1 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education whether changes are being planned with respect to the current numbers of allied educators in schools for both learning support and classroom support.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, MOE currently employs around 2,000 Allied Educators (AEDs) in our mainstream schools. They comprise School Counsellors, Student Welfare Officers, AEDs in Learning and Behavioural Support (AEDs(LBS)), and AEDs in Teaching and Learning (AEDs(T&L)).
Each school is typically resourced with one to two School Counsellors to support the social-emotional and mental health needs of our students, and one to two AEDs(LBS) to provide structured intervention support to students with Special Educational Needs. Some schools also have a Student Welfare Officer to support our students who struggle with attendance issues.
Over the last five years, we have grown the number of School Counsellors, Student Welfare Officers and AEDs(LBS) by over 30%, and we intend to expand this further to meet the growing needs of our students. For the existing AEDs(T&L), we are encouraging and also facilitating them to still remain as allied educators, but in the other specialised roles. For example, over the last two years, we have sponsored around 100 AEDs(T&L) to a 10-month full-time Diploma in Special Education (DISE) at the National Institute of Education (NIE) and plan to train another 100 this year.
MOE will continue to review our AED numbers and workforce profile to ensure that we respond effectively to students’ needs.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. Just one supplementary question. There is some anecdotal feedback – it may or may not be the correct perception – that AEDs for classroom support are being reduced in number. Is that actually taking place or are there any plans to do that or is that just an incorrect perception?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to thank the Member for his supplementary question and I also want to assure him that the AEDs form an integral part of our teaching force, to guide the growth and development of our students, especially students with special educational needs. MOE remains committed to deepen and also to expand our mainstream schools' capacity to support our students with special educational needs.
On the Member's specific supplementary question on AED(T&L), earlier on, I cited the four types of AEDs. Let me briefly explain the differing job roles and responsibilities. There are four types of AEDs in our schools. First, the School Counsellor provides counselling services to meet the social-emotional and also the mental health needs of our students. The second type is the Student Welfare Officer, who supports students with long-term absenteeism issues and sometimes, is involved in managing their family-related issues as well. The third is the AED(LBS) who provides learning and behavioural support for students with special educational needs, mainly students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), mild ASD, ADHD and dyslexia. The fourth type – the one that the Member specifically highlighted – is the AED(T&L) who provides teaching and learning support for our students in and outside of the classroom.
Within the AED pool, we are committed to grow the number of School Counsellors, Student Welfare Officers and also AED(LBS) because we see that they are well-positioned to support the changing profile and the new and growing needs of our students, especially students with special educational needs. The number has grown for these three types of AEDs – it has grown by more than 30% and we are still recruiting. From time to time, MOE will review the profile of our teaching force, including the AEDs. We do need to re-shape the profile of our teaching force, including the AEDs, to be able to better support the changing needs of our students.
For example, with smaller student enrolment and with a healthy teaching force, in general, our teacher-to-student ratio has come down, has improved, which also means that now, the teachers rely slightly less on the AEDs(T&L) to provide generic classroom support, than many, many years ago. In order to future-proof our AED(T&L), to better support them in terms of career development, career advancement, we also are facilitating them in terms of taking up the training or even sponsoring them in relevant diplomas, so that they can also take on specialised roles.
We are happy to see that in the past few years, AEDs(T&L) have successfully transited to AEDs(LBS). They have done well, also because of their previous experience supporting the teachers in the classrooms.
I want to give the assurance that we remain committed to the professional development of our AEDs, including the AEDs(T&L).
Mr Speaker: Mr Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. Sir, just one last supplementary question, really just to confirm if I understood the Senior Parliamentary Secretary correctly, the thinking of the Government is that AEDs(T&L) are less necessary now and therefore, the numbers are going to be reduced and then, those AEDs(T&L) are going to be transited to other roles and so on. I just want to confirm that understanding.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Earlier on, I did mention that from time to time, we will look at re-shaping our teaching workforce, including the AEDs. And moving forward, we are looking at ramping up the recruitment of School Counsellors, Student Welfare Officers and AEDs(LBS). For existing AEDs(T&L) who are keen to make the transition or career switch to any of these three roles or even other roles in the teaching force, we will support the AEDs(T&L) in doing so with the necessary sponsorship or diploma courses in NIE or even very specialised courses to support them, so that they can continue to support students – whether it is students with special educational needs or students who need counselling and so on.
In the next few days, during the MOE Committee of Supply (COS), we will share more details about how we are boosting the professional development of our teaching workforce, including supporting teachers to better support students with special educational needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Undeclared Peanut Allergens in Food Products","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) to date, how many cases of undeclared peanut allergens have been found in food products sold in Singapore; and (b) whether any adverse health effects associated with peanut allergy have been noted from these or other cases.
The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, food manufacturers and traders in Singapore must comply with SFA's food safety standards and requirements. These include labelling requirements where food manufacturers and traders must ensure that known allergens such as peanuts, which are found in pre-packed food products, are declared on the labels of the products.
From 2015 to 2018, there were no cases of undeclared peanut allergen in pre-packed food products. Since 2019, there have been five cases of undeclared peanut allergen in pre-packed food products. Upon detection, SFA issued directions to recall the products given the food safety concerns to consumers who are allergic to peanuts. SFA has not received feedback or information on adverse health effects arising from these cases.
Mr Speaker: Mr Perera.
\tMr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for his answer. Just one supplementary question. Does the Ministry also work with the F&B sector to encourage them to declare peanut content in the food that is served?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: All these five cases came from overseas, all over the world. As you know, we import 90% of our food. And we also take instructions from food authorities around the world. When they find out that these allergens are not declared, then we do the recall. But for Singapore food manufacturing companies, it is a requirement for them to do so. We check randomly to make sure that they do so.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [18 February 2020] [3rd Allotted Day], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021.\" – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, we are the tail end of this Government's term. From 2016, all the titles of each Budget emphasised \"unity\" – partnering for the future, moving forward together, together a better future, building a strong and united Singapore, and finally, this year, advancing as one Singapore.
But unity in the context of a democracy, along with the 4G leadership seeking to engender a Singapore Together movement, must also encounter varied, diverse, edgy and even contradictory views in the effort to find common cause. This is to be encouraged not discouraged. It is that process of embracing diversity and accommodating political differences that give meaning to a democracy of deeds for the 21st century and not for a one-party parliament of decades past.
Mr Speaker, Parliament is an august forum which is one manifestation of Singapore Together. My colleagues in the Workers' Party and I thank all Singaporeans for sharing their views and coming to us to bring up issues to Parliament over this term of government, particularly, those that Government Members of Parliament (MPs) cannot be expected to raise, not out of an inability of their own but because of the nature of politics and political contestation.
WP MPs agree with the Government when we have to, disagree where we must, in the knowledge that we endeavour for the best outcomes for Singapore and for a unity of purpose when politics must take a backseat, like during this current COVID-19 outbreak.
My speech will be divided into three parts. I will first speak of the geopolitical environment and the response of some businesses to the Budget announcements. Next, I will talk about our fiscal position, with some points on our revenue and expenditure position before finally concluding with my views on the enhanced SkillsFuture Credits and the climate change-related announcements.
Sir, the Finance Minister's Budget speeches on the external environment and developments that affect Singapore's geopolitical developments over this term of government have been prescient, illuminating not just upon the challenges but imperatives ahead for Singapore. In his 2018 Budget speech, the Finance Minister outline three major shifts in the coming decade: the shift in global economic weight to Asia; the emergence of new technologies that will change the way we live, work and play; and finally, ageing. Themes which were repeated in the Minister's 2019 Budget speech as well.
Sir, the last few years have witnessed tectonic geopolitical shifts. US Attorney General William Barr's speech at the Department of Justice earlier this month captured the mood of the times ahead, at least from Washington's perspective. In reminiscing about the days of the Cold War, Barr remarked, \"Russia wants to conquer the world. We can deal with that. China wants to own the world. That is going to be more challenging to deal with.\"
American policy towards China is on a very different course and with a bifurcation of the world looking like an almost foregone conclusion, not just a technological decoupling, but with differences in values and norms at the heart of things. More so than before, shaky US-China relations are threatening to force invidious choices upon Singapore, choices which the political leadership not just within the PAP but all political parties and citizens in Singapore would have to negotiate with greater judiciousness and sensibility without compromising an absolute commitment and loyalty to Singapore.
However, this circumspection does not just extend to the superpowers. We must also resist the urge to engage in gloating when our closest economic partners like Malaysia and competitors like Hong Kong negotiate their own unique political circumstances; circumstances which are historically apart, completely different and in many cases take place in a more complex and significantly larger country, many times our population size.
My brief discussions after the Budget was announced with a few members of the various local Chambers of Commerce informed me that there has been a general acknowledgement of the relief provided by the Stabilisation and Support Package in the Budget. Separately, I understand Chamber Members are also continuing the work on longer term efforts at internationalisation and bringing businesses up to speed with new initiatives, particularly training and growth opportunities.
Sir, one specific group of Singaporean businesses and individuals reached out to me in the aftermath of the Budget. They are our private hire bus companies and drivers who are bearing the brunt of cancelled trips and tours arising from the COVID-19 outbreak. These are the bus drivers who bring our residents to Malaysia for durian trips and even National Servicemen around Singapore for local tours or training.
I understand that an industry briefing was held on the 21 February by the Singapore Tourism Board on a relief package for travel agents and tour operators. While the briefing was appreciated, private bus companies feel the Budget support package is not targeted enough, in view of the nature of their business.
I thank Minister Josephine Teo for her speech during the course of the Budget debate, explaining the policy reasons why foreign worker levies were not reduced or waived. Nonetheless, I hope the Government reconsiders this and extends some support by way of a one-month or partial waiver of the levies for companies that have no choice but to hire foreign manpower, on the condition that these companies consciously seek to increase their local headcount, by way of job redesign going forward. Some conditional support and consideration for them in these difficult times, may provide greater impetus on all our companies overly reliant on foreign manpower today to make a greater effort to hire locals – including senior citizens, and even those on a part-time basis – tomorrow.
Mr Speaker, I move on to the second part of my speech on fiscal prudence and sustainability, a subject which is a feature of practically every one of Deputy Prime Minister Heng's Budget speeches. One hard truth that we do not hear in this house, notwithstanding greater demands on expenditure, is that the current Government has had the privilege of far more budgetary elbow room, both political and fiscal, than any previous government in Singapore's history.
Just think about it. After the inclusion of Temasek in the NIRC component of the Budget from 2016, monies for GST offset package can be set aside for the introduction of higher taxes for the next term of Government. Compared to 2015 when the NIRC component of the Government's revenue was about $9 billion dollars, today, the figure is almost double. Separately, the package to support the economy in light of COVID-19 was not funded from a draw on the reserves, unlike the support package during the Global Financial Crisis about a decade ago.
Sir, when the Workers' Party made inquiries on the reserves over the course of a few Budgets in this term of Government, it was to explore and consider different approaches and prospects to improve the lives of our people, particularly the low and middle class. At the last Budget, Finance Minister provided a lengthy reply on why the dollar value of the reserves could not be disclosed. But the answer remains unsatisfactory, particularly when the same argument could apply to the overwhelming majority of other democratic societies, who nonetheless err on the side of fiscal scrutiny and accountability.
At last year's Budget, I brought along a Business Times article that saw Singaporeans calling for a greater discussion on the reserves. These calls for greater transparency are not out of place and they will continue in years to come. They run in parallel with the Singapore Together spirit with Singaporeans taking ownership, exploring fiscal solutions, seeking to co-create not just today's Singapore but a sustainable and equitable tomorrow that future generations of Singaporeans will inherit.
More specifically, in Finance Minister's 2018 speech, the prospect of borrowing by Statutory Boards and Government-owned companies to build infrastructure was first raised to help spread the cost of larger investments over many years. This prospect of borrowing was raised again by Finance Minister in his 2019 Budget speech where the Finance Minister confirmed that the Government is studying the option of using Government debt as part of the financing mix for long-term infrastructure projects.
Mr Speaker, it has been two years since these plans on debt-financing were raised. Can the Government share more details on these plans, as this year's Budget does not communicate the results of the Government studies on the borrowing or debt-financing framework and their fiscal consequences on future Budgets?
This year's Budget also saw the Finance Minister once again making reference to the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, an initiative that seeks to ensure companies are taxed where substantive economic activities are performed. The Finance Minister first raised BEPS in his 2017 Budget speech. Then the House was informed that the Government was in consultation with businesses on scheme refinement and implementation of the relevant standards. What has been the results of these consultations from three years ago?
BEPS was raised again in the Finance Minister's speech this year and the Minister shared that there are discussions to revise international tax rules and that Singapore was actively participating in them. However, reference to BEPS this year was in the context of a sub-point of another sentence, which warned there were uncertainties and downside risks to the Government's revenue position – a matter which should be of interest to all Singaporeans.
I have a query with respect to BEPS. Before that, it is useful to recap the Government's argument on proposals by Singaporeans to raise taxes of higher income earners, who do enjoy the safety and security offered by Singapore. The concern was that high net-worth individuals would be able to structure and move their assets to avoid higher tax obligations.
What is the impact of BEPS on this prospect and the Government's assessment of the impact of BEPS' developments on our tax policies? Is there an upside, nonetheless, by way of other taxes on the ultra-rich to maintain our progressive tax system? What are the best and worst case scenarios to the developments in BEPS on our revenue position?
Mr Speaker, the Finance Minister's Budget speech confirmed that GST will not be going up next year. Notwithstanding the offsets announced, the GST is a regressive tax that will hit the low and middle income, retirees, seniors, particularly hard as they would have to manage their expenditures more frugally because offsets do not last forever, particularly for the middle class.
At this year's Budget, the Finance Minister said that the Government put off the rise in GST after considering the state of the economy, but more critically, I quote, \"...after reviewing our revenue and expenditure projections\". Sir, when the Workers' Party objected to the rise in GST in 2018, amongst other things, it was on account of a lack of information about alternate revenue streams. The Finance Minister's position then was that one did not need to have information on everything to make a decision on anything.
But from the Minister's speech this year and the announcement not to raise GST next year, it is obvious that the Government relies on revenue and expenditure projections to make these decisions.
Would the Government make public these projections so that Singaporeans can critically evaluate the necessity of a GST hike? I believe this openness would contribute to a more substantive conversation and understanding of our fiscal trade-offs. This can only advance and mature conversations that take place in Singapore. Until this clarity is provided, the Workers' Party position has not changed. We cannot support a GST hike, especially since this is to be raised in advance and before the Government's projections have been put to this House.
The third segment of my speech is a short one, Mr Speaker. I refer to the Government's call for special SkillsFuture Credit top-ups for Singaporeans between the ages of 40 and 60. The Workers' Party supports this move, but urges the Government to track the use of these credits for this age group to job and employability related outcomes closely. More generally, while SkillsFuture subsidised courses can range from, in the words of the Finance Minister, \"cooking to coding\", it does not bode well if taxpayers' money are expended on courses that are under-weighted with regard to real improvements of skills, job prospects and employability of our workers, in view of the workplace disruptions to come.
We know from previous Parliamentary replies that there is an upper limit to certain entrepreneurial prospects in Singapore, such as the opening of cafes. An audit of the courses our people are taking up, particularly younger and middle-aged Singaporeans, must be reviewed every so often in consultation with inputs from the Industry Transformation Map (ITM) stakeholders, so as to evince the best outcomes possible for our workers in the medium term.
Lastly, Mr Speaker, I expected some strong incentives or subsidies in this year's Budget on climate change outcomes, particularly in the aftermath of MEWR's efforts towards greater climate change awareness over the last few years, including designating one year, a year of climate action.
To this end, I would urge the Government to move more decisively to incentivise changing behavioural norms to reduce the overuse of plastic bags. For example, a transitional subsidy amounting to $20 for households to subsidise the purchase of plastic bags at supermarkets could be considered as a bridge for Singaporeans before a charge is levied for every bag by all retailers.
Mr Speaker, incentivising the reduced usage of plastic bags is not just about our over-consumption of plastic bags per se. It is also about the amount of waste we generate and dispose which usually ends up in a plastic bag that is thrown down our bin chutes. A plastic bag charges far from representing mere climate change symbolism. It is a clarion call to us all and to alter social norms to equally, if not more importantly, reduce the amount of waste we generate. This is a pressing issue as there are infrastructural constraints on the amount of space we have to dispose our incinerated waste on Pulau Semakau which is expected to be full by 2035 or thereabouts. That is only a mere 15 years from now.
Correct as of Monday, there were 342,304 pledges on the MEWR website to fight climate change. There is a window to move more decisively and we should move fast.
To conclude, Mr Speaker, the Finance Minister is correct to say that many Singaporeans are coming up with and acting on ideas to make Singapore a better place on their own initiative. For the first time in his Budget speech in this term of Government, the Minister has spoken about the democracy of deeds. But whatever deeds our people underwrite, they take place within the context of our democracy, a democracy where alternative views, criticisms and disagreements shape the outcomes that give meaning to the phrase one united people – united in a vision for better and more confident Singapore, no matter what our political beliefs.
It is like that anthem that was referred to in this House, during the course of this Budget debate, \"You Will Never Walk Alone\". But how many of us know that it is not just the anthem of one club but others too, like Glasgow Celtic, Borussia Dortmund and many others.
Sir, Singapore's diversity is its strength. As long as our people – youth, businesses, individuals – engage the issues of the day civilly in our democracy and treat their fellow Singaporeans and foreigners within our midst with dignity and empathy, and endeavour for a more caring society, the best years of Singapore – a Singapore for all – are ahead of us.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on an issue that I have raised before in previous Budget debates – the importance of fiscal sustainability and financial prudence.
Sir, my friends often accuse me of being obsessed with numbers. I tell them it is an occupational hazard because I am a chartered accountant by training. But, I have found over the years in practice that numbers give us the most precise and clearest indication of one's financial position.
Sir, this year's Budget Statement is no different. Overall, we estimate our position to be in deficit of $10.95 billion. Year on year, we hope for increases in our operating revenue amid very challenging global competition. For example, our tax collections can increase if our companies do well and pay more corporate taxes. At the same time, we also hope for more revenue from our Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC). Our NIRC only became possible because of the prudence and wise investment decisions made by our earlier generation of leaders. Against this backdrop, our estimated to the expenditure is expected to increase much larger because we need to fund our healthcare needs and infrastructure developments, like our MRT lines, to bring a better life for Singaporeans.
Sir, talking about healthcare amenities, I have for the last many years, been asking for a polyclinic in my constituency of Potong Pasir. I even filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) for that. [Laughter.]
In my discussions with MOH, they informed me that there is no more space in Potong Pasir estate because it is all built up. That is true. But, MOH is building Kallang polyclinic, which is connected to Kwong Wai Shiu hospital. I see Dr Yaacob had a thumbs-up because that is in his Jalan Besar constituency. So, that is also good for Potong Pasir residents because that is one MRT station away.
However, I think I found some space for MOH. The residents of Bidadari are moving in and I think there should be some space in Bidadari estate to build a polyclinic for our Potong Pasir residents. So, if you can, Sir – please. [Laughter.]
Sir, let me continue with the Budget. A large part of the estimated Budget deficit for 2020, as Deputy Prime Minister Heng have explained in his Budget Statement, it should fund measures to address the impending difficult economic landscape that confront Singapore as a result of the COVID-19 virus outbreak. This includes the $4 billion Stabilisation and Support package for workers and businesses and also the $1.6 billion Care and Support package to help Singaporeans with household expenses.
In the Budget Statement, the sentence that captured my attention the most, was when Deputy Prime Minister Heng announced that there will be no draw on our reserves, no draw on our reserves. For FY2020, we have an expansionary budget with an estimated $10.5 billion deficit, but we need not draw on our reserves. Why? Only because the Government had accumulated sufficient budget surpluses during this term of Government.
As we have read in recent international media of other jurisdictions, similarly announcing support packages in their respective economies, I doubt you will find a jurisdiction that can say that they are able to fund such support packages in the manner that we have. I have not seen any.
During previous Budget debates in this term of Government, I am sure Members of this House will also recollect repeated calls for more spending of the surpluses or the use of more income derived from our reserves. There was even suggestion that the Government had a political agenda behind more prudent spending in the early years of a term of government.
Had the Government done as what was popularly asked – spend more in the good years – then, this year, we could very well have had to dip into our reserves in order to introduce first-instance measures to support Singaporeans as a result of the COVID-19 virus outbreak. I used the term \"first-instance\" because I worry that we may not have seen the eye of this particular storm. Even as we speak, we continue to see worrying signs of the COVID-19 virus outbreak seriously affecting many countries, such as Japan, South Korea, Italy, Iran and many others. We can anticipate further adverse headwinds against Singapore's globally interconnected economy. We could very well require even further measures from the Government to support and assist Singaporeans in the days ahead.
Sir, in my mind, there is another term for consistent financial prudence in our Budgets and, that is, always be ready and prepared for any eventuality. And I am sure I am not alone when I say that I am glad we did so for the past five years and, indeed, for many terms of Government before.
In the premises, Sir, I would invite our Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister to share with us the Government's intentions and plans to further support Singaporeans and businesses in the event that the situation is drawn out over a prolonged period of time.
Mr Teo Ser Luck (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Budget Statement was read by Deputy Prime Minister Heng, I felt very privileged to be on both sides of the fence. I had been a part of the team that was trying to figure out some of the schemes and programmes to be rolled out each Budget and I am now on the other side of the fence as a beneficiary of some of the programmes and schemes itself.
When I left the Ministry in the middle of 2017, I had wanted to set up my own ventures and businesses and I chose the most difficult path to do so. I chose businesses and ventures of a B2C nature, which is to create a consumer product, a consumer brand, starting from zero and I wanted to see if I could do it with the environment that Singapore offers, with all the different measures, grants and schemes that the Ministry offers. So, it has been a very good two-and-a-half years, but a lot of grinding and a lot of pain and also a lot of risks taken. It was not easy. But at the same time, I felt assured because I know that Singapore's business environment is one of ease of access as well as one that you could approach and feedback, where you could actually have help and assistance. But, of course, many in the business circle would say, \"Well, you had been an officeholder, you were a Member of Parliament. So, you have an advantage.\" Not so.
On the other hand, I took a lot of measures and also a lot of different ways to hide and not show which companies I owned and how I did it and actually worked behind the scenes really, really hard in order to grow those businesses. So, piece by piece, layer by layer, I built my business and I am very lucky, very blessed that, today, my venture in the consumer product business is profitable. I know many fall by the wayside and, out of 10, probably nine will fail. I am just lucky to be able to do so. I would not deny that some grants and programmes were made available for me or my company to be able to tap on them. But at the same time, it is very much dependent on ourselves as business people to do so, to be able to come up with solutions, with what the market needs and what the consumer wants and we can build a successful business from there.
Sir, the Government grants, schemes and programmes throughout each year are not an end-all and be-all. They cannot be the most critical function or most critical part of the business. I know that many businesses apply for those grants and schemes, hoping for additional cash flow. Yes, they are temporary relief measures, but they are not permanent. At the end of the day, someone must want to buy your product, work with you and believe in your company in order to invest in it in order for it to grow.
Sir, when I went through some of the speeches in the previous two days, I understand that Mr Leon Perera actually mentioned about slowing down some growth of the reserves and maybe putting in more investment into our people to be more creative, entrepreneurial and innovative. I do not disagree with that. But I think slowing down the growth of the reserves is not the way to go because, no matter what, we need to build up the foundation in order to take on the rainy days or challenges to come and deal with COVID-19. It is very clear that we have the facility and resources to handle some of these challenges. But, without which, we will find it a struggle to manage. It is like running the day-to-day business in every other way; you would want to have the reserves in order to handle some of these rainy days.
Sir, more importantly, these reserves and how we use them are extremely important. How the grants are rolled out is extremely important – a smart allocation of these resources and what kind of outcomes that we can get – those are the first things. And those schemes must be targeted to help, to be able to do so. I think more and more of those schemes for businesses are now very targeted. But having too many of those grants and schemes and we risk going into a welfare state for businesses. That, I would not encourage.
Secondly, we must make sure that we define success carefully. What is business success? Some people say, \"Raise as much capital as you can if you are a start-up so that you have millions and millions\", but you make losses. If you are a unicorn, it is okay to make losses and you raise a lot of money. Well, I do not buy that. I am pretty traditional in some sense, maybe a Teochew businessman type, which is that all businesses still have to be profitable. You can raise a lot of money, you can make a lot of losses, but no end to come, you would not see the tipping point. You will struggle. You will still struggle. So, you will hone your skills in fundraising but not hone your skills in building the business. That is a worry.
So, how do you define success? Is success an exiting of the business when you gain or what? I believe that success in business, to me, is about building a business with a social conscience. The product or services that you provide must have some social impact in order to make it very meaningful. But at the same time, commercially viable. That, to me, is the most important.
Thirdly is to have the environment. So, whatever reserves and schemes we have are to be able to create the environment for some risk-taking, embracing failures, so that our people do not give up. They try and keep trying. I think that is the most difficult part in terms of culture. But you can see our Government is so pro-business. Every which way, when there is a crisis, it will come up with more and more schemes. COVID-19 is a great example. You see a comprehensive slew of schemes and measures. Sometimes, I wonder, so many of them, I am also confused. Right? And I was also a culprit – creating those schemes and programmes as well. But at the end of the day, it is with good intention. The question is whether we are cushioning and detaching businesses from reality. Would they be more competitive when they go overseas? In COVID-19, I faced the same problem. I have both B2B and B2C businesses, especially B2C business dealing with consumers who are facing demand issues because the whole environment has been affected.
So, there are a few things that go through my mind when it comes to COVID-19 – the crisis itself, how it affects businesses. A few points here.
First, when I review my own businesses, all SMEs should ask ourselves whether we have the capital and resources like cash that can last us for the next two to three months if we are in the worst-case scenario – no demand, no revenue or minimal revenue. Can we handle or sustain? If we cannot, well, there are schemes where the Government is taking up a greater risk of the bank loan. So, borrow money, right? You can try. But I also know that, on the ground, sometimes it is difficult because the banks are not changing their risk assessment to let you have access to the capital. So, you have to keep trying. The first thing is to ask ourselves whether we have enough; second, maybe look for big companies. Right? And I am glad that Minister Chan, in one of the dialogues, said that big companies should help small companies. I hope so. But big companies have their own objectives, too. Unless a small company has value for the big companies, it is very hard to have a big company wanting to help a small company. So, what do you look for? Maybe an exit through the big company – let the big company acquire your small company or you just close it down, move on and move along.
Secondly, COVID-19 does offer opportunities, too. For example, I had wanted to recruit this talent for a long time. But because of COVID-19, his company retrenched him. Suddenly, I have him available. Immediately, I recruited him. I would like to pay him the market rate, but I also could not afford it. So, he was willing to lower his salary and, suddenly, I have a great talent for IT in my company today and we are growing. He is glad that he joined a growing company. But he was willing to be able to say \"I joined the company. I managed my expectations. Let us grow it together\", which was an opportunity.
So, the talents are out there. Whilst I know the Government tells us, \"Let us train our workers, people and executives\". Well, also look out for some of these access to talents. NTUC actually came up with the Job Security Council. Maybe it is something that we can have access to some of the PMEs over there to see where we can do the matching. So, it is not all about retrenchment but about growing, too. So, this COVID-19 is not exactly all gloom and doom for many companies. Some of us are actually growing.
Thirdly is to focus on the demand. Companies should focus on the demand. Is your product really having that demand? Maybe during this time, there are a few things that you have to do. First, lower your price, right? Second, refine your product again. Third, reposition your product. A lot of times, when it comes to this kind of crisis, we will look up to the Government to see what schemes to apply. I was telling my staff and my team this morning I do not think we want to do that. We look for competitiveness. We lower our price and we have to expand our market. Go overseas, go to new markets. Of course, I am already overseas. But where are the newer markets to expand your market and expand your revenue base? Because that is where we can help. And we realised that one of the markets that we are going to used to be 30% higher cost and is now 30% lower cost if I were to launch my product there and I thought \"Why not?\" That offers an opportunity.
At the end of the day, it is important to know that a lot of these things that we are doing today, we have to change. We may call it \"transformation\". But I will just say that it is just a transition, it is just a change. If you have been selling your product from a shop, then it is time for you to think about selling it online, without the sunk costs, without additional labour, you sell it online, figuring out how to do the logistics and delivery. I think a lot of people say \"We want to do it\" but, at the end of the day, they may not do it.
Most importantly is that at the end of COVID-19 or any other crisis or challenge, let us not give up. Let us not give up on what we can do because Singapore is in a much better shape not just in tackling the COVID-19 issues, the virus itself and making sure of healthcare but business-wise as well. I still see vibrancy in our businesses; I still see revenues rising for some of the companies. It is not everybody is doing badly. So, because of that, we can work together, both public and private sectors, as well as all of us in the House, to help bring this economy back up again. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members of this House for the thoughtful debate over the past two days. In particular, I would like to thank the 54 Members of Parliament, including all nine Nominated Members of Parliament, who rose to offer your perspectives and suggestions. I do not have 57 files; just two. I have also learnt many new terms, including Mr Lim Swee Say's H2P2 or Happy and Healthy, Productive and Purposeful; Prof Lim Sun Sun's 3Ms, which is not massively more money, but \"mobility, maturity, mentality\"; and Mr Ang Hin Kee's \"woon woon jiak beehoon\" or steadily, we eat the beehoon. My special thanks to Mr Liang Eng Hwa who opened the debate as Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Finance and Trade and Industry.
Beyond this House, I also appreciate the many helpful, constructive perspectives shared by fellow Singaporeans. They have enriched the national conversation on this Budget and the issues it seeks to address.
This year’s Budget takes place under exceptional circumstances. It is a trying moment for businesses, workers and households, having to deal with both the softening of the global economy and the sudden COVID-19 outbreak.
How we respond to moments of challenge and crisis is a test of our individual resilience and the strength of our character. Even more, it is a test of our social cohesion and solidarity. It is a test of who we are as a people, as a nation. Do we panic and become self-centred or do we stay calm, band together and look after one another?
Since I delivered the Budget statement last week, some have asked why we call it \"Our Unity Budget\"? My answer is simple. It expresses our confidence that Singaporeans will rally together to meet our challenges head-on. It expresses our conviction that we will emerge from this test, stronger, more resilient and more united than ever before. It expresses the spirit shown by many Singaporeans – of staying united, as one people, through thick and thin.
Beyond fighting the COVID-19 outbreak, our unity will be the foundation for Singaporeans to press forward and write the next chapter of the Singapore Story. United, we can overcome the longer term challenges of ageing, technological disruption, social inequality and climate change. United, we will make sure that the Singapore Story endures and goes from strength to strength.
We should not take our unity for granted. Around the world and closer to home, we have seen societies torn by forces that foment polarisation, communal conflicts and political turmoil. These have weakened their social cohesion and the sense of togetherness that is so essential for societies to meet the complex challenges of the day. We need, as many thoughtful commentators pointed out, a whole-of-society response.
I will round up this Budget debate by addressing Members' contributions along four key themes.
First, how we will overcome our immediate challenges and the COVID-19 outbreak together. Second, how we should manage our finances collectively to provide for our future. Third, how we should tackle the long-term challenge of climate change and turn our constraints into strengths. Finally, how we can create opportunities for all and build better lives for Singaporeans in changing times.
First, let me speak on our present challenges.
Having gone through SARS 17 years ago and other outbreaks like H1N1 since then, we are much better prepared for COVID-19 today. With systematic and long-term planning, we have developed new facilities, like the National Centre for Infectious Diseases, deepened research capabilities in health and biomedical sciences, built up our networks of experts and honed our effectiveness in contact tracing and quarantine. Most importantly, we have well-trained and dedicated people. These capabilities are now deployed to good effect to deal with the COVID-19 outbreak.
Although we have kept the outbreak contained so far, it has already had a significant impact.
In these challenging times, we have acted decisively to protect families and workers through the Care and Support Package and the Stabilisation and Support Package.
I have received a wide range of feedback about the support. Many are relieved that we have a strong and decisive Budget, with both broad-based and targeted support. Many Members of this House have asked if we are doing enough, particularly for businesses in the sectors directly affected and those feeling the knock-on effects. On the other hand, some economists have wondered if we are doing too much.
We must not fight the current war simply based on the lessons of the last war. Every crisis and downturn is different. So, we should, to the best of our ability, make a sound diagnosis of the current challenges and apply a decisive course of action, or as one says in Chinese, \"对症下药\", fit the remedy to the case.
At the same time, we must bear in mind the caution that Ministers Gan Kim Yong and Lawrence Wong have given – this is a fast-moving, fluid situation. While the evidence is that the impact of the COVID-19 virus is more like H1N1 than SARS, its rapid spread through places like Iran, Italy and South Korea demonstrates the fluidity of the situation.
We must maintain a state of dynamic vigilance and be prepared to adjust course as new information comes in.
Let me address whether we are doing enough and in a timely manner.
The overall size of our spending in Budget 2020 is appropriate for now. We have calibrated it to put sufficient purchasing power back into the economy, while injecting a boost of confidence. In fact, our Budget is higher than what most economists had expected. This took into account the context of the global slowdown and wider uncertainties.
We are applying the support to where it matters most. Our first priority is jobs.
The two biggest items in the Stabilisation and Support Package – the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) and the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) – are focused on preserving and enhancing jobs. With greater job assurance, workers are in a better frame of mind to go for training. It will also avoid them having to cut down too much on consumption. SMEs, which employ the bulk of local workers and whose concerns were raised by Ms Denise Phua and Mr Ong Teng Koon, are a key focus of these two schemes. As a percentage of revenue, SMEs will receive payouts that are on average five times as much as the average for all enterprises. This is on top of the help they will also receive through the Corporate Income Tax Rebate and other measures.
Second, we are giving support to those sectors which are most directly impacted by COVID-19.
Our sector-specific measures are calibrated according to the extent to which each sector has been affected. Tourism, accommodation and aviation have been hit hardest and are therefore given additional support. In total, these sectors will receive over $400 million, in addition to the broad-based support that they will get through JSS, WCS and Corporate Income Tax Rebate. This will include enhanced absentee payroll support for workers, an issue that Mr Seah Kian Peng raised. Ministries will announce further details on this.
Third, we have extended support to other groups who have felt the ripple effects, including Self-Employed Persons (SEPs).
We have provided additional measures to support taxi and private hire car drivers, hawkers, tourist guides and operators of F&B and retail outlets. This additional support totals over $200 million and is over and above the support from broad-based measures, which form the bulk of the support for them.
Mr Desmond Choo, Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if we could do more to take care of other groups of SEPs and freelancers who are more affected by the outbreak. Mr Pritam Singh raised the issue of bus drivers. The relevant Ministries will announce details for these other groups subsequently.
Fourth, we have designed our measures to be able to reach enterprises as quickly as possible. Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if we could expedite the flow of the JSS payout to businesses.
The disbursement of the JSS payout is operationally more complex due to the need to check and validate information on workers, employers and payment mode. Hence, we had initially projected for the JSS payout to reach companies by the end of July. In the last few weeks, the agencies involved have redoubled efforts and are now targeting to bring forward the payment for JSS from end-July to end-May. Employers using bank crediting will get the payout about a week earlier. Enhancements to WCS will be provided in the second half of this year. This way, we can also spread out our support for enterprises in a more sustained way.
These measures in the package also come on top of the existing support schemes for firms. For example, there will be a WCS payout of more than $600 million to firms next month, based on the parameters announced in Budget 2018.
We should also look at the measures in the Stabilisation and Support Package in totality. We are providing a Property Tax Rebate to qualifying commercial properties, for which property owners will receive their revised tax bills in April, and refunds of any excess property tax paid by the end of May.
We are also providing rental waivers for Government commercial tenants, the majority of which will apply to March and April rentals.
For the Corporate Income Tax Rebate, companies will receive their revised tax bills by the end of March. These will provide not just financial relief but also help with enterprises' shorter-term cash flow needs.
Many, including Mr Arasu Duraisamy, Ms Denise Phua, Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Alex Yam have asked if we can do more for businesses and for a longer period of time. We hope that will not be necessary. But if it does, for example, if the outbreak becomes a worldwide pandemic and the global economic impact is deeper and longer, we have the fiscal resources to do so and the will to act. We have the fiscal resources to do so and the will to act.
But, for now, let us go forth and make the fullest use of the support available out there before we review what more needs to be done. As I have said, this is a fluid and fast moving situation.
There are many stories of businesses and workers who are not just making full use of the Government's support, but taking it a step further to help each other and share the burden during this time of fear and uncertainty.
Landlords, including CapitaLand and Frasers Property, have promised to pass on the Property Tax Rebate to affected tenants.
The taxi and private hire car companies have taken steps in partnership with NTUC, the National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association and the Government to care for their drivers in their hour of need, even as they face challenges themselves. I thank Mr Ang Hin Kee for playing a key role in facilitating this.
Many businesses have also responded to the challenge with resilience and foresight, taking the opportunity to accelerate innovation and invest for the future. This is exemplified by PARKROYAL at Kitchener Road. I visited PARKROYAL this Tuesday. I was impressed by the measures they are taking during this downtime to renovate the hotel, redesign processes, retrain their workers and redesign jobs. They are able to do this because even before the COVID-19 outbreak, they had been making plans to transform their operations to cope with manpower constraints. Now, they are accelerating their transformation efforts, fully utilising the support that we are extending to them.
Our Labour Movement has also been hard at work to help workers cope and emerge stronger from this difficult period. I thank Secretary General Ng Chee Meng, Mr Heng Chee How and Dr Koh Poh Koon for NTUC's strong leadership and partnership in this period and all his NTUC colleagues who are here in this House.
This is a time for all of us do our part. As Mr Vikram Nair put it, the entire population needs to come together to weather the storm.
People from all walks of life have come together to help others, at a time when it is tempting to just look out for oneself. Some are pooling their money. Young leaders from six business families in the Singapore Business Federation, Young Business Leaders Network has set up a $5 million fund called the \"Helping our promising enterprises\" or SBFYBL and Hope Fund, to provide financing help for local enterprises hit by COVID-19. In another example, Maturity Trust, a charity, is raising $500,000 under the Singapore Strong Fund to fund ground-up projects that help the community stay strong amid the COVID-19 outbreak.
Many are also pooling that time. Mr Delane Lim started the initiative Ops Hands-On to provide free masks and hand sanitisers to seniors and vulnerable residents in neighbourhoods across Singapore in collaboration with local residents' committees and community clubs. Even our children are doing their part. Students and staff from Wellington Primary School and several other schools made personalised cards to show support and appreciation for our frontline health workers.
Several Members of this House have shared heartwarming stories of how the community has banded together to cheer on our frontline workers as it combats the COVID-19 outbreak.
Mr Alex Yam talked about how volunteers in Yew Tee baked cookies for our frontline heroes. Ms Tin Pei Ling talked about Singaporeans who wrote messages and prepared gifts to express their support and cheer them on.
Our frontline health workers deserve our fullest support and encouragement.
Indeed, our frontline workers, especially healthcare workers in the restructured hospitals have shown outstanding courage and dedication. They are out there making daily sacrifices to fight this war against the unknowns. As Mr Seah Kian Peng put it, they act not because they have no fear but in spite of it.
Senior Staff Manager, Ziadah Zainudin, has worked more than 12-hour days at Singapore General Hospital's Isolation Ward. Despite missing her birthday celebration with her family, she did not let COVID-19 stop her from doing her job.
Dr Melissa Tien responded to NCID's call for volunteers at its 24-hour Screening Centre, even though it meant sleeping in a different room from her husband and forgoing time with their two children.
Dr Margaret Soon, the Director of nursing at NCID and a veteran of SARS cancelled the family trip to work at the frontline. But her family understood and supported her, including her daughter whom she was pregnant with during SARS 17 years ago.
The selflessness and commitment of our healthcare workers have shone through as they bravely care for those affected and tirelessly work to contain the spread of the virus. They are an inspiration to all of us and their spirit of excellence has been recognised around the world. [Applause.]
While we cannot thank them enough, we can show our appreciation and support in a tangible way. The Government will award public officers on the frontline who are directly battling with the COVID-19 disease up to one additional month of special bonus. [Applause.]
This will include many healthcare officers in MOH and the restructured hospitals and some officers in other frontline agencies who have been directly involved. Other public officers who have contributed significantly will be recognised in appropriate ways.
We will also make a one-off COVID-19 grant to the Public Health Preparedness Clinics to support them in their active role caring for patients with respiratory symptoms.
This gesture plus the many words of encouragement and acts of consideration and kindness is our way to express to you we salute you. [Applause.]
We will win this war over the virus by fighting as One United People. Our citizens and institutions all play a part. Enterprises and senior management standing with unions and our workers, landlords supporting tenants, neighbours looking out for one another, political leaders working hand-in-hand with Public Service and the people to do everything that will help. They will help us see these problems through together.
Singapore has been able to respond strongly and effectively to COVID-19 because there is strong trust between the people and the Government, and the sense that we are all in this together.
The Government can make decisions quickly and carry them out effectively because Singaporeans have confidence that those responsible know what they are doing, care about their health and safety and share their worries and concerns.
We do not hide bad news. We do not flinch from doing the right thing. We will go the extra mile to help everyone of us come through this together. That is why people comply with stringent quarantine orders, people accept reassurances about masks, people feel safe and carry on with their lives.
The fundamental basis for this is trust and solidarity between the Government and the people.
The political leadership will do our part. To show solidarity with fellow Singaporeans. All political office holders will take a one-month cut in their salary. All Members of Parliament will also take a one-month cut in their allowance. [Applause.]
The President has informed me that she will join in to take a similar one-month pay cut. [Applause.]
Senior Public Service officers will take a half-month pay cut.
In the weeks and months to come, we will need to draw deeply on Singapore's reserves of resilience, trust and solidarity. This unity of purpose across our whole society is what will see us through these challenging times. If we conduct ourselves well in this crisis, we will replenish those reserves and strengthen our resilience and unity for another generation. As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah said said yesterday, in Singapore, \"You Will Never Walk Alone\".
Budget 2020 provides critical support to Singaporeans and businesses in this hour of need. We are able to do so because we have managed our finances prudently and planned ahead to make sure that we always have enough to meet our people's needs.
COVID-19 will not be the last challenge that we will face. When this passes, we will continue to face the longer term structural challenges of an ageing population, technological disruption, social inequality and climate change. We will continue to face sudden and unexpected situations, be it new virus outbreaks, threats to our security or financial crisis.
A responsible government must ensure that the nation has the resources to meet these challenges and unexpected events, so that present and future generations of Singaporeans have the wherewithal to survive and thrive. As Mr Sitoh Yih Pin put it so well, we must always be ready. We must always provide for our future.
Two years ago, I announced that we will need to raise the GST some time from 2021 to 2025. Various parties have questioned this plan. Some have called for the GST rate increase to be delayed or dropped completely after I announced that it would not take effect in 2021 and that we have prepared a $6 billion Assurance Package. In place of the GST rate increases, some have suggested alternatives including raising income and wealth taxes as well as spending our reserves and more of its investment returns.
Which path we choose and how we decide to share the burden of providing public services and building our collective future will define us. Will Singaporean stand together to share the responsibility of providing for our collective future? Or will we pass the cost to our children and grandchildren?
In many societies, such tensions have divided communities and created fault lines between millennials and baby boomers. So, it is critical that we make a collective and informed decision to share the efforts and cost fairly, with citizens appreciating the reasons and values behind this decision.
Many have been advocating that I give up more sweets, more M&Ms, more and more, be a generous \"财神爷\" or God of Fortune. It will be easier if I could deliver every Budget with just more good news, more spending on everything, more subsidies, more universal handouts and keep quiet about how we will pay for all of this. But this will be irresponsible. It has never been the Singapore way and I hope will never be. Because Singaporeans deserve better.
So, I will spend some time explaining the rationale and the hard choices and trade-offs that we have to make. I hope that you will understand and appreciate the care and concerns behind the careful planning. If we did not care as much for our collective future, we would not have thought so long and hard, and expended so much political capital.
Let me speak on two sets of issues in turn. First, I will explain why raising GST remains the responsible way for all of us to meet our society's future needs. Second, I will explain why we should continue to steward our reserves well, to safeguard the interests of future generations of Singaporeans.
First, let me reiterate why we need to raise taxes. Nobody likes taxes, not even Ministers for Finance.
As a Government, our approach is to tax lightly, so that people can keep most of what they earn and so that they can decide how best to spend it for themselves, for their families or to donate it. But there are many critical national needs that are better met by government provision through taxes.
These include building up healthcare facilities and services, and providing subsidies to ensure that our healthcare needs are well taken care of.
These include important priorities like mental health which Ms Anthea Ong spoke about passionately, and which will be discussed further during the Committee of Supply. I agree with her that good mental health is a foundation for well-being and resilience and we have already started including this as part of our work on human potential that we have added to our national R&D budgets.
These include developing good and affordable pre-school services and education to give all children including our children with special needs a good start in life and the best chance for success, regardless of background.
These include building up the SAF and Home Team to support our way of life in an era of emerging external, digital and terrorist threats.
These are all issues that many of us in this House care deeply about and made eloquent pitches for the Government to spend more on.
There must be a role for the Government to redistribute resources in the right way, so that everyone shares in the fruits of progress. Our way to do this is through schemes that enhance the capability of our people – through investments in education, healthcare and the provision of housing, as well as schemes to mitigate inequality like Workfare and Silver Support.
Mr Singh asked earlier whether I could provide more details about our expenditure. In fact, I noticed that several Members of Parliament have gone through my Budget Annexes and looked at how much spending has increased for various Ministries. So, let me just take this occasion to cover one important area, an important area because the big shift in public expenditure in the next decade will be in healthcare spending. It will grow significantly as our population ages and as medical technology improves.
Now, let me show you a chart that shows Singapore's and other countries' public health expenditure as a percentage of GDP against the share of the total population that is over 65 years old. On the x-axis is the percentage of total population is more than 65 years old; and on the vertical axis is public health expenditure as a percentage of GDP. The triangle shows the year 2000 and the circle the year 2015. So, in other words a period of 15 years.
When you look at the green line, South Korea; the purple line, USA; New Zealand, Germany the blue line; and Japan, the yellow line, you can see how they have all gone up sharply as population ages and as technology improves. As a percentage of GDP, the USA is at the highest at almost 14%, Germany at about 9% and Japan at also about 8% or 9%. In Singapore, it has also risen.
The dotted line represents the future, projections by the OECD. The OECD had made similar projections for others. So, we did a similar projection to look at what would Singapore's numbers be, if we used MOH's projections. And that is the bottom, the lower dotted line. And then the upper dotted line is if we were to use OECD's methodology or OECD's trends.
As the share of seniors increases over time, public health expenditure has simply increased. And as I said, medical technologies will continue to improve. This trend has been played out in Singapore and all the other countries, as shown in this chart.
Over the past two decades, our healthcare expenditure has grown rapidly. In 2000, Government spending on healthcare was about 0.7% of our GDP. By 2015, it had tripled to about 2.1% of our GDP. This additional spending has gone towards significant improvements in healthcare accessibility and affordability.
We have introduced new schemes such as MediShield Life and expanded CHAS to cover all Singaporeans for many chronic conditions. Since 2010, we have opened or expanded eight hospitals. We have built two new polyclinics and redeveloped three existing ones.
Now, do not get me wrong. The spending is not just on the infrastructure. For every hospital that you build, the capital expenditure or capex that we put in, the operating expenditure or opex, is even more. So, it just tells you the trend that we are heading towards.
And healthcare spending is not just about treating the sick. It is also about giving our seniors a better quality of life.
The number of cataract operations per year on seniors increased from around 10,000 in the year 2000 to almost 30,000 last year. Such procedures were less common in the past because people did not live as long as they do today to need them. And because of advances in medical sciences, previously incurable diseases, like cancer, can be better managed, and patients can continue to live for more years with good quality of life. The number of citizens aged 80 and above has almost doubled, from 63,000 in 2009 to 112,000 in 2019, and will increase further.
Going forward, healthcare spending will continue to grow significantly. So, while this is a very good thing that our people are living longer, we must be prepared that we will have to spend more on healthcare. So, we expect public healthcare spending to grow by around 1%-point of GDP over the 15 years from 2015 to 2030. This is, in fact, as I mentioned to you earlier, less than the average increases projected in the OECD countries, partly because of our efforts to keep healthcare costs sustainable and because Singaporeans have increasingly adopted healthier lifestyles.
But our healthcare spending may rise by more than this 1%-point if medical costs rise throughout the world and we do not bring problems like obesity and diabetes under control.
As Mr Lim Biow Chuan said, Singaporeans must understand that increased spending on healthcare must come from somewhere. Some have wondered if we can spend less or spend more efficiently. Indeed, it is not just about how much we spend but how well we spend. Today, we achieve good outcomes at a lower cost than many other countries.
In health, we have the highest life expectancy in the world – almost 85 years – but still spend less of our GDP compared to other countries, as Members can see in this chart, our life expectancy compared against public health expenditure as a percentage of GDP of various countries. In fact, former World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said that it was \"stunning\" that Singapore had achieved its current outcomes despite relatively low spending. So, I will thank our people and our healthcare workers for taking care of their own health and for doing such a good job.
Similarly, for education, our 15-year-olds do well in international indices of educational attainment like the PISA test despite Singapore spending less than other countries.
We are able to achieve this only because of a whole-of-society effort.
On the Government’s part, we have carefully designed our education and healthcare systems to deliver good services in a cost-effective manner. We have dedicated and passionate educators who believe in developing every child to their fullest potential. We have committed healthcare professionals who believe in delivering the best care to all Singaporeans. There is strong support for Singaporean families from community groups and social service agencies. And Singaporeans themselves play an important role in taking responsibility for their own learning and health.
We are always looking for ways to improve outcomes in a cost-effective manner. Minister Lawrence Wong will elaborate on some of these efforts during MOF's Committee of Supply (COS).
But efficiency savings will never be enough to fully offset the growth in healthcare spending as the population ages and medical sciences improve. Efficiency savings can only mitigate it. To believe otherwise is wishful thinking.
Ms Foo Mee Har shared that some Singaporeans have questioned the need to raise revenues to meet the expenditures I mentioned, pointing at surpluses seen in this term of Government. But our healthcare spending needs are not one-off needs. They are recurrent needs – meaning that these needs will be there year after year. In fact, growing year after year. So, we need to fund them using recurrent revenues, not one-off surpluses seen in this term of Government, which arose from the unexpected rally in global financial markets and the unexpected buoyancy in the property market.
We cannot hope to keep on being so pleasantly surprised. Things can very quickly swing in the opposite direction, as we have seen from the COVID-19 outbreak. The outbreak reminds us why we need to plan ahead to raise revenues. We must ensure that we have enough resources to meet our people’s needs, driven by structural factors. Otherwise, we will find ourselves short and have to raise taxes or cut spending in difficult times, precisely when businesses and people need a boost.
Planning ahead entails being honest with ourselves and with citizens, and having the discipline to raise revenues in a timely manner.
Yet even among those who agree in principle on the need to raise taxes, some have asked, \"Why GST?\"
As I have explained before, a broad-based tax like GST is an appropriate and responsible way to pay for major societal needs like healthcare spending. Such spending benefits all Singaporeans and so it is fair for everyone to bear some part of the cost. This is about all of us taking shared responsibility to pay for our needs and our society’s needs and sharing in the effort to provide for them. It is at the same time a Singapore-style GST that comes with offsets to ensure that those with lower incomes pay much less than those who are well-off.
In fact, at the individual level, many Singaporeans are willing to chip in to meet these needs. In my conversations with my constituents, I have asked if they would be willing to contribute just 20 cents more out of $10 that they spend a day, if this would help to ensure that their healthcare needs and those of their parents were adequately taken care of. Many were willing to accept this small cost for peace of mind. The compact does not change when we project it to the national level. This is ultimately about us collectively chipping in to look after the healthcare needs of our families. Each generation must pay for its own spending.
Ms Foo Mee Har and some others have asked if we should raise income and wealth taxes instead of GST. In fact, we have been doing so in recent years.
In 2010, we made our property tax regime progressive by introducing higher tax rates on owner-occupied residential properties with higher Annual Values. We enhanced the progressivity of our property tax system in 2013, with higher property tax rates for homes and non-owner-occupied residential properties. In 2015, we raised the top marginal personal income tax rate from 20% to 22%. The following year, we introduced a cap on the personal income tax relief to make our regime more progressive. In 2018, we raised the Buyer’s Stamp Duty for residential properties in excess of $1 million in value.
In all this time, when we were raising income and wealth taxes to support the country’s growing expenditure, the GST rate remained at 7%. The last time we raised it was in 2007, more than 10 years ago.
But we should bear in mind that there is a limit to raising income taxes. If we keep raising income taxes, it will eventually hurt middle-class Singaporeans, who presently pay very light income taxes. It will also risk losing our ability to attract talent and keep our own talents. As Ms Tin Pei Ling said, \"Talents beget talents. There is a virtuous cycle to this.\" It is important to have a critical mass of talent in Singapore to create jobs and economic vibrancy, which will benefit Singaporeans.
That said, as important as raising the GST is, it is only one way to meet our revenue needs. An increase of 2%-points in the GST rate will provide us with additional revenue of almost 0.7% of GDP per year. But the increase in annual Government healthcare spending alone that I mentioned already exceeds the amount of additional revenue. So, we will continue to adjust our income and wealth taxes to raise revenue in a progressive and fair manner.
We should keep international tax developments in mind as we review these taxes – both personal income tax as well as corporate income tax.
As Mr Cedric Foo and Mr Henry Kwek noted, there are on-going international discussions to revise tax rules under the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. Hub economies with small markets like Singapore stand to lose corporate income tax revenue if the new rules are adopted. This is because the new rules allocate taxes to where the customers are rather than where the underlying economic activity is conducted.
Businesses are highly mobile in today’s global economy. Companies, especially multinationals, have the flexibility to relocate their businesses out of Singapore to elsewhere. Singaporeans may lose their jobs. So, Mr Pritam Singh asked me earlier about the status of BEPS. Well, in fact, I am glad that MOF officials have been very involved in this international discussion. Some of these discussions are confidential in nature. Some of them have been made public. But I assure Mr Pritam Singh that hub economies will have to bear some negative in this exercise for the reasons I mentioned – where you tax the activity. Is it where the consumers are or where the underlying economic activities are? That change in principle alone, you can work out what the effects will be for us as a hub economy.
We therefore need to strike a fine balance between our corporate income tax rate and economic competitiveness.
Ultimately, how much we spend depends on how much we collectively have to pay in the form of taxes. This chart shows the standard GST or value-added tax rates that other jurisdictions adopt, compared with our future rate of 9%. Among the Nordics, for example, the value-added tax rates are as high as 25%. They also have top personal income tax rates as high as over 50%. They have accepted higher taxes as the price for their higher social spending.
Even as we seek to keep the GST rate low, we have to make trade-offs as we increase our spending for our healthcare and other needs. After raising the GST to 9%, it will still be lower than the average rate in Asia and less than half of the average rate in OECD countries today. Many countries in the region and elsewhere have standard GST rates that exceed 9%. Even Saudi Arabia, a country with huge oil reserves, is carefully planning ahead and introduced a 5% value-added tax from 2018. Do we have oil? No.
So, let me address concerns raised about the impact of the GST hike on the lower income and the impact on cost of living.
In designing our fiscal system, we have always sought to achieve a fair and progressive balance where the better-off contribute more and the lower income receive more support. This overall philosophy is a key consideration in how we design the GST and how we will implement the GST hike.
This is why I have announced an Assurance Package to cushion the increase for all Singaporeans when the revised GST rate kicks in by 2025. This provides a bigger and thicker cushion to the lower and middle income, including many seniors.
The package effectively delays the impact of the GST increase for the majority of Singaporean households for at least five years. For lower income Singaporeans, the offset will be even higher and hence, there is effectively no increase for them for 10 years.
There have been questions over the logic of raising GST and providing a $6 billion Assurance Package for GST, and whether we can just delay or not even increase the GST rate at all. Delaying the GST increase is not the same as raising the GST and providing offsets. This is because of the design of our system and the resulting incidence of the GST burden.
Today, we flow part of the GST revenue back in the form of a GST Voucher that gives more to those who need it most, particularly the lower income and retiree households. This is a permanent part of our system and will be enhanced when the GST hike takes place.
The GST Voucher reduces the net GST borne by lower and middle income households. Net GST is the amount of GST borne by each household, after accounting for the GST Voucher they receive. With the GST Voucher, the bottom 40% of resident households are estimated to account for less than 10% of the net GST borne by all households and individuals. On the other hand, a significant part of the net GST is borne by foreigners and higher income households.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked what proportion of the GST is borne by this group. Foreigners residing in Singapore, tourists and the top 20% of resident households are estimated to account for over 60% of the net GST borne by all households and individuals. This is after taking into account GST refunded under the Tourist Refund Scheme for goods bought here for consumption abroad. This is partly because foreigners do not benefit from the GST Voucher and offsets, which are available only to Singaporean households.
When we eventually increase the GST rate to 9%, foreigners pay the higher rate immediately. In contrast, Singaporeans receive offsets to cushion the impact, through both the permanent GST Voucher and the Assurance Package. And as I said, for some households it is equivalent to not having the GST increase for five years, and for some even 10 years.
All in, the GST increase, implemented together with the Assurance Package will achieve several different objectives.
Most importantly, we delay the impact of the increase on most Singaporeans, by five years or more, and even longer for the lower income. We can start collecting revenue from foreigners residing in Singapore and tourists, and our businesses make the changes to their IT systems only once.
The GST is only one part of our fiscal system. When you look at the system of taxes and benefits as a whole, it is a progressive one. Those who are better off, contribute more. The top 10% of taxpayers pay about 80% of our personal income tax revenue. As shown in this chart, lower and middle income households receive proportionately more benefits than the taxes they pay, whereas higher income groups contribute a far higher share of taxes than the share of benefits they receive. So, as you can see, the top 20% pay 55% of the taxes and receive 12% of the benefit. The bottom 20% pay 9% of the taxes and receive 28% of the benefits.
So, let me summarise what I have explained in three points.
First, we care for fellow Singaporeans and want to support them, especially in healthcare. To fund this spending, we need to raise the GST.
Second, we will take collective responsibility to look after one another. Raising the GST, a broad-based tax, to meet a broad-based need is a sustainable approach.
Third, we ensure that we are fair when the GST is raised. Through the Assurance Package, we will effectively delay the increase for almost all Singaporeans by at least five years; and over and above the transitional support, the permanent GST Voucher will further help the lower and middle income.
Let me address questions that have been raised over the use of our reserves and suggestions that it should be used to fund our needs instead of GST.
The reserves are our nest egg, borne of hard work and discipline. During the earlier years of economic catch-up, Singapore experienced fast growth and had a young working population. Our founding fathers made the decision to save the country’s surpluses and invest it for the long term to build up Singapore’s nest egg. They could have just spent it to gain immediate political advantage. But they were principled and had the long-term interests of our people and our nation at heart.
In FY2019, our Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) was $17 billion, or 3.3% of GDP, the largest single contributor to the Budget. This is a highly unusual and a very fortunate position. Most advanced countries, shown in the lower half of this chart, pay about 2% of their GDP in debt servicing of accumulated debt. They collect taxes to pay off the debts of previous generations. As you can see from that graph, the red line is the US and the green line on top is France and Germany, in between at about 2%.
In Singapore, as shown in the top half of the chart, it is the opposite. Our reserves generate substantial returns, which help to keep our taxes low. In other words, in most advanced countries, citizens today pay for the spending of the past generations. In Singapore, it is the reverse. citizens today enjoy the benefits of the savings from the past. Thanks to the foresight and policies of our founding generation of leaders and people.
You can work out the sums simply. Today, NIRC at $17 billion is more than personal income tax at $12 billion and GST collections at $11 billion. So if we did not have the NIRC, even doubling personal income tax, or doubling the GST rate to 14%, would still not be enough. Tell me – in which other country are citizens able to reap the benefits of past savings in this way? So, let us never forget that what we have inherited is very unusual and very precious. Let us be responsible and steward this properly for our future generations.
Mr Leon Perera asked if we can slow the rate of growth of our reserves and release more funds to invest in our people and companies. I am sure he is aware that in 2008, we introduced the Net Investment Returns framework, and in 2015, we passed a constitutional amendment to add Temasek in the framework. This has resulted in a significant increase in NIRC that has gone towards various spending, including investments in our capabilities to generate future growth. Put it in another way, today at $17 billion, the NIRC is able to cover almost the combined budget of MOE and MTI.
More importantly, our reserves give us the confidence – as a small country with no natural resources of any kind – to deal with the ups and downs in the world. This is why we have a robust set of rules to safeguard and manage the use of reserves. The President plays a critical role in guarding against profligate spending and to ensure proper use of our past reserves to safeguard Singapore’s interest when needed.
During the Global Financial Crisis more than a decade ago, with global financial markets in turmoil and governments around the world scrambling to protect bank deposits, then-President S R Nathan approved the provision of $150 billion from our past reserves to guarantee bank deposits in Singapore, from October 2008 to December 2010. That calmed our depositors.
I was the Managing Director of MAS at that point. And I can tell you that our officers in MAS worked day and night to safeguard the stability of the banking system, and totally conscious that we were using our past reserves as a guarantee, but we were also confident that the guarantee will be put to good use because it is to stabilise the confidence of depositors. So, throughout that period, we had a very difficult time but towards the end of it, we did not have a single bank run. And the $150 billion remained untouched. It went back to our past reserves. Singaporeans’ money was safe.
In 2009, then-President Nathan approved a draw of $4.9 billion from our past reserves to fund the Resilience Package to help us overcome the Global Financial Crisis. A year later, after the economy rebounded sharply, the Government decided to return the money used to our past reserves. It did not have to, but did so, to maintain the discipline that has allowed this unusual move in the first place.
This year, we have not had to tap our past reserves. But it was the same spirit of prudence that allowed us to have enough surplus this term to provide the fiscal support for our economy and our people. But if the situation deteriorates significantly and calls for us to tap on our past reserves, I will make a case to the President to seek her approval to do so.
We can do the easy thing and avoid the pain for ourselves today. We can decide not to raise GST to pay for our own spending, but to tap on our reserves and its investment returns instead. But by doing so, we will soon deprive future generations of the benefits that we enjoy today. What would that, then, say about us?
During a Parliamentary hearing in 2001 on the Bill to allow the Government to use part of the returns of investment from our reserves, our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, “What is the deepest obligation of any government? It is not to the present, and certainly not the past, but to the future.” Let me repeat that: \"What is the deepest obligation of any government? It is not to the present, and certainly not the past, but to the future\".
We have a duty not just to those who make their views known today, but also to the young and the future Singaporeans. They are not here today to represent their interests – because they are not born yet! But we have a responsibility to them, and to take decisions which are difficult for us but which will safeguard their interests. Let us continue to keep the discipline and keep the faith and promise to future generations of Singaporeans, by stewarding our reserves well in our time. [Applause.]
Climate change is another area where we may not live to reap the benefits of our decisions but our children will. In this Budget, I have set aside $5 billion for a Coastal and Flood Protection Fund. I could have chosen instead to spend it on more \"hong baos\" or red packets, to make myself more popular. But by making the commitment today, these resources will go towards pumps, tidal gates and infrastructure that will keep our children and their children, safe from rising sea levels in decades to come.
Climate change threatens our very existence, as a small, low-lying island state. But Singapore has always risen to the challenge in the face of adversity. We have never accepted our fate or our starting circumstances meekly – instead, we adapt, innovate, mitigate and overcome. We turn constraints into opportunities and strengths. Dealing with our water and land constraints has made us leaders in water technology and urban planning.
Our manpower constraints constantly push us to automate, digitalise and be more productive. Now, we have a plan to address our carbon and energy constraints.
We are meeting the challenge head-on, with an ambitious plan to tackle climate change. We are not only securing our coasts but also transforming our sources of food and water and remaking our entire economy and city for a green and sustainable future.
Several agencies are working in concert to execute this, coordinated by the National Climate Change Secretariat.
This year, we will update our commitment to the Paris Agreement and submit our Long-Term Low Emissions Development Strategy to contribute efforts to mitigate climate change.
MTI and MEWR will prepare our economy and society for the low-carbon transition by working with various stakeholders and partners to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and seize opportunities in the circular economy.
Just as it had done with water, MEWR is embarking on ambitious plans to develop our own food production capabilities, with its \"30 by 30\" target. MOT is working on our vision to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles and have all vehicles run on cleaner energy by 2040. MND is making efforts to make our towns greener and more sustainable, and transform Singapore into a City in Nature.
These are ambitious plans and we are bringing our R&D investments in urban solutions and sustainability to bear to realise this vision. The respective Ministers will speak more on these efforts and, in fact, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean will speak on this in the COS.
I hope their explanations will give Mr Dennis Tan a fuller picture of all that we are doing to tackle this serious challenge. He and Mr Yee Chia Hsing, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Murali Pillai gave their perspectives on the adoption of Electric Vehicles (EVs).
The Government is playing our part. We already have the Vehicular Emissions Scheme and in this Budget, I announced the EV Early Adoption Incentive. This will help to close the cost premiums between EVs and internal combustion engine vehicles. Over time, as technology improves, we expect the cost differential to close further.
However, while we want to encourage drivers to replace their internal combustion engine vehicles with EVs, we should bear in mind that the cleanest and most efficient mode of transport remains public transport. A car-lite vision that Mr Khaw Boon Wan has articulated, continues to be the main focus of our transport policy. And MOT will provide further comments later.
This is a whole-of-society, multi-generational effort and its success will depend on all Singaporeans taking action. I am very happy that many young Singaporeans are passionate about this cause and want to be part of the solution.
We are in for the long haul and our journey to tackle climate change will span 50, even 100 years. It is, as one commentator pointed out, a big audacious goal. But if we do not have the courage and determination to tackle challenges that threaten our very existence, what is our ambition for? Such long-term investments, together with our reserves, represent our commitment to future generations of Singaporeans.
If we take the long-term view and each generation plays its part, Singapore can face the future with confidence – confidence that we will always have the capacity to overcome every challenge – be it a virus outbreak, recession or rising sea levels; confidence that we will be able to provide for our families and community; and confidence that our children will have the best chance of a better life, come what may. [Applause.]
I have not finished. I told you I have two files.
Now, let me touch on how we will strengthen the social compact and continue to fulfil the promise of opportunities for all in changing times. Ms Denise Phua, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and others spoke on the need to tackle inequality and preserve social mobility.
Singapore was founded on a vision of a \"just and equal society\" – broad-based prosperity and equal opportunities for all – a society where every Singaporean, regardless of background and starting point, has a good chance to do better.
Today, this remains this Government's mission to enable all Singaporeans to enjoy the fruits of growth.
Over the years, we have made good progress in fulfilling this goal. But we will confront complex new challenges ahead, including the pressures of technological and demographic change and the growing inequality of starting points, as our society matures.
Our response to these challenges will define us.
A growing number of societies have responded by turning inwards from the world, even as they grow more polarised and divided within.
For Singapore to stay successful, we must have the courage to take a different path. We must continue to anticipate and respond to change, plan for the long term, and find practical solutions to create better lives for Singaporeans. We must continue to stay open and connected to the world. A Singapore turned inwards cannot survive. We must continue to foster trust in society, a point which Prof Yaacob Ibrahim spoke yesterday. Above all, we must stay united as one people. Our unity is what makes Singapore's story exceptional.
Mr Lim Swee Say, in his trademark pithy way, said we need \"Glocalisation\" – both a globally competitive economy and a locally cohesive society. This calls for us to do three thing: to transform our economy to be globally competitive, to develop our people to seize these opportunities and to strengthen our social compact by ensuring that all benefit from the fruits of progress and no one is left behind.
This will require us to put in place synergistic fiscal, monetary and structural policies. With sensible and prudent fiscal policies that promote growth and social equity, appropriate monetary policy to promote macroeconomic stability to maintain price stability and promotes steady growth, and structural policies that expand the capacity of our firms and labour force for growth.
Let me touch on the actions that we are taking in our structural policies, starting with how we will transform our economy to keep it globally competitive.
The global economy is undergoing tectonic shifts today and many countries face a new economic landscape. Singapore must move fast to secure growth and jobs in the next bound, or face irrelevance.
We have, therefore, embarked on an urgent journey to transform Singapore's economy. We started our work four years ago, in 2016, when the Committee on the Future Economy was formed.
First, we are moving quickly to secure our external economic space, to create new opportunities and room for manoeuver in an increasingly fragmented economic order.
To ride on Asia’s growth, we are working to position Singapore as a Global-Asia Node of Technology, Innovation and Enterprise, as a trusted and valuable part of the network of global cities that are driving innovation and growth globally. We have enhanced our economic connectivity through our network of trade agreements and avoidance of double taxation agreements. We have also created new linkages with other economies through digital agreements and new platforms and networks, such as the Networked Trade Platform and Global Innovation Alliance. These moves diversify our markets and supply chains and have made us more resilient in times of rising protectionism.
Second, we are increasing the capacity of our enterprises and industries to innovate, grow and transform.
As Mr Ong Teng Koon pointed out, building up strong local capabilities and eco-systems for innovation is critical to our economic success and resilience. We are, therefore, helping enterprises to deepen their capabilities at every stage of their growth. So, I am very happy to hear Mr Teo Ser Luck sharing his personal entrepreneurship journey by making use of the grant but cautioning that not to overdo it or you will destroy the spirit of enterprise.
To strengthen our competitive advantages, we have expanded our R&D investments into new areas and technologies. Through these investments, we are harnessing the latest technologies to transform our manufacturing and services sectors and creating new growth clusters in areas such as urban solutions and sustainability, health and human potential and agri-food tech. We have brought industry and the research community together to experiment and collaborate with the Government in test-bedding solutions in areas like urban mobility.
Third, we are mobilising and partnering our industries and enterprises to take ownership of their own economic transformation.
We have brought industry stakeholders together via Industry Transformation Maps across 23 sectors. But the success of each ITM comes down to the strength of leadership in our enterprises. Business leaders must have the mental agility and dynamism to experiment and the resourcefulness to overcome constraints.
That is why, in this Budget, we are supporting business leaders through the Enterprise Leadership for Transformation (ELT) programme. Our Institutes of Higher Learning, such as SMU, have joined hands with Enterprise Singapore to support this effort. Enterprise Singapore will bring more partners on board the ELT programme in the coming months.
And at the industry level, partnership among businesses is key. So, even as businesses compete with one another and seek to differentiate themselves, cooperation can help them do better, such as by forming alliances to capture opportunities overseas or collaborating to test-bed sector-wide solutions. And this is exemplified by the Singapore Manufacturing Federation, which, under Mr Douglas Foo's leadership, is making a concerted effort to transform the manufacturing sector.
The Singapore Poultry Hub is another example. A joint venture between five poultry producers and processors, the Hub's smart factory will deploy emerging technologies to increase productivity by 26% and production capacity by 70%. By working together, these poultry producers were able to achieve the scale needed to transform a labour-intensive process. So, though they remain competitors, they certainly did not chicken out from working together!
As Minister Josephine Teo reminded us, economic transformation is not painless. Businesses must be willing to bear the transitional pains, to be creative and resourceful, and to seize opportunities where others see challenges.
Encouragingly, we are starting to see the fruits of our moves to transform the economy.
Productivity has grown in the last three years and our enterprises are entering new markets. We are also seeing continued confidence and investment in Singapore despite economic headwinds. Investment commitments attracted by EDB in 2019 amounted to $15.2 billion in Fixed Asset Investments and $9 billion in Total Business Expenditure per year. These show that we are taking steps in the right direction.
Most importantly, our efforts are creating more and better jobs for all.
Over the last 10 years, local employment has grown steadily, adding more than 41,000 jobs each year on average. Local unemployment has stayed low, at about 3.2% of resident labour force in December 2019, on a seasonally-adjusted basis.
Above all, locals are benefiting from the jobs created. Earnings have increased.
Since 2010, real incomes have risen by about 3% each year for the median full-time employed local worker. And more locals are employed in higher paying jobs.
In 2010, 37% of full-time employed local workers earned a gross monthly income, excluding employer CPF, of at least $4,000 in today's dollars, adjusting for inflation. In 2019, 51% of local workers earned at least $4,000. So, 51% in 2019 compared to 37% in 2010.
At its heart, economic transformation involves the courage to brave transitional pains as we change the way we do things. And if we can all move forward with this can-do spirit of initiative and partnership that we have shown in the past weeks, I am confident that we will build strong firms that can grow and compete in the global arena and create good jobs for all Singaporeans.
As our economy undergoes structural changes, our labour market is also facing profound structural changes.
As our population ages, our resident workforce will shrink rapidly, tightening our labour market. People are living longer and expect to have longer, even multiple, careers. And rapid advances in technology and business models will bring more frequent and disruptive changes to skills required at jobs.
As Prof Lim Sun Sun and Mr Christopher de Souza put it, change is the only constant and we cannot run away from it. Our collective mentality towards up-skilling must change from nice-to-have to must-do, a point that Mr Teo Ser Luck also mentioned earlier.
We are responding to these changes by taking a three-prong tripartite approach with the Government, workers and enterprises working in close concert to deal with these structural changes in our labour market.
The first prong is for the Government to invest in critical enablers of skills upgrading and in career support.
We have shifted our approach to education to one that enables learning throughout life. We are investing heavily in Institutes of Higher Learning, or IHLs, to build up a future-ready eco-system. Together with other training providers, our IHLs offer a large suite of Continuing Education and Training (CET) courses, many of which are industry-relevant. And together with those provided by other training providers, our IHLs' CET courses provide a key pathway for individuals to gain skills and confidence to make career transitions and to realise their aspirations. The Government subsidises these courses heavily, with subsidy rates as high as 90% of course fees.
Beyond education, we are enhancing our support to help workers make the transitions smoothly, and this is especially important for mid-career workers. Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about their anxieties. We must turn these anxieties into actions that improve lives.
Our Adapt and Grow initiative helps workers find opportunities, refresh their skills and transition to new roles faster. Professional Conversion Programmes or PCPs, help workers take on new jobs roles and our career coaches give career guidance and help job seekers secure new jobs.
When I visited Workforce Singapore's (WSG) Careers Connect last September, I met Mr Lam Kong Chai, 58 years old. Mr Lam had been job hunting for two years. With WSG's help, he was hired as Finance Director at Asia-Europe Foundation. His hiring manager herself had previously received career advice from WSG and approached WSG to fill the role that Mr Lam took on. In turn, Mr Lam worked with WSG to fill a vacancy in his team. So, all three individuals ended up getting jobs.
The outcomes of our Adapt and Grow initiative are encouraging. About nine in 10 of those who went through our PCPs remained in employment 24 months after placement. And about seven in 10 also earned higher wages after starting their new jobs. Our coaches work with about 27,000 jobseekers every year. In 2018, they managed to place about seven in 10 jobseekers into new jobs within six months.
In this Budget, we have built on these initiatives, paying special attention to the needs of mid-career workers in their 40s and 50s by introducing the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Support Package. We are also increasing the capacity of our re-skilling programmes by providing a hiring incentive to employers and providing a special SkillsFuture Credit top-up of $500 to every Singaporean aged 40 to 60 in 2020.
I would like to thank Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Liang Eng Hwa for their suggestions on how we can help our mid-career workers and improve SkillsFuture. These will be discussed further during the COS.
The second prong of this approach is to enable our workers to take ownership of their own learning and growth through the SkillsFuture movement.
Initiatives such as the SkillsFuture Credit encourage each individual to take charge of their learning throughout life. Together with Government subsidies for CET courses, our workers can access quality programmes with low or zero out-of-pocket payment.
Take, for example, a Big Data Engineering for Analytics course which costs about $4,500 before Government subsidies at a SkillsFuture Singapore-appointed CET centre. A Singaporean worker aged 40 or older enjoys a 90% course subsidy. The remaining $450 can be fully met from the worker's existing SkillsFuture Credit or the top-up that this worker will get in this Budget. So, the SkillsFuture Credit works in conjunction with the broader CET eco-system of support that we have built up.
I hope this assures members like Mr Arasu Duraisamy and Ms Irene Quay, who raised queries on the credit and concerns about whether it can really make a difference.
Our Labour Movement is innovating and exercising collective leadership to strengthen individual workers' efforts, for example, the Job Security Council initiated by Secretary-General Ng Chee Meng as well as the Company Training Committees.
The third prong of our tripartite approach is to get our enterprises to step up their own enterprise transformation and in tandem to re-design jobs and upgrade their workers. With this synergy, we can achieve more. As Ms Jessica Tan pointed out, leadership must come from employers.
The Next Bound of SkillsFuture announced in this Budget therefore mobilises businesses to up-skill their workers and re-design jobs through the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit and the expansion of the Productivity Solutions Grant for job re-design consultancy services. Enterprises who hire local workers aged 40 and above, with no upper age limit, through re-skilling programmes will also get hiring incentives.
Mr Ong Teng Koon was concerned that it may be hard for SMEs to take workers away from the day-to-day business needs. In fact, there is no better time than now to do so. Many businesses are already use this downtime to accelerate change.
This three-prong approach, building on our tripartite framework, is our structural response to the structural changes in the labour market. We are able to do this because we have been investing significantly in our education upstream, to build a strong foundation to enable our people's success.
Investing upstream means supporting every child to reach their fullest potential.
Today, over 90% of the total cost of educating our children from Primary to pre-University level is subsidised by the Government. In all, by the time a Singaporean child reaches 16, he or she would have received more than $180,000 in education subsidies, including pre-school subsidies. Then, when they go on to an Institute of Higher Learning, which most students do, they get an additional $15,000 to $22,000 in subsidies per year.
Students from lower and middle income households receive additional bursaries and subsidies on top of this, which I have enhanced in this Budget.
We are now investing significantly more in affordable, quality pre-school education while giving low-income families additional support for early childhood development through KidSTART.
We are also equipping young Singaporeans with skills they need for the new economy, including cross-cultural skills. In this Budget, I announced our \"70-70\" target, Asia-Ready Exposure Programme and enhancements to the Global Ready Talent Programme.
Another key area where we invest upstream is housing, so that everyone has a home.
We provide generous housing subsidies to keep HDB flats affordable. New HDB flats are sold at prices below their market rate. Over and above subsidies, we provide substantial housing grants depending on the income of the buyers. Eligible first-time buyers who buy resale flats get grants of up to $160,000.
Today, a resale flat can cost less than five times the annual salary of a median-income household. This is much lower than international cities like Hong Kong, Sydney, London or New York. This chart compares the median house price as a ratio of the median household income in major cities before accounting for grants. The ratio will be lower with grants. You can see the numbers yourself.
By intervening upstream in these areas, we provide a foundation of broad-based opportunities that enable everyone to earn their own success.
As a result, Singaporeans have been able to enjoy the fruits of progress.
Now, I will show you another chart that shows resident-employed households have experienced sustained real income growth at the median, growing by 3.7% per year over the last decade. You can see the numbers for yourself versus other developed economies.
While the data are not perfectly comparable internationally, the growth that we have experienced is higher than that of many advanced economies. In short, our approach in these changing times is to take structural measures to strengthen opportunity at every stage of life, with all – individuals, employers, unions – doing their part.
For this to succeed, the change must come from within. For all the programmes that the Government puts in place, each individual will have to take responsibility for their own growth and learning. If we can all take on a mindset of growth and a spirit of resilience, we can be assured that we will emerge stronger and better to face the future ahead.
I have spoken on our first two strategies of transforming our economy and developing our people to enable opportunities for all. But for all our efforts to maximise opportunities for everyone, there will be some who will continue to face difficulties. So, our third strategy is to strengthen our social compact by ensuring that all benefit from the fruits of progress.
This Budget provides further support for those who may face greater pressures.
First, some face difficulties with employment and ensuring that growth in their income keeps pace with inflation, despite their best efforts. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Png Eng Huat have spoken on the vulnerabilities of low-wage workers.
The Care and Support Package, which includes Grocery Vouchers to provide help with daily necessities, will help them and their families. It builds on our efforts in recent years to strengthen social support and safety nets for low-income workers and their families through enhancements to Workfare, the Progressive Wage Model, and ComCare.
The mayors and the five Community Development Councils (CDCs) have local assistance schemes to support the heartlands, as pointed out by Mayor Low Yen Ling. These local efforts, done in partnership with community partners, local merchants and many others, bring warmth and support from fellow Singaporeans and business owners who are also our neighbours.
Second, there are retired seniors who had lower incomes in their working years, with little or no family support. We have announced substantial enhancements to Silver Support to benefit 100,000 more seniors and raised payouts by 20%. These enhancements go beyond inflation growth to provide stronger support.
Third, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Saktiandi Sapaat spoke about the stresses faced by middle-class families that are \"sandwiched\" financially because they have to care for both their children and their elderly parents. Mr Louis Ng, Ms Yip Pin Xiu, Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Darryl David also pointed out that they may face pressures in terms of time from balancing their care-giving responsibilities and work.
Financially, we have given additional help for such families in this Budget by providing those with young or school-going children with an extra $100 cash payout per parent, more GST Voucher – U-Save rebates for larger households and PAssion Card top-ups for their parents. Last year, we also announced measures to support parenthood and care-giving, including enhancements to pre-school subsidies, and the Home Caregiving Grant under MOH's Caregiver Support Action Plan.
Supporting and strengthening families will always be a priority for us and we will continue to look at how we can do so effectively. I thank Members for their suggestions. These issues will be discussed further at the COS.
These measures come on top of the extensive subsidies that I mentioned earlier in education, healthcare and public housing. These benefit all Singaporeans, including the middle class. Middle income households – those in the middle 20% by household income – benefit substantially from this system. In 2019, they received $2 in benefits for every $1 in tax paid.
Overall measures that we have put in place over the past decade to provide good jobs for our people, develop them at all stages of life and support the vulnerable, have made a decisive impact in narrowing the income gap.
The Gini co-efficient after taxes and transfers fell to 0.398 last year, the lowest since 2001. This is encouraging, but our work is not done. We will always continue to look at practical, effective moves to tackle inequality and ensure that all Singaporeans progress together.
Critically, business and community have growing roles to play. A caring and cohesive society begins with everyday acts of kindness, of philanthropy and volunteerism. These are better antidotes to inequality than the politics of class warfare that we have seen around the world.
As Miss Cheng Li Hui put it, graciousness and kindness are indeed part of our Singapore spirit. There is much we can do to build an inclusive society for all, including those with special needs and persons with disabilities. Miss Cheryl Chan, Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar and Mdm Rahayu Mahzam reminded us.
This is why it has been my priority to support, enable and amplify the efforts of citizens and businesses to help those in need, through Singapore Together. These efforts are growing. In 2018, individuals collectively donated $2.1 billion through registered organisations, more than double the $960 million donated in 2008. Each donor gave on average about $660, which is more than twice the amount in 2008. In addition, one in two businesses in Singapore gives back through philanthropy and volunteering.
Our social service agencies have been doing good work for the community. They too have been going through their own transformation journeys, building up technological capabilities to be more effective in helping those in need. For example, the Cerebral Palsy Alliance Singapore has invested in an anti-gravity treadmill, so that clients can practise moving and walking in a fall-free environment. Going forward, we will partner the community to support more of such capability-development efforts, through the Community Capability Trust that I announced in this Budget. Such investments and partnerships will help Social Service agencies to overcome the manpower constraints that Ms Joan Pereira spoke on.
This good work is not just confined to organised sectors. Our democracy of deeds permeates every level. Many MPs have also shared stories embodying the spirit of Singapore Together.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa and many others shared about the spontaneous and thoughtful acts in many housing estates, such as fellow residents coming together to bottle hand sanitisers and placing them at lifts for residents to use. Mdm Rahayu Mahzam shared about the passion among young people for a more inclusive, more compassionate society and reminded us of the importance of engaging young people as we build this nation. I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his support for the Singapore Together movement in his comment about MPs giving diverse views in this House. And I would say that we can go a step further, that the democracy of deeds means each of us taking action to realise the good.
It is also very inspiring to hear how several Members of this House are taking the lead to serve our community in their own, diverse ways. Let me just highlight some of our Nominated Members of Parliament. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, an economist, has been doing a lot of work on the labour market. Mr Douglas Foo leading the SMF effort. Mr Terence Ho, using the arts to enable and empower individuals from underprivileged backgrounds. Ms Anthea Ong, fighting to raise awareness of mental illness among us and to promote mental wellness; Ms Irene Quay, who has served the public passionately in healthcare, volunteering in a hospice despite her many commitments. Ms Yip Pin Xiu, who is inspiring young athletes and showing Singaporeans and the world what it truly means. Mr Mohamed Irshad, who is fostering religious harmony and helping to build a more caring society. Prof Lim Sun Sun for her work on the need to educate our young even better. This embodies the spirit of Singapore Together. And as Ms Denise Phua said, there are so many other areas that we can work together, to take action to build a better society and improve lives. She herself has taken so much action and devoted so much effort in uplifting people with special needs.
This is how we should rise to the challenge of inequality in this day and age – by coming together as one people to uplift the less privileged amongst us, with the state providing strong foundations of opportunity and support.
I do apologise that this is longer than what everyone had been expecting. But there have been so many good stories, I thought it is bears telling. So, thank you all for your patience in this Singapore Together effort. You sit together to listen to my long speech.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say a few words in Mandarin before I conclude in English.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] \tThere is a Chinese saying, \"前人种树，后人乘凉\", which means that the current generation plants the seeds which eventually grow into trees that provide shade for the next generation. Our reserves are akin to a tree planted by our earlier generations. Today, this tree is well-grown and we are able to take shelter under it, benefiting from the stable income that it generates for our country.
The Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) is already the largest source of revenue for our country, more than the revenue collected from corporate income tax, personal income tax or GST. Without the NIRC, even doubling the GST rate to 14% would not be enough to meet our expenditures.
To draw on the reserves or become overly reliant on the NIRC to meet recurrent expenditure is akin to damaging or even cutting down the tree.
Our recurrent expenditure, especially on healthcare, is increasing. We need to continue developing healthcare facilities and providing healthcare services to ensure that elderly Singaporeans are well taken care of.
Such spending benefits all Singaporeans. Therefore, it is fair for everyone to bear some part of the cost. I have announced that the GST rate will remain at 7% in 2021. But the Government will still have to raise GST by 2025. Not only does this allow us to increase revenue in a sustainable and effective manner, it also reflects our value of collective responsibility.
As we raise the GST rate, we will ensure that our taxes remain fair. The permanent GST Voucher Scheme mitigates the impact of GST on lower and middle income Singaporeans. In addition, the Assurance Package for GST will offset at least five years' worth of additional GST expenses incurred for most Singaporean households. For lower income Singaporeans, the Package can offset about 10 years of the additional GST expenses.
When we eventually increase the GST rate, tourists and foreigners residing in Singapore will pay the 9% GST immediately. In fact, a significant part of net GST is borne by foreigners and higher income households. Foreigners and higher income households are estimated to account for over 60% of the net GST borne by all households and individuals.
In addition, we are also committed to ensuring that our future generations continue to enjoy a sustainable living environment. This is our commitment to Singaporeans. The risks brought about by climate change are one of the challenges that we must tackle. As an island nation, Singapore is highly susceptible to the impact brought about by rising sea levels and floods. Besides managing the impact of climate change, we must continue to build a liveable, caring and vibrant home for ourselves.
The 2020 Budget is a Unity Budget. In the face of the COVID-19 outbreak, we must unite as one people.
I would like to especially thank our frontline workers for their selfless contribution and for carrying out their duties steadfastly with professionalism. To express our respect and gratitude, the Government will be providing up to one additional month of special bonus for frontline healthcare workers and public servants who are directly battling with the COVID-19 disease and facing higher risks. In addition, we will provide a one-off grant for Public Health Preparedness Clinics.
During this difficult period, our Government leaders will stand in solidarity will all Singaporeans. This year, all political office holders will take a one-month cut in their salary, and all Members of Parliament will take a one-month cut in their allowance. President Halimah Yaacob is also supportive of the move and has volunteered to take a one-month pay cut. Senior public service officers will similarly take a half-month pay cut.
As we progress, we will meet many challenges. Some will be for the longer term, while some will be more immediate. I can understand that Singaporeans are worried about the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. However, as we tackle the immediate challenges, we must also set our sights on the future.
Zaobao commentator Giam Meng Tuck aptly described this Budget as three prescriptions, namely \"定心丸\" (assurance pill), \"润肺散\" (lung moisturising powder, to ameliorate ill-effects) and \"提神三味汤\"(three-flavoured soup to invigorate the spirit).
The Assurance Package for GST, Stabilisation and Support Package, Care and Support Package and Transformation and Growth Strategy constitute the multi-pronged approach that ensures that Singapore does not lose sight of the direction that we are heading towards, as we tackle immediate challenges. These measures will also allow Singaporeans and companies to prepare for the economic recovery during this period of economic slowdown.
We are able to do this because we have been prudent in managing our finances over the years, preparing for rainy days and setting aside sufficient funds. At the same time, we have been using our reserves in a responsible manner.
The values conveyed by the Chinese saying, \"前人种树，后人乘凉\", remains a cornerstone of Singapore's long-term fiscal planning. We have to continue protecting and nurturing the tree planted by earlier generations, to take care of our future generations and ensure that generations of Singaporeans after us will have enough resources to face future challenges, seize opportunities and build a better Singapore.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now conclude in English. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken on the vision and mission of this Government, on the shifts we need to make to thrive in the world ahead and how we need to work together to reach our goals. We began our journey as a nation with a mission – seeking the welfare and happiness of Singaporeans, in a more just and equal society. Through rain or shine, we have never wavered from this mission. We live in a time of change and uncertainty today. But it is precisely in such times that our strength and resolve as a nation shines most brightly.
Let us not be paralysed and divided by anxiety and fear, but let us be energised and united by optimism and a common vision for tomorrow. Let us rise to the occasion and overcome the COVID-19 outbreak together, stepping up to take care of one another in these trying times. Let us share the effort to build our future and nation together. Let us build a sustainable Singapore, where we and our children can live our best lives in a safe, green and livable environment, for all time and seasons to come.
Let us grow as a city of possibilities – an open, globally-connected city, where each Singaporean can live to the fullest, and bring our aspirations, hopes and potential to life. Let us continue to build a society of opportunity for all – where we have the freedom to determine our own destiny, based not on our starting points, but through our own choices and efforts. And let us continue to foster a caring and cohesive community, living as equals, uplifting the most vulnerable among us and taking care of our fellow men and women.
All of this is within our reach, if we work as One Singapore. With collective action and leadership at all levels of society and with our diverse strengths and passions combined, we can build a society that we can all be proud of. This is the spirit of Singapore Together, and it is alive today, as shown by many Singaporeans, including Members of this House, who are leading change in diverse ways.
Above all, let us never stop thinking for tomorrow. In the long and never-ending journey of nation building, each generation of Singaporeans are relay runners. May we always take good care of what we have inherited, run our best race and pass on a better future to those who come after us.
This Budget is about one step in this long race, building upon the sweat and toil of generations who have run the race before us. It seeks to do right by Singaporeans, both present and future, through the financial plans and provisions that we make today.
I thank all Members of this House for your support for this Budget. Let us unite and forge ahead as One Singapore, to build a better Singapore for tomorrow. \"Singapore Together, Majulah Forever!\" [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Any clarifications?
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved. \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021.\" (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Commencement Time of Committee of Supply","subTitle":"Announcement by Mr Speaker","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: We have completed the debate on the Budget Statement. We are now going into the Committee of Supply to debate the Estimates. I have revised the commencement time of the Committee of Supply to start immediately. With the change in commencement time, the revised \"guillotine time\" for Head U – Prime Minister's Office is 4.50 pm which includes a tea break. Hon Members will be notified of the revised conclusion times for the subsequent Heads of Expenditure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimates of Expenditure of Singapore for the Financial Year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021","subTitle":"Committee of Supply – Paper Cmd 24 of 2020","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day]. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure of Singapore for the financial year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, contained in Paper Cmd 24 of 2020. For convenience, I shall take the totals for each Head of Expenditure in the Main and Development Estimates as they appear in the last columns of the schedules of estimated expenditure under the Main and Development Estimate outlays for FY 2020 on pages 6 and 7 respectively of the Command Paper.
A total of 531 amendments to the Estimates of Expenditure have been submitted for this year. The \"guillotine times\" to the discussion of the Heads of Expenditure under Standing Order 92(7)(a) have taken into consideration the earlier commencement time of a sitting, the reduction of Question Time and the extension of sitting times of the Committee of Supply for each allotted day.
I must remind hon Members that the total time for discussion of each Head of Expenditure includes the replies from the front bench. With the assistance of the digital timer in the Chamber, I trust that hon Members will be able to keep to the speech times indicated against their amendments. I would urge hon Members both from the back and front benches to adhere to their time limits, as I will be very stringent in my time-keeping.
I shall deal first with the Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement. Head U – Prime Minister's Office. Mr Seah Kian Peng.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head U (Prime Minister's Office)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\"
The tragedy of climate change is not that it is not severe or insignificant. The real tragedy is that few people think of it urgently and deeply. Too often, it is a flashy speech, or some performative act that grabs attention for a brief moment and then, it is back to business as usual.
So, it is heartening that even in the middle of a high profile and salient public health crisis, our Government has set aside the budget to deal with climate change – including $5 billion for coastal and flood protection measures.
I have been speaking in the past about how Singapore has over time, built up its water security as well as various measures to reduce our weight on the environment. A few years ago, we set up the Singapore Centre for Climate Research in 2013. We are a member of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. Last year, we put in place a carbon tax.
But climate change requires all of us across different departments and Ministries to work together. For example, efficiency in energy consumption and waste disposal requires there to be strong collaboration across housing and transport sectors. We have already put in place guidelines to critical infrastructure such as air and seaports to be at least 4 metres above sea level. Given our long memories of floods, we have pump houses that transport storm water from reservoirs to the sea. Our beautiful Marina Barrage is actually a glorified anti-flooding pump.
Meanwhile, we have seen one of the largest players in Singapore's built environment – the HDB, making a big difference under the Greenprint programme, solar panels and waste conveyance systems are embedded or will be embedded into HDB estates. On roads, there is now a determined push into more and better public transport systems – new service lines, larger bus fleets and bike-sharing initiatives. In policy, the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme has been launched. In business, Waste-to-Energy plants reduce waste volumes by 90% and allow conversion to reusable energy.
In the way we live, move and make money, Singapore is turning green. This is not by chance. We started life as a nation as a Garden City as a way to distinguish ourselves, as a disciplined and well-ordered society. So, it goes without saying that we need a whole-of-nation effort to deal with climate change.
How is our Government working to foster collective action by businesses, the community and individuals to tackle this issue together?
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Er Dr Lee Bee Hwa.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Chairman, we have heard much about Singapore's commitment to Climate Change and this is indeed encouraging. There was a consultation exercise on our long-term low-emissions development strategy last year. Can Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean share what is the outcome of this? Could Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean also share, are we on track to meet our commitment to the Paris Agreement?
As we transit to a low-carbon future, what is the expected impact on our economy? Will it add to the cost of doing business in Singapore and therefore drive away some investors? On the other hand, how is Singapore leveraging green growth opportunities?
Mr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Chairman, I am gratified that Singapore has always been conscious of the drastic impact that climate change has on our generation and more importantly on future generations. I am in support of the bold and proactive steps that the Government has taken over the last few years to reduce our carbon emissions. I would like to ask the Minister what strategies and plans will put in place for Singapore to continue to reduce our future emissions?
Currently, 1.3% of Singapore’s generation capacity is from solar photovoltaic generation. Given that there are limited alternative renewable sources viable in Singapore, I would like to ask the Minister how Singapore will further reduce the emission from our energy consumption.
As Singapore builds, a proposal would be to consider the entire life cycle of building materials and choose to use materials that can be recycled or reused, such as, for drains and roads. It would also be in our future vision to build and convert existing buildings to zero-energy or net-zero building buildings. I would ask the Minister what efforts and initiatives there are to make our nation building more sustainable?
As a whole country effort is required to reduce emissions, I would also ask the Minister if we can create a National Green Mark to recognise local projects and businesses with initiatives and practices which reduce emissions and; grant incentives to the finance sector to provide funding to such businesses and projects.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Climate change is a substantial threat to Singapore. Not only must we protect our shores from rising waters. We must also fulfil our international obligations towards low carbon emissions development. We cannot survive on a moral Island burning fossil fuels while the rest of the world struggles to keep the cities above rising waters.
The core to this must be a national strategy and blueprint that guides our agencies and people preparing for the city's future.Yet, the journey to protect ourselves is fraught with dilemmas and trade-offs. Controlling carbon emission through carbon taxes increases business cost. Protecting our coastlines might have permanent ecological impact.
The fossil fuels business is estimated to be 3% of Singapore's GDP. Weaning off fossil fuels requires a fundamental change to Singapore's economic strategy. The current generation would have to foot the coastal protection bill but they might not live to see the benefits.
I will like to ask the Government what are the principles that it has adopted in developing our national strategy? How are the key stakeholders such as businesses, green groups and academics consulted? We must develop a strategy that balances trade-offs and brings together generations of people to pursue our climate change objectives sustainably. This meant that inter-generational trade-offs must be balanced carefully.
I believe that there are also opportunities. As we have turned water scarcity into valuable knowledge of market value, what are the strategies that we pursuing to turn these threats into opportunities?
The severity and enormity of the challenge requires us to plan way ahead but execute quickly. What are the concrete plans and programmes that have already been put in place since the Prime Minister’s announcement during the last National Day Rally?
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Sir, it came as welcome news late last year to read of the Government-owned company, SP Power, looking to decarbonise our electricity sector in favour of renewables, by potentially working with neighbours such as Malaysia and Indonesia. With spare land to install solar panels or wind turbines, something practically impossible to undertake on a large enough scale in land-scare Singapore, building transmission lines to connect to our neighbours would allow Singapore to readily tap on clean power and significantly reduce our reliance for fossil fuels for electricity generation. It would also significantly enlarge our green footprint and boost our contribution to reduce the debilitating effects of climate change.
In addition, on the prospects of a pan-ASEAN electricity grid, an SP official was quoted as saying that Malaysia already has connections to Thailand which in turn has connections to Laos. Hypothetically therefore, Singapore could invest in clean energy projects in neighbouring countries beyond our immediate neighbours and use renewable energy credits to receive the same amount of electricity from Malaysia, for example.
Sir, could PMO share more details about these initiatives and confirm the timeline of these projects that look at tapping electricity from regional power grids? What does this mean for the consumer and power generators in Singapore, not to mention the price of electricity?
I understand some discussions have already taken place with Malaysia for greater cooperation in this regard. What risk does the Government anticipate in reducing our carbon footprint by diversifying and tapping on regional electricity grids and how can these be overcome?
Finally, the regional and global consequences of climate change provide a unique opportunity to look into further ASEAN wide collaborations that promote green policies. In view of easier access to the markets and our R&D sector, how can Singapore contribute to addressing regional climate change challenges and imagining commercial solutions in view of the active interest in addressing climate change – a top policy priority for younger Singaporeans in particular?
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Sir, climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing the world. On 9 February 2020, a Brazilian-run research station recorded an extreme temperature of 20.75 degrees celsius in the Antarctic. The first ever temperature recorded of over 20 degrees Celsius. Temperatures around the world continue to rise, melting ice into oceans and causing sea levels to rise. This poses existential challenges to our Island state.
We have to act decisively on climate change. I am heartened that the Government has carried out a public consultation in 2019 to discuss how we could formulate our long-term low-emissions development strategy. Can the Government share its plans to reduce our emissions? What are the various factors the Government took into consideration?
Moving ahead, we also need to look into achieving sustainable development, continue to create good jobs while ensuring a well-managed transition to a low carbon future. The transition while challenging, also poses various opportunities in the green economy related innovation. How can Singapore leverage green growth opportunities and how we plan to rally businesses, the community and individuals to be part of it?
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, climate change is a global issue that requires collective efforts on a united and international front. Beyond mitigating our domestic emissions, how can Singapore contribute to international efforts? What are the key areas of international cooperation needed to achieve Singapore's climate goals?
I have, in a Parliamentary Question before expressed my concerns on our role in Coal-fired and Gas-fired Independent Power Producer (IPP) Projects in the ASEAN region. The biggest environment problem amongst some ASEAN members is the plan to increase such projects, which will emit large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, and I think that the way forward is to boost renewables financing in ASEAN, which is currently taking place at a very slow rate.
Can the Senior Minister also share how they have been supporting our financial sector to make the transition to promote more green financing in Singapore? I hope we can explore my proposal to kickstart a first loss fund for renewables projects in ASEAN, with other ASEAN sovereign wealth funds, including Singapore's, chipping in later on. This is certainly something I have discussed on other occasions, at various forums for investors and financial institutions. But for the Singapore Government, in this case, to spearhead the efforts, I think it will be a very good opportunity to boost our international profile and it will be a more effective way for ASEAN and Singapore to reduce carbon emissions globally, more effectively and fast.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Chairman, the Government's commitment to a low carbon future and reduction of greenhouse gases is welcomed. One key effort was passing the Carbon Pricing Act, which took effect last year. However, there has been some doubt about the effectiveness of carbon taxing in Singapore as some say it does not guarantee the desired level of emissions reduction.
I understand that the Young PAP conducted a focus group discussion recently with climate activists and experts from the sustainability sector. Amongst the issues discussed was the perceived over-emphasis on economic metrics as a means of calculating growth. Some felt that such metrics encouraged excessive production and consumption. Also, the current calculations of emission levels against GDP value may not truly reflect current performance levels. Can the Government consider a review to measure absolute carbon emission levels against holistic progress indicators, such as the Human Development Index or the United Nations Environment Inclusive Wealth Index?
I note that the Government had also carried out a public consultation exercise last year to discuss formulating Singapore's long-term low-emissions development strategy and the findings were released in early February. Can the Government give an update on Singapore's plans moving forward?
The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Chairman, Sir, across the globe, the effects of climate change are clear and present. Weather patterns have become more extreme; ice sheets and glaciers are melting. Singapore, too, has experienced more episodes of unusually heavy rainfall accompanied by some flooding. Prolonged dry weather exacerbates the smoke haze that affects our region. As a low-lying island, we remain fundamentally vulnerable.
The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC), which I chair, was formed in 2007. IMCCC coordinates, formulates and monitors the execution of our national plans to reduce our carbon emissions, referred to as mitigation, and to prepare for the consequences of climate change, referred to as adaptation.
In his Budget speech, Deputy Prime Minister Heng stated Singapore's intention to chart our vision for a low carbon, sustainable future. Allow me, Mr Chairman, to inform this House of our plans.
Later this year, Singapore will submit our enhanced 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement. We will also submit our Long-Term Low Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS) for 2050 and beyond to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Our enhanced 2030 NDC and LEDS build on policies and initiatives we have progressively implemented over the years. They demonstrate our seriousness and commitment to support international climate action and a low carbon future.
Setting out our vision well in advance, will provide a clear sense of direction and give ourselves and our various stakeholders the time to effect a well-managed transition to a low carbon economy. This will also allow us to grow new sectors in our economy and create new jobs and opportunities.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Ong Teng Koon and Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked about the Government's approach and strategies for climate change. The development of our enhanced NDC for 2030 and our LEDS aspiration for 2050 and beyond, is guided by a principled approach. It is considered, it is committed and it is collective.
We fully appreciate the significance and impact of climate change. This is why climate change policy is being strongly coordinated as a key whole-of-nation issue under the Prime Minister's Office (PMO). Our climate policies and strategies are carefully and thoroughly considered. At the same time, we are not exclusively focused on climate change. We look at realistic and practical policies and measures we can implement, taking into account the best available science and technology, and fully integrated with the larger context of the entire range of challenges we face in our national policy framework. This is the approach we take to ensure a smooth and well-managed transition to a low carbon economy.
We have always believed that the pursuit of economic growth can be compatible and mutually reinforcing with environmental objectives. This approach has allowed Singapore today to have one of the lowest carbon emissions per GDP dollar, or emissions intensity. We are ranked among the 20 best countries out of 141 countries in 2017. Our performance on the Human Development Index and the UN Sustainable Development Goals are also very commendable.
This has been a collective effort. We invited views and consulted Singaporeans on important climate issues, such as the carbon tax, achieving zero waste and our LEDS. We received many suggestions on how to reduce our emissions. In fact, over 2,000. At the same time, our contributors also recognised that there are practical constraints and potential trade-offs.
In particular, we are very mindful of our limited alternative energy options. Singapore's geography is a key limiting factor in our ability to harness renewable energy at scale. We do not have great rivers for hydropower. Wind power is limited both by space as well as light and variable winds. We continue to study the potential for nuclear power, but we assess that the current generation of nuclear power plants are not suitable for deployment in Singapore.
So, these are serious constraints compared to better-endowed countries. Nevertheless, we are committed to doing our best and doing our part to combat climate change. Our enhanced NDC and LEDS set out realistic but challenging and ambitious goals for Singapore, drawing on citizens' suggestions and taking into account our national circumstances. Let me elaborate.
In 2015, we set our 2030 NDC target to reduce our emissions intensity in 2030 by 36% from 2005 levels, and to peak by around 2030. We are on track to meet this commitment.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam will be glad to know we will be enhancing our NDC by committing to an absolute peak emission level of 65 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent around 2030. All countries are also now required to report on the 7th greenhouse gas, Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3) by 2024. We will go beyond reporting NF3, and commit to including NF3 in our pledge, within this same emissions ceiling.
Constraining our total emissions within this absolute cap up to 2030 means that every sector in Singapore will need to put in significant effort to limit our emissions. We will need to do so in order to move towards a low carbon nation in the coming decade, with new commercial and industrial enterprises and new growth areas, such as the digital economy. We all have a part to play in reducing our emissions to meet our 2030 commitment.
But we aim to do better than that beyond 2030. Our Long-Term Low Emissions Development Strategy aspires to halve the emissions from our 2030 peak, to 33 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050, with a view to achieving net-zero emissions as soon as viable in the second half of the century.
This will be very challenging, given our limited alternative energy options. We have studied the matter very carefully and developed a strategy to do so. And with your permission, Mr Chairman, may I display a slide on the House's screens, and request the Clerks to distribute a document to Members?
The Chairman: Please do. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Teo Chee Hean: There are three thrusts in our strategy.
First, we need transformations in our industry, economy and society. Second, we have to draw on technologies which are not yet mature, such as carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS), and low carbon fuels. And third, we will need international collaboration in areas, such as well-functioning carbon markets and regional electricity grids. So, this will help take us from the left-hand side, where we have our 2030 NDC through these three thrusts to the right-hand side, which is our LEDS for 2050 and beyond.
Each thrust will contribute to halving our emissions. We will pursue all three vigorously to achieve our aspiration. The extent to which potential emission reductions from each thrust can be realised will become clearer in the coming years, as we gain experience from implementing our programmes, as technology evolves and as the modalities for international cooperation and collaboration become formalised. If the actual reductions from each thrust are larger than we now assess, or are available sooner, then we can realise our aspiration earlier. On the other hand, if the potential reductions turn out to be less promising, we will still strive to meet our LEDS aspiration to the best of our ability even though the task becomes more difficult.
So, let me now provide some details of the various programmes.
Keeping carbon emissions low from electrical power generation, which currently accounts for 39% of our emissions – that is the yellow sector on the right. This is very important especially as we push for greater electrification of our nation.
In October 2019, Minister Chan Chun Sing outlined how we will harness the four supply switches of \"natural gas”, \"solar\", \"regional power grids and \"low carbon alternatives\", together with greater efficiency in energy use on the demand side to accelerate our energy transformation.
While we are limited in hydro, wind and nuclear energy, we are pressing ahead with solar deployment. We are significantly accelerating our deployment of solar, from 350 megawatt peak (MWp) by the end of this year, to at least two gigawatt-peak (GWp) by 2030.
To achieve our current goal by the end of this year of 350 MWp, we are deploying solar panels on about one in two HDB rooftops, and in several reservoirs. To achieve two GWp, we will do more. We are deploying off-shore solar farms, and HDB aims to install as many solar panels as feasible on HDB rooftops. As an example, in Pasir Ris town, almost all HDB rooftops will have solar panels by 2030 and deployment is already progressing. Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong will say more about greening our towns in MND's COS.
Even at such a scale, two GWp of solar power will still only meet around 4% of our current annual electricity needs and 10% of our current peak daily electricity needs. To go significantly beyond this, we need technical breakthroughs, for example, to deploy safe and highly efficient and cost effective solar panels on vertical building surfaces, not just horizontal ones. These building surfaces will only receive solar radiation for part of the day.
So, this is why we still need the other three switches to decarbonise our grid. To provide our base load power generation, we had decided early on, in the early 2000s, to switch from fuel oil to natural gas, the cleanest fossil fuel available. Many countries are still highly dependent on coal. We moved away from that in 1956 and we moved to natural gas in the early 2000s. We are exploring tapping regional power grids and studying emerging low or zero-carbon alternatives, such as solar-derived hydrogen to further reduce emissions from power generation.
Having regional power grids is an alternative, but we also have to examine the issues of diversity and resilience. We have diversified the way for piped water and piped natural gas. We should also have diversity when we are considering piped electricity.
For industries with sizeable electricity consumption, the progressive decarbonisation of our power grid will help to reduce emissions. But we will also need to reduce emissions all across our economy.
The industry sector at 60% is our largest contributor to carbon emissions. We will work closely with industry to make the necessary adjustments, capture new business opportunities and build up their competitive advantage in this transition. We want to be at the forefront of the global move towards environmentally sustainable production and seize the new opportunities this creates.
Our industries produce not just for Singapore but also to meet the needs of the global market. We will work with our industries so that they are known to be among the best-in-class in global energy and carbon efficiency as we produce for the rest of the world.
Last year, we enhanced our grant schemes to help companies improve their energy efficiency. We are also going beyond individual companies to bring companies together to achieve systems-level efficiency gains. We are also working with industry and our research community to study new technologies such as carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) and low-carbon hydrogen to evaluate and plan the next steps for Singapore.
The carbon tax, which we have introduced, will collect roughly $1 billion over the first five years. We intend to invest more than that into helping our companies adapt, move and transform for a low-carbon future.
In urban transportation, we are already a global pioneer in limiting vehicle population and reducing traffic congestion. Major investments in public transport and active mobility infrastructure will pave the way for nine in 10 of all peak period journeys to be made using \"Walk, Cycle, Ride\" transport modes by 2040.
These policies tackle the urban transport issue systemically, not just individual pieces of it. We tackle this issue at its root. This is where most of the gains in energy and carbon efficiency are reaped. But we will also move towards enhancing the overall carbon efficiency of our urban transport through large-scale adoption of green vehicles.
As announced by Deputy Prime Minister Heng, we will phase out internal combustion engine vehicles by 2040 and have all vehicles running on cleaner energy. MEWR and MND will say more about how we will provide incentives and lay the enabling charging infrastructure to achieve this.
These efforts will make a significant difference, but how quickly they can be realised depends on technological advancements and how quickly manufacturers can bring attractive, cost-efficient electrical vehicles to the market.
Our commercial and residential buildings are also major users of energy. Since the launch of the Green Mark Scheme in 2005, we have greened more than 40% of our buildings by gross floor area. We will push on to achieve our goal to green 80% of our buildings by 2030 and beyond that, we aim to increase the number of buildings that are even more energy efficient.
All of us have a part to play. We have introduced minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) and mandatory energy labelling (MELS) for common household appliances. By purchasing more efficient appliances, consumers save on their energy costs while reducing emissions. This is truly win-win.
With all our light bulbs as energy efficient as LED bulbs from 2023, our households will save about $3.5 million annually in energy costs and reduce carbon emissions by around 6.3 million kilo-tonnes annually. Just by this step alone, we can save money and reduce carbon emissions. MEWR and MND will provide more details.
Miss Cheng Li Hui, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how Singapore is contributing to international efforts on climate change.
Singapore will do our utmost to work with the international community to tackle climate change. We need effective international cooperation. Every country must do its part or the efforts of each country will be nullified.
Singapore works actively in international forums to strengthen consensus among countries, especially at a time when the multilateral system is under strain. Singapore is often called upon as a constructive and trusted interlocutor to help forge solutions for difficult issues at international climate negotiations.
For example, Minister Masagos Zulkifli played key roles in co-facilitating the topic of mitigation at COP-24 in Katowice in 2018 and the key outcomes of the climate negotiations in Madrid last December. We look forward to working closely with the United Kingdom, who will be hosting COP-26 in Glasgow this November.
We are also well positioned to support abatement efforts globally. As a major maritime and aviation hub, we work actively with the International Maritime Organization and International Civil Aviation Organization to address international transport emissions. These are counted separately from national emissions. MOT will share more details later.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about green financing. As a leading financial centre, we aim to be a green finance hub to spur investments in low-carbon solutions and drive climate action.
MAS recently established a US$2 billion green investments programme to anchor green activities of asset managers in Singapore and support the mainstreaming of green finance. MAS also collaborated with the industry to develop environmental risk management guidelines. These guidelines will set standards on governance, risk management and disclosure, and encourage the right-pricing of loans and investments to promote new green investments. MAS will issue the guidelines for public consultation in March 2020.
I think Mr Saktiandi Supaat will be happy to know that our three local banks have stopped funding regional coal fired power plant projects and all three of them are very active in financing regional alternative energy projects such as solar power.
Through our Research Innovation and Enterprise 2020 plan, we are investing close to $1 billion in urban solutions and sustainability in areas such as new urban mobility solutions and a next-generation energy grid. As a \"living lab\", we will continue to serve as a test-bed for innovative solutions that can be exported globally.
Singapore also collaborates actively with international partners such as the UNFCCC and ASEAN to build capabilities and share experiences. Since 1992, Singapore has trained more than 130,000 officials from fellow developing countries under the Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP) in key areas such as sustainable development, urban planning, water and transport management.
While Singapore's efforts to reduce emissions on our own may be modest, our collective efforts with all nations can be substantial.
Mr Chairman, for small-island nations like Singapore, climate change poses an asymmetrical challenge. On the one hand, our impact on global emissions is small, but on the other hand, the effect of climate change on us is disproportionately large and indeed, existential.
We must thus plan seriously for the real prospect that sea levels will rise by up to one metre by 2100 – in line with what climate science is telling us. We need to implement these adaptation plans to protect our country and people, and we cannot rely on anyone else to do this for us. We are already taking action.
In 2011, we raised the platform level for all reclamation projects by an additional one metre, from three metres to four metres above the Singapore Height Datum (SHD). The highest tide ever recorded in Singapore is about two metres above the SHD. Raising the level from three metres to four metres gives us an additional one metre of clearance and gives us a two-metre buffer, so that if sea levels rise by one metre, we still have one metre left.
For key new facilities such as Changi Airport Terminal 5, we are raising the platform level even higher, to at least five metres above the SHD.
The Marina Barrage, which was completed in 2008, already provides some flood protection for our city, but we are planning to see whether we can raise that further and even increase the size of the pumps.
Protecting ourselves from sea level rise is a large-scale and long-term effort requiring considerable resources. Our assessments and plans are based on studies which have been commissioned by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change over the past several years.
In his National Day Rally last year, Prime Minister Lee outlined the threats from sea level rise and our plans estimating that this will cost $100 billion over the next 100 years. Deputy Prime Minister Heng announced in the Budget a new Coastal and Flood Protection Fund, with an initial top-up of $5 billion to start setting aside the resources that we will need for this.
We have divided our coastal areas into hydraulically-distinct segments to study different options for each area. We will now develop these studies into detailed plans and phase in our coastal protection measures.
We must start implementing our plans and be prepared to adjust and adapt them according to the latest sea level rise projections. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources will say more about this in his COS.
Mr Chairman, Sir, I have just outlined our whole-of-Government strategy for climate action, which is considered, committed and collective. The relevant Ministries will provide more details on specific plans under their charge.
But as Mr Seah Kian Peng has highlighted, this is a collective effort. We need all Singaporeans – Government, individuals, households and businesses – all of us, to do our part and work together as a whole of nation.
As part of Singapore Together, the Government will create more partnership opportunities for Singaporeans to advance climate action. So let us work together to secure the future of Singapore as a climate-resilient nation – with a competitive economy, sustainable environment, an environmentally responsible and active citizenry, and a good quality of life for all.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Mr Chairman, according to the Department of Statistics, Singapore's total population stands at 5.703 million as of 2019. This is a 1.2% increase from the previous year. The number of Singapore citizens is 3.5 million and the number of Permanent Residents is 525,000. There is a slight increase of 0.8% and 0.6% respectively. What is worrisome is the decline of old-age support ratio from 4.8 in 2018 to 4.5 in 2019. It means that we only have 4.5 residents who are between 20 and 64 years for every resident who is 65 and above.
What is the Government doing to increase or at least to maintain our Singapore citizens' numbers? Can we do more to support young families and encourage more Singaporean families to have more babies? What is the Government doing to slow down the increase of old-age support ratio?
Immigration has for a very long time been a touchy issue, not only in Singapore but many other countries as well. Generally, most Singaporeans accept that immigration can contribute certain expertise that is lacking in Singapore. Many of them chose to make Singapore their home and become citizens. They take their pledge at citizenship ceremonies that are held across different constituencies.
A survey by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) released at the National Integration Council (NIC) Convention last August, showed that many Singaporeans feel that immigrants can do more to integrate into Singapore. This survey covered about 4,000 Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents. Six out of 10 of the respondents felt that the immigrants were not doing enough to integrate. Is there any study or survey on our new citizens on how they feel above their new citizenship journey? Do they feel adequately integrated by our programmes? Can we do more to make them be more integrated? What is the Government doing to further enhance the integration of new citizens into our society and our communities?
Mr Pritam Singh: Sir, Singapore's economic circumstances and multiracial meritocracy are unique features of our country. While Finance Minister's Budget speeches in this term of government focused consistently on security, economy, society and Singaporeans, we know that our evolving population policies are existential to the future of the Singapore Core. The vast majority of residents are permanently invested in this country and do not have the luxury of imagining a home away from Singapore and nor would we have it that way.
Sir, the total fertility numbers are weakening with the Budget book estimating the number for FY2020 to hover around 1.1 to 1.2. However, the population in brief 2019 data released by the PMO Strategy Group reveals that the TFR number for the Chinese and Indian residents has fallen to around 0.98 and 1 respectively, compared to 1.14 and 1.19 a decade ago. The same document, however, records an encouraging rise in the TFR for the Malay community. From a high of 1.91 in 2008, the number fell to 1.66 in 2013, before steadily and consistently moving up to 1.85 in 2018.
Has the PMO team assessed the policy reasons behind this upturn for the Malay community and are there insights that can be highlighted or even ported to the other communities?
Similarly, the latest data also records a rise in the number of citizen ever married females deciding to have no children, or only one child compared to 10 years ago. Likewise, the proportion of married females with three children or more has fallen considerably over the same period. Fortunately, most ever married citizen females who have two children has hovered around the 43% mark similar to 10 years ago. While the decision to have children or no children is a deeply personal one and one that we must respect, what new strategies and plans does the PMO have to push couples or encourage couples to have at least two or more children?
Has the Government engaged couples who have only one child to find out what their key concerns are? I believe work-life balance, costs of living concerns have been raised previously as major impediments. It would be important to see what more can be done in this area with buy-in from private sector employers. After all, without a thriving Singapore Core, it is hard to foresee a thriving and confident Singapore.
Sir, as previously announced by the Government, our population plans and policies are due for review this year. Numbers aside, the Government needs to take a re-look at our integration efforts. Permanent Residents (PRs) and foreigners who we hope will take up citizenship are connected through technology to their motherlands more so than earlier generation of immigrants. And therefore, integration may not just take more time, but may not be as linear as previously imagined with schools and institutions such as National Service our major agents of adhesion.
In addition, as alluded to by Minister Chan recently, unlike in the past, even in the economic realm, Singapore may not be able to attract the quality of individuals it seeks. Does this anticipate some changes to our population plans with a desire to attract immigrants from further afield, specifically non-traditional countries classified as others, which currently account for about 6.3% of Singapore citizenships and PRs granted in 2018, as compared to 62.5% from Southeast Asian countries and 31.2% from Asian countries.
What shifts in our population strategies is the Government planning so as to deal with the new challenges in supplementing our population through immigration?
Has the Government conducted surveys of new citizens over the last 10 to 20 years, for us to have a better perspective on how we can improve integration.
Finally, Sir, can the Government share how many PRs have transited to become citizens over the last 10 years and 20 years respectively, and how many choose to remain PRs? What are the their main reasons for not transiting to citizenship?
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Chairman, this is Clare. She is 17 days old today. A wonderful bundle of joy. She is our fourth child and our first daughter. Each time the experience is the same. Having lost two of our six children, Peter and Maria, to miscarriages, every time we go through a pregnancy we have an equal measure of worry and joy. Each time our gynecologist says, \"She’s doing fine\", we let out a sigh of relief.
Clare's birth has changed our lives, just as her three older brothers have. The home is a little bit noisier, the floor is, of course, a lot messier and sleep is now even more a luxury commodity at home – but more importantly, the immeasurable joy of parenthood.
I do not wish to glamourise parenthood. Like everything else, it comes with its own burdens. But Jocelyn and I believe that it is a burden worth carrying. At the same time, I wish the burden were lighter, not so much with benefits, but for society to be able to reinforce a culture that recognises the family as important.
My wife is a stay-at-home mother. For our three older boys, she took care of them herself without any help. And often, I am asked, \"What does your wife work as\"? My reply was that she is a full-time mother often elicits odd responses. They go along the lines of, \"Oh, she is so lucky, she doesn't have to work\", or on the flipside, \"You have to work harder.\" Often enough, I respond quite quickly to those statements, as if to justify our situation; that in addition to her love for our children, she also runs a small online business at home that twins her passions. She sews infant clothing and accessories. But it also hits me after that, that there is no need to justify why my wife stays at home.
She, like other stay-at-home mothers, make a conscious decision, that a sacrifice of her career was weighed and that spending time with the children was worth it. A fellow parliamentarian from Europe, whom I have known for a few years was in Singapore for a conference last year. He made an observation, perhaps a little snidely and a little bit snarky, \"The Minister-in-charge of your country's population strategy is the Minister for Manpower? Should it not be the Minister for Family?\"
I explained to him that our Minister-in-charge only happens to be the Minister for Manpower. She is also a mother, and also a Cabinet Minister, who is deeply passionate about children.
But there might be a small grain of truth. Often, we couch our policies on families with the view on our workforce, our dependency ratio, so much so that our culture has been shaped by that; that the true joy and happiness of family is clouded by numbers.
So, I urge as I have, in the last three years; for us a return to basics, that we ask ourselves beyond policies, beyond benefits, how can the whole of society help to build a family-friendly culture that is supportive of families in Singapore, that allows stay-at-home mothers to be proud of what they do? And also mothers who choose to continue their careers to have the support that they require.
That said, I also wish that we level the playing field and recognise fully the role of mothers. Whether in or outside of employment, mothers play an important role in our society. So, in all our non-tax related benefits such as for early childhood education subsidies, child relief amongst others, I hope that we can have more equity between working and non-working mothers. There will be some benefits that we will need to segregate and have some amount of additional help for those who have children but have decided to go back into the workforce but the rest, especially, benefits for the children should be equalised.
Mr Chairman, families are the backbone of society. If we do not take care of this backbone, we will not be able to stand straight and strong as a country.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Marriage and parenthood can be a joyful journey. Yes, there are challenges, but the joy of bringing up children is fulfilling and lasting. Last year, the Government conducted public consultations on the needs and concerns relevant to marriage and parenthood. Some areas that are often talked of are flexible work arrangements, having a conducive work culture, parental leave, and importantly, increased childcare leave and more childcare leave for the mothers and the fathers who have more children.
How have the enhancements, provided by the Government, to support marriage and parenthood benefited young Singaporeans and their families? And will there be further enhancements based on feedback received? What measures are we putting in place to encourage an increase in our TFR? Next cut.
Younger Singaporeans may be delaying marriage and parenthood in pursuit of other life goals. Of course, these are very personal choices. But, how can the whole-of-society contribute to building a culture that emphasises the importance and significance of family and, in so doing, foster an environment that is supportive of families in Singapore? This will help also, to promote the desire to have children – a joy for the parents and, also, importantly for our country.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Enhancing marriage and parenthood is critical to addressing our ageing population and low TFR problems. The Government has rolled out important measures such as shortening the time to get housing and defraying child-raising costs. How have the enhancements benefited young Singaporeans and what was their feedback, especially from the Citizens Panel?
Core to singles not getting married and married couples not having children is the intricate balance between work and family. Having Flexible Work Arrangements can help our families cope better, especially after maternity. The COVID-19 episode has shown that broad-based FWA is possible whereas the previous pre-outbreak thinking was that it simply was not. Would the Government consider granting women on maternity the right to FWA? If businesses could do it for large swathes of the workforce during the outbreak now, certainly allowing 40,000 women to go on FWA each year must be manageable.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): It has been more than a decade since childcare leave provisions were increased and it is time to review this again. There is clearly insufficient childcare leave provided. Will PMO consider having specific childcare sick leave and providing this on a per child basis?
The Public Service, already gives officers childcare sick leave and it is on a per child basis. If Government clearly feels that childcare sick leave is important for people who work for us, then why not important for the people we serve? Let us level that playing field.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Many of us spend a large part of our day, and in fact, our lives at work. It is therefore important for both our mental and physical well-being that there is a healthy culture at the workplace environment. Social norms and the workplace culture can impact Singaporeans' decisions on important issues like marriage, having children and career progression.
One of the key challenges faced by parents with young children is managing their work and family responsibilities. If they find this too challenging, they may not want to have more children. On the other hand, we must also ensure that those who are single at the workplace, are not the ones having to pick up the workload of their colleagues who have children, because this may prevent them from having opportunities to have relationships and eventually marry. Some singles may also have elderly parents to care for and need the flexibility to take some time to perhaps bring their parents to check-ups.
I am grateful for the Government's efforts in giving out the Work-Life Grant and in encouraging employers to adopt Flexible-Work Arrangements, but I believe we would all like to see the adoption of such arrangements to be more pervasive.
I am happy to learn that last year, the Government convened a Citizen's Panel of Work-Life Harmony. It was indicated that the Government would seriously study the recommendations. How will the Government be following up on the Panel's recommendations, and how can employers and other stakeholders play a bigger role in implementing solutions to make workplaces more family-friendly?
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs and National Development (Ms Sun Xueling): The Citizens Panel was convened to gather views from Singaporeans from all walks of life on how work life harmony can be strengthened in Singapore and how a more supportive societal a workplace culture can be created that is family-friendly.
Given that youths will shape the future workplace culture of Singapore, what has been the feedback from youths from the Citizens' Panel on how they see work-life balance? Have they shared how they can balance pursuing their aspirations with starting a family and how they see society supporting them in achieving this balance?
In recent conversations with youths, some have shared their interest to work and study overseas. The Government is also promoting this, so that youths have a wider perspective and can also gain international experience which is extremely helpful in their careers and personal development. How do youths reconcile the internationalisation message with settling down with a family in Singapore?
The Chairman: Minister Josephine Teo.
The Minister for Manpower and Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I appreciate the views and suggestions of Members on matters concerning our population.
Our policies aim to help Singapore maintain a stable population, to keep our society cohesive, our economy vibrant, and our nation strong. Population policies are not just for today, but tomorrow. We are always thinking about future generations of Singaporeans.
I will focus on two areas: first, making Singapore a great place for families; second, integrating immigrants into our Singapore community.
We aim, first and foremost, to support young Singaporeans to get married and become parents.
Similar to most developed economies, our total fertility rate is below replacement – at 1.14 for last year and the year before. Globally, many countries are like Singapore, where birth rates have been declining since the 1970s. Some Nordic countries that had previously reversed the decline, have seen birth rates falling again in recent years.
However, there are some positive signs in Singapore. The average number of citizen births in the last five years is higher than previous five-year periods. From 2015 to 2019, we had around 33,000 births annually. This is higher than the average from 2010 to 2014, of around 32,000 births annually. I believe Mr Alex Yam, Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Rahayu Mahzam and also Ms Sun Xueling, perhaps Mr Pritam Singh as well, all contributed to this. Thank you very much. Please keep going.
On top of this, as some Singaporeans live overseas, we welcomed about 1,600 Singaporean babies born overseas each year, over the past five years. This is also higher than the average in previous five-year periods. So, to Ms Sun Xueling's question, it is not incompatible – your overseas ambitions and raising a family – this can be done.
Similarly, the average number of citizen marriages in the last five years is higher than previous five-year periods.
I hope these positive trends will continue as more young Singaporeans enter their prime marriage and parenthood ages. But we will need to continue tackling the factors that shape marriage and parenthood decisions – together, not just as a Government, but as one Singapore.
At the Committee of Supply debate last year, I indicated that we would embark on a consultation process, to better understand Singaporeans’ needs and concerns around forming families. The aim was to move beyond feedback and suggestions, to work with fellow Singaporeans on practical ways to address marriage and parenthood issues. This is what the Singapore Together movement is all about. We are heartened that many Singaporeans stepped forward to take part.
We launched a series of online polls, inviting Singaporeans to give suggestions on how to better support young families. As Mr Christopher de Souza and Ms Sun Xueling mentioned, Singaporeans believe that making Singapore a great place for families requires partnerships across society. At home, most Singaporeans viewed parenting as a shared responsibility between spouses. At the workplace, Singaporeans felt that having supportive bosses and understanding colleagues were critical factors that enabled them to meet their work and family commitments. Respondents also raised concerns about the cost of having children.
We have listened carefully to their views. Last year, we announced significant enhancements to support young families. With your permission, Mr Chairman, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a booklet showing the key marriage and parenthood benefits today?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Chairman, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Desmond Choo asked how these enhancements have benefited young Singaporean families. Let me elaborate on three major moves.
First, couples can now more easily enrol their child in an affordable and good quality pre-school. We have increased the amount of pre-school subsidies, and made them available to even more families. Today, after subsidies, a working couple who earn a combined $5,000 a month, pays $130 per month per child for full-day childcare at an Anchor Operator pre-school. This is about a third of what they would have paid previously.
To ensure that quality pre-schools are accessible to all families, we have kept fees affordable at all Government-supported pre-schools; fee caps for Partner Operator preschools will also come down next year.
In addition, ECDA has been growing the number of pre-school places. By around 2025, eight in 10 pre-schoolers can have a place in a Government-supported preschool, up from just over five in 10 today.
In the medium term, we aim to make full-day childcare at Government-supported pre-schools as affordable as the cost of Primary school plus afterschool student care. This is not even including the means-tested pre-school subsidies, which will allow low- and middle income families to pay even less. At the same time, we will ensure good quality learning and care across all pre-schools. These are significant steps that we are taking, to ensure that we continue to give every Singaporean child a good start in life.
Second, housing is now more affordable for newly married couples. We have heard couples’ feedback on the importance of getting their own home before starting a family. We have made it faster for them to get a BTO flat. HDB has launched more than 3,600 BTO flats with shorter waiting times. The wait of about two and a half years is shorter than the usual three to four years.
Couples can also more easily own a flat with the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (EHG). First-timer families now receive up to $80,000 in grants when purchasing a new HDB flat, and up to $160,000 when purchasing an HDB resale flat. Since its inception, about 1,000 first-timer families have benefited from the Enhanced Housing Grant.
In addition, the income ceiling was raised. More couples are able to purchase subsidised HDB flats and Executive Condominiums.
Third, we improved the affordability of healthcare for children, and fertility treatments.
By the end of this year, every Singaporean child will enjoy subsidies for all nationally recommended childhood vaccinations and developmental screenings, at polyclinics as well as CHAS GP clinics. The Minister for Health will share more details at MOH's Committee of Supply debate.
We have also enhanced Government co-funding for assisted conception procedures, to better support couples who need them.
These enhancements reinforce our strong support for marriage and parenthood in Singapore. They have also been well-received by many Singaporeans.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam was concerned that many Singaporeans find it a challenge to balance work and family. Mr Christopher de Souza asked whether there would be further enhancements based on feedback received.
We have been working on ways to help families achieve better harmony in work and life, including whether to have longer leave for parents. At present, working couples have a combined total of 20 weeks of paid parental leave and two weeks of unpaid leave in their child’s first year. In addition, each parent receives six days of paid childcare leave annually until their child turns seven, and two days of paid childcare leave until the child turns 12.
We announced the three-year Public Sector pilot on Unpaid Infant Care Leave in 2017. The pilot enables public officers to take up to four weeks of Unpaid Infant Care Leave in the first year after their child’s birth. This benefit has been well-received by parents who need it. Their supervisors and colleagues have also been supportive and feel that it has not affected their teams’ productivity. As such, we will formalise it as a permanent HR leave provision within the Public Service. We hope that more private companies will be encouraged by the Public Service’s positive experience, and initiate similar support to their employees.
There have been calls from time to time, including from Mr Louis Ng, to further enhance leave schemes for parents. We will continuously review all support measures for parenthood. We had prioritised housing, pre-school and healthcare because these were what young families said mattered most.
Of course, when conditions allow, young families would welcome more paid leave being mandated. However, it would be unwise for us to ignore the impact on employers. While the public sector is in a position to do more than current legislation requires, we cannot assume the same for all businesses, especially SMEs which are the single largest group of employers and already facing manpower constraints.
In the face of economic uncertainties and the pressure for businesses to transform, tripartite partners are also mindful not to add further to employers' burdens. Instead of imposing higher obligations on all, we will provide greater support to businesses that are able to do more, such as supporting them in implementing flexible work arrangements (FWAs). After all, working parents have consistently given us feedback that flexible work arrangements are key in supporting them to manage work and family commitments. I should add that when companies implement flexible work arrangements, other employees who are not parents also benefit. They tend to feel a greater sense of fairness. For example, if some do not have young children but have elderly parents who, from time to time, have medical appointments that they also need to take them to.
As it turns out, a focus on promoting flexible work arrangements was also the preference of the Citizens’ Panel convened last year. The Panel brought together 55 fellow Singaporeans of diverse backgrounds to develop ways to improve work-life harmony in Singapore. I was heartened by their enthusiasm and commitment to build a future Singapore that would be more supportive of work-life harmony.
The Panel recommended thoughtful solutions, such as promoting flexible work arrangements and introducing more progressive HR practices. These would help employees, especially those with more care-giving responsibilities, to better juggle their family life and work.
Ms Sun Xueling and Mr Desmond Choo will be glad to know that both younger and older Singaporeans in the Panel called for wider societal change to address social norms that affect work-life harmony and for shifts in workplace practices.
The Government and tripartite partners fully support the Panel’s intent to create conditions for better work-life harmony, and will do so by \"making it easy\", \"making it known\" and \"making it accepted\". Let me elaborate.
\"Making It Easy\". We will introduce new tools and guides to facilitate the adoption of flexible work arrangements and work-life harmony initiatives by employers and employees.
\"Making It Known\". We will increase the recognition of employers who adopt flexible work arrangements and work-life initiatives. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Low Yen Ling will provide more details on these moves at MOM's Committee of Supply debate.
\"Making It Accepted\". We will work together to shift societal norms and the mindsets of employers, employees and individuals in the larger community. MCCY will provide support through Our Singapore Fund, for Singaporeans who wish to organise meaningful projects that encourage these shifts.
I hope these efforts will rally Singaporeans to work together, towards a more family-friendly society.
Supporting marriage and parenthood is the Government's top priority for the population. Our policies and enhancements over the years attest to that.
However, I agree with Mr Alex Yam that beyond policy, a whole-of-society approach is needed to build a family-friendly Singapore. For instance, when we see parents with young children struggling with their prams in public spaces, do we step forward to lend a helping hand? When a colleague goes on paternity leave, do we say supportive words of encouragement or do we cast aspersions on this necessity? Quite often, it is societal values, workplace and cultural norms that determine whether raising a family is achievable, enjoyable and celebrated.
Let me turn now to immigration matters, which Dr Lim Wee Kiak raised. This is a delicate issue in many places around the world.
With current birth rates and as our society ages, our citizen population will likely decline. For many years now, we have taken in a carefully controlled number of new citizens each year to keep the citizen population stable over the long term. As immigrants are mostly from younger age groups, this also helps to moderate our pace of ageing.
The Government has kept the pace of immigration calibrated, in line with our commitments. Over the past five years, we granted about 22,100 new Singapore citizenships on average each year. We also granted about 31,700 Permanent Residencies on average each year. We have kept the total size of the PR population at around half a million for many years now.
It is not easy to become a new citizen or PR. Many applications are rejected. We have high expectations of those who join our community. Newcomers who want to make Singapore their home have the responsibility to adapt to our way of life, and must continue to contribute to our society and economy.
One good example is Mr Trieu Dang Huy, who works as a senior projects executive at Singapore Airlines. He has lived in Singapore for 14 years and became a Singapore Citizen last year. When Mr Trieu first moved here, he took it upon himself to learn English, Mandarin and Singlish, so much so that when he speaks now, it is hard to tell that he was originally from Vietnam. Mr Trieu met his wife while studying at NUS. Together, they believe it is important to contribute to society and donate blood regularly. They also have a young son who is Singaporean. Members of this House would know of other examples.
Mr Pritam Singh and Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked how we can ensure that newcomers make an effort to to integrate into our society. The National Integration Council is doing a lot of commendable work on this front in the community, workplaces and schools.
Let me just highlight one new initiative. As part of the Singapore Together movement, we are inviting Singaporeans to help craft the content for the Singapore Citizenship Journey – a compulsory programme for all who seek to take up Singapore citizenship. I am happy that many have stepped forward. This will complement our existing efforts. For example, the People's Association appoints Integration and Naturalisation Champions to help new citizens and PRs settle into their neighbourhoods. They organise chit-chat sessions, interest groups and learning journeys to nudge newcomers to make new friends and get involved in the community. We continue to welcome Singaporeans' views on how we help newcomers to better integrate into our society.
As we start the new decade, the Government remains committed to working with Singaporeans and to keep Singaporeans at the heart of our population policies. Mr Pritam Singh asked for an update on our population outlook. We reviewed this two years ago. As I informed the House then, our total population in 2030 – at the end of this decade – is likely to be significantly below 6.9 million. This remains the case today.
Mr Chairman, on population matters, there are no easy solutions but the Government will do its best to chart the way forward that keeps our society cohesive and our economy vibrant. We will always have Singaporeans' best interests at heart, now and in the future, and we will never stop progressing as one united people.
Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): Mr Chairman, my cut is to ask about the tangible benefits to citizens and local businesses arising from our Smart Nation initiatives.
Digitalisation has opened up new possibilities for businesses and for our society. Singapore has been at the forefront of digital transformation since we launched the Smart Nation initiative in November 2014. Today, Singapore is globally recognised as a smart city, with the IMD Smart City Index ranking Singapore as the smartest city in 2019, and several other reputable organisations also place Singapore within the top 10 smart cities globally.
But the prestige of being a globally recognised as a \"smart city\" is scant success if our citizens and businesses are unable to reap tangible benefits. Can the Minister share with us how our Smart Nation initiatives have created an efficient and competitive environment for our businesses? Can the Minister also share with us how our Smart Nation policies have engendered inclusiveness and have improved the convenience and quality of interactions with our citizens?
Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Chairman, Sir, the Smart Nation initiative was first announced by Prime Minister Lee in 2014. It aims to make Singapore into an outstanding city where people live, work and play in an innovation-rich environment.
Building a Smart Nation requires a concerted national effort which comprises three pillars: digital Government, digital economy and digital society. As the central coordinating agency for e-Government services, the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group has implemented a number of online services to benefit both businesses and our people. These include services pertaining to CPF services, parking, libraries and SkillsFuture.
At the town level, I wish to share some initiatives undertaken by the PAP Town Councils to support Smart Nation initiatives and to seek support from the Government to expedite the implementation of Smart Town technologies and features to benefit three million HDB residents.
Over the years, the PAP Town Councils have developed and implemented various IT and digital solutions to better serve our residents. These include, first, the computerisation of our financial system known as the Town Council Management System (TCMS) which integrates our system with those of various Government agencies, banks and service providers.
Second, the computerisation and digitisation of our Complaint Management System called the Integrated Estate Management System (IEMS) which collects feedback from residents and stakeholders for maintenance and improvement purposes. To support this objective, we have also developed the iTown mobile application for residents to provide feedback on Town Council matters and a dashboard management system for IEMS.
Third, a telemonitoring system (TMS) for the monitoring of lift breakdowns and also a lift performance dashboard management system to monitor and improve the reliability and safety of 24,000 lifts in the 15 PAP Town Councils.
In addition, Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council has embarked on a number of Smart Town initiatives to improve township management services for residents. For example, we have digitalised over 90 blocks of our flats using Building Information Modelling (BIM) to build a digital database of as-built drawings to facilitate and augment maintenance and improvement works. We have developed a Smart BFA application to enable users of Personal Mobility Aids to navigate Barrier Free Access routes and facilities in Bukit Panjang Town. We are also exploring other smart town features, such as smart locks, for roof access, e-procurement and payment and sensors for improving lift performance.
Sir, at this point, I wish to ask the Minister to update the House on the progress of Smart Nation initiatives and to call for more support for the implementation of smart technologies in our HDB towns.
Mr Pritam Singh: Sir, it was previously reported in the media that in the last quarter of 2018 that Singapore Technologies Engineering had won a $7.5 million tender for the \"Lamp Posts as Platform\" project to \"fit lamp posts here with sensors and cameras that can collect a wide range of citizen surveillance data\".
The new camera system was able to analyse faces down the race, gender and age, and a trial was to be held at one-north and Geylang before the project could potentially be extended to more than 100,000 lamp posts in Singapore.
Sir, there has been a wide range of feedback, both on the upside and downside potential of the Smart Nation Sensor Platform with different countries and jurisdictions taking different views of the problem. In fact, some jurisdictions, like San Francisco, have banned such smart technologies. Other than seriously looking at how best to balance and manage the privacy concerns that accompany such platforms. On the flipside, in light of manpower constraints and the prospect for effective monitoring and deterrence – the public's difficult relationship with some users of PMDs come to mind – the benefits of these new technologies are readily apparent.
We have also read about rogue public officers, including Police officers, illegally accessing Government information in our newspapers in the past. While these numbers are very small, new technologies and smart platforms host so much more information and data of a personal nature that people can lose confidence and trust in public service very quickly should an untoward incident occur. There is also the attendant risk of cybersecurity incidents.
It has been two-and-a-half years since the Prime Minister announced details on the Smart Nation digital platform at the 2017 National Day Rally. What have been the results of the pilot so far not just from the technical data acquisition perspective but the processing, handling and control perspective? Is it the PMO's view that our data protection laws are fit for purpose to accommodate the advent of these new technologies which have significant repercussions on individual privacy?
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) has transformed the way we collect, store and use data. It has heralded in an era characterised by the blurring of digital and physical boundaries, and the growing use of new technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, robotics, 3D printing and the Internet of Things (IoT).
In the push for a Smart Nation, the Singapore Government, through GovTech, has introduced various initiatives to streamline the provision of Government services online and through digital platforms. While we have been making steady progress towards realising the vision of a Smart Nation Singapore, the complexity and amount of data that the Government has to manage has also increased correspondingly.
In recent years, we have seen several instances where Government data was compromised. In 2019 alone, two high profile breaches were surfaced where medical data of individuals were leaked online. First, the personal information of more than 14,200 HIV-positive individuals and there was also a case of a loophole in the HSA's system resulting in the compromise of data that affected more than 800,000 blood donors.
Clearly, data security is everyone's business. I understand the Public Sector Data Security Review Committee (PSDSRC) has submitted a slew of recommendations to the Government last November and the Government has accepted those recommendations, which are to be fully implemented by 2023. Can the Government provide an update on the action plan to implement the recommendations, and how is the Government ensuring robust data security, even as it uses data more extensively?
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Chairman, Singapore's Government is leading by example in making Singapore a Smart Nation, with more and more Government agencies providing services online and more and more services being automated.
One good example is immigration. One is able to apply for passports online and collect with minimal fuss. Clearing immigration is also automated for Singaporeans at the various checkpoints, making clearance a breeze.
Filling out taxes is a painful process in many places, but, here, for most people, it is just a few clicks on an online system and our tax form for the year is done.
As an NSman, a reservist, it has become increasingly easy to get things done, including going for medical check-ups, taking the IPPT and even acknowledging call-ups.
So, as service users, life for us has become very easy, so much so that we may even take it for granted. Some of us even followed this example. For this speech, for example, I am actually using my smartphone, rather than the paper I normally use. So, we are all trying to go smart.
But, of course, we recognise this requires significant state resources. What is the Government doing to build up public sector capabilities in harnessing digitalisation? And how can it ensure that it is able to attract enough engineers and people of the right calibre to develop these systems?
Mr Teo Ser Luck (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Chairman, I am a heavy user of technology. And when I started on a technology project, I created a first layer of programming and algorithm where the machines started to learn. With more data collected, more and more, the machine gets smarter and it could make intelligent decisions or informed decisions for me. As it goes on, I realise that some of my staff actually were being replaced for the role that they played but they could co-exist with the technology itself, and I realise that that is artificial intelligence (AI).
AI was extremely helpful for the companies that I run. The staff themselves found that they could co-exist and become more productive and more clever in making the decisions. I am excited about the national AI project and I hope that the national AI project is not just internally focused, but externally focused as well. As long as it enables and strengthens companies and individuals and help Singaporeans in their daily lives, I think this AI Project will be very exciting instead of replacing jobs.
Mr Ong Teng Koon: Mr Chairman, businesses are often faced with processes that require approvals from multiple Government agencies. This is time-consuming and expensive for businesses when they have to make physical visits to different agencies, provide similar information repeatedly on separate application forms and track the status of applications on different agency portals. It could become frustrating when business owners uncover additional regulatory requirements that they were unaware of, resulting in delays to their application process. I would like to ask the Minster what is the Government doing to streamline such G2B processes and if there an ongoing dialogue with businesses to review the current G2B processes and identify their pain points.
With the launch of the GoBusiness Licensing Portal by GovTech in October 2019, business owners in the food industry now experience a seamless application process that requires only one form with 90 data fields instead of 14 forms with 845 data fields. I would like to ask the Minster what is the reduction to cost, time and effort for business owners from this successful process optimisation and if this has reduced the total application fees paid by businesses. Also, what are the future plans on the roll-out of the integrated licensing portal to other industries? What will be the expected savings from these efforts?
Currently, GovTech has launched the GoBusiness Licensing Portal and the Business Grants Portal. Can the Minster advise if are there other touchpoints with businesses that will be streamlined?
The Chairman: Ms Tin Pei Ling, take your two cuts together.
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): There has been tremendous effort to implement measures to realise our aspirations of a digital economy, Government and society. Apart from blueprints and action frameworks, basic \"building blocks\", such as MyInfo, on which personalised services and applications can be built are in place.
We have experienced applications, such as OneService, Parking.SG and Moments of Life, offering conveniences to citizens as we go about our daily lives. Moments of Life, for example, allows me to monitor what vaccinations my two sons have specifically taken and will have to take coming up.
As the Government presses on, what new Smart Nation initiatives are there to deliver more personalised and inclusive services to citizens of all ages and of all backgrounds?
Could we enhance citizen autonomy and interactions with the Government by digitalising some of the functions or decisions we take in the community? For example, instead of just giving feedback, enhancing the OneService to allow citizens to vote on Home Improvement Programmes or the colour schemes for their block during the cyclical Repair and Redecorations?
Our Government probably has an application for anything somewhere. But it would perhaps make better sense to consolidate and streamline so that citizens are clear about where to go for what. Or simply, just go to one platform for everything they need.
In the course of our constituency work, we would have observed that, within the community, there are many ideas and resources. For example, we have multiple VWOs and informal volunteer groups, all of which have lion-hearted volunteers who want to do more for our people.
In MacPherson, the creation of the MacPherson Cares app is an example. Amongst the many things we hope to achieve, we wanted to draw the volunteers into a central pool and seniors can tap on them for requests as simple as helping them to read letters.
In our drive towards a Smart Nation, the Government's effort alone is not enough. Hence, I would like to ask how can the Government better partner citizens in the co-creation of Smart Nation? Could the Government give an update on the use of Our Singapore Fund for Digital Readiness so far?
What are some of the fruits of our labour in cultivating digitally ready citizens?
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Sir, the number of scams involving e-commerce loan, credit-for-sex and impersonation rose by 83.5% last year.
The Chairman: Mr Png, my apologies. Dr Vivian will give his reply. Your cut will be after that.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Sorry, if you do not mind. Minister Ong could answer your points. Mr Chair, we are four minutes behind. So, I am going to rush.
When COVID broke upon us, you may have noticed that apps like MaskGoWhere or even the gov.sg Whatsapp channel were up and running almost overnight, literally within days. I think you all know that this is only possible because, over the last couple of years, we have assiduously built up the talent and the capability. And this is one clear and present example where it has enabled us to do things quickly, in an agile way and in a way that matters for real life.
I want to assure Mr Cedric Foo that we are exquisitely conscious that Smart Nation has to benefit citizens in tangible ways. We have reorganised our services around the needs of citizens, we have made it easier and faster for citizens to access all Government services. A prime example I would cite is Moments of Life (MOL) app. When this app first started, we were aiming to enable parents to quickly register their child’s birth and apply for the Baby Bonus that Minister Josephine Teo was providing and to reduce the time that parents needed to apply for this. By having this app, we estimated we are able to reduce the total waiting time and all that from 60 minutes to 15 minutes.
Last year, I shared that 2,000 births had been registered through this app. A year on, this number has increased tenfold, now almost 20,000. I think Minister Teo will appreciate that it is much easier to improve productivity in apps than it is the Total Fertility Rate. Nevertheless, we are trying to facilitate matters. In September 2019, MOL was expanded to serve the needs of our seniors as well and MOH will elaborate on this in its COS.
As we expand the suite of services we provide through MOL, we will continue to improve the app through constant user testing and citizen engagement.
The Smart Nation has to be about solving problems innovatively in both simple and complex issues. We introduced the concept of a digital medical certificate (MC) in 2018. If you think about it, it should be easier to submit and to keep records for digital MCs. It saves paper and time. We first tested this at the National Heart Centre. The GovTech team worked with the healthcare practitioners in the Heart Centre to improve the pilot solution, before rolling it out to more places. Today, we have issued over 400,000 digital MCs for all patients who visit SingHealth hospitals or polyclinics. We will be expanding this to other hospitals and clinics, in particular, into the private sector, starting with Raffles Medical and Mount Alvernia Hospital.
I agree with Mr Teo Ser Luck and Mr Ong Teng Koon that building a Smart Nation should also help businesses to succeed in this digital era. Over the past few years, we made it easier for businesses to transact digitally with the Government through the various initiatives like the IPOS Go app and Business Grants Portal. We are extending our support for businesses to help them through their different phases – from starting up a business, to seizing opportunities to grow, to running it more efficiently on a day-to-day basis.
To give you an example, we launched the GoBusiness Licensing portal in October 2019, using the customer journey approach, to help F&B businesses start. Some of you may know that, in fact, applying for the right licence to start a business – and, in particular, the F&B business – can be an extremely onerous process – 14 different licences and 800-over fields to fill.
When we launched the portal for the F&B processes, we were able to simplify not only the application process but, more importantly, the back-end re-engineering and that would save time and, ultimately, increase the opportunities for them to get online and to conduct their business instantly.
I agree with Mr Lim Swee Say and Mr Teo Ser Luck that artificial intelligence should be one of Singapore’s key strengths. If you think about the transition from having computing power in the 1980s to connectivity in the 1990s, today, the fact that computer systems can now engage in pattern recognition, whether it is facial recognition, speech or hearing, this is transformative. And in the same way that computing and communication were made available to all, we need to make this ability available to everyone – people and businesses.
That is why we have to embark on our own National AI Strategy for Singapore and I give you this commitment that we are working with companies and the research community to focus our efforts on deploying AI. I want to emphasise the word here is \"deployment\" because we will never have the oceans of data that China has, or the depth and unique ecosystem that Silicon Valley has. But I think we have a niche when it comes to deployment, especially in areas where we already have a competitive advantage, for instance, healthcare, education, logistics, Smart City, Urban Solutions and security.
We are also putting in place ecosystem enablers to facilitate this AI deployment across the board. This includes making it easier for companies to adopt AI solutions and we have programmes like SMEsGoDigital and AI Singapore’s 100 Experiments programme and these are available to the private sector.
We will continue to take a human-centric approach to AI to bring tangible benefits to citizens and businesses – and I am trying to address Mr Singh's point here – whilst putting in place a strong AI governance structure to ensure that these new fangled abilities are used responsibly, the risks are managed appropriately and public trust is maintained.
To ensure benefits to citizens and businesses are widespread and sustained, we have also invested heavily in digital infrastructure at the national level. There is a lot of behind-the-scenes work, often unnoticed and under-appreciated. But, like physical infrastructure, these are fundamental to our ongoing digital transformation.
Let me give you one example. The National Digital Identity (NDI) – this is one piece of digital infrastructure that most people would probably not have heard of. But you would have heard of SingPass Mobile. We launched it one-and-a-half years ago. Today, it has close to one million users. It has enabled us to make it easy and secure to verify identity and I am sure many Members of this House have used SingPass for a variety of log-ons in order to use Government services.
For example, since CPF launched its online nomination service in January, over 9,000 CPF members and their witnesses have used it to complete the entire process online, securely and conveniently. Mind you, in the past, it would require you to go down to the branch with your witnesses and beneficiaries, sign in front of someone. Now, with the NDI system and Government systems online, you can do all these entirely online but securely because of the NDI system. Businesses have also used this NDI system to innovate and to raise the quality of their own digital services which are provided to customers at large. For instance, online retailers like Carousell who have promoted users as verified buyers or sellers when they sign up using MyInfo, thereby building up trust in online transactions and the marketplace. Businesses also report saving up to $50 per transaction and processing transactions five times faster when their customers use MyInfo to prefill forms. I should have explained MyInfo is basically linked to the NDI so that people do not have to repeatedly fill forms. As long as I have verified that online user, a carefully curated set of information which the user authorises is then made available to that business.
Apart from Digital Identity, we have also made significant improvements in digital payment infrastructure, to support more use cases and to make sure it remains inter-operable and competitive. Today, over three-quarters of Singaporeans between the age of 20 and 75 years are registered with PayNow. Monthly transaction volumes nearly doubled over the course of last year, from 4.2 million to 8.1 million transactions.
We are using PayNow more pervasively in our Government services and we are seeing high take-up rates. For instance, last year, 20,000 CPF members conducted over 90,000 CPF withdrawals using PayNow, which amounted to over $600 million being transferred almost instantly, in real time.
Through these efforts, citizens' and businesses' satisfaction rates have gone up – you know that we conduct regular surveys on this. We discovered that there has been an 8%-point increase from 2018 to 2019. Currently, those who are indicating satisfaction with Government digital services has gone up to about 86% and 77% respectively. These are the highest scores since we started measuring them in 2012.
I say this not to blow our trumpets but to tell people that we are focused on the citizen's experience and on making sure we deliver real value to citizens. We will continue to improve digital services for both citizens and businesses.
At the last count, we have about 100 Government apps. I do not take joy in that number, because citizens often tell me, \"There is so many. Which one do I use?\"
To remedy this, we will systematically streamline the number of apps and our digital offerings. For a start, we will improve and re-organise the Moments of Life (MOL) app, which I described just now, with the eventual aim of personalising it for each user, as Ms Tin Pei Ling had suggested.
If you think about it, we may all carry smartphones but everybody's home screen is unique. That is what individualisation, customisation is. And in a sense, the question is not the number of apps but whether those apps are customised and are suitable for you. Citizens will soon be able to access common Government services on Moments of Life like managing taxes and CPF matters, or even to make event bookings.
These processes will continue to be reviewed and as I said – do not pay attention to the number of apps, pay attention to whether it meets your needs and more importantly, whether at the back-end, the Government is using this as an opportunity to re-engineer our processes to be more efficient, to be more cost-effective and to be more responsive.
For businesses, we will be extending the user-centric approach that we have taken in setting up the GoBusiness Licensing portal to help more businesses meet their different needs as they start up, as they grow and as they run. We will streamline our digital transactions, make them even more user-centric, and provide businesses with information and tools so that they can capitalise on opportunities and to reduce cost. MTI will elaborate on this during its COS.
We will also be exploring more National Digital Identity use cases for businesses in order to make it cheaper, easier and faster for them to go digital. We are testing the use of SingPass by businesses so they do not have to build and secure their own digital identity verification systems. Union members can currently access the U Portal via SingPass and Republic Plaza grants building access when visitors enter via SingPass Mobile. No more surrendering your NRIC.
We also ran a 12-month pilot last year for MyInfo Business to help SMEs pre-fill their Government-verified data for bank account opening and loan applications. Later this year, we will extend such pre-filling to more business-to-business (B2B) services.
Of course, a Smart Nation must go beyond just fancy online services and apps. It must improve the daily lived experience, as emphasised by Dr Teo Ho Pin.
Punggol Town will be our test bed to implement smart technologies such as the Open Digital Platform and smart energy grids in our towns. Later this year, we will share more about how smart features in residential estates and community facilities will benefit Punggol residents and ultimately – I must emphasise – all other towns.
Mr Pritam Singh has asked about the trials of Lamppost as a Platform in One North and Geylang, and I thank him for asking that.
Let me just take a step back and explain why lampposts. Lampposts are ubiquitous. There are 100,000 of them in Singapore. They have the advantage of being in a have fixed location. Lampposts do not move. They are always powered. These attributes have made them very convenient to deploy sensors on. We are deploying sensors and testing out some use cases. For instance, to keep track of environmental quality sensing, traffic congestion and crowd safety.
Let me assure Mr Pritam Singh – I listened carefully to his speech. I think that the key point that he made is balance: that we must get the balance right between acquiring data, using it and protecting privacy and security. If we get the balance right – and we have to maintain public confidence – then we can truly reap the benefits that come with it.
So, I need to assure you that we have very stringent data management and protection standards to govern the access, the use and the disclosure of all collected data by the Government and our vendors. In particular, only officers with legitimate use of the data will be able to access the data, and the data will be de-identified for data analysis and for planning work. It will be identifiable only when absolutely necessary. For instance, in service delivery or in the case of facial recognition, if the Police need it to identify missing persons or for the purposes of investigation, then, under carefully controlled circumstances, that will be enabled. I would like to remind the House that public officers are subjected to the Public Service (Governance) Act, which makes mis-handling and unauthorised access of data a criminal offence.
Going forward, we will find more opportunities to deploy sensors on lamp posts, but we will ensure that the collected data is stored and used securely, and Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary will elaborate on this later.
Let me conclude. Smart Nation has benefited citizens and businesses. There is increased of capacity to deal with rapidly changing circumstances and emergencies in the real world. We will continue to evolve how the Government operates innovatively in a digital environment and we will work even more closely in partnership with our people.
The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information and Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Chairman, to support our fight against COVID-19, many GovTech engineers worked with the rest of the Public Service to build new digital services. One team put together MaskGoWhere almost overnight, giving citizens up-to-date information on where to collect their masks. This was identified as an urgent need to allay fears, provide accurate, reliable and real-time information. It needed to be created very quickly. Other teams worked on providing accurate information through the Gov.sg WhatsApp channel, Ask Jamie chatbot and developing software to help MOM monitor Leave of Absence compliance – just to name a few of these digital efforts to support our fight against COVID-19.
I recently met Mr Ryan Tan, who was part of the team that put together MaskGoWhere. He has been with GovTech for five years, having joined us through the Technology Associate Programme immediately upon his graduation from NUS. He volunteered to help put MaskGoWhere together. He was part of an initial team. The team started with three people, scaled up to 30 people over a weekend and then, back down to three or four when it became stable. He applied his skills in cloud architecture and app development and deployment. He also applied the analytics tools that he works on in his normal job, embedding them within MaskGoWhere, so that the team was able to optimise their service's response in real time, as it received almost a million unique views over a very short time.
This story of Ryan and other members of the MaskGoWhere team is an example of how we are transforming digital Government. Their willingness to step forward and rapidly put together what they understood was a solution to an urgent problem and the fact that they had the tools and capabilities to do so immediately demonstrates that we are well on the way to becoming a Government that is \"digital to the core\" and \"serving with a heart\".
These outcomes are only possible because we decided to build up the digital engineering capability of the Government into a strategic capability a few years ago. With this strong engineering core, we can internalise within our service the capabilities and the skills, to use technology to transform our core businesses as well as develop the confidence to integrate with external stakeholders and the private sector, building platforms such as MyInfo – not just for ourselves but to enable our whole economy to innovate and digitalise. Finally, as in this example with COVID-19, we can respond swiftly and decisively to unexpected national contingencies.
So, to Mr Vikram Nair's question, we will continue to invest in engineering capabilities, create the right environment and exciting opportunities for engineers to apply their ingenuity to serve the public good.
More than developing good people, we have had to re-engineer how we use technology. To enable better and secure use of data, we have established the Government Data Architecture. It has been delivered, cutting the time needed to share the first tranche of core data sets to just four weeks when previously, it was several months. It will shorten further. We commit to getting it down to seven working days within this year, with more data sets for public officers to improve operations and service delivery.
As Prof Lim Sun Sun has mentioned, more data will also be shared with companies and researchers in the future. The progress that we have made in allowing this type of data sharing and the use of cloud-based services were also key factors that has enabled the MaskGoWhere team to deliver their swift and effective response.
I agree with the suggestions made by Mr Darryl David and Dr Yaacob Ibrahim on the importance of maintaining public trust in our use of data and I would like to assure Members that the implementation of the Public Sector Data Security Review Committee (PSDSRC) is on track. Many of these technical safeguards have been built into our Government Data Architecture, ensuring that there is consistency in the compliance of these standards. We will publish an annual update on the Government's efforts in safeguarding personal data, starting with the first report later this year.
We have also migrated non-sensitive IT systems to the cloud to take advantage of the latest technology and to improve cost-effectiveness. Similarly, we are adopting the best practices in software development by building a technology stack with modular software components for reuse and sharing across agencies.
Putting all these together, we can more effectively harness digitalisation to serve our citizens and businesses better.
Despite COVID-19, work continues on many platforms, products and services. Moments of Life is one example and GoBusiness is another, which embodies how we use digital technology to integrate services across agencies to be more user-centric. PSD will give further elaboration on this.
But we must also create new value for citizens to be \"digital to the core\". One example is WSG's MyCareersFuture. This portal uses machine learning, matching job seekers to relevant opportunities. Its job recommendations are personalised to the preferences and skills of each jobseeker, and it will get better and improve its performance over time.
We hope that with this approach, we can also design better policies. This has started and a team from MOM has used a cross-agency administrative data set to review how Workfare can strengthen retirement adequacy of lower income workers. Their analysis informed the Workfare enhancements that were announced in the last Budget and implemented since the start of this year.
To best serve the needs of our society and citizens, we need to actively partner Singaporeans in building our Smart Nation, a point made by Ms Tin Pei Ling. Ours is a digital version of SG Together comprising two broad strategies. Firstly, we will develop more avenues for citizens to experience technology first-hand, learning more about how all these work. Secondly, we have to create opportunities for Singaporeans to join us in designing better products, services and platforms.
To support the first experiential strategy, we are launching two major Smart Nation showcases – in July, the CityScape@URA exhibit, to give citizens an interactive experience of digital technology, and in December,\tthe PlayScape@Science Centre, leveraging on the role that the Science Centre plays in our education, to bring the experience of being able to touch and feel and play with technology, to everyone.
We hope to demystify technology and to encourage as many citizens as possible to visit these exhibits.
For the second collaborative design strategy, we have previously launched with an initiative called Smart Nation Co-creating with Our People Everywhere, also known as SCOPE, where citizens try out early prototypes of our products and share their thoughts on how they can be refined.
This has been very useful. It has allowed us to continually test our ideas and improve them over time. One example, when we were developing the Active Ageing features for Moments of Life, many seniors suggested that the app should help them find exercise events nearby. This was not something that we had prioritised, but we adjusted our plans and now this is one of the most popular features of that service.
To date, more than 23,000 Singaporeans have participated in SCOPE and it is not a small effort. I would like to thank our community of more than 1,000 Smart Nation Ambassadors, bringing these Smart Nation projects to Singaporeans from all walks of life.
This year, we will expand the scope of SCOPE in two ways. First, we will start further upstream. Instead of just giving feedback on specific projects, we invite the public to join in the entire process of the development of Government digital services – from conceptualisation to deployment. Second, we will bring SCOPE closer to residents by holding the sessions on board a Smart Nation Builder mobile truck, which will slowly make its way around Singapore. Please look out for it when it comes to your neighbourhood. We will continue to make sure that we build digital readiness in Singaporeans so that they can take advantage of these opportunities and MCI will share more on this.
Mr Chairman, Sir, our swift response to the COVID-19 situation is a glimpse of how Smart Nation is already here to impact our daily lives. We must continue to transform how Government works, by re-engineering our digital resources, investing in our people, and co-creating with the public. In doing so, we hope to galvanise everyone to build our Smart Nation together.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Sir, the number of scams in all involving e-commerce, loan, credit for sex and impersonation rose by 53.5% last year. There were about 9,500 scams reported in 2019 up from 6,000 over cases in the previous years. The total amount cheated in the top 10 types of scams came up to a staggering $168 million. Scamming is not only lucrative, it is also getting more sophisticated.
Some scams do not put it on the nature of greed. They are disguised as service calls from telcos, banks or Government authorities. These scams capitalise on the victims' lack of knowledge on how things function in the Internet age. An innocuous core is all it takes for the scammer to try to gain remote access to the victim's computer, bank account information, personal identification number and one-time password. The end results are often heart wrenching. Victims of tech support scheme lost $13.9 million of their hard-earned savings in 2019.
Just last November, a 65-year-old woman picked up a call on her landline thinking it was a customer service call from a telco. She spent over two hours on the line with the scammer and by the end of the call, over $300,000 of her savings were wiped out from her bank account. It is very painful and sad to read in the news about elderly Singaporeans being scammed in this manner time and again, despite all the effort by the Police to educate the public about such crime.
In the pursuit of a cashless society and a Smart Nation, have we made life a breeze for one generation and more vulnerable for another? I am for progress but I am deeply concerned that some Singaporeans would be exposed to untold dangers in the digital jungle.
Most of the scams leverage on one thing in common, to make a clean getaway. The speed of online banking transaction, by the time a Police report is made, the victims' money would have disappeared into thin air. Even if anyone caught here or overseas, there is very little hope for the victim to see his life savings again.
Would it not be possible for the Ministry to mandate the banks to offer more protection for the elderly and vulnerable from falling victims to such scams? Would it not make sense for the gatekeeper of the conduit for interbank transfer to play a bigger role to combat such crime?
Let me relate another case. One of my resident was tricked into giving out his one-time passcode in a similar tech support scam, he ended up losing his life savings in two local banks. The scammer did his homework and contacted the resident late on a Friday night. By the time this resident realised that something was not right, the bank had closed and he could only call the after-office helpline for assistance.
The perplexing part of this case is that, only one bank would stop the illegal transfer while the other could not and both financial institutions are using the same international remittance network.
Another one of my resident was so spooked by such scam that he asked the bank to issue him an ordinary bank card with no wireless payment feature or linked to any international debit or credit service provider. He was told there is no such card anymore, but he could request the bank to limited the transaction amount or disable the debit feature. If such feature can be disabled with a phone call, what safeguards are there to prevent scammers from reversing it?
This is exactly what the elderly resident was worried about. He just wanted a simple bank card for cash withdrawal. This educated resident told me he need to be careful because he knows his reflexes, cognition, memory and everything else he took for granted in the past are ageing too.
Sir, could we not ask the bank to institute additional safeguards that are designed specifically for this group of users so that they will not fall victim to scammers and their hard-earned monies will not be stolen so easily in the blink of an eye?
While the scammer may work on this victim for hours, the success of such scams hinges on the split-second transfer of money out of the victim's bank account. If we have cooling-off period for direct sale, can the bank offers such feature for interbank transfer on demand as well? Any change of mind for such a cooling-off service will require a visit to the bank in person. Although this sounds like a low-tech approach, you can certainly buy some time and time is what scammers do not want.
I am not asking the authority to slow everything down. I am only asking the authority to get the banks to provide an option for the elderly and vulnerable to protect their life savings. The Police can only do so much to investigate after the crime has been committed. It does not have the weapon of choice to stop or slow down the scammer from laying hands on the ill-gotten gains.
Sir, such scams are not going away when there is easy money to be made. It was reported in the news yesterday that the number of banking scam calls or messages went up sharply in January this year with 105 cases reported, compared to 38 cases in the previous three months combined. To me, that is a red flag for the authority to take the lead to fight scammers that capitalise on the banking system to steal from the elderly and vulnerable.
The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Online scams and crimes are indeed on the rise, Sir. I agree with the Member that each case is very painful, very sad. Every one of us can be targeted and the elderly are especially vulnerable. Such scams and crimes typically trick individuals into handing over monies through fake investment schemes or by using their personal information to access their bank accounts. The few cases that Mr Png mentioned fall into the latter category. The criminals can reach out to their victims either through phone calls, messages, emails, even cyber attacks.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) and our banks, have been working together to protect Singaporeans against these online scams and crimes. Our efforts have focused on the following four areas.
First, raising public awareness. Public agencies have stepped up educational initiatives through media campaigns, roadshows and community outreach programmes. MoneySense, our national financial education programme, regularly puts out public messages to caution the public against online crimes and scams. Banks also regularly remind their customers, \"Do not to disclose your account details, User IDs, passwords or SMS One-Time-Passwords (OTPs) to anyone, no matter who they claim to be\". Bank customers have also been encouraged to maintain strong cyber hygiene by installing anti-virus software and regularly updating it.
Second, MAS has issued various regulations and guidelines related to the security of online transactions. For example, banks must implement multi-factor authentication so that scammers cannot perform online transactions using only the User IDs and passwords of their victims. You must have the OTPs as well. Fraud monitoring and detection systems are another prerequisite to facilitate timely detection and blocking of suspicious transactions. On a real-time basis, transaction alerts are sent to customers to allow them to quickly notify their banks of any unauthorised payment transactions. These security measures to curb unauthorised transactions, have become industry norms in Singapore.
Third, we freeze accounts suspected of receiving the proceeds from online scams. Where specific bank accounts have been identified to be associated with scams, the SPF's Anti-Scam Centre will freeze the relevant bank accounts as soon as possible. Doing so disrupts the scam operation and increases the chances of recovering victims' monies. In this regard, Mr Png suggested a possible cooling-off option and feature for elderly customers to opt-in, so that when they make a transfer, maybe it will happen 24 hours later. This is something that we can discuss with the banks as a possible way to help, as an option for elderly customers.
Fourth, where the scam is cross-border in nature, SPF will seek the cooperation of their foreign counterparts. The Transnational Commercial Crime Task Force (TCTF) was set up in October 2017 to investigate transnational scams such as China Officials Impersonation Scams, Internet Love Scams and Credit-for-Sex scams. It actively shares information with foreign law enforcement agencies and where possible, works with them to mount joint operations. Nine operations have been conducted since the set-up of TCTF, which resulted in at least 440 cases solved and the arrest of over 100 suspects regionally.
But, as Mr Png mentioned, the sophistication of scams will continue to evolve. The criminals are getting smarter and smarter. The cross-border nature also poses additional challenges and limits what our public agencies and banks can achieve on their own. That is why core to our anti-cyber scam strategy has to be public awareness and education, so that all of us remain vigilant and do not fall prey to cybercrimes.
During this COVID-19, we are all constantly reminded to first, wash our hands frequently; second, do not touch our faces unnecessarily and third, when we are unwell, go see a doctor and do not go to school or do not go to work. These are the three key pieces of advice that we should heed.
Likewise, the three key pieces of advice to fight cyber scams are: one, never draw money from our account to pass to anyone, even if they claim to be from the authorities; two, never share your personal and banking details, especially your One-Time-Password (OTP) with anyone; and if in doubt, three, consult your loved ones, call the anti-scam helpline or visit NCPC's Scam Alert website at scamalert.sg.
As the Police advise – \"Don't Panic, Don't Believe, Don't Give\", \"别慌。别信。别给。\" MHA will elaborate about its strategies to address scams at its COS.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Just as SkillsFuture is crucial for the private sector, it is also vital for the public sector to embrace SkillsFuture. This is especially so today, with technology and digitalisation disrupting work, workers and workplaces regardless of where you are in the world and what you do.
Today, we have seen several traditional jobs being automated completely, for example, services that are now online and where customers can do self-checkout and self-help. On the other hand, we also see some jobs, that are performed very differently today – for instance, through deploying RPA and \"training\" robots, as opposed to performing the manual tasks ourselves. What this means for Singapore, is that as a small and open economy, we need to be able to transform and innovate new products and services to maintain our competitiveness, while working within manpower constraints. Technology and longer career spans are two positive opportunities that can help us overcome our constraints. This underscores the importance of Industry 4.0 and SkillsFuture to ensure that the public sector stays ready, relevant and resilient.
To achieve a win-win-win outcome for workers, employers and the economy, we must continually upskill our workers to equip them with in-demand skills of today and of the future. This will help them take on quality jobs and better jobs should their jobs become automated or replaced by machines.
The public sector has taken the lead in extending the retirement and re-employment age a year ahead of schedule. It has also been working with NTUC-affiliated unions to form Company Training Committees in its push to promote skills upgrading.
In this vein, how does the public sector intend to help its officers achieve lifelong employability, given that the skill requirements and jobs would evolve throughout a longer career span? How has it been engaging the Labour Movement to help officers understand, embrace and thrive in a new environment that is increasingly dynamic and even disruptive? What has been the progress in terms of skills upgrading within the Public Service?
Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Sir, at the last COS, I sought an update on the skills development of public officers. As the problems of today are becoming more complex, nuanced and require different solutions from the problems of the past, it is inevitable that our public officers will be required to learn new skills and sharpen existing skills.
This is a real concern in light of the findings by the Auditor-General’s Office of recurring lapses in the bureaucracy which have raised concerns on public accountability, especially in the areas of procurement and contract management, project management and facilities management.
There are several reasons why these lapses have occurred: first, outsourcing of work, with price as the greatest determining factor of selecting contracts. Second, lack of expertise, especially among mid to high level bureaucrats. Third, high frequency of staff rotation and poor protocols in relation to the handing over of duties. Fourth, insufficient use of technology to reduce human error. Fifth, a lack of accreditation or standards for public officers.
Sir, as Singapore becomes a worldclass city with worldclass infrastructure, our public officers must have the skill sets to manage increasingly complex projects. Our public officers also need to possess the relevant expertise in order to carry out their responsibilities and plan, staff and supervise projects closely.
This is so that we can ensure that our public officers can work closely with stakeholders in the various industries, to ensure quality delivery of public services, public projects and smooth completion of private sector projects.
It is, therefore, imperative that our Public Service pushes itself to continually improve and keep up with the times.
Sir, I wish to seek an update from the Minister on the skills upgrading and development of public officers as well as aspiring public officers, especially in the three areas which I have mentioned. Can the Government also consider giving out scholarships to nurture and attract talent in these fields?
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, Sir, when I first entered this House in 2016, the Estimated Budget for the PMO was $488 million. In the latest Estimates, this has risen to $1.05 billion. The PMO houses functions that cut across Ministries relating to climate and population, for example. But over the years, the PMO has also come to acquire coordinating and leadership roles in a number of areas where there would seem to be a more natural fit with domain Ministries. For example, why is National Research Foundation programme under the PMO rather than MTI since research should be pursued in such a way as to maximise and multiply its benefits to industry and to the economy, which is MTI's purview?
A similar point could be made for the National Security and Intelligence Coordination programme vis-a-vis MINDEF which would seem the natural location for the ownership of Total Defence programmes; SNDGO vis-a-vis the Ministry of Communications and Information.
In the debate on the GovTech Bill in 2016, I asked why the CSA was at that time located in the PMO rather than within MINDEF, the answer was, \"this is to give the CSA the ability to oversee cybersecurity at the national level, and so on\". Does this mean that all policymaking fields that function at the national as opposed to sectoral level and cut across Ministries to some degree will eventually come under the PMO? And if so, how do we ensure that the duplication of functions and expertise is minimised vis-a-vis domain Ministries, which generally have more staff with expertise in the domains? How would we also ensure that due weight in policymaking is given to subject matter experts in the domain Ministries?
Mr Lee Yi Shyan (East Coast): Sir, our Public Service has long been recognised for its efficiency and transparency and as a key factor underpinning Singapore’s success. Worldwide, technology is disrupting business models, reshaping supply chains and creating new jobs. In this creative disruption process, those who cannot keep up will be left behind.
Going forward, Singapore's future depends on the support of a forward-looking and technology-savvy Public Service – one which is wary of the speed and scale of competition, hungry for new ideas, has the capacity to learn and undertakes its tasks with a sense of urgency.
Given this context, I would like to ask the Minister, over the years, how has our Public Service re-invented itself to keep up with competition? How has the Public Service embraced technology to render itself more efficient and to serve its clients more effectively? What has the Public Service done to encourage, induce and catalyse large-scale innovations among businesses and society at large?
According to a Zaobao report, Mr Lan Shaomin, the current Party Secretary of Suzhou, when he was the Mayor of Taizhou in 2016, gave out \"Snail Awards\" (蜗牛奖) to 57 individuals and organisations for their \"slow work\" or \"non work\". Such is a city in a hurry. Does the Public Service, perhaps, in a different but no less urgent way, reward its internal innovators and change agents and punish the procrastinators and non-performers?
Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): Mr Chairman, my cut today is to discuss how our Public Service can show greater care and empathy in designing and delivering services to citizens.
In the past few years, the Public Service has embarked on digitalisation to transform the way it delivers services. This was elaborated by Minister Vivian and Dr Janil. This is, of course, to be encouraged.
However, there is still a group of citizens who may be unable to transact digitally, such as some elderly who may be unfamiliar with computers and smart phones or others from low-income families who cannot afford such smart phones or broadband access.
It is great that the Government seeks higher effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery. But the more \"digital\" Singapore's public sector becomes, the more challenging it is for those who are ill-equipped.
I am proposing that we try out a programme called \"digital buddy\". Such a programme would have digital buddies, who are volunteers, to partner those who are not digitally savvy to assist them in navigating Government digital services. They could be relatives, college students, grassroots members, corporate employees on CSR or just helpful neighbours.
Beyond guiding those who are not digitally savvy in society to cope with our nation’s digitalisation journey, such buddy interactions would also promote community bonding and forge a more cohesive society – one where no one is left behind.
As for hardware, smartphones or laptops and broadband access at home may be taken for granted by many but, to a lower income family, this could be a burden. And I would urge the Government to aim for a position whereby those who want it but cannot afford it can have it through subsidies.
I am also particularly concerned with school children from lower income families who may not be able to afford a computer or broadband access at home. In today’s learning environment, a computer and broadband access are like \"paper and pen\" of the past and, therefore, no child should be denied that.
I would like to ask the Minister how the Public Service can improve on the way it serves and supports citizens, especially those who are vulnerable and not digitally savvy.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Businesses around the world have increasingly been using digital technologies to upscale their operations, seek better efficiencies and create value for their entities.
There are now countless mobile phone apps and online platforms where businesses can use to acquire, engage and transact with their customers. This has brought about better conveniences, accessibility, outreach and also, importantly, lower transaction fees to their customers due to efficiency gains. The cost savings from better efficiency and outreach benefited both the businesses and customers.
Can I ask if the Public Service would do likewise to tap on digital technology in a bigger way to transform service delivery to citizens and businesses?
The Public Service is not starting from ground zero. It has launched the Moments of Life app for birth registration a couple of years ago and it has just been announced that there will be an enhanced version.
Such service apps can help eliminate the unnecessary inconveniences where businesses or citizens need to go to more than one agency to get things done. If properly designed, it can also avoid duplication in resources or situations where different sets of officers are serving the same customer in different agencies.
The Public Service should look towards integrating its services and, where possible, establish a one-stop user-friendly digital platform, which can also reduce the need for manual delivery of services. I would like to seek an update from PMO on the progress in this area.
The Chairman: Minister Chan.
The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Chairman, Sir, I will deliver my reply in half the time that I was supposed to.
Mr Chairman, Sir, a strong, competent and forward-looking Public Service has been central to Singapore's success. It has been so and it will continue to be so. Let me first deal with Mr Leon Perera's question on how PMO decides which programmes come under its purview. There are usually three sets of considerations. First, if it deals with strategic issues with long-term consequences. Second, if it requires close coordination across many agencies. Third, if it is a nascent new capability where we need to incubate that capability development before we pass it on to a relevant Ministry.
So, you are right. Over time, those agencies that fall under PMO would have satisfied one or more of these criteria. When the capabilities mature, they will be passed on to the relevant Ministries that best house them.
Let me now deal with the rest of the questions from the other Members. I would just like to organise them into two sets of answers. First, what can the public expect from our Public Service? Second, what can the Public Service officers expect, going forward? Let me deal with the first.
The first and most fundamental mindset shift required before we even talk about all these technologies is this. The Public Service is committed to design our services and processes around the people whom we serve, around the businesses whom we serve. Now, this is fundamental. The rest will follow from here.
So, as mentioned, digital is a tremendous opportunity for the Public Service to embrace to better deliver our services in a more integrated fashion, at a faster speed at a lower cost. And we have heard many examples of this with The Moments of Life app and also the GoBusiness app and I will not repeat what Minister Vivian and Senior Minister of State Janil have mentioned.
The second thing that we can expect with this mindset shift would be the cross-training of our officers to deliver services in an integrated manner. Our Tampines Hub is a great example. Various public agencies have come together to first co-locate and provide convenience to residents seeking services across different agencies. Today, we have moved on whereby a single officer has been cross-trained to provide services across different agencies.
This is the direction that the Public Service will continue to go in order to deliver quality services to the residents who need help. So, someone who needs help, from financial assistance to housing to employment, can approach the same officer with the same understanding so that he does not need to repeat the story over and over again. So, this is the second example of how the mindset shift has gone on in the Public Service.
The third shift that we can expect from the Public Service is this. The Public Service is no longer just an agency trying to prevent things from going wrong or bad things from happening.
When the Public Service partners our businesses, we are in real partnership with them to catalyse new ideas to enhance their competitiveness for Singapore. Now, this is a very different mindset shift.
When we work with a start-up, it is not about the start-up trying to fit into the current regulations. The regulators also need to change their mindset whereby they embrace the start-up culture to see how regulations can evolve to become a key competitive advantage for Singapore. So, the public can certainly expect a more integrated and more efficient Public Service.
But what I want to end off on this part is what Mr Cedric Foo mentioned. No matter how technology-dependent we will be, we will never forget that at the core of the Public Service is the heart for our people. The way we design the services, the way we design the app, be it for the young or the old, is to make sure that the service is delivered with the heart. For people who need the service but are unable to access technology, we will make sure that the processes are simplified, the service delivery is integrated, so that they will never be left out. And that is how we want to design an inclusive Public Service.
The second part of my speech will, therefore, touch on what the Public Service officers can expect. With the changes in public expectations, with the change in job scopes, we will certainly need to change the skill sets of our Public Service officers. I have mentioned this on various occasions and the Prime Minister has also mentioned this during the inaugural Annual Public Service Leadership Dinner in the earlier part of this year.
Today, we expect Public Service officers not just to be savvy in policymaking, but we also expect them to be good in translating policies into operations, have the ability to communicate and mobilise the public to come and work together to deliver results. And we want our public officers to have a sense of what is going on beyond Singapore, beyond the Public Service. These are the new skillsets that we expect all Public Service leaders to have and this will be how we form leadership teams within the Public Service.
One of the things that we will also change is to more regularly rotate Public Service officers across different domains and even within the same domain. Across different domains, I have mentioned, in that four domain areas – policymaking, operations, communications and mobilisations and international or beyond Public Service exposure.
The second thing that we want to is to make sure that they have the ability to rotate more even within the same domain and this will address one of the points that Dr Teo Ho Pin mentioned. How do we make sure that we check our own blind spots even if we are doing the same job? For example, in regulatory matters, by being able to go to different agencies and see how different regulatory ideas are applied, will allow our public officers to be much more responsive, much more agile.
The third thing that we can expect our public officers to do is this. If we have a 50-year career for the Public Service officer, we must make sure that they have the training that can allow them to have lifelong employability, as Mr Patrick has also mentioned. And this will require us to structure their training such that every few years, there will be a booster jab in their skills. When we ask our Public Service officers to be agile, it cannot be at the age of 40s or 50s. It must be done systematically, from age 20 and above.
Next, we will also challenge our Public Service officers, especially those in leadership positions to go beyond the Public Service, that they will have regular stints beyond the Public Service to expose themselves to the challenges that the private sector and the people sector have. But at the same time, to also bring back good ideas that the public sector may not yet have that are now in the private sector of the people sector or, for that matter, also even in the international organisations.
The Public Service Division will make sure that we organise ourselves to systematically rotate our officers within the Service, across domains and beyond the Service.
Next, we will also make sure that there is greater porosity in the Public Service, from the way we recruit people, beyond just academic qualifications, to the way we develop people and post people throughout the entire lifespan that they are here.
Having dealt with all the changes that we can expect from the Public Service, I must reiterate one point. While the methods can change, the technology can change, the values of the Public Service will not change. The values of service excellence and integrity will never change in the Public Service. Service beyond self. The interests of the country and our people must always come before the interests of the individual officers. The pursuit of excellence is not just for today but always being able to anticipate the challenges of tomorrow, put in place systems and processes before the challenges even arise.
And finally, integrity. Integrity to do what is right for this generation and for the next. Just as Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat says, our definition of success is not just how well we deliver for this generation but also for the next. Integrity also to know that there is no such thing that we are at our best. That is only that we will continue to improve to bring about better of life for Singaporeans and for a better Singapore. So, we will keep engaging the ground, keep improving our processes, keep improving the skillsets of our Public Service officers, in order for us to deliver on a better Singapore, a stronger Singapore and a better future for all of us.
The Chairman: Any clarifications? Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir. I just wanted to ask Minister Josephine Teo about the childcare sick leave. I understand that we are reviewing it but I am just wondering we can also review and look into what other countries are doing. There is a long list of countries that are providing the childcare sick leave – I would not read the whole thing – there is Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland. It is a much longer list. In the interest, I would not read them all. But I am just wondering whether PMO can study what other countries are doing, see how successful it is, see how they implement it and then we can do a proper review. I think the Minister once said that all good things will be considered. This is a good thing that should be considered.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Chairman, the short answer to Mr Ng is yes. We do actually study and we study them holistically too. The Marriage and Parenthood Support measures, they do work in concert with one another and they have to work within the context of each country. And I think in our case, what is even more relevant is to reach out to the young people themselves and ask them what is it that they are looking for. And they have been consistent in telling us: help us with housing, help us with pre-school, help us with healthcare, and very importantly, help us to achieve more flexible work arrangements.
So, we will look at all good suggestions in the context of what our young people want.
The Chairman: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Sir. Just a small clarification to Minister Chan. If I understood Minister Chan correctly, he said that there are three considerations for determining the functions within the PMO. And I think the third point was that, functions are sometimes incubated and then transferred to a Ministry where there is a more natural fit with the domain of that Ministry after a certain period of time.
So, firstly, is that understanding correct? And secondly, where does that leave us, in terms of functions that have been there for a very long time? For example, the NRF. It is under PMO. I think that has been there for quite sometime vis-a-vis MTI.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: I thank Mr Leon Perera for that. On NRF, I would just like to clarify that NRF does not just serve economic functions. The NRF also conducts research in many other things, for example, ageing and societal forces as well. So, there is a good reason why NRF resides under PMO.
Having said that, the NRF works very closely with MTI and, of course, A*STAR which is under MTI for the economic portions of it. So, whether it is the future of decarbonisation, the future of our bio-medical industries, they work very closely. We have also a very simple way to make sure that this is coordinated closely between NRF, A*STAR and MTI because the Chairperson of A*STAR is also the Permanent Secretary for NRF. If the two organisations have any issues, then it is actually internalised within the leadership team.
The Chairman: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Chairman. I have two questions and one clarification. The two questions are for Minister Josephine Teo. I thank the Minister for her speech at the PMO COS covering population issues. Two points I raised in my cut. The first was the number of PRs that do not transition to citizenship. I think there was some very helpful data that was released in the Population in Brief document from September last year, that tells you at what age group these PRs are at. But what about those that do not transit to citizenship? What are those numbers like?
The second clarification pertains to the question I had on integration. I think the Minister also re-stated the point that new immigrants have to play their part and get involved. But on the flip side, we have two or three decades now of immigration experience. What are some of the points that the immigrants themselves raised? What are the issues that they had in integrating with the community?
The third point is a clarification for Minister Vivian. I think Minister Vivian said that Senior Minister of State Janil was going to say something about smart lamp posts but I do not believe the Senior Minister of State said anything about that. So, I am just clarifying that point.
The Chairman: I think they were running out of time. Minister Josephine.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Chairman, with regard to PRs, I think the important thing is that the PR population has been quite stable. It has been about half a million; we have basically kept it at that level. There will always be a certain number that may take awhile before they decide to become citizens. If they leave Singapore and do not return for a long period of time, then their re-entry permits could be cancelled.
As they become citizens, the length of time they take to become citizens does not matter. Some take a shorter time; some take a longer time. Sometimes, it is a matter of thinking about it themselves, because it is hard to eventually make that transition. In some cases, they move faster. I think the important thing is that we have kept the PR population stable.
Then, to the Member's other question. I think this is with regard to integration as to what do the new citizens themselves say about the challenges of integration. The practical thing will be that social habits are different. Singapore has high density living, and most will live in public housing, very close to their neighbours. That is why a lot of the emphasis on integration is carried out through the People's Association, which has the ability to reach to a large number of citizens. This includes new as well as long-time citizens.
The other is a very interesting observation is almost certainly, that second generation citizens acquire the features of local life very quickly. And it is through the second generation that they themselves become naturalised. I think this is not unique to Singapore. It is true of many different countries.
The Chairman: Minister Vivian
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I hope collectively, we have addressed the Member's concern about data security and privacy, and the need to get that balance right in order to maintain public confidence. Senior Minister State Janil may not have mentioned lamp posts specifically, but he did talk about security. And I think this House is also aware of the overarching policy and legislative framework for data security, both within Government and in the private sector.
The Chairman: Mr Cedric Foo.
Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Chairman, this question is for Minister Chan. Historically, many Government agencies and Ministries design systems and processes from their points of view. I think the public will be well served if Government agencies can think \"the other way around\" and try to design processes from the citizens' or businesses' points of view. Does PMO intend to achieve this?
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr. Chairman, indeed, we totally agree with what Mr Cedric had said. And that is my point. We need to turn this around. It is easy, it is usual for people to think from their own perspective – how do people fit into my Ministry's policy objectives? So, from the exercise in designing the Moments of Life and equivalent apps, we have turned this around. We have asked people, \"If you are a parent-to-be, what are the questions that you would want answered? What are the services that you would want?\"
We do what we call a Service Journey. The officers, together from different Ministries and agencies, will walk the entire journey and imagine themselves in the shoes of the people that they are going to serve. And from there on, all their services will be designed around making it more convenient for the people that they are serving. That is how we have been able to achieve breakthroughs in the Moments of Life and even our Tampines Hub (OTH).
But there is another very important element that we are putting our officers through. It is what we call empathy training or empathy design. How we lay out the services to welcome the residents whom we serve, how we design the processes that they have to go through. That requires training. It is not an after-thought. How our officers speak to the residents is also an acquired skill.
In order to do that, we make sure that our Public Service leaders walk-the-talk. We make sure people, right from the leadership level, take the lead, by going onto the ground to serve the residents. So, we have many examples of this whereby even Chief Executives and the leadership team will be at the service counter serving the residents, seeing how the residents respond to the policies from different agencies, what are the challenges and how we can redesign the processes to do better.
We have senior officers, for example, in the communications department and various other public officers walking the ground on weekends, talking to ordinary Singaporeans, hearing their feedback first-hand, unfiltered. This is part of the work that the REACH officers are doing. But it is not just the REACH officers that are doing this. Actually, many of our officers whom I am very proud of volunteered to do this so that they can go to the ground and hear for themselves first-hand how people are responding and reacting to the changes that they make.
So, it is design upfront, change in their mindset and training of the officers in order to deliver a much more empathetic Public Service. Sorry, Mr Chair, can I just give an example to the Mr Leon Perera? I talked about incubation and then, subsequently, we transfer it. MSO is one good example. MSO started in PMO; now, it has gone on MND when the capabilities have been matured.
The Chairman: Mr Seah, would you like to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Seah Kian Peng: Mr Chairman, on behalf of all Members who spoke, I wish to thank Senior Minister Teo, Ministers Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Mrs Josephine Teo, Mr Ong Ye Kung and Mr Chan Chun Sing, and Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary, for their comprehensive and assuring responses on matters ranging from climate change, population challenges, Smart Nation initiatives and Public Service.
I would like to take this opportunity too to thank all the men and women, not just in the Prime Minister's Office, but the entire civil service for their good work, their hard work and their consistent work, day in, day out, 366 days in a year – this, being a Leap Year. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $823,582,100 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $226,169,400 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now and I will take the Chair at 4.40 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.20 pm until 4.40 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.40 pm
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. (proc text)]
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head M (Ministry of Finance)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Sir, I sit in Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Every year, the Committee would scrutinise the findings listed in the Auditor-General's report. While we do not expect zero gaps and weaknesses for a government machinery of this scale and complexity, what concerns the PAC Members is that many of the audit issues brought up in the Auditor-General's report were recurring items that happen year after year. For example, lapses in procurement and contract managements, weaknesses in IT controls and gaps in management of grant programmes.
Some of the lapses this year concerned the PAC Members so much that Permanent Secretaries from four Ministries were also asked to meet the Committee to explain the reasons for the lapses and what are the detailed follow-up measures taken to address the lapses.
The PAC was concerned that given the increasing size and complexity of the work in the public sector, such lapses, if not addressed fundamentally, may compound over time and weaken the governance and accountability over the judicious use of public funds and resources.
Can I ask the Minister on the role that MOF plays in ensuring good governance and accountability within the Public Service? How does MOF ensure that value-for-money practices and culture are strongly embedded in the public service? Also, does the Public Service track and measure the effectiveness of Government spending for better decision-making?
Sir, Budget 2020 clearly demonstrated that prudence and disciplined financial management will always pay off for Singapore. The accumulated surpluses in the last four years for this term of Government gave the Finance Minister the fiscal firepower and the critical resources to decisively respond to the virus outbreak and help businesses and Singaporeans that are impacted by the crisis in a timely way.
We have very ambitious spending programmes and plans ahead in the decade ahead, including big-ticket infrastructural items like the Cross Island MRT line, Terminal 5, the ramp-up in healthcare infrastructure, climate change adaptation projects and so on.
How do we ensure that the Government will spend carefully and prudently on these mega items? Given its complexity where the projects may cut across Ministries and agency lines, how would the Government ensure that there will be no overlapping of efforts and costs? Are there clear working protocols established to streamline and harmonise the whole-of-Government efforts here?
Finally, I would like to ask the Minister to update on efforts to transform the public service processes, in particular, how MOF intends to leverage on digital capabilities as well as the community partners to deliver more thoughtful and joyful services to businesses and to citizens.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, fiscal sustainability and accountability and the use of public funds are important, so good financial stewardship is essential for Singapore for years ahead, given the more challenging environment we have for many years down the road.
In the Budget, the Deputy Prime Minister highlighted plans to set aside funds for an initial injection of $5 billion for the new Coastal and Flood Protection Fund, $1 billion for building up the Government’s cyber and data security capabilities and there are also further plans to build new housing estates, increase the green cover in the residential estates and so on. These are all major projects that will be implemented over a number of years. How are we ensuring that the Government spends prudently and appropriately on big-ticket infrastructure and IT projects such that our financial stewardship would be put in good stead, going forward?
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Chairman, with the anticipated rise in expenditure, it is important that the Government ensure fiscal sustainability and accountability. Singapore's strong financials have been instrumental in enabling the country to carry out audacious development projects, as Deputy Prime Minister Heng said just now. So, what is the scope, within our budgetary mechanisms, to ensure this trajectory and to ensure inter-generational equity, balancing the needs of current and future generations, especially for big-ticket items like infrastructure and climate change?
Most fundamentally, a healthy and growing economy will be crucial to ensuring a healthy revenue stream. The Government has invested substantial funds to support firms to transform and grow under the Industry Transformation Programme. The Government has also allocated a significant share of the Budget to R&D and RIE investments.
I would like to ask the Minister what measures are used to determine if these investments are indeed bearing fruit: what KPIs are used to track progress and success? What has the impact of investment in R&D been, in elevating and positioning Singapore for the future and in supporting industry transformation?
Sir, Government Ministries can also contribute to the sustainability of Government finances. They should be expected to practice prudence in their spending and seek the best value for the money they put into their projects. I would like to ask the Minister what budget mechanisms and controls are deployed to manage expenditure growth in Government, ensuring efficient and effective spending of public monies and the sharing of best practices. How does MOF ensure value-for-money is the responsibility of every Ministry and every public officer?
I would like to ask the Minister what incentives there are for Government officers to under-spend their budgets and continuously achieve savings in projects and initiatives for which they are responsible? What mechanisms are in place to ensure budgets are efficiently and effectively allocated, and to what extent can the whole-of-Government approach be used to explore cost synergies and cross-agency collaboration, in order to avoid duplication of effort and cost?
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, Sir, in 2017, I asked a Parliamentary Question (PQ) about succession planning in Temasek Holdings. The reply was that these matters are to be dealt with by Temasek's Board and the Government does not interfere because Temasek operates as a commercial entity. In 2019, my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Png Eng Huat asked about whether remuneration bands can be disclosed for senior officers in sovereign wealth funds or SWFs. And again, the reply was similar.
The reason this is problematic is that the two entities are not privately-held commercial entities in which case the stance would be understandable, but public ones managing public funds. The public has a legitimate interest in understanding for instance, why CEO succession was deemed to be enough of a priority in 2009 to appoint a CEO designate, and yet, there has not been any concrete movement or succession on the 11 years since then, in spite of what one must assume would be no lack of suitable candidates internally or externally; or whether remuneration given to top executives is consistent with market norms and represents good value.
In contrast, the Singapore code of corporate governance calls on listed companies to disclose total remuneration paid to the top five key management personnel. A 2018 study found that close to 70% of Singapore listed companies did so. The SGX and most of the exchanges do not take the view that the disclosure of such information is unnecessary in the public, and shareholders only need to know past financial performance and nothing else, because such disclosure has a bearing on likely future performance and risks among other reasons.
Singapore Exchange Regulation Chief Executive Tan Boon Gin said, and I quote, \"Shareholders, especially minorities deserve to know why company directors and executives are paid the way they are.\" \"The Board and Management therefore owe it to investors to explain the link between performance and remuneration.\"
The same reasoning would apply to our SWFs because the Government is the shareholder, the people of Singapore are, by implication, stakeholders. In the case of the Norwegian SWF, the government questioned the rising operating expenses of the SWF publicly. The compensation of the CEO and CIO of the Norway fund are publicly known.
In passing, let me note that I am not holding up the Norway model as one we should emulate in all respects. That is not my point. I am also not calling for Government interference in the commercial operations of the SWFs. That is not my point.
I would like to ask how Singaporeans are able to obtain a reasonable degree of accountability and transparency over matters relating to business succession and top executive compensation at our SWFs which manage hundreds of billions of dollars of public funds. Would the Government consider, at the very least, allowing a bi-partisan Parliamentary Committee to interview the key personnel from these SWFs once a year so that there is some degree of accountability to legislators?
Mr Lee Yi Shyan (East Coast): Mr Chairman, Sir, one of the key trends shaping Singapore's future is the rapid advancement of technology. Artificial Intelligence, 5G, Robotics and blockchain and so on, are poised to disrupt existing industries, eliminating jobs and create new ones.
According to McKinsey, applying AI to nine business functions in 19 industries has the potential to create between US$3.5 trillion and US$5.8 trillion in value annually. Growth projections for 5G, Robotics and blockchain technology applications are similarly breathtaking. Traditionally, economic development is predominantly the responsibility of MTI, but increasingly, several other Ministries are overseeing vertical domains which are filled with opportunities for innovation, technology applications and industry development. For instance, MND has deep knowledge of planning a smart and sustainable city, MCI for smart nation, MOT for driverless transportation, MEWR for clean energy and water solutions, MOF for Fin Tech, and MOH for telemedicine. In all these areas problem solving will require multi-disciplinary knowledge employing the new technologies I just mentioned. These Ministries are in very good position to champion R&D applications and industry development in their respective domain expert areas.
Would MOF therefore consider, when allocating budgets to Ministries, set aside a certain percentage of the Budget for Ministries to take on mandatory industry development roles, including technology planning, R&D and enterprise development within their vertical domains? After all, building an advanced knowledge economy is a complex task well beyond the expertise of any single Ministry.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng, you can do both your cuts together.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, MND stated that \"single unwed parents are valued citizens, and like all parents, are respected for the love and care they provide for their children. They are no less a mother or a father, just because their child was born outside of marriage.\" Why do they not then get the parenthood tax rebates like other parents? MND also stated that \"every parent regardless of their marital status, ought to be treated with respect.\"
Our policies can help end the discrimination. It is time to level the playing field and treat single unweds with respect. As citizens, they should qualify for the Parenthood Tax Rebates like all other parents. Next cut.
The Working Mother's Child Relief rewards families with children who are Singapore Citizens. Why leave out single unwed families? Why only encourage married women to remain in the workforce after having children?
It is strange that we do not want single unwed women to remain in the workforce after having their child. Why discriminate, even after MND has stated again that \"every parent regardless of their marital status, ought to be treated with respect.\"
Let us respect single unwed mothers who look after their children single-handedly and remain in the workforce despite all the difficulties. Will MOF consider allowing single unweds to qualify for the Working Mother's Child Relief?
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Sir, no one likes to raise a child alone be it the mother or the father who has to take on the role by choice or by fate. Whether it is the case of a failed marriage or the untimely death of a spouse, the burden and responsibility of single parenthood is a long and arduous journey to undertake. I have seen a number of single parents at my Meet-the-People sessions over the years. While most of them were women, there were single fathers who came along with the children in tow.
The story they share about raising their children all by themselves is a story of love and perseverance. A story that highlights the need and importance to have a support network comprising their extended family, friends and even enacted policies to make single parenthood work for them. Recently, a single father wrote to me to share about his experience about raising his two young children. While he works hard to put bread on the table for his young family and to provide for his aged parents, he found out that the taxman does not really recognise his role and effort as a single father.
While the role and responsibility of being a single parent are not any lesser for a single father, the taxman does not treat a male taxpayer in the same light as the opposite gender when it comes to claiming for Foreign Maid Levy (FML) Relief. While this single father can work out the apportionment of the Qualifying Child Relief with his ex-spouse, there is no levy relief for him if he hires a foreign domestic helper to look after his young children. This single father would fit the criteria for FML relief to the letter, except for the fact that he is of the wrong gender.
Anyone in his shoes would certainly use whatever that is out there to stretch his hard earned dollar to feed his family. I hope the Ministry can look into addressing this disparity soon. The Foreign Maid Levy Relief has to be gender neutral.
Ms Foo Mee Har: Chairman Sir, the Public Accounts Committee observed, in its latest report to Parliament, that it is concerned about recurring lapses in procurement and contract management. Government agencies were directed to urgently address these recurring lapses and basic mistakes. They need to prevent weaknesses from compounding over time, and thus weakening governance and accountability for usage of public funds and resources.
I would like to ask the Minister how can Government procurement policies and processes be made more streamlined and effective, so that the value of spend is maximised? What training do Government procurement officials undergo, in order to ensure that they are fully conversant with the relevant policies and processes? What consequences do the officers-in-charge and management face, for lapses in enforcing controls? How can the identified lapses be addressed at a whole-of-Government level?
The Chairman: Mr Henry Kwek, you may take both your cuts together.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Chairman, Sir, the Singapore Government is at the forefront of public policy formulation and implementation. It is also one of the largest procurer of goods and services.
Naturally, it constitutes an important demonstration platform and springboards for many companies, especially for SMEs and startups, that want to deliver innovative solutions for Singapore and beyond. This is especially so for smart city, climate change, and e-services. Can MOF share how we can enhance the Government procurement approach to enable SMEs and start-ups to develop innovative solutions, and in doing so also help them to grow? This is especially so, as it is imperative to grow new companies in Singapore for the next phase of our economic development. Can MOF also share on how we will inform companies of such efforts? My second cut.
As the needs of our society grow more diverse and complex, it is inevitable that more regulations are needed to safeguard Singaporeans in different ways. At the same time, more regulations mean more processes and greater compliance cost. This represents added cost and potentially, lost productivity to businesses. I have spoken on this issue on a number of occasions in the past.
I am heartened that over the years, the Government also recognises this issue. It has formed the Pro-Enterprise Committee and achieved positive results in cutting red-tape. Nevertheless, this is a never-ending marathon. Can MOF share on how, as part of the Singapore Together movement, MOF and the greater, larger Government agencies can partner businesses on co-creating solutions to reduce compliance costs and streamline processes for greater productivity?
The Chairman: Mr Saktiandi, you may take both cuts together.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat : Mr Chairman, the COVID-19 situation we are facing now has highlighted the importance of digitalisation for work and daily household processes. Being able to perform many tasks from home has helped to reduce the necessity of gathering and queuing in public places. In regular times, digitalisation of existing Public Service processes has brought extensive convenience to citizens and businesses.
Checking our CPF balances, obtaining information about housing grants, submitting a tender for a public project and so forth have become so easy they can be done from our computers and smartphones. How has MOF tapped on digitalisation to enhance its service delivery and interactions with businesses and citizens? How does it engage the older generation who may experience a steep learning curve and may need the necessary devices to benefit from this digitalisation? Second cut.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat: During COVID-19, we saw many heart-warming instances of individuals, organisations and businesses performing acts of kindness, from individuals setting up hand sanitisers for their communities, to businesses giving away masks and organisations persevering with their regular food distributions. Singaporeans also donated generously to organisations in need. It is a reminder of how much we can achieve together.
As part of the Singapore Together movement, how has MOF increased partnership and co-creation with citizens, businesses and the community in delivering solutions? How can the Government work together with Singaporeans, stakeholders and partners to ensure that we can inculcate the society and people who have empathy, care and strength to overcome challenges?
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Chairman, Sir, the number of ground-up initiatives supporting the community and underprivileged have increased over the years. In part, it was contributed by greater social awareness, corporate social responsibility and more funding channelled to support these causes. I commend all the immense good efforts and initiatives that everyone across the country have contributed to benefit the different individuals amongst us. I ask that we do not stop here and continue to do more.
We have been on the journey of promoting digital services. For a while, the focus had been on our seniors and keeping them abreast of digital application. As we continue to bring more on board this digital journey, I feel that another group of people who will benefit immensely is people with special needs.
Under the Singapore Together movement, how can the Ministry enable more partnerships with the community and businesses to co-create, deliver solutions and build a more caring and resilient society?
I encourage the community and businesses to use their knowledge, technology, tools and people network to strengthen this partnership in helping people with special needs. I ask we particularly look at some aspects in their life journey.
First, life skills for independent living. People’s adaptability to changes vary. For those with special needs, more patience and efforts are even required on their part. To assume responsibility in managing their life, they need more intuitive systems and aid. With big data, there can be analysis done to provide reference for them on how to do certain things or automate it for them.
Second, healthcare insurance. Today, people with special needs face insurance discrimination for declaration of their medical conditions. It is not easy for them to get coverage for some basic investment policies, much less medical coverage. By precluding them, they are not just financially worse off but it makes it even harder for them to take stewardship of their health at old age. MediShield Life and soon to be introduced CareShield Life will help but they may not apply for all depending on conditions and further not all their health issues require hospitalisation. Finally, for regular check-ups and therapies, what additional funding and support are available?
Third, financial management. Planning is of utmost importance and how to do it becomes critical for people with special needs to learn in order to minimise risk and disruption in their lives. Before investments and housing needs, they could require lessons on financial budgeting around necessities versus good to have. Understanding what is genuinely good for their well-being and prioritise to prevent straining their own resources.
Lastly, social life. Moving out of comfort zone in communal setting is not the easiest for many of them. We should try to breakthrough social stigma at workplace, community and family and increasingly integrate them in our society. Build emotional and relational connections with people of special needs and give them a safe and respected environment to be in.
The Chairman: Minister Lawrence Wong
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Chairman, I thank the Members for their questions and comments for the Ministry of Finance. Members’ cuts cover three broad topics: first, fiscal sustainability and accountability; second, transformation of public service processes; and third, enhancing service delivery to be more business- and citizen-centric. I will speak on the first topic, as well as the questions on reserves and tax matters. Second Minister for Finance Indranee will cover the other two topics.
The COVID-19 virus outbreak and its economic fallout is a timely reminder of why it is critical to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability. We are a small country with no natural resources, exposed to global forces beyond our control. As Mr Liang Eng Hwa highlighted just now, our prudent fiscal strategy has provided us with the resources to respond promptly and decisively to crises, and also to continue investing for the future and for the long term.
Such resources did not come about overnight. They were built up over several decades. They were the result of prudent fiscal policies put in place by our pioneering leaders. So, it is imperative that we continue to uphold this sound fiscal approach in order to maintain our strong financial position. In particular, as Ms Foo Mee Har mentioned just now and I think Mr Cedric Foo also said earlier in the Budget Debate, every generation must contribute its fair share and not leave an undue burden for the next generation to bear. This is why we must continue to pay for recurrent needs with recurrent revenues. That is why every year when we prepare the Budget, we do not come to Parliament to appropriate monies just for the sake of spending every cent. Instead, we look at each project on its merit, we spend on what we deem to be cost-effective, and then if there are any savings, we set these aside for anticipated future needs, as we did this year. We set aside some amount of money for climate change.
Upholding such financial prudence and discipline is a reflection of our commitment to Singaporeans, not just the present generation of Singaporeans but, as Deputy Prime Minister said just now in the Budget round-up speech, it is also a reflection of our commitment to future generations of Singaporeans.
A key part of our prudent fiscal system is to have a resilient and diverse revenue base, as well as to have effective and value-for-money public spending. So, I will elaborate on each of these.
First, on the revenue side. As Ms Foo highlighted, a healthy and growing economy is crucial to sustaining our revenues. This is why the Government invests upstream to build capabilities of Singaporeans and to provide maximum opportunities for Singaporeans to excel. This is how we can continue to enlarge and grow our economic pie.
Mr Lee Yi Shyan asked whether Ministries play a role in industry development and contributing to economic growth. In fact, this is already the case. While MTI is the lead agency for the economy, various Government agencies do take on sectoral lead roles. For example, as all of you would know, MAS oversees the financial services sector; the IMDA looks at industry development for the IT sector; and the BCA takes care of the built environment, and so on. All in all, we have 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) and we have set aside budgets for the respective lead agencies to support the implementation of the ITMs and that would include technology adoption, R&D and industry development. All of this work is coordinated under the Future Economy Council.
To Ms Foo’s question on the progress of our investments into economic transformation, we are starting to see these efforts bear fruit. In the last three years, overall productivity growth, as measured by real value-added per actual hour worked, rose to 2.6% per year, up from the 2.2% per year in the preceding three-year period. Real median wages have also gone up.
Ms Foo also asked about the impact of our R&D investments. The National Research Foundation (NRF) recently completed its mid-term review of the Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2020 Plan and this RIE2020 is on track to meeting its outcomes, such as in supporting industry growth and catalysing greater innovative activities in the private sector. As at end March 2019, our RIE investments have supported the creation of more than 5,500 industry jobs. Business Expenditure in R&D has grown steadily since the start of RIE2015, from $4.5 billion in 2011 to $5.6 billion in 2018 – an increase of about 25%. In less than two years, RIE2020 has also exceeded the target of supporting more than 250 successful start-ups.
So, we are seeing positive results but there is always room to do better. And all Government agencies are fully aware that they must continue to achieve maximum value from the public funds they are entrusted with, so as to keep transforming our industries and sustaining economic growth.
Next, on the expenditure side. Just as we want to grow our revenues, it is equally important to ensure that our spending is prudent, efficient and cost-effective. Ms Foo asked about the budget mechanisms in place to manage expenditure growth and to incentivise public officers to achieve savings.
Our Block Budget Framework sets a spending cap for Ministries. In 2017 and 2018, we reduced both the spending cap and the annual growth rate of the block budgets, to further manage expenditure growth. Within this Block Budget Framework, if Ministries have any savings, they can roll over part of the savings from the operating budget to the next financial year.
For big-ticket items such as infrastructure and ICT projects, which Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Liang spoke about, MOF applies additional scrutiny to evaluate such projects for their worthiness and cost-effectiveness before embarking on them. Large infrastructure projects, like the coastal protection infrastructure that Mr Saktiandi mentioned, would be reviewed by a panel of technical experts from the private and public sector and academia, before they are given the go-ahead. Over the past five years, these processes have led to design improvements and generated savings of about $3.5 billion for infrastructure projects.
Take the Cross Island Line (CRL), for example. The depot for CRL at Changi East was initially planned to be underground to optimise above-ground land use. After working with LTA and agencies to evaluate the costs and benefits of this approach, agencies found a way to site the depot above ground with reduced engineering risks and at lower cost.
Similarly, through the review processes for ICT projects, we have been able to achieve cost savings of about 6% or $900 million over the past five years. To further strengthen our scrutiny over ICT spending, we will be inviting industry experts to form an ICT advisory panel to benefit from their private sector perspectives in the evaluation of major Government ICT projects.
For issues that may not fall neatly within a specific agency’s domain or area of responsibility, we agree with Ms Foo and Mr Liang that agencies do need to collaborate to avoid duplication of efforts and costs. To facilitate this, MOF has set up joint programme budgets for cross-cutting areas, like ICT and Smart Systems, Cybersecurity, and Research, Innovation and Enterprise.
For example, the Cybersecurity programme budget was put in place by MOF, Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) and Smart Nation and Digital Government Office (SNDGO) to improve coordination, discipline and prioritisation for the build-up of whole-of-Government cybersecurity programmes. So, this sort of partnership helps the Government to make more informed and robust resourcing decisions as a whole.
MOF will continue to identify areas that warrant such multi-Ministry or multi-agency approaches and set aside joint programme budgets, where necessary, to get agencies to work together for more effective outcomes, rather than to do so in their individual agency silos.
Ultimately, while budgeting mechanisms can facilitate discipline in the way we use public monies, the best way to ensure prudence and effectiveness is to instil a value-for-money (VFM) mindset in every public officer, as Ms Foo and Mr Liang rightly highlighted. Again this is a continual work in progress, but we have seen improvements over the years.
Take MOT as an example. It sets outcome-based KPIs such as percentage of commuters' journeys completed within 45 minutes. So, there are clear outcomes for its spending. MOT also conducts VFM workshops for its officers to share ideas and best practices, and has its very own Ministry’s VFM Awards for projects that generate significant dollar savings and benefits for citizens.
One LTA project that recently won the MOT VFM Distinguished Award is the Smart and Energy-Efficient Street Lighting System which provides higher energy efficiency, as well as reduced manpower and time to detect and rectify defects. This led to cost savings of about $4 million every year.
A key part of ensuring every dollar has been well spent is tracking and evaluating the effectiveness of our spending and we do so by setting KPIs upfront during policy design so that spending is tied to the desired outcomes. Then, we review the policies regularly to ensure that they are on track to fulfil the outcomes.
Take the KidSTART programme as an example. ECDA started this as a pilot in 2016 targeting to benefit about 1,000 children, with carefully designed indicators and a clear evaluation plan. Since then, the team has been monitoring outcomes such as child developmental milestones, pre-school attendance and quality of parent-child interactions, to assess the programme's effectiveness. Based on the preliminary results and positive feedback, the Government and MOF had the confidence to expand KidSTART to benefit another 5,000 children over the next three years. And thereafter we will take stock again to see how we can expand KidSTART further. So, this example illustrates the approach we take, how we scale up progressively, relying on data, evidence and learning points to improve the programme, and then, constantly review the effectiveness of public spending.
Mr Liang earlier shared about his work as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee. Let me thank him and the Public Accounts Committee for their hard work in scrutinising public expenditure.
Addressing lapses that Mr Liang and Ms Foo mentioned is a continuing effort that requires balance between controls and efficiency. Like any large organisation, we recognise that it will not be possible to achieve zero lapses, given the high volume of transactions across the Government. Nevertheless, where lapses are found, our agencies will take immediate steps to address them and strengthen their controls to minimise recurrence. This may include relooking at our policies, practices and systems, as well as stepping up training of public officers.
I assure Ms Foo that the Government adopts a zero-tolerance approach to fraud and corruption. Those who commit wrongdoing will face the full measure of the law. Where appropriate, disciplinary actions are also brought against officers responsible for lapses. MOF will spare no effort, as we work with agencies to ensure that the Government remains responsible, open and accountable in our use of public funds. We will continue to strengthen our system of checks and balances and instil discipline in every officer to make sound spending decisions.
Next, Mr Leon Perera asked about succession plans and disclosure practices of Sovereign Wealth Funds, particularly of GIC and Temasek. The Government has explained its position clearly on these issues. Both GIC and Temasek are commercially-run entities, and the Government maintains an arm's-length relationship with them. The boards of these entities are ultimately responsible for their respective operations, performances as well as succession for leadership.
For these two entities, the focus and the mandate that we have put on them is to generate long-term financial returns for the benefit of Singaporeans. The two entities put out a lot of information every year in their annual reports, highlighting not just their performance, but also extensive information and commentary on their investment approach and their outlook. In fact, over the years, GIC and Temasek have progressively put out a lot more information than they used to.
We will continue to encourage the two entities to review and examine what additional information they would like to put out in their annual reports. From the Government's point of view, our key consideration is this: whatever disclosure requirements that the two entities put out should be part of an overall system that enables these two entities to maximise their ability to secure long-term returns for the benefit of Singaporeans. That is our overall objective.
We want to have a system that allows our two entities to succeed in achieving their mandate and we have to be very mindful of what kind of disclosure requirements we place on them, and be careful of not leading them to pursue indicators that can lead to undesirable behaviours. For example, if we were to insist, as some have suggested before, on publishing annual indicators of performance, some of these entities may then be driven towards short-term performance. That would not be in our interest because these are entities that are looking at achieving long-term financial returns.
If we are insistent on them disclosing indicators of fees and expenses to a great level of detail, it may lead these entities towards minimising expenses, potentially eroding capabilities or diminishing their talent pool, which would also not be in our interest. So, we are quite careful and deliberate in thinking about what sort of system we want to put in place and ultimately, it is a system that enhances the performance of the two entities in securing long-term returns.
That is why if you look at what is published, it is the long-term returns net of all expenses incurred, and the information is published for both GIC and Temasek in their annual reports. Ultimately, we want to preserve the competitive advantage of our two investment entities vis-a-vis other market players and we want to maximise their ability to secure long-term returns for the benefit of Singaporeans.
Lastly, let me touch on tax-related matters. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Png Eng Huat suggested extending existing tax reliefs to unwed parents and single fathers respectively. Again, let me explain the Government's considerations here.
Where there are Government benefits that support the child's growth and development, we will extend them, regardless of their parents' marital status. That is why all Singaporean children today receive over $180,000 of education subsidies by the time they turn 16, at least $6,000 in their Child Development Account (CDA) Grants and $4,000 in MediSave Grant for Newborns. In this way, we support all parents, including unwed parents, to give their children education opportunities, good healthcare and a conducive social environment, so they can realise their fullest potential in life.
For the Parenthood Tax Rebate and Working Mother's Child Relief, these were intended to support parenthood within marriage and for married mothers to continue working after childbirth. Likewise, for the Foreign Maid Levy Relief, this was specifically granted to encourage married women to continue working. So, there were specific objectives tied to these schemes. Having said that, all Members would know that,our schemes are never cast in stone. We continue to review and re-calibrate them from time to time.
Members will recall that we have reviewed and extended support to unwed parents in recent years, including the CDA benefits as well as the full 16 weeks of Government-paid maternity leave. These things will continue to progress and evolve.
I would encourage Members also to consider this. Besides looking at specific tax reliefs and comparing the benefits for one group versus another, it is important to take a step back and look at the broader picture. Ultimately, we all share common objectives. We want to give every child a good start in life, provide support for all parents and build strong families in Singapore. We have different schemes and policy tools to achieve these multiple objectives and we will continue to fine-tune and review our schemes to achieve the optimal balance.
Mr Chairman, MOF is committed to ensuring that our spending is effective and sustainable over the long term and we will do so in partnership with the community. I will let Second Minister for Finance Indranee address the other questions raised.
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, I will now address Members' questions which fall under two broad topics: first, how the Government is transforming public service processes to better serve our people and, second, how we are enhancing service delivery to be more business- and citizen-centric.
Minister Chan spoke earlier about transforming the public service for the future. I will cover MOF's efforts in transforming Government procurement through rule reviews and pervasive use of technology. This contributes to being more nimble, innovative and effective, as urged by Mr Liang and Ms Foo.
First, MOF has used regulatory sandboxes to lift procurement rules and allow agencies to test new approaches. One such sandbox enables Government agencies to negotiate with the most qualified bidders in open tenders to identify alternative solutions that provide better value for the Government. For instance, through this approach, we were able to secure a more cost-effective solution for a large ICT contract at tens of millions of dollars lower than the original bid price.
Second, we are introducing more dynamism in some of our bulk contracts to be responsive to market changes. While current ICT bulk contracts allow suppliers to refresh their prices, we are introducing further dynamism by allowing new requirements and new suppliers to be added throughout a multi-year contract. This is especially pertinent in an environment of rapid technology changes. Suppliers will be able to offer new products and services to the Government, without waiting for bulk contracts to expire. Agencies can have faster access to newer technology and capabilities, leading to time savings of about three months each time this feature is used. We have piloted the use of dynamic contracts for two ICT bulk tenders amounting to more than $700 million and will scale this up to three more bulk tenders this year.
Third, public officers can soon make small value purchases directly from e-commerce sites, which will enhance speed and convenience. Today, the public service spends more than $60 million annually on small value items, such as pantry supplies, stationery and small electrical appliances. By the end of this year, MOF and GovTech will enable public officers to make small value purchases from e-commerce sites seamlessly, without having to claim reimbursement.
A fully automated e-commerce model will lighten the processing workload on our corporate staff. Audit controls will be automated and monitoring done in the background. This will save our public officers more than 100,000 man-days a year, freeing up their time to focus on delivering better services to the public.
We are partnering our vendors in this digitalisation journey, particularly our SMEs. By bringing their businesses online, SMEs can digitalise their processes from order to invoice to payment and improve productivity. It also opens up new opportunities – SMEs can access an additional channel to supply Government agencies and other buyers and expand their reach beyond Singapore's shores.
Mr Henry Kwek asked how we are enhancing the Government procurement approach to enable SMEs and startups to develop innovative solutions and help them grow. More than 80% of the total number of procurement opportunities are awarded to SMEs and startups. We will continue to look at how we can facilitate their participation and support their growth.
Mr Kwek also asked how we inform companies of such efforts. One key way is to partner our Trade Associations and Chambers to reach out to them. For instance, MOF regularly engages the Singapore Business Federation to gather feedback from their members and provide clarifications on Government procurement matters.
GovTech, as the Government’s lead for ICT procurement, has regular platforms with SGTech to facilitate collaborations with the tech industry. One of the initiatives shared with SGTech is the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA)'s Open Innovation Platform (OIP), which enables smaller enterprises to better access Government opportunities.
Since its launch in July 2018, agencies have posted 13 challenges on OIP to invite the public to submit solutions, with prize monies of more than half a million dollars. This attracted 191 proposals, with more than 90% coming from SMEs, startups and individuals.
NEA, for example, has posted a challenge on addressing air pollution from vehicles' smoke emission. Twenty SMEs, startups and individuals submitted proposals. NEA is now working with the awarded startup to co-develop a proof-of-concept where video analytics capabilities will be used to detect smoke emissions remotely yet accurately. If the solution proves to be effective, it can be piloted and scaled up without the need for further tenders.
For the ICT sector, we have gone a step further to list promising Singapore-based tech startups in a panel for Government agencies to consider first. The SG:D Spark programme gives these startups priority access to Government projects to build capabilities and track record for further growth.
Impress.ai is a local SME on the SG:D Spark programme which helps companies automate their recruitment process using artificial intelligence. It has grown its clientele to 10 Government agencies in its two years on the programme. These agencies, in turn, have benefited from a more efficient and effective recruitment process. For example, Ngee Ann Polytechnic reduced the time taken to review over 4,000 applications, from 470 hours to just two hours.
Mr Saktiandi and Mr Liang asked how MOF has tapped on digitalisation to enhance its interactions with businesses and citizens. Mr Kwek also talked about reducing business compliance costs.
Earlier this year, the Accountant-General’s Department announced that the Government has taken the lead to adopt the Nationwide e-Invoicing Network. This provides our 20,000 vendors currently on e-invoicing arrangements with an additional channel to transmit invoices from their accounting systems to the Government. Being on the network also allows vendors to exchange documents seamlessly with one another, including overseas counterparties.
As part of the Digital Government Blueprint, all Government interactions with businesses and citizens will include an electronic signature option by 2023. This will make it easier, more convenient and less costly to transact with the Government. Within the Public Service, we have conducted reviews to digitalise processes and do away with signatures. Where signatures are still required, electronic signatures will be the norm.
We have gone one step further to integrate digital solutions across platforms and agencies to create seamless digital touchpoints. In partnership with software providers, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) and Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) are enabling seamless filing for smaller companies. Using source data from accounting records, financial and tax returns can now be automatically generated and submitted directly to ACRA and IRAS. With the launch later this year, about 200,000 companies can potentially benefit from this initiative.
Even as we seek to create seamless digital touch points with citizens, we must also help those who might require more customised assistance, as Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Miss Cheryl Chan highlighted.
IRAS has been working with taxi and private hire car (PHC) drivers on a chat-filing initiative to simplify tax filing. Through this collaboration, IRAS developed a conversational-style form to help drivers understand the information they need to report. The form was piloted last year with over 600 drivers who found this tax filing process more intuitive. They also spent 30% less time filing their returns. Given its success, IRAS is working with GovTech on a prototype chatbot to benefit about 6,000 taxi and PHC drivers during this year's tax filing season.
We recognise that the Government does not have a monopoly of ideas or resources. For Singapore to succeed, we must harness the collective wisdom and ideas of our people. I am glad that Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Miss Cheryl Chan highlighted the SG Together movement, which will anchor our nation-building going forward.
Budget 2020 is a good example of SG Together in action. We engaged and received suggestions from about 6,000 contributors, almost 40% more than last year's Budget. We will continue to step up our engagement efforts so that all Singaporeans can have a say in our Budget.
Beyond engagement, we seek to actively partner our businesses, community groups and citizens to create policy solutions together. Take for example the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme under Budget 2020. This had its origins in early discussions between the Tsao Foundation and the Government. The Tsao Foundation did a pilot study to provide dollar-matching on CPF savings for a small group of older women. We then scaled up the idea into a nation-wide programme to boost the retirement adequacy of eligible lower and middle income seniors with little retirement savings.
We also leveraged data sharing via Application Programming Interface (API) exchanges and crowdsourcing through hackathons to co-create solutions.
For instance, IRAS' API Marketplace and ACRA's API Mall allow developers and businesses to harness data and create applications that interface seamlessly with Government systems. These APIs are currently used by over 150 organisations to develop business and productivity solutions.
We have also taken a further step to partner businesses and empower the community to co-implement solutions. For example, our banks and telecommunication service providers are valuable partners under IMDA and Enterprise Singapore's Start Digital initiative, who help introduce business solutions through their touch points with SMEs. With their support, the scheme has benefited over 10,000 SMEs since its launch in 2019.
We also leveraged partnerships to promote inclusive growth, and foster a caring and resilient society, which Miss Cheryl Chan spoke about. Tote Board's Enabling Lives Initiative, managed by SG Enable and the National Council of Social Service, is one example of how various stakeholders such as social service agencies, academia and corporates work together to deliver projects that improve the well-being of persons with disabilities and care-givers.
As Miss Cheryl Chan mentioned, people with special needs will benefit immensely from the use of digital tools. Under Tote Board's initiative, a social enterprise called Digital D.R.E.A.M. pioneered the use of virtual reality systems to provide immersive learning opportunities for students with special needs, such as learning about road safety in a safe environment. Digital D.R.E.A.M. has since partnered various Special Education schools to develop tailored content materials for their students.
Later this year, Tote Board will launch the second tranche of the initiative. We look forward to more collaborations with our community partners to deliver impactful and innovative solutions in various aspects such as life skills and assistive technology for persons with disabilities.
MSF has formed three Enabling Masterplan work groups to guide us in building a more inclusive society. More details will be shared at MSF's COS later.
Mr Chairman, our work is not done in creating a better Singapore for all. We encourage our businesses, community groups and individuals to come forward and work together with us to build and sustain Singapore's success for future generations.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir, just three points regarding the single unweds again. We have MND that is saying that every mother and every father is equal. It does not really matter whether the child was born out of marriage. But here we are now saying that they are not equal, that because the child was born outside of marriage, they will not qualify for the Parenthood Tax Rebate and the Working Mother's Child Relief. Why do we do that?
Second, with these two rebate and relief, there are single parents who qualify for it, who are the divorcees. So, why can we not just extend it to the single unweds? Unless of course we are saying we want that as a form of deterrent so that people do not have children out of wedlock. But again, as I raised in my Adjournment Motion, I doubt this will be a deterrence, unless, just before they have sex, they think about the Parenthood Tax Rebate and Working Mother's Child Relief, which we know, will not happen.
And that comes to my third point. I am not really fighting for a lot of money here and I do not think actually a lot of single unweds pay a lot of taxes, because we know their median income is $600 for those under 35. We are not fighting for the money here. We are fighting the stigma and the discrimination. And I know MOF will support this as this is a Unity Budget. It should be for all Singaporeans.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chairman, I think Mr Louis Ng is talking about the support for single unwed parents in the context of MND's issues on housing; and certainly, if I were to wear my MND hat, we have said that we want to provide housing even for single unwed parents in the interest of the child. So, there is no issue there.
But I think the question here is a different one. I think the question here is: do we want to provide support for parenthood in the context of marriage? Singaporeans have asked for this support. Various Members of the House have asked for such support too. And if you were to provide that support, there will invariably be a gradient between incentives and encouragement for parenthood within the context of marriage versus outside of marriage. That gradient exists today in our schemes.
But it does not mean that we are not supporting children. As I said, schemes that provide support for children, we will ensure that the children have them. It does not mean that we are not supporting parents, whether you are a single father, a single mother or whether you are a divorcee. We have support for them. But so long as we take the view that we want to provide support for parenthood in the context of marriage, that gradient will exist.
How do we manage this going forward? Do we still want a gradient? Do we not want the gradient and treat all as equal? I think that will evolve. It is a continuing journey, as I alluded to earlier. I think in this House, we have heard calls for more support for parenthood in the context of marriage too. So, obviously, there are different views and we will have to manage these different views and continue to refine and improve our schemes over time to manage this diversity of views and to address the different objectives, as I highlighted earlier.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, I noticed in the revenue estimates that the NIRC has grown from $17 billion last year to $18.6 billion for FY2020. So, can I ask the Minister if this continued growth in NIRC is realistic, sustainable, given the grimmer outlook now, not just because of the current COVID-19 fallout but also of more concern are the longer term global structural stresses that we saw and the persistent near-zero interest rate environment that is still there? Can we expect this NIRC to grow to fund our Budget in the future?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chairman, the NIRC will be an important source of revenue over the long term. As Mr Liang Eng Hwa, I think, is fully aware, the NIRC is tied to the long-term expected returns of our investment entities. So, the critical words are \"long-term expected returns\". It is not linked to short-term performance. It is not impacted by immediate market volatilities. So, we are not so concerned about that.
But looking ahead, looking at the long term, there are indeed reasons for concerns. And we do expect more pressures in the longer term investment environment. For example, geopolitical tensions, I think, will be a long-term issue between America and China. That contestation for power will be with us for quite awhile and it may lead to a more bifurcated world over a period of time.
We will likely see more nationalist and protectionist pressures continuing, which means that the pace of globalisation will slow. We may even get de-globalisation, which will cause global growth to be lower for longer periods of time.
In developed markets, you see ageing populations, you see lower productivity, you see stagnating growth. So, those trends are continuing.
If you think about these long-term trends, then indeed, there will be continued pressures on our long-term expected returns. So, we are very mindful of that. We stay vigilant. We do not assume that our NIRC will always be able to keep pace with our spending needs and that is why all the more we must not take our current fiscal strength for granted.
The Chairman: Okay, Mr Louis Ng, one more time. Last one.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I try one more time, Sir. I hope the Minister will agree with me that it is not a deterrence. Not providing single unweds with the Parenthood Tax Rebate and Working Mother's Child Relief is not a deterrence. And I also hope that the Minister will agree with me that it is not an incentive. It might be this worry that if we provide the single unweds with more benefits, all of a sudden, there is going to be huge population of children born out of wedlock. I do not think that will happen as well. And if we do not think that it is going to incentivise or discourage, then again, what is stopping us from levelling this playing field and ending the discrimination?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chairman, I respect Mr Ng's views. I think there are many in this House who will feel like that. I think there are many who will also ask for additional support for parenthood in the context of marriage as has been the case before. So like I said, there will be a range of perspectives on this matter. We take all this into consideration in continuing to review and update our schemes.
Ms Foo Mee Har: I actually would like to continue the clarification started by Member Liang Eng Hwa and the Minister's eloquent reply. It is regarding the return from NIRC.
I noted the same strong growth projected for 2020. It is 9.3%. And I do understand we project long-term expected returns. To me, that is a very big achievement and we are very grateful, because we can then use it to fund our Budget. But then, what would the trend be in terms of percentage increases? 9.3%, right? This year versus last year. I think in wealth management, if you can achieve 9.3% for long-term expected growth, that would be an amazing achievement. I would like to ask the Minister whether there was some special adjustment from 2020 versus 2019, because I would imagine for the long term, probably, it would look more like 4%. That would be a good achievement.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chairman, there are two figures which we should not conflate. One is the growth of NIRC but that does not equate to the long-term expected rate of return, because the NIRC is the base multiplied by the rate of return. So, the base changes too, in order to get your NIRC.
As far as the rate of return is concerned, this is evaluated every year. We have a rigorous process to go through what that rate of return should be. The investment entities will review it. MOF will review it as well, and then we put it up to the Council of Presidential Advisers and the President finally has to approve the figures. We have explained the process, it is a rigorous process that goes through quite a bit of scrutiny before we finalise the figure.
The trends which I talked about earlier, what Mr Liang Eng Hwa had asked for, are concerns that we have, looking ahead. It need not impact on the immediate long-term expected rate of return. But we are concerned indeed that over a period of time, if these trends were to continue, if you see continued geopolitical tensions, if you see a growing trend of de-globalisation, then indeed, expected returns over the longer term may be impacted. So, we are mindful and we are watchful over this.
The Chairman: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, I did not file a cut for this Head, but if there are questions, I am prepared to give way. I am assuming that there is no one behind me who has raised his or her hand. If it is fine, I will just proceed to ask my question.
The Chairman: What are you requesting, Mr Singh?
Mr Pritam Singh: I am going to ask a question but I did not speak during for this Head, Mr Chairman, so I feel that those who had filed cuts should have first priority.
The Chairman: If you can couch it as a clarification, I will allow it. If it is a new question, I will not allow it.
Mr Pritam Singh: Sure. I will put the clarification. Minister Wong, following up on the question on the NIRC, I remember when we had the debate in this House in July 2015 on the amendment to the Constitution. We confirmed that the formula that was derived – the figures the NIRC reflects – is very conservative. Even more so when the broader economic environment is poor. It could be structurally or cyclically poor. Can I confirm then that the prospects of a \"famine and feast\" of NIRC, as a budget line item, actually is very, very minimal. That is the first clarification.
The second clarification is pertaining to the question I had put in my Budget speech about the formula that the Government was proceeding with insofar debt financing was concerned and the implications that has on some sort of fiscal room in subsequent budgets. Is there any clarity on that particular point, because the repayment period is stretched instead of a lumpy one-time or two-time payments. Thank you for the indulgence, Mr Chairman.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Technically, the second question is a new question not a clarification, but I will answer it anyway.
On the first part, the NIRC or the long-term expected return is looking at long-term what the investment entities are expecting in terms of their returns over a long period of time. So, it is not tied to immediate short-term market performance.
For example, if this year's market performance ends up negative, stock markets everywhere were to crash and overall returns are negative, it does not impact on our NIRC. Conversely, if it is a bonanza year and markets were to go up, it does not impact on our NIRC because we are looking at expected long-term returns. So, to the first point, it is not so much a conservative element. It is simply that we look at a long-term figure in order to derive the NIRC. We do not look at short-term market changes. So, that is our focus for deriving the NIRC. And that is also why we have continually emphasised that we hold our investment entities to the performance measure of their long-term returns, rather than looking at year-to-year performance. Because year-to-year performance can vary depending on the market, but we look at long-term trends.
On the second part, we are still working out the debt financing arrangement. MOF will reveal the details of the debt financing arrangement in due course. The idea is that we will borrow for selected major infrastructure. Rather than to fund this entirely from the Budget, we will do it through borrowing. We think this is a more equitable arrangement for major infrastructure that spans a long period of time; then, both current and future generations will pay for the payment of that infrastructure through its useful life. Doing so may provide you some fiscal space in the interim, of course, compared to the alternative of funding everything upfront. But I think it would also be wrong to assume that this fiscal space can be entirely spent away because you need to pay for it later on anyway. If you were to spend all of that fiscal space immediately on something that carries a long tail, down the road, you will end up with difficulties paying for the debt repayment.
So, the idea of borrowing is, not so much to provide fiscal space. It is really one where we look at the infrastructure spending we will need to incur going forward, it is likely to be another lump that is coming up in terms of infrastructure needs, like we did when we first financed our first MRT project. We borrowed for it as well. So, now, in the new phase of development, there will be major infrastructure projects coming up. We think it is more equitable that the Government borrow and then spread out the repayment over the lifespan of the project rather than to fund everything upfront, which I think would then present too much of a burden on the current generation. That is the thinking around debt financing. It is not so much to provide fiscal relief or fiscal space.
The Chairman: Mr Liang, would you like to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, on behalf of the Members of this House, I would like to thank Deputy Prime Minister and the Finance Minister for a massive and far-reaching Budget, if befitting of the challenging environment that we are in today. He has not only shown fiscal fire power but also standing power – speaking and standing for more than two hours in both speeches.
I also want to thank Minister Wong and Minister Indranee for responding to our cuts and also the various engagements that we have with the GPC.
And finally, to the MOF colleagues, they must have worked really hard this time with the fluid circumstances. I hope the young officers can now make up for their Valentine's Day that they missed out as the Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned. With that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $877,537,300 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $158,428,400 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head B (Attorney-General's Chambers)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Head B. Attorney-General's Chambers. Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head B of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Chairman, I filed this cut to suggest a review of the role of the Attorney-General, with a view to making our legal system even more robust.
I would like to suggest that the Government consider a change in the Constitution, to split the current dual role of the Attorney-General into two separate offices, to be held by different office-holders. Let me explain why this would improve the current arrangements.
Currently, under Article 35 of the Constitution, the Attorney-General is entrusted with two roles that require him to behave quite differently. On the one hand, under Article 35(7), he is the chief legal advisor to the Government. It is provided that the Attorney-General is to \"advise the Government upon such legal matters and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him… and to discharge the functions conferred on him\".
In this advisory role, the Government is his client and it is the Government who will decide what should be done. The Attorney-General may have to take certain courses of action even if they go against his own advice.
On the other hand, he has a pivotal public role in criminal matters. Article 35(8) provides that the Attorney-General is the Public Prosecutor and vested with power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence.
Sir, the extent of this power, and the responsibility associated with it, cannot be over-stated. The AG has the responsibility to decide on criminal prosecutions on behalf of the state: who should be charged, who should be let off with a warning, who should have their charges reduced or compounded and so on. He is arguably more powerful than a High Court judge, as his exercise of discretion is done in private and is un-appealable.
As Public Prosecutor (PP), the Attorney-General is expected to be fiercely independent and have no hesitation to bring charges against the most powerful office-holders if the circumstances warrant. The rule of law, which we hold so dear, depends on it.
In order to further strengthen the system and shore up the independence of the Public Prosecutor, I ask the Government to consider splitting the two roles I have described, to reside in two different offices, so that the person who is Public Prosecutor is not the same person taking the Government's instructions in non-criminal matters. I believe this separation exists in other countries to enhance the independence of the PP's office.
From my understanding, the dual role of the Attorney-General was drafted into the Constitution at a time when our legal manpower was more limited. Today, we have many senior legal minds. Already within the Attorney-General's Chambers organisation, besides the Attorney-General himself, we have two Deputy Attorneys-General and a Solicitor-General. It would appear that we can assign the role of Public Prosecutor to the Attorney-General and the role of Government's legal advisor to one of the Deputy Attorneys-General or to the Solicitor-General.
Sir, in addition, to further buttress the standing of the Attorney-General, he should enjoy some security of tenure. The Constitution originally envisaged the Attorney-General to hold office until 60 years of age, and was later amended to allow Attorney-Generals to hold office for a specific period. In the recent past, some Attorney-Generals had held office for short terms of two to three years. I suggest that the Government introduce a minimum term of appointment to enable the Attorney-General to enjoy some security.
As to what period is suitable, we could take reference from the period currently set for the appointment for the Auditor-General, which under the Constitution is a six-year term.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Mr Edwin Tong.
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Chairman, Ms Lim spoke about de-coupling the dual roles of the Attorney-General as Public Prosecutor and also chief legal advisor to the Government, and granting security of tenure to this office, to strengthen the system and also made reference to systems in other countries. Let me respond to the points raised.
I understand the thrust of Ms Lim's speech. The Government fully agrees that public confidence is important. And because of the way we have built up our institutions, public confidence in our institutions is high. Our institutions work well and have worked well. Survey statistics referred to during the 2016 Committee of Supply debates showed that public confidence in the legal system is indeed high. Let me cite some numbers. Ninety-two percent said they had trust and confidence in Singapore's legal system, and that the system is fair and efficient. Ninety-six percent agreed that Singapore is governed by the rule of law.
The same survey also revealed that 90% said they had trust and confidence in the Attorney-General's Chambers.
The public's confidence in the Attorney-General's Chambers did not develop by chance. It was the result of prudent legal safeguards, as well as the integrity of those in the system. Let me elaborate.
First, the Constitution itself has robust safeguards to protect the Attorney-General's independent exercise of prosecutorial discretion. It provides that the Attorney-General has the discretion \"to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence\".
Second, on top of that, we have a dual-key system for the appointment of the Attorney-General. What does this mean? Both the President and the Prime Minister must agree on the appointment. The Presidential veto contributes to a more robust system compared to other major common law jurisdictions which I believe is a reference point that Ms Lim has taken, such as England and Wales, Australia and New Zealand, where the officers in charge of prosecutions in those countries are appointed solely by the government Minister.
In Singapore, the Attorney-General does not hold a political office. This further reinforces the independence of the Attorney-General, and is also unlike other jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, Canada, Australia and New Zealand where the Attorney-General holds a political office and is therefore subject to political pressures. Separation of the role of the Attorney-General from that of the Public Prosecutor in those jurisdictions is therefore necessary to ensure the independent exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The Constitutional safeguards in Singapore ensure that the Attorney-General is protected from such pressures and allows him to discharge both his roles as Public Prosecutor as well as the Government's legal advisor without fear or favour.
Ms Lim suggested that the Public Prosecutor should have security of tenure. Again, if you look at and compare our system with that of mature common law jurisdictions, the officers in charge of prosecutions in England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong do not have security of tenure and typically serve pre-determined renewable terms.
What is more important is that it is very difficult to remove the Attorney-General in Singapore. The President, the Prime Minister and a tribunal of three Judges, which must include the Chief Justice, must all agree that the Attorney-General is unable to discharge his functions, or that there has been misbehaviour. In some of the other mentioned jurisdictions, the requirements for removal are considerably less stringent.
In total, these safeguards are important. But, I am sure Ms Lim knows, that alone cannot itself maintain public trust. The Attorney-General's actions are also important. Attorney-General Lucien Wong recently said that the Attorney-General's independence is \"enshrined in the Constitution and is an established rule of practice within Chambers\". The Attorney-General has also not shied away from prosecuting individuals who may be well-connected or indeed hold high positions. Ms Lim has, in her speech said, that a Prosecutor must have no hesitation. Some examples of more recent and those further back prosecutions include actions against a Minister of State; against sitting and former Members of Parliament; against at that time, the SCDF Commissioner; the then-NKF CEO and also the then-Deputy Chief Executive of PUB.
The public trust the Attorney-General and the broader legal system because we appoint individuals of the highest calibre and integrity and they exercise their discretions independently. The high levels of public trust in our legal system and the Attorney-General's Chambers, speak for themselves.
I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's fundamental commitment to and respect for, the Attorney-General's independent exercise of prosecutorial discretion, which is essential to a society governed by the rule of law.
The Chairman: Ms Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. I have some clarifications for Senior Minister of State. First, may I just get his confirmation that he actually acknowledges that this principle of separation between the Chief Prosecutor and the Chief Government legal advisor is taken in other jurisdictions. That is one.
Secondly, I think he would probably be aware that a former Attorney-General had actually written an article about this issue in The Straits Times in 2017. And he actually suggested also that the separation be introduced into the system as a matter of design, not because currently there are major issues now, but to pre-empt future problems, and citing that in other countries' pressure on prosecutors, perhaps by an unscrupulous Executive is not unknown. So, from a system design perspective, it is something that is good to consider.
The third point is that he mentioned that it is quite difficult to remove the Attorney-General and cited the Constitutional provisions. But at the same time as well, if the Attorney-General is appointed for a short term, then his contract will just lapse and in that sense, he will be removed after a short period of time or his service will be terminated. So, is it not worth considering actually, to introduce a certain continuity in the term of the Attorney-General, so that he can see through certain matters that are of concern of public interest. At the same time, the former Attorney-General who wrote the article highlighted a frequent change of Attorney-General does affect the morale of the Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPPs). So, I would like the Senior Minister of State's comment on that.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I will address all three questions at the same time because I think they fundamentally centre on the question of trust in the independence of the Attorney-General and, of course, the functions of that office.
What other jurisdictions do, they do it for the reasons best known to themselves, or perhaps a design that is in response to the system that they themselves have. I highlighted the differences that I think Ms Lim is very familiar with in other jurisdictions.
Some of the Attorneys-General hold political office, others have affiliations; yet others as Ms Lim will be aware from my speech also do not have security of tenure and go by a fixed term. So, it is different processes for different systems; and each country, each jurisdiction must decide what works best.
In our context, we look at it from the perspective of what the broad institutional protections are – in terms of the appointment, in terms of the removal, in terms of the fact that the Attorney-General has no political affiliation and holds no political office. But, more than that, we also look at the individual, persons of integrity, utmost integrity, discharging those functions. And finally also, the proof of the pudding is really in the eating – in looking at the conduct, looking at the fact that, with no fear and no favour, there have been high-profile prosecutions including those that I have outlined which demonstrates that our system is working. And that I think is manifestly clear from the surveys that have been done.
So, yes, we constantly review this system that we have. We understand that other countries look at the separation. We look at our system and we constantly evaluate it and we will make adjustments as appropriate. But, at the end of the day, what drives the decisions that we make ultimately, has to be the output, the performance and the way in which the public retains and reposes confidence in the functions of the Attorney-General.
The Chairman: Ms Lim, would you like to withdraw your amendment?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Chairman, I do believe that this matter is worthy of further consideration, but at this juncture, in the interest of time, I would like to thank the Attorney-General's Chambers for its work and I beg leave to withdraw the cut.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $197,113,500 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $5,764,000 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head R (Ministry of Law)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Head R, Ministry of Law. Mr Christopher de Souza, you can take all your four cuts together.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the estimates be reduced by $100.\"
MinLaw plays an important role in developing Singapore as a hub for international legal services. In 2018, the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) emerged as the third most preferred arbitral institution in the world and the most preferred arbitral institution based in Asia. While SIAC draws a strong demand for arbitration from parties in Asia, there are trends and developments that indicate that the demand for arbitration in Singapore will move beyond Asia.
For instance, in 2018, the United States topped the foreign user rankings for the first time. Last year, the field of arbitration in Singapore was given a further boost to widen its global influence through the opening of Maxwell Chambers Suites with a whole suite of arbitration offices and facilities. Dignitaries from 12 countries and more than 350 guests from various facets of the legal industry attended the official opening.
It houses the local offices of top international dispute resolution institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce's, International Court of Arbitration (ICC) as well as the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). Allow me, Sir, at this point to declare for the purposes of this COS debate, this cut and all cuts after this, that I am a lawyer whose practice covers arbitration, litigation, advisory work and intellectual property.
Moving back to the cut, Maxwell\tChambers Suites\tcurrently\thas\tthe\thighest concentration of case management offices in the world. It\talso houses\tINSOL\tInternational Asia Hub.\tINSOL is the International\tis the\tInternational Association for restructuring, insolvency and bankruptcy professionals. The INSOL International Asia Hub in Maxwell Chambers Suite is INSOL International's first ever physical expansion since the establishment of its London headquarters in 1982.
Would the Minister share with us how the Ministry plans to help Singapore as a legal services hub, drawing to Singapore\tthe\tdemand\tfor\tinternational\tlegal\tservices across key practice areas?
My next cut, Sir, is on civil, community and family justice. In a country where the rule of law is a bedrock of society, maintaining the people's trust in the justice system and increasing access to justice are key.
To further these objectives, our civil, community and family justice systems have gone through several refinements. Launched in 2017, the State Court's Community Justice and Tribunals System (CJTS) is an electronic case filing and management system which helps promote access to justice by allowing parts of the legal system to be accessed by lay persons online. Through it, claims at the Small Claims Tribunal may be filed and negotiated, reducing the need to appear in court where an e-settlement is reached. Without needing to go to court, neighbours can also try to resolve disputes with the help of a court mediator through e-mediation.
We also passed the Protection from Harassment Act so that victims obtain protection from harassment more easily. Will the Minister elaborate on what has been and will be done to further enhance our civil, community and family justice systems?
My next cut, Mr Chairman, is on enhancing our criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is critical in maintaining law and order in Singapore. More than just a tool for ensuring that law be abided by and that there be order in Singapore, the criminal justice system is important for justice to be carried out, meted out in Singapore. The state has the proper mandate to mete out penal justice, punishing those who do wrong; otherwise, there may be increased vigilantism, mob justice and a descent into chaos and disorder.
The corollary of that mandate is preventing the injustice of punishing persons for wrongs they did not commit; otherwise, law may be seen as arbitrary.
It is therefore important that trust in our criminal justice system is maintained. Will the Minister therefore explain what has been done to ensure the continued efficacy of our criminal justice system here in Singapore?
My fourth cut, although is not my last cut for the COS, is on a formidable fortress for Intellectual Property (IP), being Singapore. The Industrial Revolution 4.0 and the Digital, or Information Age rely heavily on intangible property rights, that is, intellectual property rights – to protect the way systems are designed, codes are written, products are created. Intellectual property rights or IP rights allow innovation to be sold, bought, traded and incentivises research and development of technology. IP rights also allow businesses to protect their reputation and reap from investments made in the quality of their products and services.
Would the Minister elaborate on how the intellectual property regime will be used as a means to help our companies remain competitive in a challenging global environment? And, importantly, how will Singapore further fortify its position as a country and jurisdiction in which IP rights can be well protected and enforced?
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Chairman, in a fast changing and competitive global landscape, we do appreciate that one of a company's competitive advantages is its brand, ideas and innovations. Singapore has come a long way in developing our Intellectual property (IP) capability and eco-system. Singapore is ranked second in the world and the highest in Asia for having the best IP protection as stated in the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report 2019. In fact, this is one of the reason why Singapore is selected by many MNCs to invest their business and research development in Singapore.
The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore or IPOS has been pushing the boundaries to support businesses in using IP to grow. With IPOS’ strong reputation, credentials and capabilities in IP strategy protection and management, could the Ministry share how IPOS is helping Singapore companies especially small and medium enterprises understand the value of their IP, protect their IP and innovations as well as leverage their IP for competitive advantage?
I welcome the Government’s move towards enhancing Singapore’s standing in becoming an even more established intellectual property hub and the launch of IPOS International last August. IPOS International, a wholly-owned subsidiary of IPOS has over 100 IP experts in areas of IP strategy and management, patent search and analysis, and IP education and training. IPOS can provide customised programmes and this provides valuable assistance to many businesses. The use of technology by IPOS is also very encouraging.
IPOS International’s suite of tools related to IP assets, for example, Illuminate for Enterprises, which is an online diagnostic tool developed by IPOS International, assists users to obtain a quick overview of their company’s IP, the health of their intangible assets, as well as any management gaps and risks. Are Singapore SMEs actively leveraging the suite of tools and engaging IPOS International to better understand and develop their IP strategy for competitive advantage? What is MinLaw’s assessment of the progress that Singapore companies are making in leveraging IP for their business growth and the commercialisation of IP of Singapore companies? My second cut.
Mr Chairman, could Minister also on what has been done to improve our criminal, civil, community and family justice systems to make access to justice for citizens simpler and more affordable? Could Minister also inform us on the key priorities on enhancing access to justice that we look forward to?
I would like to highlight areas where some of my residents have sought assistance as they face challenges in their access to justice and equitable outcomes in one area of unscrupulous contractors.
While the law does allow for legal recourse to be provided to consumers who have been cheated by contractors who do not perform their duties to the required standard, there are cases where my residents have been let down or short-changed by contractors who have done shoddy works.
Under the current legal framework, if my understanding is correct, an offence is committed only if money has been paid by the consumer and no work has been done at all. This may not be an altogether satisfactory, as the services rendered may be due to poor workmanship or left unfinished. If the contractor, despite given reasonable time does not rectify the works, what it leaves the consumer to do is to have to hire another contractor to rectify the works and then obtain legal redress which might take some time.
In one of the cases that my resident sought sought my assistance, the said contractor has cheated others. When she had made Police reports, she was that the Police could not assist and that they had to pursue their own cases. The concern is that as they did this, whether besides recovering moneys, whether the contractor was continuing to cheat others and this somehow did not seem right.
In another area of maintenance. While the provisions of the Women’s Charter provides for sanctions or in extreme cases, even imprisonment terms, to those who default in maintenance, by the time the law takes its course, it could provide cold comfort to the wives and children, many who live with relative financial strain. So, could the Ministry consider imposing measures of sufficient deterrence, so that defaulters who breach court orders in maintaining their families will think twice, such as imposing fines of appropriate severity, in addition to any existing penalties?
I would also like to request the Ministry to share on what steps are being taken to educate and inform the public of their legal relief, especially in cases where Singaporeans do not have the financial wherewithal to afford legal representation and hence would be less cognisant of their legal rights.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Sir, legal design is the application of human centred design to the world of law to make legal systems and services more human-centred, usable and satisfying. By its very nature, the law can be intimidating to navigate for the common man. To many, it can dense or verbose and inflexible and jargon lead. How many of us have blindly clicked on compliance boxes or lengthy forms when we download the latest version of whatever software we need or even signed PDPA forms without reading them?
To that end, does the way companies and commercial entities and even the Government seek consent in today's digitalised world, ensure that our people are informed about their rights, the rights they are giving up or responsibilities and obligations they are signing up to. Sir, I believe there is room for better legal design in view of the digital tools available today. One Ministry whose website and mobile site has caught the eye for excellent legal design and user friendliness is that of MOM. Their mobile site is intuitive and captures all the critical information citizens will access in a simple and easy to read format. I was made to understand from a public officer at MOM that there is a team that analyses user behaviour with a view to improve online interaction and how to make online services easily understandable and easily understood.
Chairman, Sir, the Budget book lists the key performance indicators of the Ministry some of which include a sound and progressive legal framework and access to justice for the low-income. While the tech-related outcomes in our march towards digitalisation may more appropriately come under GovTech or the Smart Nation office, legal design inputs can help many other Ministries and Statutory Boards improve the delivery and quality of services, and ultimately, outcomes for Singaporeans. I hope the Ministry plays a part with legal design tools to make the law more easily understandable and understood by the layman.
The Chairman: Mr Patrick Tay, you can take your three cuts together.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Chair, my first cut is on the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) Judgments. With the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) having jurisdiction to adjudicate both salary-related disputes as well as wrongful dismissal claims, it now hears more cases.
Having a deeper understanding of the rulings of the ECT would benefit not just practitioners and lawyers, but claimants and respondents too when presenting their respective cases. Past decisions of the ECT would be extremely useful as a source of reference and precedence and should thus be made available. For a start, I would like to suggest that the more landmark and instructive judgments can be selectively published.
My second cut is on Enforcement of ECT Judgments/Orders. The ECT now has jurisdiction to adjudicate both salary-related disputes as well as wrongful dismissal claims, making it more convenient for parties to resolve employment disputes via a single forum.
However, an Employment Claims Tribunal judgment that is not satisfied would still need to be enforced in the same manner as an order made by a District Court. This would involve detailed processes set out in the Rules of Court pertaining to the filing of relevant forms/documents as well as the payment of court fees. A worker who has successfully obtained a judgment may thus still be subject to a protracted enforcement process. Workers’ lack of knowledge of the workings of our courts system exacerbates this problem.
There is thus a need to simplify and expedite the enforcement mechanism to facilitate workers’ recovery of moneys. One suggestion in the context of an insolvent company, is for MOM to look at issuing cash advancements, which could be used to pay part of the worker’s unpaid wages, and thereafter to stand in place of the worker as a preferred creditor to recover the advanced moneys upon distribution of the insolvent company’s assets.
My final cut is on easier access to legal aid. For Civil Court proceedings, even though registration for such legal aid can now be done online, a full means test with a means test officer is required if representation in court proceedings is required. Depending on the urgency of the case, it appears that it can take between seven days to a month to get an appointment and thereafter, another appointment for statement taking.
I suggest giving applicants the option to do means testing as well as submit copies of required documents online in advance.
For the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS), similar measures, such as allowing for registration and the means test to be done online, can also be implemented to speed up the application process for criminal legal aid cases.
Further, a central online legal aid portal can be set up. Depending on whether legal aid is required for civil or criminal proceedings, potential applicants can then be directed to the relevant organisation’s website and resources. This would make it easier and less confusing. Similarly, can the means test to qualify for CLAS consider similar factors such as those used with the new means test administered by the Legal Aid Bureau?
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Legal aid schemes provide assistance to those who are unable to afford legal advice or representation. Legal aid, however, is only available to those who meet the criteria and some people may not be eligible. The claims may have merit but the legal costs, may be prohibitive and so they decide not to pursue their cases. The concern becomes even more pertinent when it involves matters such as those relating to divorce, applications under the Mental Capacity Act or criminal matters.
In this regard, what has been done to improve the legal aid schemes to enhance access to justice? Could the Ministry look at how to further assist individuals who are not eligible for legal aid to get the help they need?
I declare that I am a lawyer in private practice.
I raised previously the need to incentivise low bono efforts by lawyers. Many lawyers are already doing pro bono work but this often comes at a cost to the lawyer’s earnings, and thus not sustainable. I had asked if a framework could be developed to support low bono efforts by lawyers to augment existing legal aid schemes. I note from the response last year, that MinLaw is working with partners like the Law Society Pro Bono Services and the Singapore Academy of Law to study how it could enhance support for pro bono and low bono efforts. Could MinLaw give an update on these efforts?
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Sir, I had raised the suggestion of simplifying procedures for non-contentious probate and administration matters in the past COS debates. I still get feedback on cumbersome processes from people. One example is Mr Chan, whose wife recently died intestate suddenly. He is a care-giver of his autistic son aged 16. Based on the current rules under the Probate and Administration Act, there was a need for him to get another person to agree to be a co-administrator to administer his late wife's estate to protect his minor son's interests. This was not an easy task.
In comparison, he was appointed as a single deputy by the Court to take care of his son and deal with his son's property and affairs under the Mental Capacity Act. I understand that the Government has been reviewing this matter since 2017. I seek an update. I will also be grateful if the Government could please consider the interplay between the various statutes in its review, too.
Separately, I had pushed for Singapore to accede to the Hague Apostille Convention so as to rationalise the process involved in legalisation of documents for use here and in other countries. I would be grateful for an update on this matter.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mr Chairman, I think mediation is a good dispute resolution mechanism for commercial disputes. I had once personally participated in a mediation under the auspices of the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) as my firm was involved in a commercial dispute that resulted in litigation.
I was, at the time, quite impressed with the mediation format. It was less contentious and driven by parties instead of lawyers to seek a win-win solution where both parties are in a position to accept. It also makes sense from a commercial perspective. Mediation is more efficient than litigation in terms of time and cost. There is no need for commercial entities to be distracted from their day-to-day businesses by being embroiled in long drawn out and costly litigation.
Sir, I was therefore extremely pleased to note that, in August 2019, Singapore facilitated and was also among the first to sign the Singapore Convention on Mediation. This House has also passed the Singapore Convention on Mediation Bill earlier this month. We could be one of the first signatories to ratify the Convention.
This will pave the way for cross-border enforcement of mediated settlement agreements, give businesses greater certainty and assurance and encourage the greater use of mediation to resolve international commercial disputes.
I note that in the past three years, the SMC has conducted under its auspices, close to 1,500 mediations with a recorded settlement rate of between 65% and 69% each year. This means that almost seven in 10 commercial disputes referred to mediation are resolved amicably. This is an excellent rate of return. It is a reflection of the good work that the SMC puts in to resolve a majority of the disputes referred to them. If more litigated commercial disputes are referred to mediation, this could also potentially reduce the case load burden of the Singapore Courts.
On the arbitration front, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, or SIAC, has also seen a steady rise of cases over the years. Based on information from its website, 80% of SIAC’s case load is international in nature and they have an experienced international panel of over 400 expert arbitrators from over 40 jurisdictions around the world.
It, therefore, appears to me that Singapore is well-placed to capitalise on these developments and resources to position ourselves as a leading global dispute resolution hub. In the premises, Sir, I invite the Minister to share with this House the Ministry's larger strategic plans to promote Singapore as a leading global dispute resolution hub to resolve international cross-border commercial disputes.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam: In May 2019, MinLaw, together with the Law Society, Enterprise Singapore and Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) launched Tech-Celerate for Law. This is a scheme for Singapore law practices to get funding support of up to 70% for the first-year cost of adopting baseline and advanced technology solutions. This scheme is supposed to prepare law practices for future disruptions beyond baseline technology adoption, empower them to focus on delivering enhanced legal services, strengthen their capabilities and increase their competitiveness in the global landscape. This is, indeed, a meaningful endeavour. Law firms, like other businesses, need to equip themselves with the necessary technology to be efficient and productive and be ready for trends and changes in the future.
However, as I had highlighted in my speeches in previous years, there is often hesitation on the part of small firms to invest time to review and adopt new technology because, unlike bigger firms, they cannot afford to dedicate resources and time to this effort in the midst of continuous and on-going legal work. I am also not sure if awareness of the various support programmes and schemes is high amongst the lawyers in the smaller firms. This may lead to some of these lawyers feeling left out of the efforts that MinLaw has been making in supporting the profession build capabilities. I am, therefore, wondering how MinLaw is preparing small law firms, which may not have sufficient resources, including time and money, to be future-ready?
If awareness and interest in such technology adoption is not high, would MinLaw consider having more engagement and sharing sessions with smaller law firms to encourage the move towards adopting new technology?
The Chairman: Mr Patrick Tay, you can do both your cuts.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Technology is increasingly being felt in the legal fraternity. AI and machine learning have already been tapped to review contracts and conduct research in other countries.
I submit that existing stakeholders in the legal sector, such as practising lawyers and in-house legal counsel, will also need to be brought up to speed in this global move towards adopting legal technology solutions to improve productivity, accuracy as well as enhancing access to justice.
It is inevitable that technology will continue to disrupt and change current work processes in law firms as well as the legal departments in the organisations. Funding of legal technology implementation and solutioning as well as training and upgrading subsidies should thus be set aside for continuing legal education in this area of legal tech solutions. I suggest that such funding should be extended to all relevant stakeholders in the legal sector, including in-house legal departments and counsel of private companies and organisations as well as the public agencies.
Para-professionals, commonly known as paralegals, are invaluable to the legal industry. They are employed by law firms as well as the legal departments in private companies and public agencies. Depending on the needs of the employer, a paralegal's role can range from conducting research and managing routine files to even knowledge management.
Notwithstanding the wide scope of responsibilities undertaken by paralegals, their professional development as well as interests and welfare are often not given due priority, save for the Chief Justice's recent mention of the increasingly important role of allied legal professionals trained in skillsets relevant and complementary to the core responsibilities of a lawyer.
I submit that more can be done to encourage employers of paralegals to set out clear career progression options for paralegals. These could include more diverse roles, such as project management, business development, legal innovation and legal technology, as well as understanding foreign legal jurisdictions to enable internationalism. To help paralegals take on such roles, a skills framework backed up by both the industry and regulators with nationally endorsed training providers must be promulgated and made available to all paralegals.
Further, an association or union can be specifically set up to better engage paralegals, look after their interests as well as facilitate their professional training, development and progression. This must come with support from the industry and regulators.
Mr Christopher de Souza: Sir, land is a valuable resource. Would the Minister elaborate on how we can optimise state properties to meet social and community needs? One excellent example is what was done to the former Henderson Secondary School. This state property has been transformed into an integrated space comprising a childcare centre, a nursing home and dialysis centre as well as an urban farm. How can we optimise state properties to meet social and community needs?
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Chairman, I thank the Members for their speeches and for the queries that they have raised. I will address them.
MinLaw's mission is, broadly, two-fold: first, to continually update our legal framework to meet both today's and tomorrow’s needs; second, to work together with our stakeholders to strengthen Singapore's position as a leading international legal services hub for Asia and, of course, the world.
In the past two years, we had passed many pieces of legislation to achieve these objectives. We have redoubled our efforts at establishing Singapore as a legal services hub. This has included, as Mr Sitoh Yih Pin has said, the signing of the Singapore Convention on Mediation. I will touch more on that in a moment.
Our focus for the coming year will be to implement the changes that we have put in the place, to ensure also that every Singaporean can be confident of effective access to justice in Singapore.
Our legal system must be user-friendly, affordable and provide effective solutions. It must also be accessible to the most vulnerable amongst us.
We will, therefore, continue to grow the legal services sector to ensure that more can enjoy the benefits of this growth whilst at the same time ensuring that those who require and need those services will have access to those services.
Let me begin by speaking about my Ministry's efforts to strengthen the overall legal framework. Mr Christopher de Souza, Ms Jessica Tan and I think several others have touched on this.
First, family justice. Those who use the family justice system are usually in a state of emotional turmoil, mental anguish and have seen their families break up. It is not a legal proceeding that they wish to be in. They are often also vulnerable, especially those families with children, whose interests, above all, must be looked after. That is the design focus of our laws – to look after the children in any matrimonial or family proceedings. This awareness has driven our revamp of the family justice system since 2014, as Members would be aware.
Our aim is to reduce time, cost and, perhaps most importantly, unnecessary acrimony and to recognise and protect the interests of the children, so that the acrimony does not affect and adversely weigh on the outcomes for the children.
We have moved significantly to improve the process. For example, in 2019, more than 55% of divorce cases were decided on the simplified track, which is faster, less costly and, obviously, less painful through the process, up from just 24% in 2015. These are encouraging numbers, but we do want to go further.
The Government has, therefore, accepted the recommendations of the committee to Review and Enhance Reforms in the Family Justice System (RERF). The committee was tasked to look beyond just legal proceedings and, instead, focus on designing a robust eco-system of support for families. The committee made recommendations on mental capacity issues to address the needs of our ageing population as well. We are working with our stakeholders to implement these recommendations and put them into place.
Ms Jessica Tan spoke about the enforcement of maintenance orders. This is an important concern and we do not want someone to have to spend time running from pillar to post to try to recover something that the Court has already granted by way of an order. We have taken steps, however, over the years to address this issue.
Where the spouse cannot find work, perhaps due to poor health or other reasons as a reason why the orders have not been fulfilled, we should recognise that support services rather than legal proceedings will provide more effective relief for the wife and the children concerned. Nevertheless, at the same time, our laws must also have the tools to deal with a spectrum of options, different situations, including imprisonment, if necessary, so that we can enforce and give teeth to orders that have been made in Court. This serves as a strong deterrent.
But, overall, Members should be assured that where there are genuine financial difficulties, circumstances that the family faces, the Courts will more likely order mediation or financial counselling to find a solution rather than to just simply impose the hard law.
The Government is also considering how to make the overall maintenance regime, both in terms of the orders made as well as the enforcement, simpler and more effective.
Moving on to civil justice. Members will know that two committees – one convened by my Ministry, the other by the Judiciary – made broad-ranging recommendations to enhance the efficiency, affordability and overall effectiveness of our Court system. We have completed public consultation and further discussions with key stakeholders and will introduce legislation to implement some of these changes in due course.
Mr Patrick Tay raised concerns with the enforcement of Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) orders. We are studying recommendations to streamline and simplify the enforcement of judgments and orders and will announce more details in due course once we have completed that.
Mr Patrick Tay also suggested that in the case of insolvent companies, or companies that either cannot or have been unable or refuse to pay the wages, that MOM could advance money to the worker and thereafter stand in his place as a preferred creditor. I understand that MOM has looked at this proposal before and Mr Patrick Tay will probably know that while doing so might well help that specific worker in the immediate short term, it may also inadvertently create a larger problem of a viable company defaulting or owing the salaries in knowledge that the workers could find an alternative avenue to obtain those payments using Government funds. Overall, this leads to a potentially bigger problem in the system for a longer time.
That said, for workers with no other alternative to recover unpaid salaries, the Short-Term Relief Fund (STRF) and the Migrant Workers' Assistance Fund (MWAF) can be tapped on. These provide ex-gratia payments to low-wage employees whose employers were unable to pay salaries due to financial difficulties or business failure.
On the publication of certain ECT decisions, Mr Tay would know that, today, ECT judgments or grounds of decision are available to the public upon request. Why upon request? Because the original proceedings in the first place under the statute are held in private to protect the confidentiality of the parties. So, it follows that whatever takes place in those proceedings is not reported as of right. But the ECT will assess requests for either the judgments or the grounds of decision and, where appropriate, such as when it would help future cases or there is strong precedential value, then those would become available.
I understand that MOM also makes applications to the ECT to publish judgments or grounds of decision that become useful reference points for parties in the same vein as I have outlined.
Next, let me touch on criminal justice. On this, we have worked closely with MHA and other stakeholders in the past two years to make wide-ranging amendments to both procedural and substantive criminal law. Much legislation has been passed in this House on this aspect over the past two years.
In particular, the Penal Code amendments have kept our legislation apace with emerging crime trends developing here and around the world and strengthened protection, in particular, for vulnerable victims. We have implemented most of these changes.
This year, my Ministry is supporting the work of the newly-formed Criminal Procedure Rules Committee chaired by the Chief Justice. This committee will ensure that the Court procedure remains nimble and also adaptable to adjust and meet evolving needs.
Mr Christopher de Souza and Ms Jessica Tan asked about supporting the efforts of Singapore enterprises to thrive in an innovation-driven economy. We have several initiatives. In the interest of time, let me just highlight a few.
First, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) and the Singapore Exchange (SGX) have launched a new Intangible Disclosure Evaluation and Audit Scheme – a bit of a mouthful, so we have short-formed it to IDEAS. IDEAS provides a subsidy of up to $10,000 for companies to undergo an intangible asset evaluation and audit. This identifies intangible assets that are critical to the companies' businesses and recommends how to report them in a way that best communicates the business value of these intangible assets to their investors and the market, obviously, to try to realise the full value of such intangible assets. This helps companies when they raise financing.
Second, IPOS' subsidiary, IPOS International, helps enterprises develop strategies to protect, manage and also commercialise the intangible assets and intellectual property (IP).
To date, IPOS International has helped about 100 enterprises, with close to 95% of them being SMEs and start-ups. That is in answer to Ms Jessica Tan's question as to what help has been given to companies in Singapore. It has also developed a series of IP management business guides, which around 1,000 enterprises have accessed.
Around 70 enterprises have used IPOS International's diagnostic tool, illuminate® for enterprise, to assess their IP and intangible assets risks and gaps, and perhaps they will be working on them and, eventually, can also take advantage of IDEAS.
Third, we have expanded our patent acceleration initiatives last year to cover Artificial Intelligence (AI) patent applications. AI patent applications can now be granted as early as six months after filing. This supports the development of innovative AI technologies and helps companies with these technologies to remain competitive ahead of the curve. And as we know, technology sometimes outmoded very quickly. So, the quicker we can deal with the patent applications, the more value it is to the companies.
Finally, the newly-launched IPOS Go mobile app enables businesses to register their trademark in just 10 minutes, down from the previous average of about 45 to 60 minutes. To date, over 150 businesses have used the IPOS Go app to protect their brands. These points would also be interest to Mr Singh who asked about we design processes and systems with the end-user in mind.
Let me also turn now to address Ms Tan's and Ms Rahayu's points about access to justice.
First, on civil legal aid. One change we have implemented is the increased flexibility to grant aid. Applicants who do not satisfy the means criteria but are otherwise unable to afford basic legal services without causing significant hardship to themselves and their families, these persons may have their applications reviewed by an independent Means Test Panel. Previously, the moment an applicant failed the means test, then the application was rejected. Now, we look at whether or not this person has failed it only because he had circumstances that might cause hardship to himself or to his family. The panel may waive the means criteria for these deserving applicants. The grant of aid will, of course, still be subject to the merits test, to ensure that applicants have good reasons to bring or defend their cases in law.
Mr Tay asked about improving service delivery for legal aid. We will do so through a number of key initiatives.
Let me just quickly outline them. First, we have just launched the revamped Applicant Portal for civil legal aid and new features will be included over the next few weeks. When completed, this portal will do away with the need to appear in person to complete the means testing and also the statement taking so that it can be done remotely without having to make a trip to the office.
It reduces the need for applicants to provide information that the Government already has. So, for a start, we will tap on MyInfo to provide personal details and income information. These are the key criteria in assessing an application for legal aid. This will reduce processing time by at least two weeks, speeding up the process so that access to legal aid can be granted more quickly.
It also, at the same time, is two-way, allows the applicants to check on the status of their application and be updated as to its progress.
Second, the Legal Aid Bureau has just launched the first phase of its new chatbot, \"iLAB\". It will be able to provide basic legal information to LAB's potential applicants. It will also be able to triage them based on the nature of their case. And in most cases, this will save the applicants a trip to LAB to discuss it with the case officers in person.
Finally, we are working to include a feature which will allow users to generate simple legal documents. Potential applicants can use these documents to self-help. They do not have to go to see lawyers. With iLab, these simple standardised documents commonly used can be generated. We hope to launch this in the next few weeks.
Mr Singh spoke about design thinking. I think these are all features which fit towards that. And it is a good reminder by Mr Singh that we should be looking at the various enhancements to ensure that they are designed around our clients' needs. And I take the point that it ought not be dense or verbose, and we will endeavour to avoid that.
Putting information online, enabling online applications, making it two-way, the process being dynamic, will make it easier for our clients who may find it difficult to be away from their families or take time away from work.
We also undertook three rounds of rigorous user testing with LAB clients on the Portal and also on iLAB because we recognise that it can also be very frustrating if it does not work, the portal is not intuitive and not interactive enough. So, we have been fairly rigorous in the way which we have tested it before it goes out to market.
The broader legal system also designs access to justice and legal awareness with the end-user in mind. For example, the Courts have pioneered an online dispute resolution system which litigants-in-persons can use to conduct negotiations and mediation for claims online for the Small Claims Tribunal. Mr Sitoh would be glad to hear that as well – you can now mediate your case online as well. And we are also exploring new features, such as asynchronous hearings to make it more convenient for Singaporeans to resolve their disputes. So, rather than to have parties at the same time at the same place, these facilities make it easier, facilitate claims before the Small Claims Tribunal and also allow for some mediation to take place.
I shall elaborate more closely on the law firms' adoption of technology, a point raised by Ms Rahayu, later in my speech.
Let me touch now on criminal legal aid.
MinLaw has also been working with our partners on the Criminal Legal Assistance Steering Committee (CLA SC), including the Law Society as well as the Criminal Bar, to review the means criteria for the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS).
We will adopt the new means criteria and limits for civil legal aid, what I have just outlined, for CLAS as well. These changes will simplify and therefore shorten the application process, while at the same time, maintain the rigour of the means test which we need to have, given that these are public funds that are being used. We will be working with the Law Society Pro Bono Services (LSPBS), which administers CLAS, to implement the changes in the coming year.
Despite these changes, I wish to assure Members of this House that there will be no material impact on the number of households eligible for criminal legal aid.
We will also continue to support the efforts of LSPBS to improve the administration of CLAS. This includes using technology to make the application process more efficient and user-friendly.
At this juncture, let me acknowledge the strong support of members of the Bar, without whom the scheme would not have been quite so strong.
Since 2015, the five largest law firms, Allen & Gledhill, Dentons Rodyk, Drew & Napier, Rajah & Tann and WongPartnership, have generously sponsored the CLAS Fellowship to enable lawyers to join LSPBS exclusively to handle criminal legal aid cases. Sixteen law firms have also signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) to pledge to take on CLAS cases. And I thank the lawyers, the legal fraternity for their support of this programme.
Ms Rahayu asked about support for Singaporeans who cannot qualify for legal aid. To do so, we continue to forge strong partnerships with stakeholders to provide affordable legal help. So, even if you cannot qualify for these programmes, what else do we do?
We work with the LSPBS, the legal fraternity and our community partners to provide legal help through Community Legal Clinics and various legal literacy and legal assistance programmes.
The Government also works with the Law Society and the Law Schools to cultivate a strong pro bono culture within the legal profession. For example, law students are exposed pro bono work from an early stage. They have structured internships with Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) to inculcate not just the spirit but also to allow us to tap onto the law students to assist in our pro bono programmes.
There have also been efforts by the wider legal eco-system. For example, the Singapore Academy of Law will be launching a collaborative workspace called \"CLICKS @ State Courts\", which will help firms adopt technology by providing them with shared amenities and facilities such as meeting rooms and office equipment. And by reducing operational costs, firms can then consider providing accessible and affordable legal services.
But I think Ms Rahayu will agree with me when I say that access to justice goes beyond legal aid and just providing low bono or pro bono services. It is equally important that we see access to justice as understanding the problems in daily life, understanding at what stage there should be legal, and perhaps, also social intervention so that we can provide simple yet effective and, as far as possible, long lasting solutions to the problem at hand and not just fix the surface, leaving the underlying problems to continue to rear its ugly head.
My Ministry has put in place various legal frameworks to deal with these issues.
We have, over the last year or so, established a new Protection from Harassment Court. It will have specialised expertise and processes. Cases will be heard by specially trained judges. Volunteers will be on hand to assist victims, including from a social aspect and not just from a legal aspect. These changes are intended to minimise anxiety and stress, and to ensure that the victims of harassment can obtain effective remedies.
Second, the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT). We continue to monitor its effectiveness as part of the broader framework that we have to resolve community disputes and also study areas for improvement of the processes.
However, I would stress that mutually agreed solutions between two neighbours, for instance, should always remain the first port of call, that is, should always be the first base that one goes to instead of triggering a process in Court. The CDRT, as far as possible, should be a measure of last resort. So, we encourage Singaporeans to engage their neighbours in an amicable manner, when disputes arise – use community mediation services, use grassroots leaders who can facilitate the process.
On community mediation, I should stress that the approach has been effective. In the past three years, more than 80% of the cases mediated before the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) has resulted in a successful resolution arising from the mediation.
Third, the Government is also reviewing the processes and requirements for the application of probate and letters of administration. Mr Murali Pillai asked for an update on this.
Amongst other things, we are considering digitalising the process, in sort of the same fashion that I have been outlining, to make it simpler, easier and faster, and linking up Government systems to facilitate the retrieval of information. At the end of the day, information has to come through so that the applications can be processed and that sometimes is choke point. So, we will work on digitalising the process. And also streamlining the legal requirements imposed on applicants. These, I believe, will improve the experiences of Singaporeans dealing with end-of-life issues.
But even as we streamline, we must be careful that the law will continue to protect the interests of beneficiaries. This is one area where the original stakeholder or perhaps owner of the assets is not around to say how it should be done or what his intentions were. So, we do have to be careful. But within this rubric, strike an appropriate balance so that we can look out for the interests of both the convenience of the parties applying as well as also the rigours of what the interests of the beneficiaries ought to be. We will provide more details in the coming year.
Ms Tan asked about unscrupulous contractors. We have seen one or more of these types of individuals at some stage and I think it is frustrating. Let me give some suggestions as what can be done.
There is the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) which Mr Lim Biow Chuan can share more information on. CASE publishes a Consumer Alert List on its website. That is a useful first port of call. It lists companies that have multiple complaints made against them and operates to warn consumers about contractors with poor track records. So, to those cases that Ms Tan has spoken about where there have been repeated cases, it ought to be on this list. If not, we will try and find a way to better police it so that members of the public can be warned.
If there are unfair practices, for example, false and misleading claims and so on, CASE may refer the matter to the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) for further action under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. There will be sanctions against errant suppliers.
Where an amicable settlement is not possible even with CASE's assistance, consumers can file claims with the Small Claims Tribunals (SCT). The SCT provides a forum that is low-cost, no lawyers are involved. For example, claimants are only required to pay $10 for claims up to $5,000 in value. And the SCT may order one party to pay money to another party arising from these claims and also order a party to make good on deficiencies, as in the Member's example, the construction contract, for instance.
Moving on, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin spoke about strengthening Singapore's position as a premier international legal services and dispute resolution hub.
Members will know that we are constantly looking at how we can enhance this, what we can do, what other spaces we can fill or other opportunities there will be for the Singapore brand. We look at what we can do to create value for our economy, what we can do to enhance Singapore's value-add as a business hub and of course, ultimately, providing good jobs for Singaporeans. We also want to support our people and businesses in exploiting these opportunities as far as possible.
Let me touch on a few initiatives.
One area in which we shall move to keep pace with the competition is in the area of conditional fee agreements (CFAs). Following public consultations last year, we are working on introducing a CFA framework for certain categories of proceedings. The framework will help our lawyers and law practices by levelling the playing field for Singaporean lawyers and law practices, as against foreign lawyers who may already be able to offer such agreements in their own jurisdictions. We are also studying whether allowing CFAs for a wider range of proceedings can further promote access to justice.
Second, we are also promoting the use of Singapore law. Our initiatives include increasing free access to Singapore judgments. Steps have been taken to make more Supreme Court judgments from 2000 freely available online, and also potentially even earlier judgments, earlier than 2000. Second, encouraging published research on areas of Singapore law that are relevant to commercial parties internationally, and finally, promoting standard forms, that is, use of, straightforward, standard forms, governed by Singapore law.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked about progress in dispute resolution. Singapore remains one of the leading hubs for dispute resolution in the world today. We have flagship institutions that Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned providing a full suite of such services. We have best-in-class hearing facilities at Maxwell Chambers.
We will continue to strengthen that framework by supporting the eco-system for viable international dispute resolution services. We have various reviews underway, including a review of the International Arbitration Act.
I had earlier mentioned the Singapore Convention on Mediation. Yes, indeed, we were one of the first two countries, together with Fiji, to ratify the Convention. This took place a few days ago in New York. These efforts, not just to get the countries to sign and to ratify, but to promote more countries to come on board, have broader implications for Singapore's place in the world. It is a powerful statement for multilateralism and has also enhanced our reputation in the international arena.
We will build on the signing of the Convention last year. We will host a second annual Singapore Convention Conference in September this year. This will be part of a week-long of events related to international dispute resolution services. This conference and indeed, the week, will continue to position Singapore as a thought leader in this field and also a forum that parties can choose to come to, regardless of whether the ultimate contract or the subject matter of their agreement is in Singapore or not, to choose Singapore as a forum.
In the area of civil cooperation, Mr Murali Pillai asked about the legalisation of documents. I think it is a point that Mr Murali Pillai has raised several times. The Hague Apostille Convention. We agree that this will be useful and we are currently working towards its accession. This will include preparing the necessary draft legislation domestically in order to accede to the Convention, and thereafter, we will be in the position to do so.
All these efforts will create opportunities for those in the legal sector and also for those who want to enter the legal sector. On this note, Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked what the Government is doing to support lawyers and law firms to exploit these opportunities. Let me again, in the interest of time, outline a few initiatives.
First, we will be launching a Technology Innovation Roadmap. What does this do? This roadmap is the product of intensive consultations with more than 80 stakeholders. This includes law firms, companies, law schools, research institutes and other Government agencies. It will help Singapore law firms understand and embrace technology to improve productivity and the quality of their legal services. Let me give one example.
Altum Law Corporation is a five-lawyer strong Singapore law firm. Under the Tech Start for Law and the Tech-celerate for Law initiatives, MinLaw and the Law Society curated a shortlist of technology solutions and also vendors to help address common problems, common issues amongst smaller law firms. Grants to support up to 70% of adoption costs were available under the schemes.
Strong efforts have been made to promote these schemes. The Law Society reached out to at least 450 Singapore law practices through workshops and seminars to promote this programme and Altum was one of those who was a participant in these events. They were able to upgrade from the standard suite of computer services – they were using Microsoft Office, I believe – to legal technology solutions that were more curated and were better suited to their needs. The firm achieved time and cost savings from automating routine but important tasks, including shortening the time required to complete the checking of references in documents by up to 66%.
The Roadmap will include plans to help to continue to fund law firms, help them to understand what technology can do for their efficiency and also expand support to in-house legal teams to adopt legal technology. As Mr Patrick Tay mentioned, this reflects our belief that both those in practice as well as those in the in-house role have much to benefit from adopting legal technology.
So, we will support the development of cutting-edge legal technology relevant to their work and also reform legal education to build a pipeline of tech-ready legal professionals to support the legal industry. More details will be announced later this year.
Let me touch on Mr Patrick Tay's other point on mid-career PMETs. We will help such PMETs to exploit new opportunities that will be created.
The Law Society and Workforce Singapore have developed a Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) to help employers hire and re-skill mid-career PMETs to join the legal sector as paralegals or legal secretaries.
Paralegals and support services do play an important role in Singapore's legal industry. We note Mr Patrick Tay's suggestions and we will continue to work with the relevant stakeholders so that we can support this segment of the legal industry more closely.
Third, we will be conducting the first run of the China-Ready Programme for Singapore lawyers this year. The programme will expand the pool of Singapore lawyers who understand Chinese culture, the way in which business is done, the legal system and laws; are conversant with Mandarin in the legal context; and can also work with Chinese companies and law firms to better meet clients' needs.
This is one element of the Ministry's strategy to help Singapore lawyers seize new opportunities in different jurisdictions.
Finally, before I run out of time, let me touch on some of the questions relating to the work of the Singapore Land Authority (SLA). SLA optimises land resources to support the economic and social development of Singapore. That is its overall mission. It plays a number of roles, including, as Mr Christopher de Souza outlined, optimising the use of state land and of course, also developing Singapore's geospatial capabilities. Let me elaborate on some key initiatives.
The SLA is intensifying its efforts to engage and collaborate with stakeholders, members of the public, on the interim use of vacant State land and properties. For example, Members may be aware that SLA and URA launched the Power-Up Pasir Panjang ideas competition in April 2019, and reached out to members of the public, professionals and students to co-create ideas for the Power District.
A total of 79 submissions were received, which demonstrates the interest of the public and the professional sector in trying to contribute to ideas as to what can be done. These ideas will be distilled into design principles guiding the Power District's development for the next 15 to 20 years, including the former Pasir Panjang Power Station A.
In the coming weeks, SLA will also be launching engagements with stakeholders to rejuvenate the Old Kallang Airport. This is part of the Reinventing Spaces into Vibrant Places initiative that was launched with URA in 2019.
SLA is also partnering NParks to develop a site at Tanglin Road into a community use space with a playground, benches, something that will appeal to members of the public.
Let me now quickly finish up with the geospatial front. There will be a full launch of the OneMap 3D that will take place later this year. The map will allow users to visualise Singapore in 3D. This will support the efforts of businesses and the public, who require these services, to have new platforms to support their services and products as well as also develop services for the community at large.
SLA will be launching the 3D Singapore Sandbox this year. It will facilitate private sector access to 3D geospatial models and data on a restricted basis and through this, we hope to encourage the private sector to experiment with innovative solutions and services for their customers and the general public using 3D geospatial models. The Sandbox will enable SLA to obtain feedback from the private sector to enhance the experience and to improve the geospatial models.
Mr Chairman, in conclusion, my Ministry will continue to ensure that Singaporeans continue to enjoy effective access to high quality justice – that is a fundamental – and also to build on Singapore's attractiveness as a legal services hub, ensuring that the benefit of the ensuing growth will be shared by more.
Importantly, we do all this not on our own but through working closely with so many stakeholders – the bench, the bar, the legal industry, the universities, law students and the wider community – and for that, we are very grateful.
The Chairman: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive responses. On my particular cut about Singapore being a leading international dispute resolution hub, I think one of the flagships we have, apart, obviously, from our court system, is the SIAC. The Minister would know, my question is really a nuts and bolts on how we get the model clause out. In a model clause, there is the centre, there is the rules, there is the seat and there is Singapore law being the relevant law.
So, my question really is – how are we able to advance Singapore law, advance the seat of Singapore, through these clauses such that international parties come? And when international parties come, they do not come with lawyers, they come with their experts, they come with their decision-makers and their witnesses. So how can we use that space to enhance Singapore law and Singapore as an international legal hub?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I can speak a little more slowly now. The clock is not running. So, a model clause is useful but parties must want to come to Singapore. So having a model law is one thing, but what we want to do is to really build the eco-system that supports why a party from outside Singapore will want to choose Singapore. So, if I may summarise some of the points from my speech earlier.
First, we have to make sure that Singapore law is accessible, that it is first-rate, it is commercial. Our high-quality jurispurdence coming out of our Courts help a lot in that regard for parties who want to choose Singapore law.
Second, we must build a system that is neutral, that is based on the rule of law, that parties, when they come into Singapore, when they make their investments into Singapore or they choose Singapore as a forum, they know that they will get first-class hearings, hearings that will not be unduly interfered with, hearings that will be governed by the rule of law and as far as possible, in our best-in-class facilities as well, in Maxwell Chambers.
Third, we want to look at the way in which our stakeholders – law firms, lawyers, those who practise here, those who practise abroad – are equipped with this information, so that when they do the negotiation, persons such as yourself, Mr Christopher de Souza or Mr Murali Pillai, can then take these learning points, take these model clauses and persuade external parties that in Singapore, we do not only have the best facilities, but we have the best, most neutral system that will ensure a fair adjudication of the disputes.
I think all of these parts must come together in order for us to build a first-class and continue to sustain that first-class international dispute hub.
The Chairman: Mr Christopher de Souza, do you want to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Christopher de Souza: I was hoping to ask for another clarification, but that is all right, I can withdraw the cut.
The Chairman: You have a few minutes to ask your further clarification. Last one.
Mr Christopher de Souza: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. My next question is on a different cut, which is – Singapore as a formidable IP fortress. I think we can protect a lot of protection and enforcement, but how is IPOS and MinLaw working with the R&D outfits to ensure that commercialisation of the IP? So, it is not only a portcullis or a fortress where we protect it but where we can enhance it into commercial terms.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I am not sure that is capable of a short answer but I will try. We have to first realise that no one will choose Singapore to file their patents in or to enhance or enforce their IP rights, if we do not have a strong neutral legal system. So, at the baseline, that is always something that we look at, frankly speaking.
What else do we do? We want to make sure that our laws are updated. So, as I mentioned on several occasions and also earlier, we will look at enhancing and revising the Copyright Act, an experience that we have had after we did extensive consultations. What else can we do? What else can we say to people about how their ideas, their patents, their innovations will be better protected in Singapore and also enforced, should the case be necessary?
Third, we also want to make sure that we be with the system from start to end. So, I mentioned in my speech earlier, IDEAS, for instance. How do you monetise the value in intangible assets? Assets that would otherwise be difficult to look at in terms of valuation. We look at how it can be done so that we can help companies raise capital, raise financing and leverage on the value of such intangible assets.
When you bring all these together in the eco-system, you will then have, in Mr Christopher de Souza's words, a formidable fortress, in which to not just register but enforce and eventually enjoy filing of the patents in Singapore.
When we provide the whole spectrum of services, that is when we can then go out there and tell the major companies, inventors and innovators of the world – come into Singapore. We have the entire suite of services for you, and should there be any disagreement, any dispute over the services, they will be resolved in a firm, fair and completely above board, neutral, rule-of-law fashion.
I think that assurance we give to investors would be the best assurance we have in growing, perhaps, not just the IP sector but overall in our key development areas in Singapore.
The Chairman: Mr Christopher de Souza, it is about three minutes before guillotine time, so you may have to withdraw.
Mr Christopher de Souza: I am grateful, Chairman. I join my fellow parliamentarians in thanking the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive responses and also all the hardworking officers in MinLaw and the various arms and bodies which report to MinLaw. With that, I seek your leave, Mr Chairman, to withdraw my cut.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $283,293,800 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $145,379,100 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply Reporting Progress","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Chairman, may I seek your consent to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow?
The Chairman: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again on Monday, 2 March 2020.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2020/2021, and ask leave to sit again on Monday, 2 March 2020.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to Monday, 2 March 2020.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.18 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Median and Mean Road Taxes Paid by Owners of Electric, Hybrid and Petrol Cars in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Transport (a) for each year in the past three years, what was the median and mean road tax paid for a car owner of (i) an electric car (ii) a hybrid car and (iii) a petrol car respectively; and (b) whether the Ministry will start collecting such data if it does not currently do so.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The data are tabulated below.