaran):\tMr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to use some slides in the course of my speech.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tYes, please.
Mr S Iswaran: Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. In the week of the CFE report and also the Budget Statement delivered by the Finance Minister last week, there has been much discussion on the economy in the lead-up to this particular debate.
There are three central questions that we need to think about. The first is where the opportunities are; the second, how do we position ourselves to seize them, and the third, what do we need to do to deal with some of the short-term challenges. These involve important policy decisions and trade-offs. These are questions that several Members have echoed today. I would like to share my views on this.
First on the economy as a whole. Last year our economy grew at 2%, with growth picking up in the final quarter. Between 2011 and 2016, we averaged 3.1% which is comparable to other advanced and regional economies, as Members can see from the chart. The Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) expects annual growth of 2% to 3% over the next decade. This may be less than what we have been accustomed to in the past, but it is totally consistent with our stage of economic development, our demographic profile. So, we need to ensure that within the context of where we are today, we continue to emphasise productivity and innovation as part of the basis for our continued growth. Because even at these levels of economic growth, which are not insignificant by international comparisons, it will continue to allow us to create opportunities for our businesses and jobs for our people.
This point is further enhanced when we consider the context that we are in, that is the region. We are in the heart of a region that is an important driver of global economic growth. ASEAN, China and India are bright spots, with the ASEAN-5 countries expected to grow at 4.9% this year, China at about 6.7% and India at about 6.6%. Their growth emanates not just from the key regions and main cities or metros that we are all quite familiar with but, in fact, they come from the next tier of cities and regions with which we might be less familiar. In China, from the Central and Western regions; in India, from secondary cities like Coimbatore, Pune and Jaipur; and in Indonesia, cities like Semarang and Medan offer interesting opportunities.
In fact, the recent data that the Singapore Tourism Board put out on visitor arrivals, which was strong last year, were actually significantly supported by the efforts that STB made in the secondary markets and regions with the consequential response from the markets. So, we need to go beyond traditional spaces and we need to deepen our knowledge and acquire a more nuanced understanding of these new markets.
In tandem with this growth in the region, we are seeing rapid urbanisation and the rise of the Asian middle class with greater disposable incomes and sophisticated demand in sectors like retail, lifestyle, F&B, education and healthcare. These opportunities play to our strengths, those that we have developed over the years.
One example I want to cite is in the area of infrastructure and urban solutions. McKinsey estimates that the demand for infrastructure in emerging Asian markets, particularly China, Southeast Asia and South Asia, will grow by about US$20 trillion between 2016 and 2030. China's Belt and Road initiative has heightened interest in regional infrastructure projects, whether it is road, rail, ports, airports. India's plan to build 100 smart cities needs adaptable and high quality urban solutions. Our infrastructure and urban solutions companies are generally held in very high regard and they can participate in these opportunities, in partnerships with their Chinese, Indian and Southeast Asian counterparts.
This is not just an opportunity for the big players in this space. In fact, it extends to SMEs like Memiontec and WaterTech Private Limited, who tapped into the demand for small-scale water and energy solutions in the region, and there are many of these that are emerging. This is one of the reasons why in this Budget, in particular, there was an effort to enhance the measures that we have already taken to support infrastructure. If Members would recall, when the ESC concluded its findings, this was about six, seven years ago, one of the initiatives was to set up the Clifford Capital which is just to finance many of our infrastructure projects. In this Budget, a key initiative is really the extension of our IFS Scheme to Non-Recourse Financing. I will elaborate on that but, essentially, it is aimed to help our smaller businesses who are in this space to go regional, to seek out new opportunities.
The other area I want to emphasise is the digital economy which also presents unprecedented opportunities. Think about it. The smallest company can now seek out customers in the furthest markets as long as there is digital access. What it means also is that through the digital platform, they can transact with their business partners, they can coordinate logistics and they can effect payment systems. This is literally transformative and it is transforming industries and offering new ways to overcome our constraints and seek out new opportunities.
That is why in the CFE, we have emphasised the importance of enabling our companies to harness digital technologies and platforms. Some companies have already made the move. I can just give Members one example from a somewhat traditional sector − HipVan. It is a company in the furniture business but they have inverted the traditional furniture business model by going online. Customers transact with them over the Internet and then they work through logistics and delivery, and this is a new model for this company, quite different from what we understand to be furniture businesses.
So, companies are already moving and similarly, we are seeing good collaborative initiatives from big players and others coming on board. For example, just today, Singtel, which is a co-founder of the 99% SME movement, announced a partnership with Lazada to set up an SME e-marketplace. That will help SMEs step into a wider online customer base.
I can go on and give Members many other examples, whether it is in advanced manufacturing and Internet of things, and so on. But my key point is this. There are significant opportunities available to us. Our challenge is ensuring that our companies, especially our SMEs, are geared up for the longer term, so that they can seize these opportunities. This is especially important if we are to sustain our competitiveness because others around us have also seen this and are also adapting. It is a race. But we think it is a race that we can compete in quite effectively. So, a key focus of the Government's economic efforts is, indeed, in how we bring about such transformation. Hence, the Industry Transformation Maps. They are the key modality with three broad areas.
First, to grow top-line and scale, through support for companies and internationalising and financing.
Second, to stay competitive by supporting capability development, both to innovate and to raise their productivity.
Third, to develop deep skills in our workers.
In all of these efforts, the primary focus and beneficiaries are our SMEs. I want to emphasise that. They are the primary focus and beneficiaries. And this is for good reasons.
Firstly, they are of a significant part of our economy. They account for about half of our GDP, two-thirds of employment. If you are really going to effect change and transformation in industry in the economy, the SMEs are key change agents. They have to accept the reality, embrace the change and be change agents.
Secondly, individually, SMEs often lack the scale to make the investments that are necessary to cope with the changes taking place and to benefit fully from the technologies that we are talking about.
Finally, we also believe that SMEs are a key engine of growth for the future in Singapore, and integral to the competitiveness of our economic clusters. As they scale, SMEs will create more opportunities and jobs for Singaporeans.
So, the Government is resolute in our commitment to help our SMEs make this transformation successfully. Large companies do not necessarily need this breadth and depth of support. In fact, it is the small companies that need them.
Let me outline five areas in which we are actually delivering this support.
Firstly, internationalisation. If you are a company taking the first steps towards internationalisation, you can tap on IE's Market Readiness Assistance and Global Company Partnership Scheme, and so on. It has about $40 million in grants. Essentially, the aim is to help our businesses go international. Some are taking tentative steps, others are a little bit more experienced. But they have to go into newer and more risky markets. In general, we are trying to help them to take that move forward. I want to stress here that the Government can be an enabler, but we cannot make the decision for the company. But once a company makes the decision ‒ the leadership and the people ‒ we can support them in the effort.
In this Budget specifically, there is a $600 million International Partnership Fund. It is a co-investment effort with firms as they expand overseas. In other words, beyond loans and financial assistance and grants, the Government is prepared to come in through equity as well. This is an important commitment on the part of the Government, and we are putting our money where our mouth is, quite literally.
Secondly, financing. The Government has a suite of loan programmes which will collectively catalyse $5 billion in loans up to 2020. I do not want to get into a laundry list, but it includes, for example, the SME Equipment and Factory Loan, which is for expansion overseas. So, if you are going overseas, you have done your market studies, you have decided you want to go, but there is capital expenditure (capex), this scheme helps you. You have got to make the move. The MAS has also recently reviewed regulations that will enhance the ability of finance companies to provide financing to SMEs.
I mentioned earlier the infrastructure sector. In this Budget, the specific announcement was on the Internationalisation Finance Scheme (IFS) for Non-Recourse Financing to help SMEs participate in these opportunities. This scheme is designed to encourage financial institutions to provide non-recourse loans to SMEs once projects move into the post-construction stage, so that SMEs can free up their balance sheets to take on new projects. The constraint today is that, if you are a small business going in for a $50 million or $100 million project in the region, you will have to tie up your resources either through personal guarantees or corporate guarantees, and it limits your ability to take on new projects. This scheme is targeted to help our businesses do more and do it in an effective way. Over the next five years, we expect to catalyse $600 million dollars in loans, which will probably correspond to about $1 billion in infrastructure projects. And I am talking here about the small businesses, not the big players.
Thirdly, on innovation. We want SMEs to create new products and services ‒ that is what they want to do as well ‒ to differentiate themselves in the market, but they are constrained by resources that are available. I think several Members talked about this earlier. So, we have a range of schemes. One is to help SMEs commercialise intellectual property through our network of Centres of Innovation, and a substantial amount of funding has been committed, about $100 million for this. And to help them build up their innovation capabilities, we also have the secondment of our public sector researchers through our SMEs. They go there, they help them come up with their R&D blueprint, and they also, in many cases, end up joining the SMEs, sometimes to the chagrin of the research centre's director. But, in general, we are supportive of this because it is an important productive flow of talent between the public and the private sectors.
In this Budget, there are two specific ideas which have been mooted and pushed out. One is A*STAR's Tech Access Initiative. Basically, it is to help SMEs access the more costly specialised equipment and to also get training and advice. In other words, this may be in our research institutes, and SMEs cannot afford to have it on their own, but they can go in there and use it under certain arrangements. The Headstart Programme, where A*STAR allows SMEs to enjoy royalty-free and exclusive IP licences for up to 18 months until recently. With this Budget, it has now gone up to 36 months.
The fourth point is on capability development. The SMEs can tap on this grant ‒ Capability Development Grant (CDG) ‒ for larger scale projects. So, if it is automation, there is the Automation Support Package, and I think Members are familiar with the scheme that was introduced last year. There is also the Innovation and Capability Voucher (ICV). Importantly, the point I want to stress is, we have what we call the Partnerships for Capability Transformation. This is where SMEs collaborate with big companies in order to develop new capabilities. This is key, because many of our SMEs are an integral part of a cluster. They work with the core company ‒ a big player ‒ international, local or foreign. And the SMEs' capabilities reinforce the competitiveness of the cluster as a whole and its sustainability in our environment.
Many Members have talked about the Go Digital Programme. I do not propose to elaborate on it other than to observe that this is, again, a key plank. Big companies do not need a Go Digital Programme. It is the SMEs that need it, and that is why we are doing it. In total, we have about $1.5 billion of grant support for such capability development of SMEs.
Finally, a word on skills. We are making significant investment in developing the skills of our people. Members are very familiar with this through SkillsFuture. The SMEs can tap on these, whether it is SkillsFuture initiatives like the SME Talent Programme, SkillsFuture Mentors Scheme, and the SkillsFuture Earn and Learn programme.
I have taken Members on a tour of the kind of things that we are doing with our companies. Sometimes, the criticism is \"Oh, it is all too complicated and so on\". It is not so much that there is too little, but there is too much and too variegated. Even on that score, our agencies have worked on how we can make Government support more accessible to SMEs. So, they have got the Business Grants Portal, SME Digital Technology Hub and the new IP Master Agreement.
But let me cut to the chase. If you are an SME, you have a need in these areas, go to an SME Centre or go to one of the economic agencies. There is no wrong door. They will help you navigate and sort it out. That is a backend issue. The key point is we have this plethora of support.
So, I am surprised when Mr Leon Perera earlier said that we have missed an opportunity to strengthen local enterprises. I have just given Members a complete ‒ and this is not an exhaustive ‒ list of the various initiatives that we have undertaken. So, how is it a missed opportunity? Perhaps, the key point the Member was trying to make is that the Government should get into the business of picking more winners, because I think the Member described it as a bold initiative. Go in there, back a company. If it fails or does not meet up to expectations, pull out. It is an interesting idea, but Mr Perera has omitted important details and how we would execute this and why the Government would be the right party to do this. Because if the Government backs a company, it goes with whatever initiative, and then the initiative goes south, and then Government decides that it is going to withdraw the support, I think we can anticipate the kind of debate we would have and, indeed, the kind of questions that Mr Leon Perera will then pose on \"Why did you do it in this way? Why did you waste your funds here?\" or \"Why did you withdraw your support?\"
So, I think we have to have a sense of perspective and balance. The Government is an important enabler. The Government is taking a view on certain industries and directions that we want to go. But, fundamentally, what we are trying to say is this: you are in an inherently more uncertain environment. Therefore, the emphasis on the broad range of capabilities that I have outlined and the broad scheme of measures that we have, are going to be the key platforms to raise the industry as a whole. Sure, the companies that are prepared to move further and go faster will receive more support. But that does not mean that we are picking winners. The winners are picking themselves and adapting to our schemes.
I want to emphasise that the impact of such schemes is really significantly amplified when we can get a collaborative effort going. That is why we have stressed the role of trade associations and chambers. We do not want to substitute business judgement or trade associations' and chambers' assessment of market conditions with bureaucratic views. We want it to be a complementary exercise.
One example I want to just share with Members is the logistics industry. Container Depot Association (Singapore) (CDAS) − probably not something that many Members are familiar with. But they have been involved in a major effort in terms of launching electronic container trucking system and they want to track the movement of their trucks, and it is going to enhance their supply chain and how they introduce efficiencies and the way they deploy their fleet and so on. This is an initiative that the CDAS came up with. They worked with SPRING Singapore and they got this executed. We want to see more of this because they understand the need, their members tell them what their issues are, we can appreciate that there may not be enough resources, but that is where we come in and may complement.
Similarly, Singapore Logistics Association (SLA) has made initiatives in terms of going into a new market overseas and how they can help smaller businesses do that and also in the training of our workers.
So, I hope Members would agree with me that there is actually no lack of Government resolve or resources that are available to support our companies, especially our SMEs, make the transformation. But I know that there is a view ‒ and I think many of us have echoed that sentiment here ‒ that the current reality is the issue. We have challenges because of the cost and the pain and so on. The reality is also that the economic situation is variegated. You have sectors like electronics that grew at 15% last year. You have a sector like transport and storage that grew by 2.3% last year. You have a sector like marine and offshore engineering that has contracted for nine successive quarters. How do you come up with a programme that is supposed to help SMEs in all of these, beyond the measures that we have already undertaken?
So, these variations are there because the different sectors face diverse cyclical and structural challenges. For example, lower oil prices ‒ and some might argue that this might be a permanent shift ‒ have changed the demand patterns for the marine and offshore industry. It does not mean that they cannot do business, but they may have to adapt and also look at new opportunities.
The retail industry is going through a major change because of disruptive technology, in particular, e-commerce. In fact, the adoption of e-commerce in Singapore is at a lower rate, compared to many markets around the world. So, if anything, the challenge is going to get greater, not lesser. It would really be quite futile for us to argue that we should resist such an overwhelming system level change, which, in fact, in aggregate, will bring benefits to consumers through businesses that respond to it and adapt to it and to the economy as a whole.
Having said that, I think we are very clear that we recognise that there are immediate challenges that our SMEs are facing and we will continue to provide certain forms of short-term relief where they are necessary and through the system of broad-based support that we have built up over the years. One example is the Wage Credit, the Special Employment Credit and the extension of the additional SEC in this Budget to end of 2019. Collectively, this is about $1 billion in cash pay-outs to businesses in March this year. It is no mean sum. It is a significant outlay from the Government to alleviate some of the cost pressure on our businesses.
Also, in terms of liquidity, we have introduced the SME Working Capital Loan in 2016, which has basically catalysed about $700 million in loans to about 4,300 SMEs. If you go beyond that, and you look at the broader pattern, I think there was some reference to rental and other business costs. I know that this is an area of concern. It comes up in many of our industry engagement exercises. But the reality also is that industrial, retail and office rentals have all deep fallen, and they fell in 2016 as well. And we, on our part, will continue to maintain a steady pipeline of industrial land and space to ensure that there is competitive pressure in the market and rentals remain affordable.
So, let me put it together to say that we have not introduced further broad-based measures because they are not quite warranted and properly not even appropriate for the circumstances that we are in. But have sustained what we already do − in some cases, extended down − and at the same time, put in place additional customised support for specific industries because of the circumstances that are quite divergent. As many Government leaders have said, we will continue to track the situation closely and to intervene where necessary.
So, if I can just give you an example − Marine and Offshore Engineering sector. Last December, we introduced the bridging loans and international finance scheme. It is not a panacea; it is not going to prevent consolidation which will occur to some extent in the industry. But what it will do is help address some of the liquidity issues that some of the strong companies are facing and potentially, also help them get financing for expansion when they go for new projects overseas because there was a general tightening for financing in the sector.
Another example is in the construction industry. It has been weighed down by the property market slowdown and economic uncertainties but we are bringing forward $700 million of public sector infrastructure projects which will start in FY17 and FY18.
These measures are an illustration of the Government responding with a more targeted response and support for SMEs and other businesses. It is a complement to the broad-based measures we already have in place, in response to the varied needs in the economy. And importantly, it is one aspect, even as we look at the longer term challenge and how we need to gear up for that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I can summarise, we have significant opportunities before us. But to seize them, we have to invest in the capabilities of our economy, of our people and our enterprises, and especially so, with our SMEs. The most durable solution really lies in moving up the value chain, innovating, offering products and services that others are not offering, and adopting methods and techniques that will allow us to close some of the big gaps in productivity that we see when compared to international best practices.
As for the Government, we are resolute in our support, through broad-based and targeted programmes, to help our SMEs make the transition successful. We do not engage in the art, or perhaps, Mr Perera thinks it is the science of picking winners, but we will support companies that are prepared to make these important transitions because they see the benefit and they are prepared to take the important steps to move the organisation. In all of these efforts, the SMEs would be our central focus.
Ultimately, creating a vibrant, competitive industry with strong capabilities is the surest way of ensuring success of all our businesses, including the SMEs. And so we look forward to working closely with the trade associations and chambers, and the unions to ensure that we have a diverse enterprise eco-system, from start-ups to SMEs, to large local enterprises, to multi-nationals − we have a thriving SME community, and an economy that is rich with opportunities. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. [Applause]
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, this year's Budget has brought the focus on cost of living issues by way of an increase in water prices amongst other things. This increase comes on the back of a 15%-odd increase in HDB car park charges, higher electricity and gas charges and the announcement of higher Service and Conservancy rates all in the space of about three months. The Straits Times noted that the Government feedback channel REACH had identified cost of living as a key pre-Budget concern among Singaporeans.
I have a few questions for the Government to understand the decision-making processes around the latest round of increases in water prices. The last time an announcement was made to raise water prices in 1997, prices were raised by 120% for households and 30% for industrial and commercial users over a four-year period.
The Government has stated in previous parliamentary replies that it prices water according to its Long-Run Marginal Cost or LMRC. To this end, the water tariff, water conservation tax and used water charges or waterborne fees are priced to reflect the cost of producing the next drop of potable water, which is, I quote, \"is likely to come from desalination and NEWater.\"
In announcing the opening of the fifth NEWater plant last month, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources noted that there has been upward pressure on costs because of increases associated with asset replacement, energy and manpower. Can the Government share details on how the components of Long-Run Marginal Costs for water pricing are computed by the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and how it assesses when to increase the price of water?
Can the Government also clarify if the maintenance and upkeep, and the associated manpower costs of current PUB assets, including thousands of kilometres of transmission networks and so forth, would have already been factored into the calculation of LRMC before the latest round of price hikes? Even so, it would be helpful to understand which variables of LRMC have changed from 1997 when the last price hike was announced, what is the range within each variable, and how often is the LRMC determined or re-determined?
Can the Government also share how much it costs each desalination and NEWater plant to produce water today, especially since some of these plants operate on a private-public partnership basis? How do they compare with plants directly run by the PUB?
Finally, when the PUB refers to the long-run in LRMC, what sort of time horizon is used for projection purposes and what are the population parametres for these projections? Are we looking at 2061 when the Water Agreement with Malaysia comes to an end, or is it when the PUB expects a doubling of Singapore's consumption in absolute terms for a much larger population and when 85% of our needs are projected to be met by NEWater and desalination? If this is so, what are the projections for expected water price hikes as the population grows?
It is noteworthy, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the PUB was able to bring down the cost of NEWater production from 2002 to 2004 from $1.30 to $1.15 per cubic metre as a result of more competitive membrane technologies. In 2003, a Straits Times article quoted then Prime Minister Goh assuring Singaporeans that, and I quote, \"the price of PUB water, which now costs $1.52 a cubic metre, would stay below $2 for some time, reversing all earlier projections. The sums were redone because desalinating sea water was cheaper than thought; and NEWater, even cheaper to produce.\"
The same year, it was reported that the Tuas desalination plant desalinates water at the cost of $0.78 per cubic metre. This compared very favourably against about $0.90 per cubic metre produced by the Ashkelon desalination plant in Israel, considered in 2003 to be the one of the cheapest producers of desalinated water. In 2008, Sembcorp, which secured the bid to design, build, own and operate the fifth and largest NEWater plant, submitted a first-year price of about $0.30 to produce a cubic metre of NEWater. A 2011 Business Times' report also noted that Singapore would produce the world's cheapest desalinated water by 2013. How does the PUB adjust its Long-Run Marginal Cost projections with the advent of new technology so as to keep water prices affordable and to keep its profits within reasonable limits, on an on-going basis?
From parliamentary replies in the past, it would appear that energy is the real cost variable that can be difficult to track with a sufficient degree of accuracy. In view of the lower cost of producing water over the years, can the Government reveal how much NEWater and desalination costs have fluctuated over the years as a result of energy prices?
In 2008, the Siemens Water Technologies Team was awarded a $4 million grant from the Environment and Water Industry Development Council (EWI) for successfully designing a more energy efficient desalinisation technique which produced a cubic metre of drinking water on 1.5 kWh of power as compared to PUB's current desalination method using 3.5 kWh per cubic metre. In addition, the 2015 PUB annual report highlights PUB's collaboration with a US water technology company which has piloted electro-deionisation technology which has achieved reductions in energy consumption in the desalination process by more than 50%, and this pilot would be expanded in 2016. Can the Government share details of this project and its prospects going forward?
Separately, Mr Deputy Speaker, the announcement of an increase in water tariffs bookends a two-odd year period when Singaporeans were repeatedly reminded of water scarcity issues as a result of very low water levels in the Linggui reservoir in Malaysia, a water supply source five times the size of all of Singapore's reservoirs. At the start of each respective year, the water levels were at 84% in 2015, 49% in 2016 and 27% in 2017. We have been informed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in response to a Parliamentary Question in January this year that there is a significant risk of the water levels in the Linggui Reservoir falling to 0% this year should there be a dry spell in Johor.
In view of the low water levels in the Linggui Reservoir from 2015 onwards in particular, how often has Singapore drawn less than the 250 million gallons a day it is legally entitled to under the 1962 Water Agreement and what has been Singapore's average daily rate of abstraction from the Linggui Reservoir since 2014? To that end, what role, if any, have the low water levels in the Linggui Reservoir played in the latest water price revision especially since the Government's position as late as 2013 confirmed no need to raise water prices?
In the middle of last year, on the back of the Singapore International Water Week, a PUB official stated that should the Linggui Reservoir fail, there ought to be no cause for panic in Singapore as there were new and indigenous capacities in Singapore to meet such a contingency in the form of NEWater and desalination. However, the Minister of Foreign Affairs only last month stated that the failure of the Linggui Reservoir would cause severe problems for Singapore and Malaysia. Can the Government elaborate what are its contingency plans in the event of such an eventuality? Do these contingencies include the possibility of another rise in water prices, especially the water conservation tax since its policy rationale is aimed at reminding the taxpayer about the importance of saving water and separately, to account for the Long-Run Marginal Cost of desalination and NEWater? That would also prompt a corollary question as to whether the latest water price revision was set with a view to account for the complete failure of the Linggui Reservoir.
Even so, in the middle of 2016, it was reported that Johor was studying plans to divert water from two rivers into the Linggui Reservoir. The first proposal was to build a low wall to channel about 50mgd of water from the Sayong River catchment area at the cost of about RM$250 million. The second plan called for the building of a dam at the Ulu Sedili Besar River to transfer about 110mgd to the Johor River at the cost of RM$660 million.
At the end of the last Leaders Retreat between Prime Ministers Lee and Najib in December last year, it was reported that Malaysia was looking at measures to increase the supply of water at the Linggui Reservoir.
Can the Government comment, in the event Malaysia successfully diverts water to the Linggui Reservoir allowing Singapore to draw its full entitlement of 250mgd or more, would such an outcome end up reducing the price of water for consumers in Singapore? And if so, would Singapore consider co-funding the diversion of the two rivers or re-negotiating some aspects of the Water Agreement with a win-win prospect in mind especially since Singapore has not hesitated to supply Malaysia with more treated water than it is required to in its time of need particularly in times of drought and over the Ramadan period last year?
This brings me to my final point about the public messaging on water conservation policies and the outcomes the Government seeks from the water conservation tax and how these outcomes can be improved. About a month before the 2015 General Elections, the Prime Minister said, \"In Singapore, water will always be a precious resource. Never take it for granted or waste it.\"
In the middle of last year, on the back of the Singapore International Water Week in a piece entitled \"How Singapore Will Never Go Thirsty\", the PUB CEO announced that Singapore, in spite of being water-poor, had \"significantly overcome the challenge of water scarcity\" and later that \"Singapore is not short on water\".
While I understand the PUB official was showcasing to an international audience the good work over many decades of our water specialists, there is a risk that over amplifying self-sufficiency can have a dampening effect on efforts to encourage water conservation. The fact is self-sufficiency comes at a high price for the consumer.
In fact, Singapore's per capita water consumption rates have been dropping steadily from 2005 when it was 162 litres per day to 151 litres per day today. It would appear that the answer to the question of whether we can reduce consumption without price increases is a yes − perhaps not as resounding a yes as the experts would wish for − but a yes nonetheless. Even with our hot and humid climate and cultural practice of not using dishwashers, perhaps as a result of the spices, sauces and seasonings in Asian cooking, progress on water conservation has been steady and continuous. Rather than to look solely at water pricing to promote conservation, the Government should look at new policies further tightening regulations on the sale of sanitary appliances such as mixers and shower heads which discharge excessive water, so as to nudge consumers to use more water-saving appliances.
Some experts have also proposed pricing strategies used elsewhere like in Spain which hosts a price structure that provides for a 10% rebate should a household's water consumption pattern show a 10% decrease compared to the year before.
What these creative pricing strategies suggest is the prospect of a different approach towards water conservation taxes to promote a more efficient usage of water. We already see PUB nudging Singaporeans in this direction by informing consumers of the consumption patterns of their neighbours and the national average in our monthly bills. What may truly push a renewed commitment to a water conservation drive is to significantly alter a consumer behaviour towards a tax regime that differentiates between efficient and inefficient usage of water by lowering taxes for consumers who use less water.
For example, a household of four which meets the national average consumption can have their water conservation tax remain at the current 30% of the tariff rate. Depending on additional usage, PUB could establish an ascending or descending scale relative to consumption. This has better prospects for water conservation as real savings would be given to individual households, building on the current two-tiered approach between households that consume more or less than 40 cubic meters of waters. This approach would also be more targeted and would cohere with the objective of saving water as opposed to the Budget announcement which bluntly increases the water conservation tax from 30% to 50%, and 35% to 65% for all households.
To conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, a piece in The Straits Times last week argued that the water price only reflected the reality of increasing water stress worldwide and that bigger hikes were needed to curb wastage. The comments to that story were unexpectedly, rather animated. I believe a deeper explanation from the Government about how it prices water and its long-run cost imperatives would enable the public to better understand and rationalise this water hike in addition to improving public understanding on this issue.
This would be important as the water price hike occurred on the back of many other municipal prices increases which could arguably have been better phased to reduce the impact on the average Singaporean for whom cost of living concerns are an increasing issue. There remain concerns among Singaporeans who fear the knock-on effect of the water price hike on daily necessities and I hope the Government will address this point too. Thank you.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be proceeded with beyond the moment of interruption.\" − [Mr Chan Chun Sing]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Debate on Annual Budget Statement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMr Leon Perera, you wish to raise a clarification?
Mr Leon Perera:\tI would like to make some clarificatory points to the Minister for Trade and Industry.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tYou are asking to raise a clarification about the Minister's speech?
Mr Leon Perera:\tYes.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tOkay. Please note that you are not supposed to raise new matters in the speech.
Mr Leon Perera:\tSure. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me a chance to make a few points. I would like to thank the Minister for Trade and Industry for his detailed and comprehensive talk on the schemes available to SMEs. My first point is really on the results of these schemes. There are many and various schemes and some of these schemes have had precursors, for example −
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tMr Leon, I need to interrupt you. You are not supposed to raise new matters. If you want to raise a clarification about the Minister's speech, raise the clarification but do not make another speech, please.
Mr Leon Perera: Okay. So, my clarificatory point would be: does the Government actually track how many SMEs take advantage of these schemes and grow, and stop becoming SMEs and actually become global companies? Is there a number to that? Are those results being tracked? And if in fact those results are tracked and those results are not good, then would that not suggest that there is a role for the Government to take a more active stance in grooming these companies?
The second point is relating to funding. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any data from SMEs through surveys and other means to suggest that the funding needs that they have are being sufficiently met by existing schemes and by other funding providers within the funding ecosystem. Because I certainly do hear feedback that the funding needs are not fully met. And would the Minister not acknowledge that if so, would there not be a role for the Government to actually be more interventionist to provide funding at higher levels of caps for those SMEs which have self-selected themselves by demonstrating a track record of results as opposed to SMEs who remain SMEs for decades.
My third point is really on the issue of long-termism, which I raised. People will not become entrepreneurs if they feel that, structurally and culturally, the environment is not conducive to SMEs. There are many schemes, there have been in the past. But some of these schemes have limits. Some of these schemes will be phased out in the future, in the way that the PIC is being tapered down, for example. Some of the current schemes will be phased out. That may affect the willingness of the people to become entrepreneurs because there may be many schemes on the table now, but in 10 years, those schemes may be phased out.
It is in that context that I raised land cost, funding and the overall culture. So, what would be the Government's strategy to address that fundamental structural impediment to entrepreneurship? Thank you.
Mr S Iswaran: Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his range of questions. If I may take the last one first. If somebody becomes an entrepreneur because he wants Government schemes and support, then that is probably the wrong starting point, if I may respectfully suggest. I think the starting point for any entrepreneur is really in deciding that he or she has a strong value proposition, a passion to grow something, and then they go out there and make it happen. Indeed, we have many outstanding examples of entrepreneurs who have done exactly that. Along the way, yes, they benefit from certain Government support schemes. But I think we should not put the cart before the horse. The Government cannot mandate entrepreneurship. We cannot force entrepreneurship. It has to come from the individuals who have the motivation to make it happen. Our schemes can enable but they can never be a fool-proof support system for this.
I think the other points that the Member has made − what are the results of the various schemes? We track them. If there is one thing that we do rigorously is that we track the take-up rates, the outcomes, the KPIs associated with any programme that we introduce. But I would say that the Member raised the point − how many take up the scheme, how many globally competitive companies were created, and so on. So, let me take a couple of those points.
How many take up the scheme? We can initiate the schemes. We can create channels and make it easier for companies to find out about the schemes. We have got SME Centres. Mr Thomas Chua will tell Members that SCCCI has got one of the most active SME Centres in Singapore, and we find a plethora of ways of communicating. But at the end of the day, the take-up rate rests with the individual companies. Minimally, you have to make the effort to find out what it is that is available, what are my needs, where is the match, and how do I get it. And you do not need to do it alone because we have the SME Centres. Even our economic agencies are prepared to work with them.
As for the rate at which we get globally competitive companies, if I may draw Members' attention, in the ERC report, there was a goal to have 1,000 companies that cross the $100-million turnover mark by the end of this decade. That was an important directional goal because it is to set a sense of the scale of ambition that we have, and it is something that we continue to monitor. I would say that on balance, we are on track to getting there. Now, whether we will actually hit a thousand or not, I think it remains to be seen because there are many factors beyond our control. But the general directional push is very clear and we have in fact seen that grow.
But let me make one other point. Ultimately, whether we end up having a local enterprise that becomes a global champion, again, cannot rest just with the Government, because we have many instances where companies grow and when they reach a certain stage, they get a very tempting offer from either a fund or some larger company and they sell out. Do we then say that our effort has failed or do we say then that, well, this is the realities of the market and we have to live with it because there will be some of this development.
In Israel, for example, they are known as a start-up nation because they generate tremendous amount of knowledge which generate in many start-up companies. But ask yourself the question. In Israel, is it a scale-up nation and how far do they go in scaling up? In fact, I think the Israelis themselves will tell you that this is one of their main focal points − how do we get our companies to scale up − because that creates the next level of depth in the economy and the capabilities that we seek.
As for funding needs, my general point would be this. I have never been in a conversation where companies or enterprises tell me that funding is completely met because the need is always there, there are different kinds of needs. You have a spectrum of funding providers in the market, whether it is Government schemes and grants, obviously, and then Government-supported schemes, whether it is venture capital, angel funding and so on. And it goes right through to private equity and then larger scale and, of course, you can then tap public markets, and now we got a lot more crowd-funding platforms.
So, actually, there are a lot of mechanisms available but there will always be mismatches or gaps because the needs and the market situation keep changing. And that is why, ultimately, what is required is not so much about Government intervening by providing the lending solution per se, but it is to keep track of the situation, understanding whether this is a regulatory impediment, or a market failure, or is this because we are not getting the relevant players around the table to understand the issues and then deal with it.
A case in point is what we are doing with the infrastructure financing I elaborated on, because for the smaller businesses in the infrastructure space, this was a real issue. Big banks and other funds, when they typically do financing for infrastructural projects, they do project financing, but they need big ticket numbers, they need a billion dollar project and above because it does not justify the level of work. So, the easy way out when you are dealing with smaller companies, or the one way to mitigate the risk, is to say I need personal guarantees and corporate guarantees, which immediately shackles the company in terms of how far it can go.
So, we have tried to come in with this scheme. This is after consultation with all the key players − the banks, the industry, companies and so on. And we will have to see whether it takes off, how successful it would be and whether there is a need to recalibrate.
The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Heng Chee How): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me to join the debate on this year's Budget.
The Labour Movement, representing working people of all collars and ages, looks at this Budget with keen interest. We strongly believe that if we as a country and as tripartite partners set our sights high, put our shoulders to the wheel, persist through difficulties and setbacks with courage and not lose heart, we will get lead our people to a better future. That said, we must indeed expect significant difficulties in the economic and job transformation journey.
Over the decades, the economy, job types and workforce structure of Singapore have all become more diverse. Consequently, the needs, hopes, fears and prospects of the working people in Singapore have become more segmented as well. The traditional blue-collar and white-collar workers are increasingly joined by highly skilled professionals on one hand, and workers of the gig economy on the other. The typical workforce comprise workers across widening age bands and multiple nationalities. The lines between these different groups have become more porous, sometimes due to choice and at other times, owing to circumstances such as restructuring. This renders social mobility more fluid in both directions.
Both the corporate sector and Singaporeans at large tended to read and rely on the choices and signals by Government to guide their education and career decisions. This is fine when things are stable and predictable. In an environment that is more likely uncertain and fast-changing, how should companies and workers sensibly decide on their steps and paths?
My fellow Labour Members will elaborate on the various segments of the working population that they are championing. For me, my speech today will focus on the economic transformation aspects of the Budget and on the impact on mature workers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, when the Committee for the Future Economy (CFE) was set up last year, some people took the view that it was for the Committee to produce magic bullets that would take away the stress of transformation and yet produce a quantum leap in business outcomes and living standards.
Thus, when the CFE issued its report earlier this month, we hear comments that the strategies sounded somewhat generic, and that there were no clear magic bullets. They then pinned their hopes on the Budget.
When the Budget was announced last week, we again hear people saying that they wished for more painkillers for the immediate strain and that the path toward transformation is still not set out clearly enough. I believe this reaction reflects a mismatch of expectations, mindset and capability.
Last Friday, I attended the third annual Projects of the Year Awards presented by the Singapore Chapter of the Project Management Institute (SPMI), a body whose membership comprise project management professionals.
The leadership of the SPMI shared with me developments in their profession. They told me that if one goes back in time, project managers are deemed good if they are able to execute to a given plan, within time and budget. For that, they would be deemed to be good. But that is no longer the case.
Clients today look for much more from project managers. They expect such managers to not only execute well, within time and budget, but also be able to add value and create value up and downstream from their traditional work − in areas of coordination, integration and unleashing synergy.
Those who can do so have developed capabilities and connections both broadly and deeply, which they then leverage to good effect. They are valuable to clients and are in strong demand. On the other hand, those who can still only execute conscientiously to a plan given to them will see their relative value decline, and the need for their services progressively supplanted by re-design and technology.
This account mirrors that heard in many other forums, across different professions and industries. What does this tell us?
To me, this means that life will no longer get better just by executing someone's plan conscientiously. That was value, but that was past value. The bar has already been raised.
Going forward, we must focus on leadership that can skillfully and effectively work the white space between boxes marked \"Funding\", \"Schemes\", \"Regulations\", \"New Technology\" and the such, bring them together in order to develop the critical partnership capabilities and reflexes needed to produce innovative and valuable new platforms, products and services.
If we understand this, then we will also understand that much needs to be done to move us from a traditional \"execute to a given plan\" mindset to a leadership mindset. In other words, it is akin to moving from being a chess piece to being a chess player, and a strong one.
Therefore, even as I support and commend this year's Budget for adding another $2.4 billion in CFE-related funding over the coming four years on top of the $4.5 billion that was already set aside in last year's Budget for the Industry Transformation Programme (ITP), I want to emphasise the importance of implementing the Industrial Transformation Maps and in building leadership and partnership reflexes and capability in the Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs), and the Tripartite Partners.
This is because ITMs, whatever their details, will begin to be outdated the moment they are defined. Therefore, we must not delude ourselves into believing that submitting or approving a ITM, or even in implementing fully an approved ITM, would suffice. Indeed, we must see ITMs as Dynamic ITMs, ever changing, never ending, always adjusting, because the underlying forces are such.
In a sense, we have to complement once-in-seven or 10-year Economic Committees such as the ERC or the CFE with a decentralised yet capably led, continuously adaptive, responsive, innovative partnership structure that is alive and that goes on all the time, with all the partners that I have mentioned drawing upon all the resources there are. The point I want to emphasise is, many Members have spoken about the different schemes, whether or not there is a plethora of them, whether or not any particular one is sufficient or not. These are the boxes. But I think it is really in how you draw all these boxes together, whether as an individual, as a firm, across clusters, in partnership. That is the one that will create that value.
Thus, \"Building Agility through Capabilities and Partnerships\" as highlighted in the Budget Speech, especially through strengthening sectoral tripartism, would be critical. In this regard, the scope of the SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative should not only build skills for operating internationally, but also build \"white space leadership and partnership capabilities\", which I deem to be equally important.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move now to the topic of mature workers.
Even though mature workers welcome the raising of the re-employment age ceiling from 65 to 67 that will happen from July this year, many are worried about their Job Security. They see that in industries where demand has dropped significantly, companies had begun to shed workers, both foreign and local. They therefore worry if they would be axed next, and whether they would be unfairly targeted for termination or retrenchment on account of their age or because they are deemed to be more costly.
In this regard, the Labour Movement and tripartite partners are monitoring the situation closely. The tripartite partners have long agreed that mature workers, including re-employed workers, are not to be targeted for discriminatory retrenchment or termination. Companies tackling excess manpower are to abide by the relevant Tripartite Guidelines, which emphasised that such action should be based on how workers demonstrate capability and value on the job, rather than on age, gender or other arbitrary non-work criteria.
On the Government's part, the extension of the Special Employment Credit and the Additional Special Employment Credit, being wage subsidies to companies to lower the cost of employing mature workers, will help address cost differentials between older and younger workers in the same jobs, and in this period, particularly pertinent.
As stated by the Finance Minister in his Budget speech, \"To help firms with rising wages, more than $600 million will be paid out in March 2017 under the on-going Wage Credit Scheme, while more than $300 million will be paid out in FY2017 to benefit 370,000 workers under the Special Employment Credit (SEC).
The Additional SEC will also be extended till 31 December to provide wage offsets of up to 3% to help older workers stay employed. The extension will benefit about 120,000 workers and 55,000 employers, at a cost of about $160 million.
Taken together with the SEC, employers will receive support of up to 11% for the wages of their eligible older workers\",
This wage subsidy for mature workers in a slower economy helps boost their cost-competitiveness, and the Labour Movement is grateful to Government for that.
Older workers who feel that they have been unfairly targeted for retrenchment or job termination can seek help from the unions, TAFEP or the MOM.
Every effort will be made by the tripartite partners to help displaced workers of all ages find new jobs, whether in the current line of work or, through conversion, to other lines of work. We must not under-estimate the ability and will of mature workers to adapt and grow. Many have shown by example their resilience, and have demonstrated reliability and openness to learning new skills. Those who adopted a flexible attitude helped themselves seize opportunities faster.
Government has also introduced or enhanced initiatives that help displaced mature workers get back into work more quickly. These included improvements to the Adapt and Grow Programme and related schemes such as the Career Support Programme, the Professional Conversion Programme, the Work Trial Programme and the Attach and Train Programme.
I draw attention especially to two elements in these programmes which are very important. The first is developing a keener sense of where the jobs are today and where they will be in the future. The second is the wage and training support within these programmes.
These are critical ingredients especially when helping middle age workers transit and adapt to structural shifts in the economy. While displaced mature workers want to get back into work quickly, they also have many commitments to meet. In such a situation, many risk becoming structurally unemployed or underemployed, if they hold out for too long or if they do not get the offers. The help with adaption and job matching must seek to minimise such risks.
On the Labour Movement's part, the NTUC has set up a unit called the Future Jobs, Skills & Training (FJST) Unit to integrate and maximise our efforts, as well as to complement those of our tripartite partners. As an example, we believe that as the mature workforce will be a growing part of the local working population, it is important for ITMs to include plans to fully utilise and continual sharpen this resource − and to do so within the ITMs as part of strategy, rather than as an accommodation or afterthought.
At the same time, companies must be reminded that should they lose experienced manpower because of lowered demand, they will find it harder to recruit such manpower quickly when the demand returns. They will then constrain their own prospects for growth. So, please do not under-estimate the value of an experienced worker.
This is also a time and opportunity for the HR profession to step up and help companies maximise the contribution of their human capital, beyond just making tactical moves. In this regard, I urge the HR profession to pro-actively and seriously support and adopt the recommendations of the HR Sectoral Tripartite Committee and initiatives under the MOM's Human Capital Programme (HCP).
Mr Deputy Speaker, the future is full of danger and uncertainty. That same future is also full of opportunity, promise and prospects. The paths we choose and the actions we take, individually and jointly, will decide our chances of success. We must not drop the ball. I support the Budget.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to start my speech in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Deputy Speaker, during the earlier debate, Mr Dennis Tan could have given the impression that with the increase in water tariffs, the additional U-save rebates could only help the minority of Singaporeans, while middle income Singaporeans, in particular, might not receive much help from the U-save rebates. In reality, however, the U-save rebates will indeed help to buffer the impact of higher water tariffs for most Singaporeans.
How is this so? According to PUB's analysis, Singaporeans living in one- to two-room HDB flat will not see any increase in their water bill after factoring the U-save rebates, while Singaporeans living in 4-room HDB flats will only see a small increase of $5 per month. For 75% of shop owners, they will only see an increase of $25 in their monthly water bill after tariffs go up. Companies can also tap into the Water Efficiency Fund to install water-saving devices to mitigate over the longer run price increases.
I hope the above explanation can clarify our understanding about U-Save rebates.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to continue in English. This year's Budget seeks to position Singapore to be \"future-ready\" to meet the challenges of a future filled with uncertainties and opportunities. Together with the Committee on the Future Economy report, it identifies how Singapore and Singaporeans can navigate the seismic economic and technological shifts. Being nimble and adaptable to change are the names of the new game.
Everyone knows that this change is inevitable. But the breakneck pace of change is almost unforeseen for many. The Fourth Industrial Revolution is well under way. The race for artificial intelligence had actually started quite a few years ago. The speed of innovation brings the \"future\" much closer. Our workers and companies need to be future-ready. In fact, for some of them, they actually need to be \"now-ready\". How do we gear them up for this so that they can seize the opportunities of tomorrow today? Whether we succeed in this economic transformation or not, we cast our lot with our millennials and Generation Z. They are at the threshold of opportunities unseen in a century. Yet, the job search has also become more trying. And, in itself, that causes them worry.
There are three major challenges confronting them. Firstly, it is less about what to study and what skills to master, but more of what would keep them relevant. In essence, what to invest their time in. Secondly, it is not so much about having no job but which job would allow them to build up their careers and life journey. In short, how do they go about navigating the shifting turbulence of the new job market? Thirdly, businesses are placing greater importance on work experience, on top of academic qualifications. The latter is what new graduates and first career Singaporeans would not have.
I believe that there are three ways to tackle these challenges. I believe that helping younger Singaporeans and workers is no longer about a massively sophisticated blueprint. The speed of change certainly defeats the best intents of such blueprints. It should be a system where young workers help one another to navigate in this new economy. So, how would this work?
Allow me to share the story of 23-year-old Yam Su Xian who was looking for a job, and 38-year-old Zuhaina Ahmad who heads business support in her company. Su Xian was a Business Management major who was finding it difficult to land her first job. She sent out many job applications but could not find any positive responses. Zuhaina was a pioneer career guide in Young NTUC's Youth Career Network (YCN) programme. She volunteered to pay-it-forward to help others who might have struggled as she did in her earlier years.
Through the YCN engagement sessions, Su Xian better understood the different jobs that would suit her skills and personality. Zuhaina then helped Su Xian to build and enhance her resume. They worked together to create a LinkedIn profile to boost her visibility to prospective employers. Every day, she suggested to Su Xian on how to expand her network to enhance her job opportunities. They worked together on boosting Su Xian's self-confidence. Su Xian eventually found a position as an accounts officer. She recounted, after getting a job, \"I was alone by myself with friends on different paths. Some of them had already found jobs, some were holidaying and others were still studying. I was on my own until I found out about career mentoring with the Youth Career Network.\"
YCN empowers youths to take up ownership in charting their own career journey. With no fees and not limited to any Institute of Higher Learning, the YCN is accessible to all. We can see from Su Xian's story that we saw neither blueprint nor career counsellors. The programme worked because Zuhaina wanted to pay-it-forward and Su Xian found help that was current, personal and approachable.
We can and should invest in such mutual help platforms to unleash the collective strength and potential of Singaporeans. The system is almost future-proof because there will always be people like Zuhaina and Su Xian who are leaders in their own industries keen to help, and young people who need them. A networked system of mentors like Zuhaina could potentially serve more students and Singaporeans than physical career centres would ever do. If we can expand this programme, it would be more than building mentoring networks but also about the strengthening of community bonds amongst Singaporeans. In doing so, we can continue to leverage on the extensive network of the Labour Movement. Then, it can truly be the Singapore Career Network.
Now, let me move on to the National Jobs Bank and the National Talent Bank. The National Jobs Bank has helped many Singaporeans to find work. It puts in one convenient location, the job vacancies available in Singapore. It also allows for the analysis of jobs and skills trends. Going forward, we would need a National Talent Bank where jobseekers and would-be jobseekers can access conveniently, to be headhunted for jobs. This system should also include networking features like those on LinkedIn and Facebook. The National Talent Bank also allows us to analyse the deficit between national skills, competencies and what is required in our economy. As we go global, international companies should now know where a good place is to reach out for Singaporean talent. The current job sites are specific industry-focused and tend to be used mostly by professionals. Hence, I encourage the Government to work with private sector companies, such as LinkedIn and Monster.com, for example, to develop such solutions on a national level.
Next, I would like to turn our attention to the \"gig economy\" as the third leg of the proposals. The recent Graduate Employment Survey (GES) showed a growing emergence of a \"gig economy\". These part-time and freelance jobs will increasingly become more prevalent as both employer and employee can react to economic changes better. This \"gig economy\" can be an important feature in managing structural changes in the economy. It also helps in continuous learning and being entrepreneurial. However, it cannot develop without stronger workplace protection and retirement support. We need a robust network to protect freelancers and the employers hiring them, giving them a sustaining ecosystem to grow. With the three proposals above, I believe that we can better help our younger Singaporeans navigate in these times of rapid technological and economic changes.
I would like to shift our attention now to empowering our women to get back to work. I applaud the Government for announcing the Attach and Train Programme. I think that it can be a real boost for back-to-work women.
A recent small-scale online poll by NTUC U Family done on stay-at-home women who plan to get back to work revealed that out of 564 female respondents, 94% are between the age of 25 and 54 years old which is in the prime working age. Of those in this age group, a significant majority (73%) are Diploma and Degree holders. More than 60% of them intend to work within the year, while others (20% or more) wish to do so within the next one to two years. Most of them would like to start immediately if there is a trial work option. That is immense latent talent waiting to be tapped upon.
NTUC recommends a Returnship Programme as a bridge to help women get back to work again. The programme targets women who are looking to re-join the workforce, and for employers to offer them a two to four months paid trial period. It provides a trial for both the employee and the employer to ascertain job fit. The goal is to place them in a permanent role in the same company or another company. The chances of a good match would be much higher if we have work flexibility built in the system as well. We should start with companies which have vacancies, or even a company whose workers are on temporary leave and need workers for the interim period, for example, employees on maternity leave. As the largest employer in Singapore, we hope that the Public Service Division can take the lead in actively looking at offering these back-to-work individuals career trial opportunities. We also hope that the Government Linked Companies (GLCs) can also answer the nation's call.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the crux of our economic transformation depends on a populace equipped to navigate and seize the skills and opportunities of tomorrow. No one entity can claim to have the monopoly of knowledge in this complex world to drive this change on its own anymore. But, together, we can build good platforms to nurture higher probabilities of good outcomes. With this, I support the Budget. Thank you.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget.
I have been making rounds in my constituency in the last couple of weeks and have been reading the local and regional news with regard to the water tariff. The concerns of our people and businesses are understandable, given the current economic challenge. And much has been said about this issue, both in and outside of the Chamber. Nevertheless, it is sometimes useful to take a view from outside Singapore. For example, how do our competitors see us?
The South China Morning Post, widely seen as Hong Kong's flagship English newspaper and not always a fan of Singapore, recently carried this headline: \"Can Hong Kong follow Singapore's lead in water tariffs?\" In its sub headline, the report noted: \"Among Asia's metropolises, Hong Kong is stuck with frozen tariff rates that are hurting water conservation efforts\".
The report said experts are calling for Hong Kong and other Asian cities to follow Singapore's lead. The South China Morning Post quoted experts from the UN and think tanks, who called for countries to invest more in water infrastructure, reduce water wastage by reflecting the real cost of water, while insulating the vulnerable from the impact ‒ all of which the Singapore Government is doing. The South China Morning Post's views are also shared by leading water experts, such as Prof Asit Biswas and Robert Brears.
Indeed, the challenges of pricing water right to ensure access amidst climate change are not unique to Singapore. We must deal with them decisively while taking care of our vulnerable. And in this debate on this issue today, it is important that we separate facts from fiction, and reality from perception.
Therefore, I am heartened to hear our Government's recent clarification which directly addresses the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan's concern that the additional usage rebates will limit the impact on low-income and middle-income households. Families in one- and two-room HDB flats will, on average, see no net increases, and families living in a typical four-room HDB flat will see a $5 extra on average. I am also concerned about the impact on the hawkers in my constituency, which affects the cost of living. So, I took a look at their water bills. I saw today a bill for an entire coffee shop with six stalls. On average, each stall is using around 50 cubic meters of water a month, which costs around $100. With the new water tariff, each stall will see an increase of around $30 a month. So, while there is an increase, it is unclear that it will lead to a significant increase in the cost of living.
I am also relieved to hear that three in four businesses will see an increase of less than $25 a month, which also addresses Mr Dennis Tan's concern. Nevertheless, I call for the Government to continue monitoring the situation, both for individuals and businesses, to see whether further tweaks are necessary.
Mr Deputy Speaker, now that the CFE and Budget have mapped out the broad directions ahead for our economy, I would like to focus my Budget speech on how to best execute our plans for the CFE, and about creating a gig economy for our senior workers.
Recently, I had breakfast with a senior retired official who worked for Mr Goh Keng Swee. I asked him what did he learn working for Mr Goh Keng Swee. He thought for a while and quoted Mr Goh, \"Don't tell me the why. I know the why. Tell me the how. Tell me how you are going to get this done.\" Indeed, many retired senior officials whom I spoke to shared the same view ‒ what separates Singapore from the rest is our focus on getting things done quietly, efficiently and quickly.
One, a strong national coordination body. To implement our decade-long CFE strategy, we will be well served by a strong national coordinating body. This coordinating body, like the CFE Committee itself, should comprise not just our civil service officials, but also key union leaders, business leaders, and educators. This coordinating body will serve as a strong centre to oversee our Ministries' efforts to translate broad strategies into detailed plans, regularly review the progress made, incorporate good ideas and seek out industry proposals along the way, and communicate to all stakeholders annually on where we are, and where we must go.
The current National Productivity Council could serve as a basis for this coordinating body. Why is this high level of coordination and communication necessary? The answer is simple. To fundamentally transform our economy, we need to go beyond the whole of Government approach. In fact, we need our Government to move as one, we need a whole of nation effort.
Two, our Industry transformation maps (ITMs) must contain bold ideas. The premise of the ITMs is this: each industry requires bespoke solutions to achieve deep transformation. So, I hope that we must be fully prepared to remove policy sacred cows when necessary.
If the new plans for the industries end up not differing from existing plans, and if many of our ITMs look too similar, then we should question whether we are fully stretching our imagination and aspirations. Some say there is no Big Bang in the CFE. But I feel that it is no longer sufficient to push for a single Big Bang industry. Our Government must, however, light 23 bright sparks with each of the 23 ITMs. And our industries must turn these bright sparks into a brighter future for all.
My third point about the CFE is that we must start our transformation quickly. We should roll out our ITMs as quickly as we can, far earlier than the proposed deadline of end of this financial year. The ITMs are supposed to rally their respective industries. Many businesses, stuck in the trenches of disruption, are looking for direction amidst the storm. Not all of them found clarity for their sector, in the measures provided in this Budget.
But it does not mean that help for them is lacking. In fact, I am heartened to hear that considerable resources are set aside for our industries − close to $7 billion for the whole CFE, including $4.5 billion for the Industry Transformation Program.
When we can translate this significant budgetary firepower, into concrete policies industry by industry, policies that our businesses and people can touch and feel, they will naturally gain the quiet confidence that the future is bright for all.
Also, rolling out our ITMs quickly provide much needed clarity to the supporting CFE's efforts. For example, in this Chamber, we frequently talk about using our SkillsFuture funds efficiently. But it is not easy for our officials in SkillsFuture, or any other CPE supporting efforts, to make concrete plans until they know the precise direction that we want to take each industry to. So, therefore, a quick rollout of our ITMs is critical.
In summary, to execute our plans, we need a strong centre to pull everybody together, we need bold plans to transform each and every of the 23 industries, and we must provide our industries with quick and clear directions.
Now, I would like to talk about a separate point − creating a gig economy for our seniors. When I spoke to our seniors about the CFE, they are not sure how they fit in the future economy. Today, we already have forward-looking policies for our senior workers, such as our Senior Employment Credit, and our Retirement and Re-employment Act. Nevertheless, there is room to do more. In fact, I think there is room for our Government to catalyse a gig economy for our seniors, by creating micro-jobs.
Despite legislation, it is hard for us to fully remove ageism, especially towards seniors above 67. Many companies, especially in tough times, are not willing to take the risk of hiring, or even retaining senior workers. This issue would be more serious over time as we continue our restructuring, and as our workforce continues to age.
The gig economy can help us combat ageism. Compared to companies, consumers using the gig economy are far less willing to discriminate. What do I mean? A good example is Uber. Through technology, Uber empowers hearing-impaired drivers to work in the car using Uber app. Other examples include delivery services such as Honest Bee, Food Panda, and Deliveroo, show that our consumers are less interested in discriminating, on who shows up on the door, as long as that person can do that one-off \"micro-job\" well.
So, how can the Government create a gig economy for our seniors? By doing three things: one, creating micro-jobs for our seniors starting with those in the social services. Two, creating a national digital platform and app, and three, equipping our seniors to do these micro-jobs through SkillsFuture.
Let me use the example of delivery of home-based health care. Today, we sometimes send two nurses to visit patients, many of whom are bedridden or have mobility challenges. Why cannot we cut down to one nurse instead, and then hire a trained senior, living in a nearby block or street, to assist such as carrying the patient and assist in wound dressing.
There are many seniors living in our midst who can qualify to do such micro-jobs. How do we page for these seniors? Simple. Through a gig economy app that the Government creates, perhaps by working with our start-ups. How do we prepare our seniors for these micro-jobs? Through SkillsFuture, of course. How do we ensure quality of service by these seniors? Through the apps that ask for feedback from the nurses, and may be even the patient.
Imagine the vast possibilities. What if we certify some of our able grandmothers to provide infant care service for a few infants at their home, or retired teachers to provide after school care for a few students at home? What if we equip our seniors to provide care-giving or respite care to their neighbours? How many purpose built infant care, after school care centres, and respite care centres can we end up not building?
When I talk to public officials or VWO leaders about this idea, they get it. But they also confide that they cannot do it alone. That is why we need the Government to spearhead a gig economy for our seniors, using social services as a start.
We can even extend this to the private sector, for example in food service. There is already a company that hires retired prata-makers today, and deploy them to meet shift gaps throughout Singapore. So, we can also help our seniors to find micro-jobs in the food service industry in their own neighbourhoods. We can also even extend this to stay-at-home mothers and special-needs workers to find micro-jobs nearby.
Now, what about meeting the practical realities like CPF contributions, or verifying who is eligible for what micro-jobs? These can be easily done, by inserting lines of code, to wire micro-contributions to one's CPF account, and to check out our seniors' SkillsFuture individual learning portfolio. In short, in this digital age, data is the new invisible hand. We should fully tap on data; combine it with our social policies, to orchestrate our economy and society of the future.
In closing, creating a gig economy for our seniors benefits Singapore. It can erase ageism. It can put money directly in the hands of our seniors. It can cut down on unnecessary manpower including foreign manpower. And it can help reduce our social spending. Therefore I call for the creation of a national digital initiative for our seniors involving our social services Ministries, VWOs, and SkillsFuture. It will take a few years to get this done, so I hope we can start soon. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in full support of the Budget. Thank you.
Mr Lee Yi Shyan (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, one theme that stands out in Budget 2017, is the emphasis to strengthen our external orientation. The new Budget introduces a $600 million International Partnership Fund. It also extends the existing Internationalisation Finance Scheme which has worked very well.
These programmes dovetail closely with CFE's first strategy to \"deepen and diversify our international connections\". Under this strategy, the Committee suggests the setting up a Global Innovation Alliance, linking our IHLs to the leading innovation hubs in the world. It also recommends us sending more young Singaporeans to overseas internships and leadership development.
Despite the fact that close to 10 million Singaporeans travel overseas every year, that these programmes are still introduced says something about our realisation that we cannot afford to slacken in inculcating in especially our young, the ability to understand and appreciate the world. The world is like a vast ocean, constantly waving currents and under-currents. Singapore can only steer forward safely if only we have up-to-date weather charts and topographical maps.
Speaking of unpredictability of events, 2016 was nothing short of surprises and shocks. Uncertainties are still unfolding in ways which have profound implications for Singapore. Let us consider three trends.
Firstly, protectionism is on the rise. Amongst the first executive orders President Trump signed was to withdraw from the TPP. As Prime Minister Theresa May laid out her 12-point plan for Brexit, EU is now increasingly worried about the prospect of a \"Frexit\" as the French presidential elections draws near. Meanwhile, right-wing populist parties campaigning on anti-immigration and anti-globalisation are gaining ground in Europe. If EU, the world's largest single market breaks up, world trade will be in disarray. What ensues may be trade wars leading to ultimate shrinkages in trade volume causing job losses and destabilising economies. Given that two-third of our economy is externally driven, a trade-hampered world will spell great hardship for us.
Secondly, populist politics are leading people away from real solutions. From the rising popularity of far-right political parties in Europe, one has to conclude that more and more voters are taking in their campaign promises which are premised not on reasons, research and facts but on impulses, emotions and anger. Their prescriptions to economic and social woes ignore the very complex nature of economy and trade, of global supply chain and relative competitive advantages. They promise a magic wand which solves all problems merely by building walls around one-self, for instance.
David Rothkopf, the chief editor of The Foreign Policy, coined the term \"the shallowness of the state\" to describe politician's tactics to over-simplify issues to win votes. He reminded us that \"experience, skills and know-how require time, work and study. Truth is hard, shallowness is easy\".
Thirdly, news-reporting and consumption tend to be local. That most people will be concerned with things happening in their backyard is perfectly understandable. In fact, survey has shown that those who follow local news closely also tend to be more civically engaged in and volunteer for the local community, which is a good thing for citizenry.
But we also must be aware that there are a few orders of magnitude of difference when one says \"local news\" in continental-size countries such as the United States and China, and that in our tiny Singapore. While people in these large countries may take comfort in being contended with local news, we in Singapore cannot afford to think and behave the same. Lest we unknowingly wear blinkers to see a very narrow world.
A number of businessmen I met commented to me that many Singaporeans are surprisingly insular and inward-looking. I asked them for evidence. They told me two manifestations of this psyche. One is Singaporean's unwillingness to leave their comfort zones and take up foreign postings; two is that being very sheltered, Singaporeans become unsure and very risk adverse in poorly defined and uncertain environment. They believe that such lack of adaptability will hold Singaporeans back from many opportunities in the emerging world.
When I travel, I like to tune into news stations and see what is being reported. When I tuned into CCTV or Phoenix news, I often found their reports of world affairs very insightful and comprehensive, covering a wide range of geographies far beyond the Chinese borders. Over the years, I have also found CNN and other American news reporting to be more globally informed, often although accompanied by distinctive American view of the world. Singapore news and our public discourse must, by definition, be a keen observer of the world. This is because we do not have a continental size economy or geography to buffer us from any shocks.
Mr Deputy Speaker, at the domestic front, the issue of 30% water tariff hike seemed to have hogged the headlines of the new media space for the past week. But I just realised that in this House, it is the topic that every Member has addressed. I think it is perfectly understandable how many people had found the jump of 30% abrupt and drastic. But if we consider the subject in context, that despite the very same dry season brought by El Nino in 2016 sweeping across Southeast Asia, Singapore unlike a number of Malaysian states such as Perlis, Pahang, Malacca, Johore and Sabah, did not have to impose water rationing because of the severe drought. The belated 30% hike, put in context, is a necessary and small insurance compared to the billions of dollars we need to set aside for future new water plants and pipeline infrastructure. We can go around the world and survey more water-deprived countries. Their problems are many times more severe.
To put things in perspective, our public discourse needs to be supported by deep knowledge of subject matters in discussion. Thankfully, our schools are doing a great job in injecting realism in learning. Our teachers are taking learning beyond classrooms, into the community and overseas. We have more students at different levels participating in overseas exchange programmes than ever before. The CFE also outlined the Government's intention to provide more funding to support overseas internships and work attachments. We are headed in the right direction.
I would also argue that we should do more, for the population at large. For instance, the Government could invest more in media and content production, to help our public broadcast be even more comprehensive and interpretational in their news-reporting and analysis. Complemented by our growing think-tank and research community, there is no reason why we cannot raise our average understanding of complex issues and the understanding of the world. I think the bottom line is, how do we watch the world \"live\" from Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker, international competition is intense and relentless. Consider this, the Single's Day Sales on Alibaba amounted to S$25 billion sale in just one day. That is 70% of all retails sales in Singapore for one year. So, 70% in Singapore is one day on the Alibaba platform.
Still in China, WeChat Pay has become the de-facto cashless payment means in China, regardless of transaction amount and IT infrastructure. By this, I mean, even hawkers at the wet market can take payment using WeChat Pay, without the cashless terminal. It makes us wonder why we are still struggling with different non-standardised payment terminals in Singapore after many years of trying to go cashless.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. Budget 2017 builds upon a plethora of support programmes previously introduced. These programmes include SkillsFuture that help the workforce in general, and a whole host of productivity-related programmes that help SMEs. And they were all summarised just now by Minister Iswaran. There is really no shortage of support programmes.
What we need is strong motivation from individuals, from firms and organisations. To develop strong motivation, there must be deep awareness of the world and the understanding of competition.
Singapore's challenge now is how not to be a victim of our own success. How can we leap from our comfort zone and overcome the false sense of security. It is not just physical connectivity that we need to build, but the psychological bridge to understand the world, to reach out to complex issues and to deal with them tenaciously. There is no silver bullet but hard work aplenty. Mr Deputy Speaker, there is great urgency. I support the Budget.
Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Budget 2017 attempted a fine balancing act. Trying to build for the future, for whom most discount the benefits of, and meeting short-term needs, for whom most place an emphasis on. But the future is not that far away and how we spend in the long term affects how we budget for the short term.
Uncle Koh came to see me a few weeks ago and he was in a fix. Adventurous and enthusiastic in his 60s, he had tried being a Grab taxi driver. But he did not know how to use his phone to locate customers. So, three days into the job, stressed out by the ordeal of fiddling with his phone till no end, Uncle Koh gave up and decided to be a cook instead. He took a course in culinary skills, used up his SkillsFuture credit and brought his shiny, laminated certificate to see me. He could not find a job, he said, as he did not have any prior experience being a cook. So, please, could he have more SkillsFuture credits so he can try something else?
This story encapsulates the challenges the future economy brings us as individuals, as businesses and as a government. For Uncle Koh, he could no longer cruise empty on the streets, burning up diesel, looking for customers. He had to learn how to use a taxi-hailing app. He had SkillsFuture credits, but he had not used them where he needed it most.
For firms, they can no longer rely on old business models as new entrants come in, disintermediating them, and being asset-light, did not have the sunk costs that traditional firms bear.
SkillsFuture and the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) are two key pillars of our strategy to help individuals and firms meet the challenges in the new economy. And huge sums of money have been set aside for them − $1.5 billion in Budget 2015 to support SkillsFuture, not a small sum and more will be put in. And $4.5 billion for the ITMs in Budget 2016 and Budget 2017 announced further top-ups to this initiative to transform our industries. We have to make these investments work for us because every dollar spent on one item in the Budget, is another dollar not spent somewhere else.
For SkillsFuture, Budget 2017 focuses on \"on-the-job skills utilisation\" to ensure a better match between training and jobs. Such an outcome-based approach where employers, TACs and unions are encouraged to develop training programmes for their workers because they know best the skills the marketplace values and thus the skills workers need to have, is the right move for SkillsFuture.
With the integration of SkillsFuture Portal with Jobs Bank, the nexus between training and jobs will be even tighter. I would like to suggest that there be reviews of training providers under SkillsFuture to ensure that there is accountability on the part of training providers to provide relevant training, that is, which is linked to job outcomes. Further, that individuals are guided by industry practitioners in their choice of training so that they are likely to choose relevant training which provides tangible benefits and, therefore, motivate them to train more. Sometimes, less is more. A more targeted approach in the delivery of training is more likely to deliver tangible outcomes.
For the ITMs, their effectiveness is tied to the KPIs set out for them. While it has often been said that we should not set static targets for the ITMs, given that they defer from industry to industry, and should be instead be \"live\" documents, having a vision on what the industry could look like and thinking through what the parameters for automation, innovation, labour and productivity can be, will give them something to work on, to try and possibly fail, to retry, and recalibrate. For how then will we − Government, firms and workers − know whether we are succeeding?
It requires great trust, collaboration and vision for firms, competitors, unions and Government representatives to come together and work effectively together. I further suggest that disruptors, entrepreneurs from adjacent industries and also overseas markets be brought in, where possible, into the discussion on the ITMs to enrich the discussion and paint the possibilities or we might be entrenched in local models and local constraints.
SkillsFuture and the ITMs are huge outlays to develop our capabilities. How they are implemented affects their ultimate efficacy and we need to be clear as to the outcomes we hope to achieve, and have parameters to track their implementation and course-correct to ensure success. For only then will they be effective investments commensurate to the amounts we have allocated them in consecutive Budgets.
That said, SkillsFuture and the ITMs form only part of the overall Budget. An analysis of how else we are allocating our resources will give a sense of how prepared we are for the future.
The Budget surplus of $5.18 billion for FY 2016, 50% larger than originally estimated puts us in a better position to react to external shocks and potentially fund future needs in the remainder of the Government's term. However, since FY 2015, we have been running a primary deficit where our total expenditure exceeds our operating revenue even before Special Transfers are considered.
The reasons provided for why total expenditure budgeted for in 2017 increased by 5.2% over 2016 when revenues are only increasing at 1.1% are that they are mainly due to higher expenditures on public housing, higher development expenditures for water-related treatment and health expenditure arising from growth in patient subsidies and improved training and retention of healthcare workers.
To ensure prudent expenditure, can we look to bind expenditures or match them with revenues, so that any increases in expenditure are carefully considered in relation to how the funds will be provided. Further, while the net investment returns contribution has helped turn our Budget into an overall surplus, the scale of its contribution relative to other sources of revenue is large, at 20% of our total revenue. It is the largest source of funds for our Budget, larger than corporate tax contributions.
In a recent article on Bloomberg, Norway's Central Bank Chief warned of how the risk of a 50% decline in 10 years of their sovereign wealth fund increases five times if government withdrawals from the fund increases from 3% to 4% of the fund. Given our reliance on NIRC to fund our Budget, what are the inherent risks we face? Should there be huge changes in global outlooks of capital markets and earnings of firms, how does that change our expected long-term rates of return and our ability to use NIRC to fund our Budget?
In Budget 2017, we see attempts to diversify revenue sources − a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by large direct emitters such as power stations, the restructuring of diesel taxes and water price changes. But these are taxes mostly to right-size behaviour and are not in the longer term derived from new economic activity. The future economy has already been shown to bring new business models and new relationships between firms and workers. With the growing importance of the sharing economy and cross-border transactions over Internet platforms, more thought should be put into how we can update our tax policies to keep in line with new emerging business models and maintain a level playing field. Otherwise, the tax burden may fall unnecessarily on certain segments, or individuals and consumers over time.
Lastly, as more individuals participate in the New Economy through freelance work arrangements, we will need to ensure that our retirement adequacy frameworks take care of our citizens. One leg of the equation is missing if companies who engage individuals systematically to work for them do not pay CPF. And regulations may need to be tweaked to bring them into the fold.
Much has been said about how firms and workers need to be oriented to meet the challenges of the Future Economy. I would like to add that our Budget and its construction likewise needs to be future-ready and future-proof. The future may be uncertain but we need to make certain as much as we possibly can. We require daring, but we also require prudence. This requires leadership and it requires judgement. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Much has been said about how businesses and workers can meet the challenges of the future economy. What I would like stress is that the future may be uncertain but we need to make Singapore's success as certain as we possibly can.
Budget 2017 attempts to strike a balance between building for the future and meeting short-term needs. SkillsFuture and Industry Transformation Maps are the two key pillars to help businesses and individuals to meet the challenges of the new economy.
Budget 2017 focused on \"on the job skills utilisation\" to ensure a better match between training and jobs. Outcome-based training is the right move for SkillsFuture. I suggest that there be regular reviews of the training programmes under SkillsFuture to ensure they indeed generate desired job outcome.
For ITM, although industries differ from each other, having a vision of what the industry could look like and thinking through what the parameters for innovation, labour and productivity can be, will guide firms on their next move. I hence suggest that entrepreneurs who are equipped with disruptive technologies and technology pioneers in the overseas market be brought into the discussion on ITMs to help our firms paint the future.
With regard to Government revenue, NIRC has helped turn our budget into an overall surplus, contributing a 20% share of the operating revenue. Given our reliance on NIRC, if the outlook of the international market changes, are we still able to fund our budget? Therefore, can we consider binding expenditures with revenues or performance? Be it SkillsFuture, ITM or government projects, can we determine how much we should invest in based on anticipated and quantifiable outcome?
As more individuals are participating in the shared economy or becoming a freelancer, if a company who systematically engage individuals to work for them do not pay CPF or taxes, one leg of the equation in our social safety network will be missing. Hence, I suggest that we include the new economic model into our CPF and tax regime. Facing an uncertain future, we need to make Singapore's success as certain as we possibly can. We need to be daring, but also prudent. This requires leadership and judgment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\"
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" − [Mr Heng Swee Keat] (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker:\tSo be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" – [Mr Desmond Lee]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at \t7.48 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Capabilities to Care for Children with Autism","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"7 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how is the Ministry enhancing the capabilities of caregivers and parents to care for children with autism; (b) how are pre-school teachers provided with the requisite training to teach children with mild autism; and (c) how can the community play a role in helping autistic children to learn.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder may have needs that range from mild to severe. For those with moderate to severe needs, they are referred to the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC). EIPIC provides learning and therapy intervention for 0 to 6 year olds at risk of moderate to severe disabilities, including Autism. EIPIC services are currently available at 19 Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWO) centres located across Singapore.
EIPIC centres train and involve parents and caregivers in the intervention for their child. This equips parents and caregivers to better care for their children with special needs, and the child also benefits when the intervention continues at home. In addition, children in EIPIC may also attend pre-school for education, inclusion and childcare. In such cases, the EIPIC centres will work with the child's pre-school teacher on strategies and tips on how best to engage the child in the classroom and in activities.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development, with the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA), has worked with training institutes and educational providers such as Ngee Ann Polytechnic in rolling out specialised training such as the Specialist Diploma in Early Childhood Learning Support (SDELS), and the Advanced Diploma in Early Childhood Intervention (Special Needs) (ADESN), to equip EIPIC teachers, Learning Support Educators (LSEds) and classroom teachers in pre-schools with the necessary skills to support children with a range of developmental needs. Learning Support Educators provide targeted short-term intervention for children with mild developmental needs, and guide pre-school teachers in integrating these children in the classroom setting.
The community has a crucial role to play in supporting children with special needs. Children with special needs should be accommodated in community activities and play settings, so that they can learn and grow together with typically developing children. The inclusive playgrounds in our community are a good example where accommodations enable interaction between children with special needs and their typically developing peers. Such inclusions pave the way for the community to become more open and supportive towards children with special needs and their caregivers.
Corporate and individual contributions, coupled with a grant from the Care & Share Movement, were used to fund the five inclusive playgrounds built by NCSS. These playgrounds were the fruits of a very successful 3P (public, private and people) collaboration. We hope that there will be many more such partnerships and collaborations in building inclusive facilities, or creating inclusive settings.
In the education system, the Ministry of Education seeks to enhance integration between students in mainstream and Special Education (SPED) schools by facilitating meaningful and purposeful interactions between these two groups of students. Under the MOE's satellite partnership model, some SPED schools practise 'social integration' with their mainstream partners. Others like Pathlight School allow their students to join their mainstream peers in class. The satellite partnerships enable students in SPED schools to remain integrated with the larger community.
We will like to encourage corporates and community agencies and groups to actively create opportunities for better integration and inclusion of children with special needs, through the infrastructure or programmes they put in place, or the activities they organise. Our society can do more to enable these children, like any other child, to realise their true potential as they become integral members of society.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Multi-lingual Guide on Appointing Lasting Power of Attorney","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"8 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether a simple guide in various languages has been produced to assist Singaporeans who are in need of a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) to sign up for it; (b) whether a comparative study has been done on the extensiveness of Singaporeans seeking LPAs compared to other developed nations; and (c) what measures are there to safeguard the public from errant lawyers who facilitate LPAs.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Since the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) came into effect on 1 March 2010, the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) under my Ministry has made available various resources to guide interested individuals in making their LPAs. These include a guidebook on the LPA, guidebook for donees and a Step by Step Guide to completing the basic LPA form, which is supplemented by a video guide. Most of these resources are available in all four official languages. I encourage interested applicants to review these resources from the OPG website when preparing their LPA applications.
As at 31 January 2017, 35,926 LPA applications have been received by the OPG, accounting for about 1% of the total Singaporeans and Permanent Residents population aged 21 and above.
As Singapore's MCA is modelled after England and Wales, we looked at the United Kingdom for a quick comparison. In England and Wales, about 4% of their eligible population have made an enduring power of attorney or LPA. Similarly, about 3% of Scotland's population have done so. While these figures are higher than in Singapore, it should be noted that these jurisdictions started much earlier than us, some even as early as 1986.
My Ministry recognises that we still have some way to go in getting more Singaporeans to plan ahead and make an LPA. Hence, I would like to reiterate that the application fee waiver for Singapore Citizens making an LPA Form 1 has been extended till 31 August 2018. We hope that more will take advantage of the fee waiver to pre-plan for ourselves and give our families peace of mind in future. We will also continue to increase awareness on the LPA.
LPA certificate issuers, who are professionals from the medical and legal sector, perform an important safeguarding role in the whole process. The professional is required to see the donor and has to, in his professional opinion, ensure that the donor understands the purpose and content of the LPA, and that he is not forced to make one under pressure or duress. The certificate issuer does so by signing off on the LPA Form.
OPG also takes a serious view of breaches made by certificate issuers and will not hesitate to bring them to Court or report them to their professional bodies if they do not conduct their duties in a proper manner. If anyone has knowledge that a certificate issuer had not carried out his duties properly, he may inform the OPG or alert the respective professional bodies so that the matter can be looked into.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deciding between Pedestrian Overhead Bridges and Pedestrian Crossing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"9 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Transport what are the planning parameters to decide on where and when to build pedestrian overhead bridges and what are the cost-benefit considerations to decide between building a pedestrian crossing versus a pedestrian overhead bridge.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Our preference is to build at-grade crossings, rather than pedestrian overhead bridges, as they are barrier-free and more convenient for the elderly, families with strollers and persons with disabilities. However, there are instances where at-grade crossings are dangerous, for example, across major roads with fast-moving traffic, or may cause serious traffic congestion. In such cases, we will provide pedestrian overhead bridges.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bus Regularity Following Implementation of Bus Service Reliability Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"10 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether bus regularity has improved following the implementation of the Bus Service Reliability Framework (BSRF); (b) how much incentives have been paid and how much penalties have been received; (c) what are the feedback received and whether commuters' travel experience have improved; and (d) whether there is a need to fine-tune the framework three years into its implementation.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Bus Service Reliability Framework (BSRF) was introduced as a trial for 22 bus services in February 2014, and expanded to another 23 services in December 2015. We observed less bus bunching for these services. In the assessment period from December 2015 to August 2016, bus service regularity had improved for all 45 services. There was a 20% reduction in average additional wait times. A total of $3.4 million was paid out in incentives over this period, and no penalties.
Based on the experience of the trial, we have tightened the baseline standard and decided to incorporate the BSRF within the bus contracting model. For 108 services for which we implemented BSRF from September 2016, we have observed a 15% reduction in average additional wait times. Any incentive or penalty will be paid out after a year's performance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Crimes Committed by Persons who Act on Behalf of Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"11 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will consider introducing an offence for commercial organisations that fail to prevent the commission of economic crimes such as bribery, fraud and money laundering by persons who act on their behalf such as employees and contractors.
Mr K Shanmugam: Singapore takes a tough stance on economic crimes, such as bribery, fraud and money laundering. Our rates of economic crimes have been low. We are consistently ranked among the least corrupt countries.
Commercial organisations, such as companies, are also liable under the law if they commit these economic crimes, or abet the commission of these offences by their employees, contractors, or any business partners. There have been cases in the past where companies were charged for such offences.
The current legislative and regulatory levers we have to take action against errant companies are adequate. At this point, there is no need for a further specific provision to penalise a company for failing to prevent a crime from taking place, where the company did not commit and did not abet committing the crime.
To ensure that companies adopt good corporate governance practices, the Companies Act imposes various obligations on company directors who provide stewardship of companies. In addition, the Code of Corporate Governance sets out corporate governance best practices for listed companies to comply with or explain any deviation from these practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Handling of Arson Attacks in MRT Trains","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"12 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how are the Home Team and public transport operators prepared to handle arson attacks in the MRT trains; (b) how can the public be involved to support Home Team's efforts; and (c) how can Singapore's readiness to respond to attacks in our public transport system be enhanced.
Mr K Shanmugam: Our Home Team Departments and the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) are prepared to deal with emergencies in MRT trains, including fires. In the event of a fire, the automatic fire detection system in the train will be triggered to alert the station staff and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF). There are established procedures to evacuate commuters to safety and to deal with different situations, regardless of whether the fire occurs when the train is at the station or on the tracks.
Upon arrival, the SCDF will put out the fire, rescue and provide medical assistance to the injured, while the Police will maintain law and order. The Home Team Departments and the PTOs conduct regular exercises to validate and familiarise ground officers with such emergency response protocols.
The cause of the fire may be deliberate. In the evening of 10 February 2017, a 60-year old man tried to hurl a lit Molotov cocktail into a packed Mass Transit Railway (MTR) train in Hong Kong. The incident resulted in injuries to commuters and disruption to the MTR's services.
Arson attacks such as these, whether the act of a criminal or a terrorist, call for a heightened level of vigilance and preparedness. The Police formed the Public Transport Security Command (TransCom) in 2009 to conduct security patrols of our public transport system, including our MRT trains and stations. TransCom officers are trained to look out for suspicious persons and approach them for further checks. They are also the first line of response to any security incidents in the public transport system.
The community plays an important role in our efforts to fight terrorism on a sustained basis. SGSecure was launched to sensitise, train and mobilise Singaporeans to play their part to prevent and deal with a terrorist attack. The Home Team has developed advisories and applications to equip and prepare our community in the event of an attack. These include
(a) The \"Run, Hide, Tell\" advisory which guides the public on how to respond when an attack occurs.
(b) The new SMS71999 platform to allow the public to SMS the Police if they see something suspicious.
(c) The Police@SG app's i-Witness function which enables users to point, shoot and send information on major incidents and crime to support Police's investigation.
(d) The \"Improvised First Aid Skills\" advisory which teaches the public how to use everyday items to help administer first aid to injured persons in the event of an attack.
(e) The SG Secure E-learning package which allows the public to carry out e-learning at their own pace and pick up useful survival skills to stay vigilant, cohesive and resilient.
Since the launch of the SGSecure movement, MHA has been working closely with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the PTOs to equip frontline staff with knowledge and skills to respond to a terror attack.
The PTOs currently train some of their staff in first aid, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and the use of the automated external defibrillator (AED). The PTOs also support SGSecure's public awareness efforts by putting up relevant safety advisories, such as Run-Hide-Tell and Improvised First Aid Skills in MRT stations. Video messages that remind commuters to be vigilant are also broadcasted at the station platforms and in the trains.
The Home Team will continue to work with the PTOs to build on the current training and outreach initiatives, including conducting exercises that enhance their preparedness in the event of a terror attack. One such example was Exercise Heartbeat which involved one of the PTOs conducted in September 2016 at Bishan Bus Interchange and Junction 8.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Medical Chits from Doctors not in Company-assigned Panel","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"14 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether all companies recognise medical chits from Singapore-registered doctors when an employee seeks medical care from clinics outside the companies' panel of doctors; (b) in the last three years, how many cases have been reported where an employer has deducted the salary of an employee when the medical chit is from a registered doctor who is not from the company's panel of doctors; and (c) how does the Ministry handle such cases.
Mr Lim Swee Say: Under the law, employers are to provide paid sick leave when an employee covered by the Employment Act is issued a medical certificate (MC) by a Government or company-approved doctor, and to bear the costs of the medical consultation. Notwithstanding this, many employers go beyond the statutory requirements by granting paid sick leave for MCs issued by any registered doctor.
In the last three years, no cases of salary deductions related to unrecognised MCs have been filed in the Labour Court. There is no statutory or contractual breach in such cases. However, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has received a yearly average of about 15 queries of this nature. This number has not increased.
Employers should ensure that their panel of approved doctors are accessible to their employees. Under extenuating circumstances, such as a medical emergency, employers are urged to exercise flexibility to provide paid sick leave when the employee seeks medical attention from a doctor who has not been approved by the company. Employees who require assistance can approach MOM, or the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management from April 2017.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tree Inspections and Liability for Damages Related to Falling Trees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"16 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the regular inspections of trees are done by NParks staff or outsourced to a landscape company; and (b) whether the public liability insurance by NParks covers damages due to natural causes.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Trees under NParks' purview are regularly inspected by NParks’ Certified Arborists. Inspections are not outsourced to landscape companies. Beyond regular inspections, NParks prunes trees to make them more resistant to storms. NParks also substitutes storm-vulnerable species like the Albizia with hardier trees. This comprehensive tree management programme has been effective in reducing the number of tree incidents by more than three-fold since 2001.
Having said that, trees can fall despite our best efforts. When accidents happen due to natural causes, NParks’ public liability insurance only covers claims where NParks is shown to be negligent. If NParks has exercised its duty of care in keeping to its tree management regime, the insurance will not pay out as NParks would not be culpable for circumstances beyond its control.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Ratification of EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement EUSFTA","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) in light of the opinion issued by the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the EU that the EU does not have exclusive competence to conclude the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA), whether he can provide an update on how the relevant parties are working towards a swift ratification of the EUSFTA.
Mr Lim Hng Kiang: On 4 March 2015, the European Commission (Commission) sent the negotiated text of the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a legal opinion to establish the Commission’s and EU Member States' (MS) areas of competence in the EUSFTA. The opinion would clarify which of the EUSFTA provisions fall within (i) the EU’s exclusive competence; or are (ii) shared competence between the EU and MS; or are (iii) within the MS’ exclusive competence.
Should the entire EUSFTA agreement be found to be under the EU's exclusive competence, it would only have to be approved by the Council of the EU (Council) and the European Parliament (EP). The agreement would enter into force thereafter on a mutually agreed date.
The Advocate General's preliminary opinion released on 21 December 2016 opined that the EUSFTA should be deemed a \"mixed agreement\" with areas of shared competence between the EU and MS. If the ECJ takes the same view, it would mean that the agreement has to be approved by the Council, the EP as well as the 38 national and regional Parliaments of all MS. However, the provisions in the agreement deemed to be under the EU's exclusive competence would be provisionally applied and take effect once the Council and the EP have approved. In comparison, provisions that are under shared competence or MS' exclusive competence would have to go through domestic ratification processes in all MS before they can take effect.
The ECJ's final opinion, which is deliberated by a full court of 28 Judges, is typically released three to five months after the Advocate General's preliminary opinion.
Singapore is actively working with the EU and MS to ensure that the EUSFTA can proceed with ratification as soon as the ECJ delivers its final opinion so that businesses can reap its benefits as soon as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Deepen Singaporeans' ICT Capabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the Government's plan to deepen our younger Singaporeans' ICT capabilities so that they are equipped to seize opportunities of tomorrow; and (b) how can the Ministry ensure that ICT and digital training classes such as coding classes are accessible to less privileged Singaporeans.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Digital technologies are transforming the way we live, work and play. Increasing digitalisation poses fresh challenges to traditional industries and business models, but also offer exciting opportunities for the bold and enterprising. As the Committee on the Future Economy noted, Singapore must harness the opportunities in the digital economy, by transforming our businesses and people to be digital ready.
MCI has many programmes to help our people do this. For ICT professionals, we launched the TechSkills Accelerator (TeSA) last year to train and upskill professionals into ICT job roles. We have made good progress, with over 8,000 professionals trained as at end-2016. In fact, the Company-Led Training programme, which encourages ICT companies to provide On-the-Job (OJT) training to individuals beyond what they intend to hire, has seen 100% of trainees successfully placed into jobs after their training period. In addition, for non-ICT professionals who have aspirations to pursue an ICT career, they can consider our Tech Immersion and Placement Programme, which uses short immersive courses to train professionals with essential ICT skills so as to facilitate their placement into ICT jobs. We will continue to step up efforts to train more professionals, and ensure that Singaporeans, including young professionals, are able to seize opportunities in the digital economy.
In a world where digitalisation is more pervasive, we recognise the value in going beyond training ICT professionals, to imbuing every Singaporean with a good understanding of ICT so that we all thrive in the digital economy. To interest and prepare school-going Singaporeans in ICT skills, IMDA and GovTech have programmes, such as Code@SG and Hour of Code, to inspire students and develop their coding and computational thinking skills. Starting this year, IMDA will be extending Code@SG's Code for Fun enrichment programme to all primary and secondary school students. In addition, IMDA also runs the Industry Preparation for Pre-Graduates (iPREP) programme, to equip students with relevant skillsets for a career in ICT, through work attachments, courses and overseas internships.
MCI fully agrees that we must bring every Singaporean, especially the less privileged, along with us on our digital journey. The above programmes are accessible to all Singaporeans regardless of age and socio-economic status. In addition, IMDA today also runs digital inclusion programmes, such as the NEU PC Plus and Home Access Programme, to give low-income households, the elderly and persons with special needs access to computers and broadband connectivity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Groups Most Vulnerable to Online Drug Peddling and Recidivism Rate of Drug Abusers Aged 20 to 29","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) which are the groups most vulnerable to online peddling of drugs; (b) what is the rate of recidivism for drug abusers between the ages of 20 to 29 over the last three years; and (c) how is the Ministry working to reduce drug abuse in the age group of 20 to 29.
Mr K Shanmugam: Law enforcement agencies worldwide face the emerging challenge of tackling online drugs sale. Traffickers and drug abusers can trade drugs anonymously on online black market websites. This makes it difficult for law enforcement agencies to detect and apprehend the offenders.
We also face this challenge in Singapore. The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) works closely with partners, such as the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and courier companies, to detect and take action against online drug trade. In 2016, CNB arrested around 200 persons for buying drugs and drug-related paraphernalia online. The majority of these persons were between the ages of 20 to 39 years old. These individuals are vulnerable to the online sale of drugs as they are tech-savvy and are familiar with online transactions.
While the total number of drug abusers arrested fell in 2016, there was an increase in the number of new drug abusers arrested. Close to two-thirds of all new abusers arrested were under the age of 30. This is an area of concern. The two-year recidivism rate for drug abusers between the ages of 20 to 29 has been around 34-36% in the last three years:
Preventive drug education (PDE) is our first line of defence in the fight against drug abuse. This is especially true for younger persons, including those between 20 to 29 years old. CNB reaches out to them through multiple channels.
CNB partners key influencers in the community to spread the anti-drug message. For example, National Service (NS) Commanders have regular interaction with their NSmen and are well placed to detect signs of drug-related problems. CNB launched the NS Commander Toolkit in June 2016 to equip them with information on drug abuse as well as how to identify and steer potential abusers away from drugs.
CNB is also building a community of advocates who will spread the anti-drug message among their peers. Some of our initiatives to advance advocacy for a drug-free Singapore include the forming of the United Against Drugs Coalition and the Anti-Drug Abuse Advocacy (A3) Network. Through these programmes, we aim to mobilise the community to support our zero tolerance approach to drugs.
CNB is also enhancing its online presence. CNB uses social media to reach out to this group of abusers to share information about the dangers of drugs, including how drug abuse can harm the abuser’s family and loved ones.
In addition to CNB's engagement and PDE efforts, we need rigorous enforcement to keep drugs away from our young. CNB maintains a tough stance against drugs and will not let up on its efforts to arrest drug traffickers who sell to our young.
CNB will continue to address the trends of youth drug abuse and online drug peddling through a comprehensive approach of enforcement, education and engagement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recidivism Rates of Drug Rehabilitation and Long Term Imprisonment Cohorts Released from 2012 to 2014","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each year from 2012 to 2014 what are the recidivism rates for the release cohorts from (i) the Drug Rehabilitation Centres (ii) the Long Term Imprisonment 1 regime and (iii) Long Term Imprisonment 2 regime, respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam: The two-year recidivism rates for persons released from the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC), Long-Term Imprisonment 1 (LT1) and Long-Term Imprisonment 2 (LT2) from 2012 to 2014 are as follows.
The recidivism rates in recent years for drug inmates have fallen significantly from the 60 – 70% in the 1990s.
In the past few years, several new programmes were introduced to better support the rehabilitation of DRC and LT inmates.
Singapore Prison Service (SPS) introduced the Enhanced Supervision Scheme (ESS) in 2012 to provide more intensive support for high-risk Long-Term Imprisonment inmates. They undergo a psychology-based programme during incarceration as well as mandatory casework, individual counselling and community supervision after their release. The Prisons Act was also amended in 2014 to introduce the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS), which provides structured supervision to high-risk offenders as they transition back into the community. In 2014, SPS launched the enhanced Drug Rehabilitation Regime which placed DRC inmates on tailored programmes based on their re-offending risks and severity of drug use.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lasting Power of Attorneys (LPAs)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development to date, how many Lasting Power of Attorneys (LPAs) or similar instruments have been revoked due to fraud or undue pressure being used to induce the donor to enter into them and due to the donee behaving in a way that contravenes his authority or in a manner not in the donor's best interests.
6 Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development since the last amendments to the Mental Capacity Act came into effect in 2016 (a) how many orders of suspension have been made where there is a risk of dissipation of the donor's property; and (b) how many errant donees, deputies or prescribed certificate issuers have been dealt with by the courts or the Office of the Public Guardian.
7 Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the safeguards to ensure that a certificate issuer verifies that the donor understands the purpose of the Lasting Power of Attorney or a similar instrument and the scope of the authority conferred under it; (b) whether the Ministry will add further safeguards against abuse by donees or deputies; and (c) whether pro bono legal advice will be afforded to donors in the absence of a professional donee or deputy.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Since its inception, the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has processed around 1,000 Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) revocations as at end January 2017. This represents approximately 4% of the LPAs accepted as at end January 2017. The overwhelming majority (98%) of all revocations are due to death of the donor or done, or because the donor decided to make a new LPA.
Section 17(3) of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) allows for the Court to make a determination on an LPA if the Court is satisfied that fraud or undue pressure was used to induce the donor into making an LPA. To date, the Court has not revoked any LPAs under this clause.
To better protect those without capacity, the Ministry introduced a new section (S36A) of the MCA in March 2016. Now the Public Guardian can go to Court and apply for a suspension order to preserve the donor's assets where there is clear evidence that a donee or deputy has acted in a way which compromises the interests of the donor and there is no one else to protect him.
Once the Court makes the suspension order, OPG will annotate on the original LPA that the LPA is suspended. This information is uploaded on its website so that third parties can check and not proceed with any transactions. The appointed donees and deputies would no longer be able to make decisions and act on behalf of the donor for the time period as stipulated in the Court order.
Since the amendments came into effect, the Public Guardian has acted in two cases. She has applied to Court in one case to suspend a donee’s powers and revoke the LPA. She has also filed an application to revoke the powers of a deputy. As both cases are still pending in Court, we are unable to provide more details of the cases.
An LPA certificate issuer is required to sign on the LPA certificate to state that he had seen the donor and is of the opinion that the donor understands the purpose of the LPA and the scope of the authority conferred under it. He has to satisfy himself that no fraud or undue pressure was used to induce the donor to make the LPA and there is nothing else that would prevent the LPA from being created.
Due to the crucial safeguarding role played by an LPA certificate issuer, the OPG has engaged the Law Society, the Singapore Medical Association and the Singapore Psychiatric Association so that their members understand the roles and responsibilities of a certificate issuer. For doctors who are not specialists in psychiatry, they are also required to undergo an online course administered by the Singapore Medical Association before they can be accredited by the Public Guardian.
OPG takes a serious view of breaches made by certificate issuers and will not hesitate to bring them to Court or report them to their professional bodies if they breach their professional duties. To date, OPG has reported one case of professional misconduct of two lawyers to the Law Society, for their investigation. The original LPA application signed by a first lawyer was rejected because of her relationship to the donee. She then asked a second lawyer to sign off on the LPA as the certificate issuer, which he did without meeting the donor. After the OPG report, the Law Society started disciplinary proceedings against the lawyers involved in this one case. The matter was determined to be serious enough to be referred to the Court of 3 Judges. The Court found that both lawyers had acted improperly and suspended the first lawyer from practice for 2.5 years. The second lawyer was suspended for one year. These lawyers can no longer practice law during the periods of suspension.
The MCA has also a \"whistle-blower\" clause to protect the identity of a whistle-blower in a report of ill-treatment of a person who lacks mental capacity. Thus, anyone who knows, suspects or believes that a person who lacks capacity is not properly looked after and/or needs care or protection can report this to the OPG. The same whistle blowing measure applies for deputies who have been appointed by the Court. In addition, deputies have to submit an annual report containing information on major decisions made by the deputy in the past year, for the Public Guardian's review. If there are areas of concern highlighted through a report, the Public Guardian will take the appropriate action to safeguard the person’s well-being.
These few cases form a very small proportion of the thousands of LPAs made, accounting for only about 0.003% of all LPAs submitted. The vast majority of all certificate issuers act diligently and honestly in carrying out their professional duties. We also need to balance against having excessive safeguards measures which makes the LPA less accessible to many Singaporeans. This is why we encourage donors to choose their donee wisely, and to inform their families and loved ones of their decision.
My Ministry also understands that there are costs involved in the making of an LPA. In order to encourage more Singaporeans to make an LPA, the application fee waiver for Singaporeans putting in place a basic LPA has been extended till 31 August 2018. While there is still a professional fee involved to engage a certificate issuer to act as a witness to the donor's statement in the LPA and issue the required LPA Certificate, there is also a social service agency, Lifepoint, which offers help to senior citizens. They organise LPA sessions and work with lawyers to help the elderly get their Forms certified at a lower cost. The OPG website also identifies a list of accredited medical practitioners who are the most active and may offer applicants a more competitive rate for most of the cases they see.
Families in financial difficulty can also seek legal assistance from the Legal Aid Bureau under the Ministry of Law to file the deputyship application. Applicants will have to go through a Means Test and Merits Test to qualify for legal aid.
When choosing to make an LPA, it is important that the donor appoints someone he trusts, and whom he knows can make the best decisions on his behalf in future if he should become vulnerable one day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":3630,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Desmond Choo","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170228/vernacular-Desmond Choo ECDA bill 28 Feb 2017-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Desmond Choo ECDA bill 28 Feb 2017-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3631,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170228/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah ECDA Bill 28 Feb 2017-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah ECDA Bill 28 Feb 2017-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3632,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170228/vernacular-Thomas Chua Budget 28 Feb 2017 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Thomas Chua Budget 28 Feb 2017 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3633,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170228/vernacular-Dennis Tan Budget 28Feb 2017-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Dennis Tan Budget 28Feb 2017-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3634,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Desmond Choo","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170228/vernacular-Desmond Choo Budget 28 Feb 2017-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Desmond Choo Budget 28 Feb 2017-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3635,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20170228/vernacular-Sun Xueling Budget 28 Feb 2017-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling Budget 28 Feb 2017-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}