1 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education in each year from 2017 to 2023 (a) how many international students who received the MOE Tuition Grant graduated from local Institutes of Higher Learning; (b) how many failed to update the Ministry of their employment status with Singapore entities within (i) one year (ii) two years or (iii) three years of graduation; and (c) what are the most common reasons cited for being unable to find work in Singapore entities.
2 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education in each year from 2017 to 2023 (a) how many international students who received the MOE Tuition Grant applied for bond deferments due to their inability to find work in a Singapore entity; and (b) how many were granted bond deferments on that basis.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 and 2 together?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Ms Gan Siow Huang: From 2017 to 2023, on average, about 2,900 international students who received the Tuition Grant graduate each year from our polytechnics and autonomous universities. Within the first three years of graduating, more than eight in 10 are employed. Of the remainder, the majority are granted deferment for further studies.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I do not think the Minister of State answered my question about how many students have not fulfilled the conditions for the tuition grant, including getting local employment. Is that something the Ministry is pursuing?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Mr Speaker, from 2017 to 2023, we were not informed of the employment status in the first three years after graduation for about 5% of the international students who receive the tuition grant. We take the bond obligations of the international students on tuition grants seriously and we will pursue the international students who default on their obligations.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Can the Minister of State explained how exactly the Ministry pursues these students who do not fulfil their tuition grant obligations?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: For those who fail to pay the liquidated damages, actions will be taken to prevent them from working or residing in Singapore. As I had explained earlier on, there is a serious view taken by the Ministry towards the obligations of these international students who have taken tuition grants.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Just one more clarification on that point. The Minister of State said actions will be taken to prevent them from working in Singapore. But is it not that one of the requirements of the tuition grants is for them to work in Singapore for three years after they graduate? So, is there any other measures that the Ministry takes to ensure that they pay back what they are supposed to pay back?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: For the individuals who fail to honour their obligations for the tuition grants, we do look at the reasons. Some of them cite genuine reasons such as health and that they find could not employment in Singapore. In those cases, we will ask them to pay the liquidated damages.
As I have said earlier on, majority of deferments that were sought were based on the international students' request for further studies. Not that they do not want to find employment, but they want to pursue further studies. For such cases, they will find employment after they have completed their further studies.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Could I just check with the Minister of State two things? First, what is the breakeven in terms of taxpayers' subsidies for the number of years if one of these students were to stay in Singapore and work, in terms of, perhaps, what they return in tax revenues and the like, that would be taken from them when they work here.
Secondly, if the Ministry would clarify what the overall motivation is for providing these tuition grants – is it limited purely to providing a source of manpower or is there some soft power considerations that are also included?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: For the first supplementary question, I do not have the answer off-hand. I ask the Member to file another Parliamentary Question.
For the second one, having international students adds to the diversity of the overall education experience of our students and cultivates our students' sense of global orientation and ability to understand cultural practices across different nations. I think this is a healthy development and we want to encourage our students to be widely exposed to students of other nationalities.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister of State for her answer and the other Members for their supplementary questions. Can I ask two supplementary questions to the Minister of State?
Firstly, if not already done so, would the Ministry of Education (MOE) consider working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to have a sense of how many former MOE Tuition Grant recipients progress to provincial, regional or national leadership of their home countries in the years following their education journey in Singapore, in the Singapore system while making Singaporean friends?
Secondly, does MOE wish to consider working with the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and the Economic Development Board to see whether some of these tuition grant recipients in the years and decades ahead grow to become leaders of firms doing substantial business with Singapore?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank the hon Member Dr Tan Wu Meng for the two supplementary questions. The answer must be yes. In fact, we do know of international students who previously were on tuition grant in Singapore having actually moved up and moved on to very successful careers within their countries and also regionally. And certainly, this also augurs well for our economy because they stay connected, they understand Singapore's culture, and they do have friends and their networks built in Singapore while they were students here. So, there is definitely benefit in this regard and we will certainly be interested to find the information.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Social Media Platforms' Rules of Engagement for Online Advertisements are In Line with Local Regulations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Communications and Information given that online advertisements on social media platforms are easily uploaded by individuals based on the social media platforms' rules of engagement, what are the safeguards that the Ministry has put in place to ensure that these rules of engagement are relevant and in line with local regulations and best practices.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Sir, commercial advertising in Singapore is regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS) through the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice (SCAP).
The SCAP applies to all advertisements for any goods and services appearing in any form or any media, including on social media services. It stipulates that all advertisements should be legal, decent, honest and truthful. ASAS’ Guidelines on Interactive Marketing Communication and Social Media further set out the standards of ethical conduct that are to be adopted by marketers, advertising agencies or media that are involved in social media marketing. Marketers are also expected to familiarise themselves with the relevant laws and guidelines on each social media service. ASAS adopts a complaints-based approach in reviewing potential advertising breaches when reported to them and can get advertisers to amend or withdraw advertisements that are deemed to have breached the Guidelines or SCAP.
Designated social media services with significant reach or impact are also required under the Code of Practice for Online Safety issued by the Infocomm Media Development Authority to minimise users’ exposure to harmful content. This includes putting in place specific measures to protect children, such as ensuring that children do not receive targeted advertisements detrimental to their physical or mental well-being. The designated social media services are Facebook, HardwareZone, Instagram, TikTok, X and YouTube.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Yeo.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): It has been observed that the process is much easier for individuals and companies to put up their advertisements on social media platforms, given that many of such platforms encourage boosting or ad buying proactively to their users. It is unclear what these social media platforms do to verify the content of these ads. In a recent case, a water purification company made certain arguably uninformed claims about the safety of Singapore tap water. The Public Utilities Board has since issued advisories for that. There has been other cases of companies who have also done similar things.
Are there regular proactive dialogues the Ministry of Communications and Information holds with these popular social media platforms on their ad rules and what more can be done to advise companies and individuals on responsible advertising claims? Can we work on a local advisory notice embedded on social media platforms before and ad is triggered?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: As I mentioned earlier my main reply, commercial advertising in Singapore, like the one that Ms Yeo had referred to, is regulated by the ASAS and the ASAS is established under the Consumer Association of Singapore.
At the heart of matter that Ms Yeo had raised is whether the advertisement meets the threshold or stipulation that is legal, decent, honest and truthful, and whether the parties like the marketeers, the advertisers and the media involved in displaying, presenting or putting in place the advertisements, meet the standards of ethical behaviour, ethical conduct. These are all the guidelines stimulated by the advertising council.
So, what is the recourse if somebody believes that an advertisement breaches some of these stipulations or code of ethical conduct? ASAS takes a complaints approach. When ASAS receives the complaint, it will first advise the advertiser to amend the advertisement. There are direct financial costs to such amendments. Sometimes, they are reputational costs because of the publicity given to the advertisement. Therefore, making a false or misleading claim about products and services may also constitute an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, or CPFTA.
Recalcitrant companies could be referred to the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore, or CCCS, for investigation. And errant companies may be issued injunction orders by the Court. If a company under injunction does not comply with the injunction order, CCCS can take the advertiser to court for contempt of court, which is a criminal offence that could result in a fine or imprisonment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Healthcare Services Act 2020 to Enhance Recognition and Regulation of Mental Health Professionals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the Healthcare Services Act 2020 to enhance the recognition and regulation of mental health professionals, such as registered psychologists, to reflect the growing need for accessible mental healthcare services; and (b) whether the review can include allowing mental health professionals to use the terms \"doctors\" and \"treatment\" under ethical guidelines and within their scope of practice to encourage people to seek treatment for mental health conditions.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, Sir, psychological practice is evolving given the increasing importance of mental health and encompasses diverse fields with their own unique patient safety concerns. The Ministry of Health (MOH) is working with agencies, service providers and professional associations to update the risk assessment. This includes determining if there is a need for registration of psychologists to better support the safety and quality of the practice.
The advertising controls under the Healthcare Services Act, or HCSA, were put in place to provide greater transparency and protect consumers from being misled by healthcare advertisements which misrepresent the services provided. The restrictions on the use of the term “treat” applies to all non-HCSA licensees, and not just standalone psychology service providers. Likewise, the protection of the title “doctor” applies to all non-registered healthcare practitioners and not just clinical psychologists. MOH is presently engaging with the psychologists and their association to clarify the proper use of these terms.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Given the growing importance of mental health professionals, will MOH consider expanding the role of such professionals, such as psychologists, beyond direct patient care, such as allowing them to participate in policy development or research initiatives?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Mr Yip for his question. The current licensing and regulatory structure, as well as any potential review, does not in any way change the possibility for these professionals to be involved in policy development or for them to be involved in research. So, the issues are to do with consumer protection, regulation of clinical practice. Today, Allied Health Professionals, including psychologists and other healthcare professionals can and do participate in policy development – some of them are employed directly through MOH or some of its entities, some of them come and sit on our panels and our consultative entities and they already participate in research. And the protections around research are afforded by the academic institutions as well as the funding bodies that are supporting the research and none of that should change on the basis of the review that we are conducting, which, as I said, is focused on consumer protection and clinical practice.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hawking Licences for Streetside Ice Cream Vendors and Their Transferability and Validity Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) in the last 10 years, how many street hawking licences have been issued for streetside ice-cream vendors; (b) how many of these vendors are still active today; (c) whether the licences from the inactive vendors may be transferred to new applicants; and (d) how much longer will streetside ice-cream vendors be allowed to exist.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): The Street Hawking Scheme is intended to provide temporary assistance for unemployed individuals who are assessed to be best supported through a street hawking licence, rather than other financial assistance or employment matching schemes offered by a Social Service Office. All street hawking licences are therefore personal-to-holder and are non-transferable.
In the past decade, 21 licences were issued under the Street Hawking Scheme for the sale of ice cream. Of these, 11 remained active as of January this year.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I understand that street hawking licence cost about $120 a year. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State what is the rational for this quantum because it is a considerable amount for some low-income hawkers and can the Ministry consider lowering it? And secondly, what is the actual eligibility criteria for these licences? Are they only given to those who are financially needy?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I think the first question on the $120 per year – this is really on a cost-recovery basis for administration. It is not really to make life hard for these hawkers because there is enforcement needed and there are also licensing requirements and the administration that needs to be done.
On the eligibility, as I said in my main reply, the consideration is based on the fact that these people are not suitable for other forms of employment, or it is assessed by the Social Service Office as the most appropriate means to help them tide over a temporary period. But the longer-term intent, is for them to enter a good job where there are better job prospects. So, in the meantime, this is a temporary measure to help them tide over a rough patch.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, on a separate point: does the Ministry see any cultural value in street hawking? For example, ice cream sellers. It is something that is part of our shared heritage and something that we all remember from when we were growing up. Is that something that the Ministry will consider letting to continue or even grow besides providing just a financial support for these hawkers?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank Mr Giam for his question. I think the fundamental question is this: for a person who may be in financial need, the first question we ask ourselves is, \"What is the best way to support them for longer-term financial stability?\"
In present day Singapore, we do have hawker centres and we are building more hawker centres. For those who want to take on hawking as a longer-term job that they want to do, it probably will be better for them to be in a hawker centre where there are better facilities and for them to have a more fixed customer catchment.
Having said that, it is true that ice cream at certain locations can help to liven up the place. This is where if there are funfairs or there are trade fairs, there are still people who are then given licences to participate in trade fairs to add to the festivity. But I would say that, fundamentally, the first question is to see how best we can help them to find a better career, where there are better job prospects for the longer term, and career stability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supporting Singaporean Businesses to Navigate Changing Economic and Trade Opportunities in Region","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the ongoing challenges in China's property sector and current economic uncertainties (a) whether the Ministry foresees increased trade opportunities for ASEAN countries, including Singapore, with China; and (b) how is the Ministry supporting Singaporean businesses to navigate these changing economic circumstances in the region.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, China remains a vital key market for Singapore businesses. In 2023, China was Singapore's largest trading partner and top investment destination. China's long-term economic outlook remains positive due to its large and growing consumer market, skilled workforce and rapid technological developments.
To tap into the opportunities in China, Singapore has upgraded the Singapore-China Free Trade Agreement (FTA) to offer companies better market access for investments and services. We have also broadened our engagements with China, including signing memoranda of understanding (MOUs) on Digital Economy, Green Economy and E-Commerce Cooperation.
In addition, Singapore is strengthening its regional economic integration with China through the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area, the upgrade of which is currently under negotiation.
To navigate the evolving business environment and seize fresh opportunities, Singapore firms can tap on Enterprise Singapore's extensive network of overseas centres and the two Singapore Enterprise Centres in Shanghai and Chengdu operated by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry under the Global Connect initiative. In addition, Enterprise Singapore manages schemes, such as the Market Readiness Assistance grant, which helps our companies expand into new markets by defraying the costs of overseas market promotion, business development and set up. Business owners can also visit the GoBusiness portal for more information on the Government schemes.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Can the Minister of State elaborate on emerging opportunities that the recent Joint Council for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC) meeting has opened up for Singapore companies? Which areas of growth potential have been identified by the leaders; for example, digital economy?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Thank you, Sir. I want to thank the Member Mr Yip Hon Weng for his two supplementary questions. Singapore and China are long-standing partners. Our bilateral ties are anchored on very frequent high-level exchanges, growing people-to-people ties and robust economic ties. I recall just last year alone, I mounted about seven work trips to China – some in support of Singapore Business Federation (SBF), bringing delegation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to the 东博会, which is the China-ASEAN Expo in September. I recall SBF also led a huge delegation for 进博会, which is the Chinese International Import Expo (CIIE) in November.
Members in the House will recall, about one year ago, during Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's visit to China in March – first to Hainan and then to Beijing; both him and President Xi Jinping announced the upgrade in bilateral relations to an \"all-around, high-quality, future-oriented partnership\". In Mandarin, \"全方位高质量的前瞻性的伙伴关系.\"
On the first supplementary question about the recent JCBC, which took place about three months ago, in the first week of December, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong brought a huge delegation. I had the privilege to join him in this delegation as well. He co-chaired the 19th meeting of the Joint Council for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC) with China's Vice-Premier Ding Xuexiang. And during the JCBC meeting, we welcomed 24 deliverables, covering various areas: trade, renewable energy, environment, connectivity, finance, digital economy – cited by Mr Yip – and people-to-people exchanges.
All these deliverables offer fresh opportunities and will support our businesses and create more jobs for our people.
The Member asked about the digital economy. Allow me to elaborate how the digital economy will be a potential driver, key driver of grow for Singapore companies looking at the China market. China's digital economy is indeed the world's second largest and has nurtured many innovative companies. At the same time, Singapore's digital economy is also very significant and we have experienced substantial growth in recent years. For example, in 2022, our digital economy contributed 17.3% of Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP).
On the Member's second supplementary question on the digital economy, I recall that the Minister for Trade and Industry Mr Gan Kim Yong signed an MOU on digital economy with China's Minister of Commerce Mr Wang Wentao, 商务部部长, 王文涛部长. Both leaders have signed it and launched a digital economy working group to strengthen the cooperation in digital trade and data flows.
Other than the digital economy, another potential area is the green economy. On the green economy, we see that China and Singapore can cooperate on areas of complementary interests, including green trade, green investment, green services, renewable energy and carbon markets.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, in addition to the importance of China as an important bilateral trading partner, I am sure the Minister of State is also aware of how the United States (US) is also a significant investor and bilateral trading partner for Singapore.
In light of the possibility that there is a non-trivial chance of increased trade tensions and commercial tensions – between the US and China, how does the Ministry plan to advise Singapore businesses in how they manage their relationships and investments in China? I say this especially, since the US seems increasingly willing to exercise the tools of economic statecraft on their trading partners.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for his question. We want to say that despite the current economic uncertainties and increasingly challenging trade environment, what we want to share with our Singapore companies is: businesses should continue to seek opportunities, in particular, regionally, in a few areas. Specific areas of growing demand, specific technologies and also areas with upside potential.
China is facing challenges, as it was also mentioned in Mr Yip's Parliamentary Question, but it is also expected to be a major engine of growth, given its large and growing consumer market, its increasingly very-skilled workforce and also rapid technological development. Enterprise Singapore has a very extensive network and when I last looked at the numbers, we have about 37 overseas centres in 21 cities. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister of State for Trade and Industry\", Official Report, 28 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 126, Correction By Written Statement section.]
All hands are on deck to support our companies, whether they are looking into expanding regionally, including into China, India or into US and Europe; or even into far-flung areas, like Africa and the Middle East.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mid-career Entrants Taking Up Non-nursing Roles at Senior or Ageing Care Facilities via Government-funded Career Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Ms See Jinli Jean –
7 To ask the Minister for Health for each year over the last three years (a) what is the number of mid-career entrants who took up non-nursing roles at senior or ageing care facilities via Government-funded career programmes; (b) what is the retention rate of the mid-career entrants; and (c) what measures will the Ministry be introducing to improve the retention rate.
\t
\tAssoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Question No 7, please.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, between 2021 and 2023, about 1,400 individuals joined the community care sector in non-nursing jobs every year, including through schemes, such as the Community Care Manpower Development Award and the Senior Management Associate Scheme, for the training and induction of mid-career entrants into management positions.
We do not track the retention rate for this group. To retain staff, the Ministry of Health (MOH) and Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) have been working with community care organisations to implement job redesign, enhance the competitiveness of community care staff salaries and recently published salary guidelines which would help inform job seekers on the expected remuneration in community care roles.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, you have a supplementary question? Please go ahead.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the Prime Minister announced the expansion of Active Ageing Centres at his National Day Rally last year. And in view of what would be significant manpower requirements, is there a plan that the Ministry has to ramp up or mobilise this manpower and what sort of numbers are we looking at from the Ministry's standpoint?
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: I thank the Member for the question. Indeed, manpower is an aspect that we have been monitoring quite closely, especially as we transform the efforts in the healthcare sector, in particular, with ageing. Yesterday, we had also another discussion on the Allied Health Professionals. So, we are looking at the different sectors, the different services that we need to have in place and the different manpower.
With regard to the statistics, Sir, I do not have the data on hand. Perhaps the Member would want to file a separate Parliamentary Question on this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Bus Services for Fernvale with Increased Number of HDB Flats and Pending Completion of LRT System Upgrade","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Gan Thiam Poh –
8 To ask the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider more bus services to be introduced for Fernvale in view of the increase in the number of HDB flats and the pending completion of the LRT system upgrade.
\t
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Question No 8.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Transport): Besides the Light Rail Transit, residents at Fernvale are currently served by bus services that connect them to the transport hub at Sengkang town centre and to other areas, like Ang Mo Kio, Serangoon, Upper Thomson and Yishun. Additionally, City Direct Service 671 provides a direct connection from Fernvale to and from the city during the morning and evening peak periods.
The Land Transport Authority makes enhancements to bus connectivity in tandem with new housing developments. For example, we adjusted the route of Service 102 and increased its capacity to serve the recently completed Fernvale Glades and Fernvale Woods Build-To-Order projects.
\t
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the Day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Debate on Annual Budget Statement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [16 February 2024] [3rd Allotted Day] (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.\" – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of Budget 2024. For Singapore to continue to prosper, we need our people to prosper. Every Budget brought forth in this House signals the Government's intent in tackling both challenges of today and seizing future opportunities for the people of Singapore.
Rising costs are an ever-present challenge globally and affect how we live in every way – from our kopi-peng to chicken rice, the transport we take to work to the way we are able to care for our loved ones. This year's Budget Speech, delivered by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, set out various measures focused on mitigating the immediate impact of rising costs on household finances.
These include the U-Save and Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) rebates and additional Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers – tactically deployed to help Singaporeans navigate higher prices of food and electricity amidst the backdrop of global inflation. Larger families – especially those with seniors and children – get more help.
I would like to make three key points in my speech: our shrinking populations lead to fragile economies and slower growth in standards of living; and as one of the fastest ageing societies in the world, the importance of upskilling our silver workforce – which cannot be understated; and the implications of a global war for talent, which is happening in an increasingly fractured world. This competition and confrontation of multilateralism can be damaging for us in Singapore.
Sir, in Budget 2023, the Government sowed the seeds for a Singapore built for families, such as the enhanced baby bonus. But even as we encourage marriages and families, we must also acknowledge the other factors contributing to our declining total fertility rate (TFR): stress and health conditions which affect fertility despite couples' best hopes, involuntary childlessness, inability to secure childcare options in line with parents' wishes, housing in estates far away from grandparents or workplaces, busy schedules which make it difficult for youth to date and lifestyle choices from younger men and women who choose to stay single.
But without people, Singapore cannot exist. Deputy Prime Minister has signalled the Government's clear intent in a Singapore built for families, however the effects of these policies are not immediate and our demographic challenges are pressing. We are not endowed with any natural advantages to fall back on, such as oil, vast land or precious metals. The only resource we have is our people; and so, we have to invest in our human capital. Beyond a shrinking population, we are also a rapidly ageing one and no amount of vouchers or rebates will ever be a sustainable way of lifting the standards of our people over a long period of time.
To this end, I am supportive of the boost given to the SkillsFuture Scheme to build an even better future for all. My husband recounted a conversation that he had with a taxi driver to me. Uncle asked where my husband was heading to – to which my husband replied he was heading to school. Uncle said, \"Wah, this age, still going to school ah? Very good.\" My husband said, \"Ya uncle, I'm studying part-time, must upgrade and learn new skills.\" Uncle replied, \"But all these 'learn new skills' is for young people like you, not old people like me.\"
Being under 40, neither my husband nor I are eligible for the enhanced SkillsFuture subsidies or the akan datang top-ups. But uncle's perspective is shared by many of our older workers. Beginning again or learning something new after 20 or 30 years of working is not easy. I have shared in this House how proud I was of my parents, who had no choice after SARS to change course in their late 40s and 50s – my mum, from a homemaker to early childhood education. My dad, from more than 30 years in the airlines to a training company with his peers.
For this reason, I am heartened by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence's commitment to focus efforts on the objective of upskilling our greying workforce. Sir, there are two broad ways to use SkillsFuture. The direct way is to acquire certification – leading to a new role. The less obvious route involves a journey into problem-solving and innovation. We sometimes associate SkillsFuture with mainly \"jobs of the future\" – from green sustainability, to coding and artificial intelligence (AI). But seemingly unrelated courses can benefit us too.
An illustration of this comes from the story of Apple. In 1972, Steve Jobs purportedly took a calligraphy class at Reed College – despite knowing that the class would earn him no credit towards a degree. He reportedly learnt about typefaces and varying the space between different letter combinations. I quote, \"None of this had any hope of any practical application in my life. But 10 years later when we were designing the first Macintosh (Mac) computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac.\"
We ought to help citizens understand the application of SkillsFuture credits in this manner. The knowledge and skills acquired through any learning is catalytic for generating fresh ideas and solving challenges by drawing from diverse disciplines. This culture of continuous learning and curiosity is what will position ourselves as valuable assets.
We also need good public communication to support the mindset shifts required. An article published on Channel NewsAsia (CNA) on 8 September 2023, highlights issues around utilisation rates of SkillsFuture. The article noted that across all ages, seven in 10 people have not used the credits since it started in 2015. Diving into utilisation rates by age bands, we can make some observations: 16.8% from 25 to 29; 38.8% from 30 to 39; 38.6% from 40 to 49; 37.1% from 50 to 59; and 26.4% for those above 60.
Utilisation rate in the 40 to 49 band is a signal of hope and we must encourage this. The availability of the credit is one part of the puzzle. However, there are other considerations requiring a shift in attitudes and mindsets and flexibility in the employment ecosystem – families being willing to shoulder more caregiving responsibilities while one spends their evenings in class; enlightened employers providing employees the time-off to do so; and society being willing to support the gap in potential loss of income for gig economy workers.
According to the recent National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) Every Worker Matters Report, 77% of respondents felt they lacked the time to attend training. A separate 2021 study shared that this could be due to fatigue from work and other life commitments. We say \"活到老, 学到老\", but in order to effectively put this into practice we must also tackle system barriers, such as inflexible working hours – 55% of workers felt they lacked the support from their employers from self-initiated training. I am glad that the NTUC is championing these efforts.
Fundamentally, Singaporeans must know that SkillsFuture is an initiative that is more than chasing certificates. It is a pathway to empowerment and progress. I would like to inquire on the complementary measures the Government is taking to nudge the utilisation rates. I also worry whether these skilling efforts will see fast enough change and we must consider how to supplement our workforce with talent in a way that is integrated with our Singaporean values and that brings additionality to our people.
Sir, all this is amidst a backdrop of challenges to global multilateralism and greater competition. Protectionism is on the rise and we are seeing disquiet and unrest born from a lack of economic opportunities and inequities – US-China relations keep the world on tenterhooks; the war between Russia and Ukraine rages on; and the world feels the effects from the humanitarian tragedy and hostilities in Gaza due to the Israel-Palestine crisis, even as more call for a permanent ceasefire.
Yes, Singapore has worked hard and our reputation outsizes our 700 square kilometres or so. But in a world where bigger countries threaten to dominate due to might and size, smaller countries like Singapore must navigate these turbulent waves. Each move or statement we make comes with trade-offs we must think hard about. This is our reality.
And so, from the beginning, we have made it a point to emphasise rule of law, effective governance, balanced foreign relations amidst global tensions and staying open to the world. Singapore's ability to attract investment and have multinational corporations (MNCs) set up their regional headquarters here create jobs for our people. As of 2023, it is reported that the headquarters of 4,200 MNCs can be found here and is the base of choice for companies as a gateway to Asia, but we are starting to see signs of that trend being challenged.
In December 2023, Unilever announced its relocation of some roles based here to other markets across Asia. Earlier this month, Electrolux also confirmed the closure of its Singapore regional office and relocated to Bangkok. A 2023 survey by the European Chamber of Commerce found that \"7 in 10 businesses indicated that they are ready to relocate their employees outside of Singapore if there are no relief from rising operating costs.\" When businesses leave, jobs leave too.
Further, other economies are competing. The UK recently launched the AI Futures Grant Scheme to attract AI researchers and engineers. Dubai has made a notable push for talent and investments through their D33 Economic Agenda and agile visa reforms. Closer to home, Malaysia initiated their 2030 National Industrial Master Plan and Indonesia launched the Golden Visa programme for high-quality investments.
There is a global war for talent and investments, and Singapore needs to be the hub for opportunities that attracts, but more importantly, builds and retains the talent to help our people to prosper. Sir, in Malay please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, in my English speech earlier, I touched on how fragile our position is in the world. As a country where 90% of our food is imported from other countries and where we have no natural resources of our own – we have been fortunate to be able to attract investments, create jobs and build good foreign relations to help our country transform into a successful nation. While our reputation on the world stage outsizes our small land mass, let us not forget that this is an unlikely anomaly.
But tall buildings and magnificent infrastructure alone would be nothing without peace and stability both internally and externally. We are a unique society with different faiths, races and backgrounds. As our people become more educated and their views grow more diverse, I would like to see more efforts through Forward SG to equip Singaporeans with the skills to have constructive and respectful discourses between the Government, private sector and our people; and the space to encourage effective ground-up changemaking.
Peace is not top-down, but instead must be supported by bottom-up efforts and must start from the young. I would like to suggest more partnerships and cross-sector efforts in particular for our youths – for example, programmes, such as the Model United Nations, involving students across both secular schools and madrasahs, building common experiences to enable our youths to work together and interactions to allow young adults to hear and exchange views as regional or global forums.
Secondly, I am grateful that the Government is setting aside $3.5 billion for the Age Well SG initiatives over the next decade. I am concerned about our seniors, especially those who have complex and chronic health needs. Obesity, diabetes, high-blood pressure – these are health conditions which threaten our quality of life. Through Healthier SG, I hope more can be done to encourage our seniors to go for regular health check-ups and connect with family doctors in their neighbourhood and more can be done early-on in their illness to prevent it from spiralling out of control and negatively impact healthy lifestyles.
This is particularly important for older women – the ones who have sacrificed so much. Many of them have been so busy looking after those around them, that they do not have time to look after themselves. We must do more to support the retirement adequacy and healthcare needs of older women and I would like to ask if the Government has considered nuancing the health schemes, given that many women have less CPF savings.
Beyond chronic health conditions, loneliness can have an adverse effect the lives of our elderly too. Recent studies suggest that social isolation was associated with around a 50% increased risk of dementia. I reiterate my calls for there to be targeted focus on mental well-being for our elderly and perhaps we can even take reference from the United Kingdom's Commission on Loneliness, where a Minister for Loneliness was appointed and there was strong cross-sector collaboration to tackle this issue.
(In English): Sir, the many ideas shared in the House over the past three days showed the increasing social needs and growing funding required. The Government will not be able to do this alone. To this end, I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister also announced measures to further build a stronger culture of giving that encourages collaboration – for example, the Charities Capability Fund Collaboration Grant and the efforts to work with philanthropy on the needs in society.
We must work with philanthropic foundations, individuals and corporates to be strategic, complementary and catalytic in how we deploy capital towards social needs. I hope that the recently established SG Government Partnerships Office can play a role to involve ideas and efforts from our citizens, coordinate efforts and efficiently scale successful projects beyond pilots.
Sir, this tiny red dot has punched above our weight. Over the decades, many hardworking individuals have built their roots here in Singapore. We are ethnically diverse and culturally open. We prospered then because of that, and we must protect this now; continue to keep our hearts, society and workforce open so we can continue to achieve progress for our people, while being firm about our values as a country on the world stage. Sir, I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, let me begin by stating my support for Budget 2024.
Mr Speaker, Budget 2024 is fiscally responsible, strategic and future-focused. It delivers an optimistic and balanced first instalment towards implementation of Forward Singapore. The Budget's central message is inclusivity. This Budget makes it clear that Singapore is a city for everyone and that Singapore's future belongs to everyone.
Mr Speaker, this Budget provides for the private and community sectors, but most importantly, it also provides for ordinary Singaporeans: (a) families who work hard every day to make a life for themselves and their children; (b) couples wanting to buy their first home, start a family and begin their life together; (c) young people embarking on their journey of lifelong learning; (d) children, seniors and people living with a disability or struggling with a mental illness; and (e) those struggling with socioeconomic disadvantage or adversity.
This Budget has something for everyone and provides both immediate relief for individuals and organisations, as well as practical and affordable policies and programmes for long-term growth and sustainability.
Mr Speaker, I will now make some comments on several aspects of the Budget. In doing so, I will focus on three values – equity, transparency and accountability.
The last few years have seen a significant increase in the cost of living. Interest rates have increased, making mortgage payments difficult for many and there has also been an increase in the cost of rent, general goods and services, transport and food. Many families are struggling to meet these costs and are being forced to make tough decisions about how to best provide for their children and families.
Mr Speaker, this Budget contains several initiatives intended to provide relief to families, including Workfare payouts, CDC Voucher top-ups and direct rebates. These initiatives are available to all families, yet, as is appropriate, are also targeted towards those families on low incomes or living with significant financial stress. I welcome this targeted approach, as it is important that such initiatives deliver the greatest benefit to those with the greatest need. Simply providing everyone with the same level of assistance is inequitable and does little to address structural or ongoing inequalities and disadvantage.
Mr Speaker, to ensure that families receive assistance that matches their need, the Government, private and community sectors need to work together. We need to reassure families that assistance is available for everyone and that there is no shame or stigma associated with seeking or receiving assistance when needed. We also need to implement culturally appropriate community education campaigns to remind all Singaporeans what type of assistance is available and how to access that assistance.
This is of particular importance to those families which may have become used to living with disadvantage or who, for socioeconomic, cultural or personal circumstances, are unable or unwilling to seek assistance when needed. As well as providing financial assistance to families in need, we also need to offer targeted personal support, including financial planning, parenting programmes, life-skills, employment and housing support and mental health and well-being support. We need to adopt a holistic, comprehensive case management approach.
Mr Speaker, there are many in our community who provide high levels of care to family members, including elderly relatives and family members with a disability or acute or chronic illness. Due to a range of factors, including the cost of professional care, many of those taking on short or long-term carer roles within the family home are from lower-income families.
We need to acknowledge the significant financial and emotional burden that providing home care can have on individuals and ensure that those with caring responsibilities also receive the appropriate level of assistance and relief.
Mr Speaker, on a broader level, Government-funded financial assistance, such as the initiatives contained in this Budget, are commendable and have been shown to have clear and measurable benefits for individuals, families and communities. They can also be expensive, particularly in the context of slowed or limited economic growth and the ongoing viability and affordability of such initiatives need to be considered. That is why we need to think long term and fiscally responsible and innovative in how we plan for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren.
In today's world, it is also important that we consider how social policy can be delivered in an environmentally sustainable way and, in turn, how environmental policy can be delivered in a socially responsible way. While governments around the world are grappling with how to do this, unless we address the reality of climate change, the socioeconomic needs of our population will only increase and the cost of responding to these needs will only become more and more expensive.
Mr Speaker, I, therefore, encourage the Government, private, academic and community sectors to begin an open-ended dialogue on how to continue to deliver financial assistance initiatives in a fiscally, environmentally and socially sustainable manner.
I will now make some comments about lifelong learning. The European Commission defines Lifelong Learning as: \"All purposeful learning activity undertaken throughout life with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competencies with a personal, civic, social and/or employment-related perspective.\" This definition is preferred by many researchers and policymakers as it reinforces that lifelong learning is not confined to an employment context, but instead extends into the personal, civil and social contexts.
This position is supported by the 1997 UNESCO Hamburg Declaration on Adult Learning, which notes: \"Lifelong learning is important because it helps to develop the autonomy and sense of responsibility of people and communities; to reinforce the capacity to deal with the transformations taking place in the economy, in culture and in society; and to promote coexistence, tolerance and the informed and creative participation of citizens.\"
Consistent with this declaration is the view that human capital is a key driver of economic development and that countries that invest the most in developing their human capital enjoy the most rapid and sustained economic growth and the highest quality of life.
Mr Speaker, in promoting a culture and philosophy of lifelong learning in Singapore, it is important to adopt a whole-of-nation approach rather than a sector- or system-based approach. Lifelong learning is positive in and of itself and benefits society as whole, regardless of whether the learning leads to immediate or identifiable organisation or economic benefits.
It is also important to recognise that lifelong learning is relevant to all Singaporeans, including the unemployed and those in platform, low-wage or manual employment. If we only encourage those in established or influential positions to undertake learning and exclude those who are frequently considered less productive or deserving, we fail to address social disadvantage and we miss an opportunity to tap into a valuable resource.
Mr Speaker, in promoting a culture and philosophy of lifelong learning, we need to move away from viewing education as a time-limited activity that can only occur within traditional institutions, such as schools and colleges. Learning is an ongoing process of change and can occur in formal and informal settings, across multiple arenas and via multiple platforms.
We also need to foster a flexible learning ecosystem that values and rewards curiosity, creativity and adaptability, rather than just grades or academic results and that prepares individuals to think and thrive in a rapidly changing and unpredictable world. We also need to further develop and foster partnerships among educational institutions, employers and community organisations, so as to create multiple coordinated pathways for lifelong learning and skills development.
Measuring the impact of lifelong learning and its benefits is challenging. However, relying solely on hard indicators, such as economic growth or employment rates, may be counterproductive. An effective culture of lifelong learning will benefit all of society, including social factors and sustainable development, and will assist to create an inclusive economy where the advantages of growth uplift everyone rather than disproportionately favouring the already affluent.
Mr Speaker, we also need to move away from thinking that the primary purpose of lifelong learning is to train employees to generate greater output. Lifelong learning also assist employees to develop the capacity to think differently and to generate new perspectives. This may lead to innovative outcomes and solutions. Employers should encourage their employees to take time away from work to learn and then create an environment within their workspace where all employees can openly share knowledge, skills and ideas. Employers should also recognise and reward employees for their informal learning achievements and not just those qualifications gained in a structured environment.
Mr Speaker, I therefore encourage the Government to consider the feasibility of an inter-agency task force or commission to make recommendations to the Government on policies, programmes and strategies to embed an effective, equitable and sustainable culture of lifelong learning across Singapore. Such a task force should actively seek inputs from people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, young people and women entering or going back into the workforce.
Mr Speaker, I will now make some comments on the proposed changes to Singapore's retirement fund.
In a recent report by Mercer, Singapore's retirement income system ranked 7th internationally, only falling behind Nordic and Northern European countries and Australia. Despite this, in 2023, OCBC reported that only two in 10 Singaporeans are on track when it comes to retirement planning. And in 2022, the Retirement and Health Survey reported that seven in 10 elderly Singaporeans received regular cash allowance from their family. The study also reported that an increasing number of Singaporeans consider the rising cost of living when planning for retirement, including the cost of domestic help to assist care for them and their family as they age. Mr Speaker, in Malay please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The initiatives outlined in the Budget are intended to ensure that Singaporeans can retire at a reasonable age and are in a financial position to enjoy a quality of life similar to that when they were in the workforce.
Mr Speaker, comfortable retirement is a shared responsibility between employees, employers and the Government; and all stakeholders need to work together to ensure that no one in retirement is left behind or is forced to live in poverty or significant disadvantage.
To achieve this goal, we need to explain the new Budget initiatives more clearly to all employees and employers and actively encourage and support all employees and employers to maximise the social and economic benefits of this new system. Mr Speaker, retirement planning also need to be culturally specific, as religious beliefs and practices can significantly influence attitudes towards wealth, saving, and financial planning.
For example, the Islamic prohibition of both earning and charging interest (riba) requires retirement funds from banks to establish alternative arrangements for their Muslim customers. Such provisions are available but may not be widely known to the Muslim community.
There are several initiatives that may assist in strengthening retirement planning for Muslims in Singapore, including providing culturally relevant financial guidance; conducting seminars, workshops and outreach programs within the Muslim community that emphasize the importance of retirement planning; developing a wider range of Sharia-compliant investment options to meet the specific needs of Muslim retirees, including sukuk bonds or Islamic equity funds. Mr Speaker, in English, please.
(In English): Mr Speaker, I will now make some comments relating to healthcare. The healthcare initiatives outlined in the Budget are intended to reduce healthcare costs for all Singaporeans, including the elderly and those living with chronic health conditions. As is happening across the globe, healthcare costs in Singapore are rising.
As our population ages, more and more people require increasingly expensive care and this cost inevitably falls on the consumer, insurers and the Government.
To assist offset these costs, I have several suggestions. The first is to recognise the personal and economic benefits of early intervention. Many of us wait until later in life, sometimes too late, before we take measurable steps to protect our mental and physical health and well-being.
We need to do more to support and encourage young people to adopt and maintain a lifelong healthy lifestyle and perhaps this could be achieved through increased community education programmes targeted at children and young people.
We also need to do more to attract and recruit suitably qualified healthcare professionals and to enhance the job satisfaction, professional development and career progression of our health professionals, and we do more to monitor and support the health and well-being of our health professionals, including those experiencing burnout.
While our healthcare sector continues to struggle with human resource issues, the provision of timely, targeted and professional healthcare will remain a challenge.
Mr Speaker, we also need to do more to enable our elderly to live safely and with dignity and within their own homes, and to do so without having to rely on family-funded care provided by domestic helpers who frequently have little relevant formal training. We need to professionalise aged-care, and ensure that in-home care by affordable, professionally trained healthcare professionals is available when needed.
Finally, we need to support and fund research into how AI can be applied across the healthcare sector more broadly, including aged care. AI technology is developing far faster than any of us can ever hope to understand. However we need to be as prepared as possible for emerging technologies and be ready to embed these technologies into existing healthcare systems.
Mr Speaker, I will now conclude by making some comments about a safe and secure Singapore, and the development of National Cybersecurity Command Centre
Mr Speaker, one of the fundamental roles of any government is to ensure the safety and security of its people and Singapore does this well. By many measures, we are one of the safest countries in the world and it is only because of this that we are in a position to develop and implement all of the socioeconomic initiatives contained in this Budget.
Mr Speaker, we cannot, however, be complacent, and must always remain vigilant to existing and emerging threats. The socioeconomic cost of a major cyber incident could be enormous and have far-reaching implications on public trust and confidence.
Mr Speaker, the development of a National Cybersecurity Command Centre is aligned with Singapore’s Smart Nation initiative and demonstrates that safety and security remain a priority for this Government.
Mr Speaker, the safety and security of a nation is not only defined by its approach to hard or technical issues, but also how it responds to the health and welfare of its people. Integrating human-centric design principles and robust safety protocols ensures that our Smart Nation Initiatives not only enhance convenience but also prioritise the well-being of individuals and communities. We also need to adopt an interdisciplinary approach to cybersecurity, integrating insights, methodology and expertise from various fields to comprehensively address complex security threats.
Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I note that many of my hon colleagues have raised concerns about the sustainability of our fiscal health, given the generous support schemes that Deputy Prime Minister Wong announced, which Singaporeans are getting used to and some are starting to expect as a given.
In view of such concerns, I speak to the House again on well-being and emphasise its role as a critical success factor to continued growth, to sustained growth. In my Budget speech last year, I spoke of the need to consider a different model of progress that looked beyond economic growth. To be clear, I am not suggesting de-growth.
On the contrary, what I am advocating for is a mindfulness and a slowing down that can help to unlock more potential in order to sustain or even to leapfrog growth. Slowing down our minds and cutting away senseless busyness, to make time and space for things that nourish our hearts: one, family – to bear and nurture children because we desperately need to raise our total fertility rate (TFR); two, caring – to build stronger relationships and community to help alleviate costly institutional healthcare; and three, for dreaming – to nurture and actualise new aspirations.
These are all desirables that Singaporeans expressed in many Forward Singapore conversations. How do we put these words into action?
I use an advertising sector parlance from my early career and offer this House three strategic actions towards a big, hairy, audacious goal – the twin goals of well-being and high growth. The three strategies are: one, charting Singapore’s well-being with a Well-being Index; two, doing less to achieve more; and three, enhancing collaboration with citizens.
On the first, a National Well-being Index – because we love KPIs and what does not get measured does not get tracked. Now that we have made mental health a national priority, how do we know if we are doing better? And we would not, unless we start measuring and tracking.
There are already ongoing national mental well-being surveys or studies, such as the Quality of Life Survey, which is helpful to track people’s level of satisfaction with their lives. Well-being is not simply an existence of happiness or satisfaction. It is also the absence of dis-ease or dysfunctionality within our collective system.
Hence, what we also need to monitor are figures such as the rate and incidences of mental health conditions, suicide rates as well as chronic disease rate, and factor all these into a set of indicators that makes sense. We need to be accountable for all the strategies that have been announced by the national mental well-being task force and make the outcomes visible and trackable. It is human nature, that when people are unwell, they worry more and become more needy, whereas a people with high well-being will feel more secure and feel that they have more capacity to give.
Secondly, let us exercise our imagination to achieve more with less. It may sound easier said than done, but I offer a quick hack. Perhaps what we need to do is start approaching complex and wicked problems with new lenses – a strengths-based lens instead of a scarcity lens, a trusting lens instead of a skeptical lens. I spoke about this in my Adjournment Motion a few months ago on improving public rental housing to enable human thriving. That is one example.
What other policies need a fundamental shift in philosophy and thinking?
There were two things in Deputy Prime Minister Wong’s Budget announcement that signalled to me that this shift is taking place and I am glad for it.
One is the extension of preschool subsidies for non-working mothers. Removing the condition of the mother’s employment tells me that the Government respects the choices women are making, regardless of what they choose and that supporting children in their early years should not be conditional. This reduces stress and enables families more freedom to navigate their caregiving needs, enhance their well-being and ensure that all children have an optimal early childhood start.
The other is the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme – providing training allowance to those who embark on full-time courses. To me, that is a very empathetic policy, showing an understanding of people’s worries and making a full commitment to support and invest in anyone who wishes to grow and upgrade themselves. There has no bond of any kind that has been announced to date tied to this training allowance, and I hope it stays that way, which signals to me the Government’s willingness to trust. To trust that citizens will make the best of the opportunity to create the desired outcomes for themselves, which is a better livelihood, and that itself is aligned with national interest.
In this year’s Committee of Supply, I will be making cuts on issues related to the preschool sector, caregiving, sustainability and integrating persons with special needs, with suggestions on how shifting the underlying philosophy and narratives of some policies to a strength- and trust-based lens can help us improve and accelerate outcomes without spending as much money.
Third, enhancing collaboration with citizens. The Government cannot tackle wicked problems alone. As we transition and evolve our social compact from a less educated population leaning on intellectual elites to craft and implement policies as it was in the 1970s to the 1990s, we now have one of the most well-educated citizenry globally.
The Singapore Government Partnerships Office (SGPO) is hence a positive step forward that must be adequately resourced and developed. As we do this, we must recognise that we are somewhat new at this, and there may be some teething blues as we increase citizen participation and work more closely with one another.
Capability-building of facilitators who have ecosystem thinking, to be skilled at navigating cross-system cultures, mobilising people and building relationships across diverse sectors is key.
I recall in my first year as a Member of Parliament (MP), I sent an email to Deputy Prime Minister Mr Heng Swee Keat, who then forwarded it to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Mr Edwin Tong. In the email, I recommended the formation of a team of 100 organisational development-trained facilitators from diverse sectors. I am not sure if they took up my suggestion but I do see many Public Service roles now titled “Community Engagement” and I see increase in efforts to train volunteers to help facilitate national dialogue sessions. This is good and we can do more.
I urge relevant resources for the SGPO and People’s Association (PA) to train and leapfrog facilitation capabilities to right-size salaries to make sure they are realistic and adequate to hire relevantly skilled people. Such support to public agencies is critical for meaningful inclusion to engage Singaporeans in sometimes contentious and difficult conversations and to do so in early stages of policy-making to avoid U-turns on policies and avoid unnecessary spending.
As a social entrepreneur, I have first-hand experience of how tenacity and sustained commitment is needed for real and sustainable change to happen. And it is not always easy to keep morale high as we go through the transition blues, messiness and pains as we will encounter along the way. It is also much easier to grouse and complain than to commit time and effort to create change. And how do we keep people enthused to contribute and to stay the course?
As my past three years being grassroots advisor in Nee Soon South has shown me, when people enjoy working together, they feel cared for and appreciated, the hard work is worth it. And this, we can only achieve by shifting the balance from a performance-based culture to an appreciation-based culture. To shift this, we have to slow down our pace and appreciate what we already have and take time to appreciate one another. Speaker, in Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As the population ages, there is shortage of manpower and people's mental health is beginning to decline. How can we achieve a society that is less stressful, physically and mentally healthy and yet, continue to prosper?
In the face of these challenges, it is necessary for everyone not only to be willing to speak but also be willing to act. Many people may have seen that there are many who can talk but very few who can truly do and are willing to do. Therefore, the Government continues to implement digitalisation and encourages both individuals and businesses to transform.
Some residents complain that excessive mechanisation for efficiency has reduced the personal touch and I understand this very well. But is it inevitable? How can we strike a balance, using technology with a personal touch, making it convenient for us without sacrificing the interaction and communication between people? This is something we should and must reflect on.
So how can we make everyone willing to act and willing to contribute? What I have experienced as a grassroots advisor in Nee Soon South over the past three years is that, as long as everyone cooperates happily, whether they are employees or volunteers, if they can be accommodating and show gratitute towards each other, they will be able to contribute joyfully and everyone can make a difference.
In unity, we learn to be inclusive. In giving, we learn gratitude. I believe this is an invaluable way of interaction in our society. I hope that in the future, through our own practice, we can pass on these values to the next generation of Singaporeans. Citizens and the Government can work together so that even with fewer people, we can still get things done and sustain physical and mental health as well as continued prosperity.
(In English): With that, I conclude with a prayer that the strategies I offer – tracking our well-being, achieving more with less, enhancing collaboration with citizens, and above all, adopting a strength-based and trust-based lens, will help us on a Uniquely Singapore holy grail, towards the biggest, hairiest and most audacious goal of them all – well-being while sustaining high-growth in our economy. I support the Budget.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this is a Budget about building our shared future together. A shared future that has been built on the work by all of us and our migrant workers over the past few decades. As we talk about being an inclusive society, we must not forget our migrant workers. Yet, our policies at times, show that there is an “us” and “them”.
In the past eight years as an MP, I have seen firsthand the backbreaking work our migrant workers do for us. I have listened firsthand to the stories of the homes and families they left behind. And I have personally met the families they have left behind and felt the pain they feel every single day.
Mazibur is a cleaner in Nee Soon East. I have known him for eight years. He came to Singapore in 2012, leaving his daughter Jannat when she was only 22 days' old. Mazibur has not returned to Bangladesh since. Jannat will turn 12 years old this year. He has missed all her birthdays and milestones growing up. When I went to Bangladesh a few years ago to meet all our Nee Soon East cleaners' families and have lunch with them, I met Jannat. It is sad that I got to meet Mazibur's daughter before he did. Jannat wrote to me and what she wrote tore through my heart. She said, \"Take care of my father, I love him a lot\". I promised her I would.
Sir, Mazibur's story is not an uncommon one. Many low-wage migrant workers similarly endure long periods of separation from their families.
As a father of three young girls, I just cannot imagine how painful and how difficult it must be to be so far from their loved ones. We enjoy time with our families in the homes that these migrant workers build and keep clean for us. The least we can do is to take care of them and ensure that these workers have safe living spaces, safe food and safe avenues for reporting illegal employment practices.
In a speech delivered at the height of COVID-19, Prime Minister Lee assured our workers, \"To our migrant workers, let me emphasise again: we will care for you, just like we care for Singaporeans.\" I am glad we do care and, over the years, our policies on migrant workers have improved. In this Budget for Singaporeans, I hope we continue to make improvements and remember to care for our migrant workers.
Many of our youths have set a shining example in caring and speaking up for migrant workers. I have been inspired by the passion of these youths. One such youth is Kari Chua. Kari co-founded the migrant worker ground up Sama Sama in 2016. Sama Sama and their partners support migrant community leaders to address mental health issues, enhance the quality of life and ensure equitable opportunities for migrant workers. Migrant worker NGOs like Sama Sama back up their calls with concrete actions through ground-up initiatives to support our migrant workers. Many Singaporeans like Kari are calling for the Government to do more to treat our migrant workers fairly. I hope we heed their call. I will raise three recommendations.
First, we significantly improve the living standards for migrant workers.
Second, we ensure the food catered for migrant workers comply with existing food safety standards.
Third, we recognise and treat kickbacks as a form of corruption, by ensuring that there are equivalent penalties and whistleblowing protections.
I am not asking for any preferential treatment for our migrant workers. I ask only that we treat our migrant workers the same way that we would want our loved ones to be treated. I ask that we be fair and inclusive – have one set of policies that apply to all.
My first recommendation is that we ensure that the housing standards for dormitories are at least equivalent to the dormitory conditions for our full-time National Servicemen (NSFs). I am glad that MOM announced a set of improved standards for worker dormitories last year. It is a huge step in the right direction. By 2030, the dormitories must meet an interim set of housing standards. By 2040, the dormitories must meet the new standards. MOM said that these housing standards are meant to improve the dormitories' ability to contain disease outbreaks. I am glad that MOM is acting on lessons learnt during COVID-19.
In addition to addressing the public health risks, it is also right that we make sure that our migrant workers have decent living conditions. However, many feel that the interim and new housing standards simply do not go far enough. Our current standards require at least 3.5 square metres per migrant worker. By contrast, each NSF in SAF gets seven square metres of sleeping and resting space. Why the double standards on this question of public health? Viruses will not discriminate between our migrant workers and our NSFs. We are now asking for dormitories to improve this from 3.5 square metres to 3.6 square metres per migrant worker by 2030 and 4.2 squares metres by 2040. We are asking for a 0.1-square-metre increase within seven years. To put things into perspective 0.1 square metre is less than the size of two A4 pieces of paper.
Another example is the spacing between beds in migrant worker dormitories. Currently there is no requirement for spacing between beds. It is only in 2040 that we will mandate a spacing of one metre between the beds. The pandemic taught us hard lessons about how diseases spread like wildfire when people are packed into tiny, cramped dormitory rooms. Yet, for the next 16 years, we are choosing to accept this risk. We are choosing to roll the dice and pray very hard that we will not have another pandemic in the next 16 years. It is a gamble with the lives of those living in the dormitories and it is a gamble with the lives of Singaporeans.
I understand there is a cost factor. Business costs are rising and employers have financial constraints. We must consider this, too. MOM has said that dormitory standards cannot improve more quickly because beds are short in supply and rising in price. Surely, then, the way forward is to study and implement solutions that tackle those problems, rather than wait for them to go away.
JTC used to own and manage dormitories directly. I am glad MOM will be building and owning two migrant-worker purpose-built dormitories (PBDs) through the new entity called NEST Singapore. Again, it is a step in the right direction. MOM has announced that the MOM-owned PBDs seek to promote innovations in public health resilience and liveability. They also aim to transform practices in migrant worker housing.
Indeed, if the private market cannot efficiently deliver services at minimum standards and costs necessary for public health, we should ask the hard question of whether Government agencies should reassume the role of managing and operating more dormitories more urgently. By expanding the number of dormitories owned and run by MOM, there would be significant economies of scale and perhaps even lowered costs for employers. It could be a win-win solution for both employers and employees.
Again, we must remember that this is a question of public health. This is a life and death issue when, not if, the next pandemic happens. We already know that the SAF was largely successful in keeping COVID-19 transmissions low. We already have a successful model to learn from – with a minimum standard of seven square metres per resident and all the measures that SAF took. All I am asking is that we learn from experience and urgently improve the living conditions of migrant workers.
My second recommendation is that food catered for migrant workers is safe for consumption. Our migrant workers need a proper place to rest and proper food to eat. I am glad that MOM recently ensured that there are measures in place that protect catered food from contamination until it is collected by dormitory residents for consumption. MOM clearly takes food safety very seriously. But that solves only one part of the equation. The other parts need to be urgently addressed, too.
The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) requires that all catered food be consumed within four hours after it is prepared. SFA also requires that all catered food be labelled with a consume-by timestamp. Many Singaporeans will be familiar with these timestamps for catered food or buffets. This four-hour rule is strictly adhered to for food catered for Singaporeans. However, a different set of standard seems to apply for some migrant workers. Workers tell me that many of them are catered with food without a consume-by timestamp. Many workers tell me that they regularly consume food way past the four-hour timeframe. It is quite obvious that this is true. We know their catered lunch is cooked in the wee hours of the morning before workers even leave for work. We know the food is delivered to the dormitories early in the morning as well. By the time workers have their meal around noon time, the food is way past the four-hour timeframe.
We know for a fact that our requirements are being breached. The Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) has said that in the past five years, SFA has not received any reported cases of catered food for workers in dormitories without a consume-by timestamp. MOM has also said that they have not received specific complaints from workers about not being able to consume food within a reasonable time of preparation. This is at odds with many workers' experiences and the realities on the ground. I know that MSE and SFA take food safety very seriously. I also know that MOM takes worker safety and welfare very seriously.
My recommendation is that MOM and MSE work together to investigate this and set specific requirements to ensure that catered food is consumed within a safe period. Migrant workers deserve food that is safe for consumption, just like all Singaporeans.
My third and final recommendation is that we recognise and treat kickbacks as a form of corruption. We should ensure that there are equivalent penalties and whistle-blowing protection. I have called for this in my previous Adjournment Motion and I am calling for it again.
We know that from 2021 to 2023, MOM investigated 210 cases of kickbacks per year and took 70 employers to task each year. That is more than one employer every week being taken to task for collecting kickbacks. Also, we do not know what the full number of unreported cases is. Our laws to protect our workers are only as good as our ability to enforce our laws. We cannot enforce our laws if workers are fearful of reporting abuses when they happen.
I have personally spoken with migrant workers whose employers coerced them into paying a sum of $3,000 in kickbacks. For some, this is more than four times their monthly salary. A crime had been committed against them. Yet, their hands were trembling as they spoke to me. They were fearful of the consequences of reporting their bosses. Many of these workers incur debt to work in Singapore in the first place. Losing their jobs may mean they have no way of repaying the loans they took to work in Singapore. One of them told me, \"When I came to Singapore in 2016, I paid $14,000. In 2018, I paid $1,500 for my Work Permit. Now, they said that if I do not pay them $3,000, they will fire me\". The worker faced the stark choice of paying his boss $3,000 to renew his Work Permit or face repatriation. The same worker told me, \"I am a really poor man. I have no money to give them. In this situation, I am really helpless and feeling depressed. I am an honest and hardworking man.\"
We can only start solving a problem by calling a spade a spade. This is one spade digging a grave for fairness and inclusiveness. What kickbacks really are is that they are corrupt gratification that employers coerce from vulnerable workers. The penalty for collecting kickbacks is a fine of up to $30,000 and/or imprisonment of up to two years per charge. By contrast, the punishment of corruption is a fine of up to $100,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years per charge. We need to review the penalties for employment kickbacks to ensure that they are commensurate with the penalties for corruption. I propose that the maximum sentence be raised to five years of imprisonment and/or a $100,000 fine, matching the penalty for bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
We also need to make sure we have the same or even stronger whistle-blower protection for informers of corruption for workers to report kickbacks. The Prevention of Corruption Act has strong protection for informers. No complaints can be admitted as evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings. No witness is permitted to disclose the name of informers or any information which may lead to the discovery of the informer. I propose that we introduce whistle-blower protection for informers who report kickbacks paid to employers.
We all know the zero-tolerance approach Singapore takes to corruption. Kickbacks are corruption. There is no reason to treat kickbacks migrant workers pay any differently from other corruption in Singapore.
Sir, migrant workers are the builders of our society – the builders of our economy. In the words of Minister Shanmugam, \"These workers are here, they are helping us to make Singapore clean. They build our HDB flats. They build our buildings. They handle our waste management. They form the base of our economy and, therefore, they help us build our prosperity. You know, we say we have 57% of Singaporeans in PMET jobs. How is that possible? It is possible because the base is built by foreigners. So, I think we have to appreciate what they do for us, and we have to have a better understanding and empathy.\"
I am glad many Singaporeans have shown appreciation for the work migrant workers do for us. Our youths, like Kari, have been calling for our migrant workers to be better protected. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said, \"We need to do more to look out and care for the more vulnerable amongst us, including our migrant workers\".
I hope we can start by looking into (a) improving their dormitory standards sooner; (b) ensuring that they have safe catered food; and (c) treating kickbacks as corruption.
The priority in this Budget and in our policies has to be Singaporeans. There is no doubt about that. But it does not mean that our migrant workers should be left out, left behind. To be the truly inclusive society we aspire to be, a shared future we talk about in this Budget must also include our migrant workers. To be a fair and just society, we cannot have one set of rules, guidelines and policies for Singaporeans and a different set for migrant workers.
Sir, I promise Jannat I would look after her father. We should look after all our migrant workers. I do this not just because of a promise, but because it is the right thing to do.
At the start of my speech, I talked about how our policies differentiate between \"us\" and \"them\". I have shared this quote in Parliament previously, and I will share it again, \"There is no us and them, only us – one human family connected in ways we sometimes forget.\"
I hope our policies can continue to change and recognise that our one human family in Singapore includes our migrant workers.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa, you have a clarification to make? Go ahead.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): In my speech on Monday, I said that the $10,000 Central Provident Fund (CPF) top-up in the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) Progression Award is differentiated treatment between polytechnic graduates.
In response, the hon Member Mr Xie Yao Quan yesterday made the point that it is fair and right to compensate for the wage gap between ITE graduates and polytechnic graduates. But my point is that because this CPF top-up is given to them after they have completed their diploma courses, they are not just ITE graduates, they are Diploma holders and will be earning salaries as polytechnic graduates.
So, can Mr Xie clarify what wage gap he is talking about? This is my first question.
Also, going by his logic, does Mr Xie similarly think that it is fair and right to give a CPF top-up to polytechnic graduates who progress to university, to compensate for the wage gap between polytechnic graduates and university graduates? That is my second question.
What about a person who starts working at a lower pay grade due to lower qualifications but, subsequently, rose through the ranks to reach the same position as someone with higher qualifications? Does Mr Xie also think that it is fair and right to compensate for the wage gap? That is my third question.
Since Mr Xie is a People's Action Party (PAP) backbencher, I would also like to seek clarification from the Ministers whether they agree with Mr Xie's position and what is the position on my last two questions to Mr Xie?
Mr Speaker: I do not see Mr Xie Yao Quan in the Chamber. So, perhaps, when he is back later and before we conclude the debate, if he wants to clarify, I will allow him. For now, I will call on Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, I thank all Members who have spoken and supported the Budget.
Members have raised many suggestions during this debate. I will not be able to address all of them in my response. But I assure you that we have heard your feedback and we will study your suggestions carefully. For more detailed issues relating to specific schemes and programmes, these will be addressed later at the Committee of Supply (COS).
The questions raised by Members in this debate largely revolve around three broad issues. Are we doing enough to help Singaporeans cope with higher prices? How will we achieve better growth and help Singaporeans secure a better future? Is our system of social support sufficient to support Singaporeans? So, let me address these three issues in turn.
First, on helping Singaporeans cope with inflation and cost pressures. Several Members, including Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Henry Kwek and, Ms Hazel Poa and many others, spoke about this.
Let us start by looking at the reasons for high inflation over the last two years and these reasons are certainly not unique to Singapore. For more than a decade before COVID-19, global inflation was generally stable, hovering at around 4% per annum. Singapore enjoyed relatively stable inflation too, and in most years, it was lower than global inflation.
But in 2021, prices in global food, goods, energy markets rose quickly, as strong demand came up against constrained supply due to pandemic-related restrictions.
Then, the Russia-Ukraine war broke out in early 2022. The two countries are major suppliers of key commodities, like oil and gas, fertiliser, and wheat. This brought about a further surge in prices. Many countries also saw a surge in demand for domestic services, and did not have sufficient workers to meet the demand.
These are the key drivers of inflation everywhere and Singapore, like all other countries, felt the impact too.
Even so, inflation in Singapore did not reach the peaks seen in several parts of the world.
One reason was effective monetary policy. MAS tightened monetary policy five consecutive times starting in October 2021. This meant allowing the Singapore dollar to appreciate more quickly, which helped to shield us against the sharp spike in imported inflation. Had MAS not acted, core inflation for the whole of 2023 would have been 6.6%, instead of 4.2%.
Other major central banks acted too. So, with this overall monetary tightening and the stabilisation of supply chains, significant headway has been made in bringing inflation down around the world. Our inflation too has started coming down, in line with the rest of the world. In Singapore, our headline inflation was already moderating since last year, and is expected to moderate further this year. We expect this trend to continue, similar to other advanced economies.
Several Members, including Ms Ng Ling Ling, Mr Ong Hua Han and Mr Faisal Manap, also highlighted other specific cost items – namely housing and transport. So, let us drill deeper into this data.
Take public housing. Over the last 10 years, the average price of a 4-room Build-To-Order (BTO) flat in non-mature estates has remained relatively stable, even as median household incomes increased. So, in real terms, the affordability of such BTO flats has, in fact, improved. The challenge we face was with the prices of BTO flats in choicer locations which are more expensive. That is why we have introduced the new Standard, Plus and Prime framework. Because with this framework, we can keep the BTO flats in these better locations affordable through more upfront subsidies. But it will be a fair system because the additional subsidies will be clawed back when the first owners sell the flats.
Or take public transport, the Government is already providing generous subsidies to keep our public transport system going. Fares have increased, but household incomes have risen faster. And that is why the proportion of household income spent on public transport has fallen over the last 10 years.
We also track real wages closely. As Members are aware, real wage growth was negative last year. But we know that employers, many of them, are complaining of shortage of workers and higher wage costs, especially in services. So, it is not negative across the board. Some workers were still getting real wage increases. And at the household level, there was real median income growth, on a per capita basis, per household member basis.
Sir, I have provided some key data points, so that we can understand the facts around the inflation situation globally and in Singapore. In countries everywhere, including in Singapore, there tends to be a gap between economic data and perceptions. It is partly because it takes time for consumers to adjust to new economic realities. Perceptions and sentiments are clearly important, and we take the feedback from the ground seriously, but we also need to examine data closely so as to better shape policy responses.
It is in this broader context that the Government had extended support packages over the last two years to cushion the impact of inflation, particularly for lower- and middle-income Singaporeans.
This year, while inflation is moderating, we recognise that prices are still relatively high and there will be continued pressures for families and individuals. That is why I had enhanced the Assurance Package in the Budget. We have designed and sized the support of the enhancement carefully. There is something for everyone, regardless of age, property type, or income. But we also do not want to inadvertently stimulate demand too much and push up prices – something which Ms Foo Mee Har cautioned against. So, the support is targeted and tilted towards those with less.
What will we achieve through the enhancements to the Assurance Package in this Budget? For lower-income households, it will fully cover their increase in spending due to inflation this year. For middle-income households, it will substantially cover the increase in spending due to inflation this year.
We are not only helping families. We are also helping businesses cope with higher costs, especially SMEs. One of the reasons for rising business costs is higher wages for Singaporeans. For example, we are raising the wages for lower-wage workers. I am sure everyone supports this. But it will mean higher costs initially for businesses, especially SMEs. That is why the Government is doing more in this budget to co-fund the increase.
Similarly, as Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How highlighted, we are raising CPF contributions for older workers so that they have sufficient savings for retirement. Again, this will lead to higher costs for businesses. But the Government will offset half the increase in employer contributions for 2025.
We are doing more to help businesses in this Budget through the Enterprise Support Package. This is the most generous Corporate Income Tax rebate we have extended to date. For all eligible firms, including those that are not profitable, we are providing a cash grant.
The support can be used to defray cost increases, in wages, rentals, utilities, or transport, depending on the circumstances of each business.
I understand that some groups will feel that the help extended is still not enough. But I hope everyone can appreciate the bigger picture. We are going through a rough patch of high prices due to forces well beyond our control. We are not the only country facing these difficulties. The Government will do everything we can to help households and businesses to get through this rough patch. Already, the situation is improving, and it should get better this year.
But ultimately, the best way to deal with inflation is for businesses and wages to grow in real terms. To achieve that, we need better economic growth.
This leads me to the second issue – how can we sustain growth and help Singaporeans secure a better future? And here, many Members spoke up about this, including Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Shawn Huang, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Vikram Nair, amongst others.
Securing economic growth is more than just a statistic. It is about how we stay relevant, add value to the world and make a living for ourselves. The reality is that Singapore will always be a little red dot. We have no hinterland. We have no natural resources, unlike resource-rich countries like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). If we falter, no one will come to our rescue.
Moreover, businesses have so many options when they wish to invest or site their global or regional headquarters and operations. We know that Singapore is not the cheapest location. So, we must work even harder to add value and justify the Singapore premium. This is what we have been doing continually since our Independence.
Our economy today reflects this progress up the value chain. Take the example of a multinational enterprise (MNE) like Siemens. It has been in Singapore for more than a century, since 1908. Of course, Siemens today has changed many times over from when it started. It has significantly expanded and upgraded its business, from a small sales office to electronics assembly in the 1970s and now it provides technologies across a range of sectors, including transport systems, water treatment technologies and medical diagnostic equipment. Last year, it announced that it will establish a new high-tech factory in Singapore, which will employ significant levels of automation and digitalisation.
Along the way, Siemens has spun off new sub-units, including the semiconductor company Infineon Technologies – which some of you may have heard of – and some of these sub-units have grown into industry leaders in their own right, with their key manufacturing and research and development (R&D) locations based here in Singapore.
Sir, there are many other examples like this. MNEs have continued to grow and upgrade their presence here in Singapore because they value our skilled workforce, our infrastructure and our connectivity to help them better access key markets in the region and beyond. So, when you add it all up, it means that the value-added content of our manufacturing sector has increased. We are able to command better prices in world markets and this in turn benefits our workers, who are able to enjoy higher wages.
This is how we are able to stay competitive, despite our higher costs. One way to see this is to look at Singapore's share of global exports. Since 2010, even when our cost base has gone up, our share of the world’s total goods exports has been maintained at about 2%. Our share of global services exports has increased from 2.5% to 4.1%.
So, we are able to hold our own, maintain competitiveness and add value, make a living for ourselves, and for our workers. The question is, how do we continue to maintain or even increase our share of global exports in the years to come?
The only way is through productivity improvements, something which Deputy Prime Minister Heng emphasised yesterday. We aim for 2% to 3% economic growth per annum over the next decade on average. Of this, about one- to 2-percentage points should be from productivity improvements.
To be clear, this is a very ambitious goal. Only a few countries at our stage of development have been able to sustain such high productivity growth. It requires a continual transformation of our economy. Firms need to learn new ways to do business, workers need to learn new skills to contribute differently and to embrace new technologies, and new firms in new sectors must start up and grow and more than replace the firms in declining industries. As Ms Mariam Jaafar and several Members have noted, this is a massive undertaking. But we are aiming high and we are determined to do our best to achieve this.
One key strategy is to attract more high-quality investments into Singapore because these investments typically involve cutting-edge and innovative activities. They help to push the productivity frontier. That is why we need new investment promotion toolkits like the Refundable Investment Credit.
Another strategy is to maintain consistent and steady investments in R&D. That is why we are making the top-up to RIE2025 in this Budget, which will sustain Government investments in R&D at about 1% of GDP. This will yield dividends over time.
Some have voiced concerns about whether we will become a two-track economy – one track for MNEs and another for SMEs. I can understand these concerns, but it is not so helpful to think of the economy in terms of larger foreign and smaller local companies.
A better way is to consider the two broad segments of the economy: one that is outward-oriented and another that is domestic-oriented. Every economy, including Singapore, has these two segments. And each faces challenges and business conditions.
The outward-oriented segment of the economy comprises MNEs, but it also has many local enterprises, big and small. Collectively, they make up about 60% of the firms in Singapore: six zero. And there are many supplier and partnership arrangements between MNEs and local firms. We want to encourage more of these partnerships and we have enhanced the PACT scheme in this Budget to do so.
Companies in this outward-oriented segment are generally more productive and also have some scale. They have to be; they compete in the global marketplace. They must continuously innovate and up their game. Otherwise, they will fall behind and they will lose their share of the global market.
Not surprisingly, these companies have high take-up of Government schemes that help them invest in R&D, automation and productivity improvements. They do not need to be persuaded to do so. Everything is at stake for them. Given their higher productivity, this outward-oriented segment accounts for about 75% of our economy in terms of nominal value added. Three-quarters of our economy, outward facing.
The remaining 25% of our economy comprises mainly domestic-oriented sectors like F&B, retail and construction. These are more labour-intensive. There are, of course, also domestic services which are high touch in nature, like childcare and elderly care, and they require workers. So, these domestic oriented sectors tend to be less productive than the outward-oriented sectors. That is not unique to Singapore. It is the same for all other economies.
But the productivity of some of our domestic-oriented sectors lags behind similar sectors in other advanced economies. For example, take the construction sector. The productivity of our construction sector is about one quarter that of Switzerland.
Of course, within our domestic-oriented sectors, there is a range of firms. Some are embracing change and restructuring themselves to be more productive, others are less ready to do so. That is why we can and we must do more to encourage and support companies, especially SMEs, in this restructuring journey.
Several Members spoke about this, including Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Mr Keith Chua, Mr Neil Parekh, Mr Derrick Goh, and Mr Mark Lee, and we will consider all of your suggestions. But we also have to be careful that Government support does not inadvertently prop up outdated or unviable business models and hinder restructuring.
That is why our support schemes are geared towards supporting business owners who are themselves prepared to embrace change and to adopt new and more productive solutions. This is what we have done and will continue to do.
While we push hard on productivity growth, we also need our workforce to grow. This is one issue that comes up repeatedly in all our engagements with businesses, especially SMEs. They just cannot find enough workers, and they tell us all the time.
Some of the increase in the workforce will come from growing our resident workforce. But we know that the increase in our own resident workforce has been slowing and will not be sufficient to meet the demands of our economy. So, it will have to be complemented by a continued inflow of foreign work pass holders.
We already have in place a comprehensive system of controls to regulate the quality and the number of incoming work pass holders. This applies across every level of the workforce.
At the lower end of the income spectrum, we have Work Permit holders. They comprise about two-thirds of our total foreign workforce and mostly take up roles that Singaporeans do not want to do, for example, in construction.
We have not loosened our Work Permit controls. We have no intention to do so. But even at present settings, firms are able to bring in more workers, because of the demand. We are building more public housing, more residential housing projects. We are ramping up or going ahead with major infrastructure projects like the MRT, Changi T5, Tuas Port. Workers are needed to build these projects, and so the firms are bringing in more of them.
At the same time, we will ensure, as Mr Louis Ng said just now very eloquently, we must make sure that we take care of these workers. So, we will ensure we have the necessary infrastructure to accommodate these workers well, including building more dormitories – dormitories with the revised standards that we have put in place based on our COVID-19 experience and more recreational centres for their well-being. That is something we owe to these workers who help to build our country.
At the middle-income levels, we have Singaporeans doing the jobs, but there are not enough of us, and that is why we top up with S Pass holders and they include people doing important jobs like nurses and technicians. So far, S Pass numbers have been stable. We will continue to make sure that S Pass holders have the right skillsets and are in areas where we need them the most.
At the higher end of the income spectrum, we have Employment Pass (EP) holders. These are professionals with the skills and abilities to contribute at the upper end of the workforce. This is especially so for new growth areas like AI and the digital economy, where there is currently a shortage of skilled talent, not just in Singapore but also globally.
We apply salary cut-offs to ensure that the EP holders we bring in are of the right calibre. In particular, we have stated previously that we aim for EP holders to be comparable in quality to the top one-third of our local PMET workforce.
To keep pace with changes in wages, we will raise the minimum qualifying salary for EP applicants. The Minister for Manpower will share more details of the changes at its Committee of Supply. This is not a new policy setting because the policy intent to ensure that the salary cutoffs are comparable in quality to the top one-third of our local PMET workforce has already been stated. That remains the policy intent, but because local wages have gone up, we will have to adjust accordingly, and the changes will be announced by MOM at COS.
So, when you look at all of these different factors over the coming decade, we expect our workforce to grow at about 1% per annum, in line with the needs of the economy. This, combined with productivity growth at about 1% to 2%, is how we can achieve 2% to 3% growth for the overall economy.
Why are we doing all this? It is not to chase after a target. It is not to grow for the sake of growth. It is to secure better outcomes for Singapore and Singaporeans. That is why, in tandem, we are making several other major moves.
We are introducing new Workplace Fairness Legislation. This reflects the Government’s commitment to push against discrimination in the workforce and ensure fair employment opportunities for all workers.
We are investing more heavily in Singaporeans, something which many Members spoke passionately about. This is how we give our people the extra advantage to compete and excel in the global marketplace.
In particular, in this Budget, we are making significant enhancements to SkillsFuture and introducing new schemes to help our workers realise their full potential, regardless of their start points or stage of career.
And we have focused on the segments that face more challenges.
For young ITE graduates, we introduced the ITE Progression Award to encourage and support their upskilling journey. Mr Xie Yao Quan and Miss Cheryl Chan spoke about this. With this award, they will be better supported and they will have many opportunities to get an MOE-funded diploma, not just in the polytechnics, but also at other institutions like ITE, where they offer work-study programmes, as well as technical diplomas. We want our ITE students to do well, deepen their skills and go further. Get on a better career and wage trajectory in life. This Progression Award will encourage and support them in this journey.
For mid-career workers, the new SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme will support them with a substantial injection of skills to improve their employability.
Many Members, including Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Mr Christopher de Souza,\tMr Gerald Giam, Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Syed Harun, all spoke about this. There were many suggestions, such as to expand the scope of the SkillsFuture Credit, to reduce the qualifying age or to provide additional incentives and support.
I appreciate the strong support and interest. The Level-Up programme is a significant new addition to our SkillsFuture system. Let us make this move first. We have not even talked about the details yet, which will be announced by the Minister for Education at COS. So, we will make this first move, we will consider all your feedback and suggestions, and how to further finetune and enhance the scheme, as we gain more experience over time.
There is another segment we are paying close attention to, that is, Singaporeans with the potential to take on leadership positions in MNEs. Over time, more Singaporeans have taken on such regional and global leadership roles, and we want to nurture and grow this pipeline of Singaporean leaders.
Naturally, there is intense competition for these highly sought-after jobs. The MNEs will and should rightfully select and appoint their leaders by merit. But when companies look for or consider people for such roles, they will typically look for those who have already spent substantial time managing an overseas operation, because remember, they are looking for regional and global leaders. So, you must have spent time overseas, running, managing overseas operations.
This means that Singaporeans who would like to be considered for these positions must be prepared to be posted overseas, not just in your early 20s, when many young people like to be posted overseas, but also in your 30s and 40s when you are taking on managerial responsibilities and also when you have settled down and have families.
Understandably, at that season in life, relocating overseas is not going to be easy. There are many considerations. The spouse may have to stop work for some time. The children will have to adjust to an international school, and then come back to re-adjust to the Singapore system. So, we are reviewing this, we are considering how we can support or provide more support for Singaporeans under these circumstances so that we can help support them when they go overseas, when they come back and put them in a better position to be considered for leadership appointments in their respective companies.
Over time, I am confident we can develop and nurture more Singaporean experts and leaders across all fields. We have been doing this systematically in Finance for some time already and we can see the results. We now have around 4,000 Singaporeans holding senior roles in the financial sector, up from fewer than 2,000 in 2016. We now have a network of Singaporean finance leaders who come together regularly, they meet up and they support one another in their leadership journeys. We will redouble our efforts in finance and also in other key sectors of the economy.
These are our plans to secure better growth and better opportunities for all Singaporeans. This is also how we take concrete steps towards helping everyone realise their Singapore Dream.
This idea of a refreshed Singapore Dream was expressed by the vast majority of Singaporeans, especially our youths, during our Forward Singapore engagements.
To be clear, it does not mean that Singaporeans have given up on material goals. But they want to avoid getting trapped in an endless rat race of hyper-competition. They want to find meaning and fulfilment in what they do, beyond material success.
I think these are noble aspirations. There are undoubtedly some generational shifts because these aspirations are perhaps more commonly expressed amongst those born after Independence than before.
My colleagues and I in the 4G leadership, almost all of us were born after Independence too. So, perhaps, we instinctively empathise with these aspirations, and as part of Forward Singapore and as a first step in this Budget, we are doing more to help our fellow Singaporeans realise these shared aspirations – by providing more opportunities and diverse pathways for everyone to excel, to develop to their fullest potential and to be the best possible version of themselves.
Singapore must be defined not just by how far our talents can go, but also by how well we support one other. In this new environment, we recognise that there will be more stresses and strains on our people. With rapid technological advances and more intense competition, we can expect more churn at workplaces. Some jobs will become obsolete while new jobs with better pay will be created. All this will be very unsettling for those who are affected.
This brings me to the third issue we have to address: is our system of social support sufficient to assure Singaporeans through every life stage? Again, many Members spoke passionately about this – Mr Dennis Tan, Ms Ng Ling Ling and Dr Wan Rizal, just to name a few.
In fact, we have been working hard over the years to progressively enhance our social safety nets. We started in a more deliberate manner around the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 when we first saw income trends diverging. We have continued to fine-tune and improve over the years. In this Budget, we are taking further steps to strengthen our system of risk pooling and social support.
The traditional pillars in any social support system are education, housing, healthcare, work and retirement. You find this in all countries.
In education, we have invested heavily in a first-class school system. We have also significantly increased our investments in preschool education, and expanded tertiary education options for our youths, including increases to the university cohort participation rates.
In housing, we have public housing and the Housing and Development Board (HDB). We celebrate 60 years of the Home Ownership Scheme this year. It is a significant milestone because there is no other institution like the HDB in the world, which has provided comprehensively for the housing needs of its people. Indeed, it may even be misleading to call it “public housing”, because when you look around the world, public housing elsewhere often develops into slums or even ghettos. Our public housing is really a national housing scheme.
And our housing policies are not static – we continue to review and update them and remain fully committed to keeping our national housing affordable and accessible for Singaporeans, including those from lower-income households.
In healthcare, we have Government subsidies and the 3Ms – MediSave, MediShield, and MediFund. We have continued to improve on this. We made MediShield universal and lifelong through MediShield Life. We have CareShield Life for long-term care. Recently, we have launched Healthier SG and Age Well SG.
In work, we have strived to create good jobs for all Singaporeans, not only to provide a good living, but also because work gives dignity and purpose in life. To uplift our lower-wage workers, we have added Workfare and Progressive Wages, as noted by Mr Raj Joshua Thomas and many others. These moves are delivering results.
In retirement, we have the Central Provident Fund (CPF), which we have been enhancing over the years. We pay additional interest to help those with lower balances. We introduced CPF LIFE because Singaporeans are living longer, and we want to provide them with a retirement payout for life. We provide Silver Support for seniors who had low incomes during their working years. And now, we have the Majulah Package to help seniors accumulate more retirement savings, especially our young seniors.
We will not stop here. We are continuously studying how we can do better.
But let us also understand this. For those who ask for higher CPF returns, you will surely know that higher returns must come with higher risks. To what extent can retirees bear this volatility, especially when they may need to withdraw their funds in a period of negative investment returns in the markets? These are some of the complex issues that the Government has to weigh and consider carefully. But in the end, we will ensure that the CPF system provides for the basic retirement needs of all Singaporeans so long as they work and contribute to their CPF consistently.
Around these five pillars, which I have just described, we have ComCare – to ensure that no family and no individual falls through the cracks.
Through ComCare we provide financial assistance, short- and medium-term as well as long-term assistance to those in need. But we have gone beyond just providing financial support. We lean forward to take a more family-centric approach – bringing together different agencies and community partners, and customising support for lower-income families, especially those with young children, through ComLink, and now, ComLink+.
We have also provided more support for vulnerable groups, such as children with special needs, ex-offenders and persons with disabilities, something which several Members spoke passionately about, including Mr Eric Chua, Miss Rachel Ong, Mr Ong Hua Han.
The latest addition to our system is SkillsFuture. Something we started about a decade ago. We have made good progress, but we still need to do more, and that is why we have made significant enhancements to SkillsFuture in this Budget.
We are also working on the new support scheme for those who are involuntarily unemployed as part of our enhancements to SkillsFuture. This will be targeted at involuntarily unemployed workers in the lower and middle-income groups. We will provide them with temporary financial support and encourage these individuals to go for training if needed, or to get matched to new jobs. In other words, this is really more of a jobseeker support scheme than an unemployment benefit.
We considered whether or not to make this an insurance scheme, but for an insurance scheme to work, it will require universal enrolment, otherwise, the insurers will be cherry picking. There will be what economists call \"adverse selection\". The scheme will not be viable. If we make it mandatory, or require universal enrolment, this will require contributions from employers and employees. It will add to the business costs which small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and lower-income workers are already concerned about.
That is why we have decided to fund the scheme using taxes instead. In other words, all of us as taxpayers and the Government will help you bounce back if you face unemployment setbacks.
I thank Members who have spoken on this, especially our tripartite partners, as well as the Labour MPs like Mr Patrick Tay, who have given us suggestions and ideas for this scheme. We are working out the parameters and will share more details later this year.
Sir, what I have just described are all structural moves. They are not temporary or short-term measures. We have been strengthening them year after year, and we will continue to do so.
And that is why over the last 20 years, social spending by the Government has quadrupled. As a share of the Budget, we are also spending more on social support. In this Budget, half of total ministry expenditure is committed to social spending, which is a lot. A substantial portion of this is spent on structural schemes, not temporary measures.
Some Members would like the Government to do even more. But other members have reminded us that the Government should proceed carefully, so as not to breed a sense of entitlement, dependency or undermine individual responsibility and self-reliance.
Indeed, we are very careful about getting this balance right. We have not changed our ethos of social support – it is not about giving handouts, but giving people a leg-up.
ComLink+ and the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme have been designed so as not to erode personal and family responsibility. Likewise, the upcoming scheme providing temporary support for those who are involuntarily unemployed will also abide by these principles.
We catch Singaporeans when they fall and make sure they do not fall behind. We invest in them and provide them the support to bounce back from life’s setbacks and do even better for themselves.
In the end, this is about ensuring that families and individuals enjoy better incomes and better living standards.
If you look over the past decade, the lower-income groups in Singapore have, in fact, progressed faster than the rest. Real incomes of the bottom 20% increased slightly faster than the middle income, and twice as fast as the top 20%. This is based on incomes alone, it has not taken in consideration our progressive system of taxes and benefits which favours the lower-income. So, if you were to add all of that together, the overall picture is in fact, better for the lower-income.
But we will not stop here. We will continue to work hard to keep on improving. We learn from other countries, and we are open to all ideas – from Members of Parliament, researchers, and community advocates.
That is the spirit of Forward Singapore. We will consult widely and make bold and effective changes to take Singapore and Singaporeans forward.
During this debate, many Members – Opposition MPs, PAP MPs, Labour MPs – all of you have laid claim to the policy shifts announced in the Budget.
Well, I am glad everyone wants to be associated with the Budget. As the saying goes, failure is an orphan, but success has many fathers, and mothers too, I should add! [Applause.]
Basically, we welcome all who wish to associate themselves with these forward-thinking initiatives, because in truth, no one has a monopoly on ideas. There are many stakeholders also outside this House who have claimed credit and in fact, who have shared with us many ideas too.
The Government has and will continue to provide more information to facilitate informed discussions of policies, something which several Members spoke about. We are committed to doing so.
For example, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) publishes the Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Report every two years. This covers a broad range of outcome indicators. Not just input, but outcome indicators. We continue to finetune and improve this report. So, let us have you feedback and suggestions on what additional indicators we should track and we should incorporate.
Looking ahead, there will be even more opportunities for ground-up and civic engagements, something which Ms He Ting Ru, Dr Tan Wu Meng and Ms Denise Phua spoke about. We will provide more platforms for individuals and groups to contribute meaningfully, not just through feedback sessions, but also youth panels, citizens’ panels where participants play active roles to co-create and update policies.
And in the end, the real work is about translating ideas into effective policies that work for Singapore. That is our test. Is it effective? We all want better wages, better assurance, better security for our people. But what is the effective way to achieve these goals? How do you pay for them? How do you guard against inadvertent consequences? Many things start from good intentions, but they do not all achieve what is intended. These are the careful deliberations that have to be made.
If we look at the many policies the Government has introduced over the years, it is clear that we are different from what other countries do. That is because we do not just blindly copy. We learn from others. We are not ashamed to say that we do so. We adapt to our own needs, we discuss with key stakeholders, especially our tripartite partners to get buy-in and then, we develop something that applies to our context.
That is how we have innovated massively on the social front as we have on the economic and financial fronts. We have Workfare rather than welfare. We have progressive wages instead of minimum wage. SkillsFuture, instead of preserving obsolete jobs. And soon, support for jobseekers instead of unemployment insurance.
This is not just about changing the words. This reflects our policy emphases and priorities and how we go about effecting change for the betterment of Singapore and Singaporeans.
We recognise that we may not always get it right, but we will always improve and keep on doing better.
We will continue to evolve and improve our system of social support. We will maintain the right incentives, actively enable self-reliance and make sure we are able to fund these schemes. This is how we sustain a social trampoline that promotes rather than dulls economic progress that ensures the fruit of progress is shared by all. This is how a strong economy and a strong society coexist and reinforce each other.
Sir, our approach to investing in our people and building our social support system has yielded very good outcomes – even while we spend only a fraction of what other governments spend.
Take education for example – we provide quality education that produces results. We have one of the highest mean scores in reading, mathematics and science in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Members are aware. These results give us confidence – because PISA does not test rote learning. They test students' ability to apply what they have learnt to unfamiliar settings and real-world contexts and our students do well in these tests – and we have achieved all this while keeping education expenditure at about 2% of GDP, which is less than half the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of about 5% of GDP.
Our long-term and prudent approach has enabled us to keep Government expenditure at less than one-fifth of GDP – 20% of GDP. This has in turn allowed us to keep our tax burden low. In fact, 40% of all workers do not pay personal income tax. The effective tax burden for middle-income households – at around 10% of household income – is significantly lower than other advanced economies. UK and Finland, for example, have middle-income tax burdens that exceed 30%.
Our fiscal system is also fair and progressive: where those with greater needs receive more help than what they pay in taxes.
The lowest 20% of households receive about $4 for every dollar of tax paid – $4 in benefits for every dollar of tax paid; middle 20% of households receive about $2 for every dollar of taxes; and the top 20% of households receives about 30 cents for every dollar they pay in taxes.
Members are familiar with these statistics. We shared them before. They have not changed.
But how does this compare with other countries? There are some inherent limitations in comparing across countries but we have done some computations. Singapore, in fact, does better than advanced economies, like the UK and Finland, especially for lower and middle-income households.
And the statistics that I mentioned just now also do not include other intangible benefits – like access to quality education, healthcare, housing or having safe streets in Singapore. This is how we provide and take care of our people.
Of course, a progressive system must mean that the better-off contribute more and this includes paying more in Property Tax for those with higher-value homes.
With the Annual Value (AV) band changes that we have announced in the Budget, the higher owner-occupied Property Tax rates will apply to those living in homes with AVs above S$40,000 – or the top 7% of properties in Singapore. Top 7% of properties.
Of course, within this group, there is also a range and those who pay a lot more in Property Taxes generally have homes with much higher value – we are talking about higher-end condominiums, semi-detached houses, bungalows and Good Class Bungalows. That is what the Property Tax is designed to do – it is a wealth tax for those with more assets.
But we do recognise that there are some groups – especially seniors and retirees – who may need some support to cushion the impact of the Property Tax increase; and this was highlighted by several Members including Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Yip Hon Weng. So, beyond the 24-month interest-free instalment plan – which I have announced in the Budget – those who face difficulties in paying, especially retirees and seniors, can approach IRAS for assistance.
Next, I should also deal with some specific questions on tax changes.
Ms Usha Chandradas asked about the withdrawal of the tax concession on royalty income accorded to authors, composers and choreographers. The concession was introduced in 1983 as she highlighted, at the time when Personal Income Tax rates were much higher. Since then, tax rates have come down and the concession now benefits only a very small group of taxpayers. So, we have decided to withdraw the concession so as to ensure parity in the treatment of royalty income with other sectors. But at the same time, we are putting in much more resources to provide additional broad-based support for the arts sector. So, we are not withdrawing resources from the arts sector, we are putting in more resources for the arts sector.
There were also other tax-related suggestions from Ms Usha and other Members of Parliament, including Mr Don Wee, Mr Edward Chia, Ms Denise Phua and others. I thank all of you for your suggestions. We will continue to review them, taking into consideration their relevance for our tax regime, costs and benefits and of course consistency with international standards.
Some Members, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Pritam Singh, had sought clarifications on the potential revenue impact of the BEPS Pillar Two moves. The OECD's estimates imply that investment hubs could see a Corporate Income Tax revenue gain ranging from about 17% to 38%. This translates to a revenue gain of $5 to $11 billion per year for Singapore. That is based on OECD's estimates. But these estimates have not taken into account how MNEs may respond and the possibility of their activities moving out of Singapore, thereby reducing our tax base.
Possibly for this reason, Hong Kong and Switzerland, which are also investment hubs, have estimated their revenue gains at $1.7 billion to $2.4 billion respectively; much lower than what the OECD has put out. So, these data points are suggestive of what the range for Singapore could be, anywhere from around $2 billion to $11 billion.
But we are really not sure where we will end up because there are so many unknowns. I think no one is sure, to be clear. The OECD has also made very clear these are estimates. No one can be sure what the actual impact will be. What we are doing is to engage the MNEs better to understand how they are likely to respond, especially taking into account some of the moves we have made in this Budget and we will certainly provide our own revenue estimates in due course.
In any case, any revenue impact from the Pillar Two moves will only materialise from FY2027. So, this is not something for this financial year. We have some time. We are making the assessments. We are doing the detailed projections and we will come back with detailed revenue updates.
Of course, the actual amount of revenue gain and how long it will last will depend on how the competitive landscape evolves and also how much we have to re-invest into the economy. Several Members said that the whole point of BEPS is to tilt the playing field in favour of governments and make MNEs pay more taxes. I think Mr Louis Chua and Mr Jamus Lim highlighted that. I agree. That is the intent of BEPS.
But there is theory and there is reality. What is the reality?
The reality is that MNEs have bargaining power and governments around the world are all finding ways to favour them and getting them to invest. And you can read this. They are not even doing this quietly. They are publicly doing it. You can read this for yourself in the media – just a few days ago, Japan said that it would give Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) up to $6.5 billion more in subsidies for a second plant and that will bring the total subsidies to TSMC to over $9 billion. Earlier this month, the US also announced a $2 billion grant to GlobalFoundries – the largest grant from the CHIPS Act to date.
These are very generous subsidies that the major economies are giving to MNEs. We are not in the same league, but we have to play a smart game so as not to lose ground and to anchor important investments here. That is why we have introduced the Refundable Investment Credit in the Budget to update our investment promotion toolkit and committed to spending more to support new investments, research and innovation activities.
These moves are absolutely necessary – so that we remain in the race for quality investments and create good jobs for Singaporeans. This is not an academic exercise. This is about the lives and livelihoods of Singaporeans and we will do whatever is necessary to safeguard this, especially in a world where competition will only get tougher. So let us not be so naïve to think that the putative gains from BEPS will simply materialise in our favour.
This is why, as I said in my Budget Statement, after taking into account the additional expenditures that we are likely to have to incur, I do not expect the Pillar Two move to generate significant additional net revenues on a sustained basis.
I should also add that the above estimates do not take into account the impact of Pillar One, because all we have been talking about is Pillar Two. But Pillar One has been delayed and if it is implemented, it will clearly be revenue-negative for Singapore.
After taking into account all this, what is our fiscal position? Last year, Ministry of Finance (MOF) published an Occasional Paper on our medium-term fiscal outlook, up to FY2030. We showed in the Paper that our spending needs would grow as a percentage of GDP – to support our ageing population, to expand and strengthen our social system and there would be a funding gap of more than 1% of GDP if we did nothing.
But with the tax measures announced in the last two Budgets – including the Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate increase – we project that we would close the funding gap, provided we manage the pace of spending growth. All that was in the Occasional Paper and, indeed, this is what we have done.
The tax changes have come into effect, although we have not yet experienced the full revenue impact because we have been giving out some rebates. We had also enjoyed some revenue upsides, some of it was due to sentiment-driven revenues, like Stamp Duty and Vehicle Quota Premiums; some of it due to stronger than expected Corporate Income Tax Revenues last year from a strong rebound amongst some companies post-COVID-19.
So overall, we are currently in a sound fiscal position.
And we are putting our resources to good use to address immediate concerns and also upcoming needs. I mean, this is no different from how one would manage your own personal finances. Imagine if you are a homeowner planning for a major renovation in five years' time. What do you do? You start setting aside resources now for the major expenditure that has to be incurred. You do not wait until renovation starts then look for money and hope that it is there somehow.
In the same way, we have set up Funds to meet real commitments and real spending needs. Some of it are for recurring commitments, like the permanent GST Voucher, which we draw on year after year; for new commitments, like the Majulah Package; and for major spending needs that are coming up, like the Future Energy Fund – which will help to decarbonise our energy system.
Some other countries operate differently. There are countries that make major commitments without assurance of funding.
In the US they call this \"unfunded mandates\" – pass laws for all sorts of provisions but find the money later, \"Let us not worry about money now.\"
That is not how we do things in Singapore. If this Government makes a commitment, we make sure it is properly funded. We make sure we deliver on our promises.
But let us also be clear: the days of structural fiscal surpluses in Singapore are over.
If you look at our economic and fiscal situation, growth will come down. We hope to achieve 2 to 3%. Operating revenues will barely keep up with GDP growth and Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) will also broadly maintain as a share of GDP over the medium-term. Our expected long-term returns are about 4%. This is updated every year. We go through a rigorous process to do so with the Council of Presidential Advisers and the President but we do not expect this to increase given the more challenging investment environment.
So, the expected long-term returns are applied on the reserves – or the net asset base – and we take half of that to generate the NIRC.
If we really had so much surpluses somehow streaming into the reserves, then the net asset base must be growing and the NIRC would be rising significantly as a share of GDP – but it has not and we do not expect it to do so in the coming years as well.
So, operating revenues and NIRC maintaining as a share of GDP, which only means we must manage our expenditures well because only then can we continue running balanced budgets till the end of this decade.
This is also why we do not look at the Budget simply as a one-year plan, but also a multi-year commitment. It is in this spirit that we have provided a preliminary high-level estimate of $40 billion to resource the upcoming Forward Singapore policy moves.
The Forward Singapore report has already outlined the broad range of policy areas we are reviewing and studying.
Some have been announced – details have been given out in this Budget. Others will be fleshed out in due course, as will the detailed fiscal requirements of these subsequent moves. We will also update our medium-term expenditure and revenue projections.
The Occasional Paper that we had published last year may not be so occasional after all. We will keep on updating it from time to time, so that everyone will have a sense of how our fiscal trends are unfolding, not just on a year-to-year basis, but over a five- to 10-year horizon.
We must continue to plan ahead, do our sums carefully and be upfront with Singaporeans on the costs of various proposals. This approach of looking and planning ahead is a hallmark of our fiscal policy. It ensures that we are able to meet our collective aspirations and seize every opportunity that comes our way.
Perhaps, the Opposition takes a different view of fiscal management. Certainly, they want the Government to use more of the reserves for current spending. They suggest different ways of doing so – using revenue from land sales, waiving land cost for HDB flats, increasing the percentage of Net Investment Returns (NIR) that can be spent and so on – but in the end, they all come down to the same thing, which is to use more of the reserves today.
What will this mean? Basically, we will end up with less for ourselves in the future and we will also leave less behind for our children and the next generation. Eventually, NIRC will shrink as a percentage of GDP, the funding gap will increase and our children will have to pay more in taxes.
In fact, this is what many governments in the advanced economies are faced with. Their debts are rising; their deficits are rising; and their fiscal systems are at risk of breaking. Many of them have some version of an independent budget office, but it has not helped at all. Basically, no political party in these countries are prepared to dish out the hard truths. So, their policy debates are dominated by what some commentators call \"fiscal fantasies\".
What are some of these fantasies? They include far-too-optimistic forecasting assumptions. The idea that all the funds can be raised from the rich, with close to zero consequences for the rest of the population. Or they can kick the fiscal can down the road indefinitely – just continue to spend and leave it to their children or to those not yet born to solve the problems.
Let us not indulge in fantasy thinking – not in this House, not in Singapore. Having the resources to pursue a strong economy and a strong society, and to achieve good outcomes, is not a fairy tale. This is very much our Singapore reality, but it requires us to focus on prudence, fairness and sustainability.
What we have is a unique and, certainly, a privileged position of strength.
Many economies pay about 2% of their GDP in debt servicing for debts that have been accumulated. We are so different. We enjoy the benefits from savings from the past. To continue on a sustainable path, we must maintain our commitment to set aside enough, not just for ourselves, but also for the future.
So, I call on everyone in this House. Let us commit to upholding these values – fiscal responsibility, discipline, ensure that our fiscal system meets the needs and aspirations of both current and future generations of Singaporeans.
If the Opposition parties have a different view on this, I invite them to take up the challenge that the Prime Minister issued in this House a few weeks ago: make drawing more from the reserves an election issue. Let us go to the people, ask them for a mandate to change the Constitution – you can ask them to do so; compel the President to let you spend 60%, 75% or even 100% of the NIR.
The PAP will join issue with you. We will present our case to Singaporeans, and ultimately, Singaporeans can decide what is the best fiscal approach to take Singapore forward.
Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is at a critical moment of change. We are entering a different world, one that is messier, more dangerous and more unpredictable. There will be more forces that threaten to pull us apart.
This year's Budget is the first step in advancing our Forward Singapore agenda. We want to refresh our social compact to keep our society strong and united in this troubled world. We want to build a better Singapore – not just for a few, but for all Singaporeans.
We want to refresh the Singapore Dream and build a Singapore that is vibrant and inclusive, fair and thriving, resilient and united.
The road ahead to this better Singapore will not be easy. But we are all in this together and we all have a part to play. The Government will do more to provide opportunities and assurances at every stage of life and everyone in society should contribute towards our shared goals and aspirations in our own ways.
I take heart from the nation-building journey we have had so far. As one united people, we have consistently turned our challenges into opportunities and our constraints into strengths. We have done it before, and I am confident we will do it again. Sir, let us build our shared future together. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Just a quick clarification for the Deputy Prime Minister. I acknowledge and thank him for stating very clearly that the Government will provide more information in response to some of the interventions that the various MPs have made.
I think this is important. I was trying to link it to the final subject matter that the Deputy Prime Minister covered about usage of reserves and so forth, or suggestions that were made by the Opposition, I think these were in a particular context. It did not come up in this debate, but certainly, in previous debates where we talked about how we can make up for funding gaps vis-à-vis GST and all that.
So, the call for information actually is very much part of how the Opposition tries to understand or tries to work through a mechanism or framework of fiscal prudence as well.
I will give you an example how we do that. The Finance Minister talked about unemployment insurance and I think he made clear at his round-up speech that it will be financed through taxes. The Workers' Party (WP) had proposed a scheme which was actually financed by employer and employee.
So, I would be cautious to suggest that the Opposition essentially just wants to dig into the reserves because we do think about the financial prudence question quite carefully. That was just a clarification for Finance Minister.
The second point is with regard to growth. I think there were Members in the House in the course of the debate who talked about growth. Indeed, growth is important. But I think the key point here is sustainable growth and I think this is the real key going forward in this decade. Because we have seen what happened one decade ago, about 10 years ago, the sort of debates we were having in this House. And the Deputy Prime Minister was there. The Government, basically Ministers, came out to say: we are slowing down growth, we have to, because the situation had changed so dramatically.
Going forward, I think the real question is not so much what I think one Member I heard saying, I make no apologies for growth. I think we have to be careful if we go down that road, but to frame a conversation on sustainable growth. And then, I think there will be support for many policies that the Government proposes.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, on the second point, I fully agree with Mr Pritam Singh that we are all about sustainable growth. There were instances in the past where, perhaps, infrastructure was not ready, for example. And that is why we have put in place processes, updated our planning processes, made sure that we plan our infrastructure well.
That is why as I highlighted just now, I went through some pains to explain where the increase in foreign workers were coming from, the large part of it are Work Permit holders, especially in construction. And there is a good reason for this. We are ramping up our building programme for public housing. We are undertaking major infrastructure projects. We need these workers to build our infrastructure and homes. These workers certainly do not compete with Singaporeans for jobs and the issue there really is about planning for infrastructure. And that is why I said just now that we are making sure that we get the dormitories ready, making sure that we build more, making sure that we build better recreational centres for them, so that they are housed well and we can take care of their well-being.
So, yes, we want sustainable growth, and we will pursue sustainable growth.
On Mr Singh's earlier points, I thank him for his clarification. Perhaps he could also clarify: because the WP had previously objected to GST and eventually now accepted the GST at 7%, but the debate we had earlier was about the two-percentage points increase in GST, and the options, the alternatives that the WP advocated were: use the reserves, increase the NIR, do this instead of GST.
Now that we have implemented GST, as the WP said, with the 7%, now that it is done, we have accepted it.
Perhaps Mr Singh might clarify, you too, perhaps the WP would accept the 9% as a reality. And would you then also say that the proposals to use more of the reserves by a higher share of NIRC are therefore no longer relevant and the WP is fully consistent with the PAP when it comes to our framework and rules for the use of the reserves?
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I would say that when we make proposals, it is in the context of what is before us at that point in time. I think that is what I would have to respond with.
Earlier on in this debate, we had a bit of a back and forth. I think Member Mr Murali Pillai and my colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, engaged in an exchange about the information that we have to put together, policies, Budgets, to understand whether whatever we do going forward is going to be sustainable. I put the question to Mr Murali Pillay about what the $40 billion that has been committed by the Minister for Finance, is going to go towards.
Now, we have no insight on those sort of matters.
So, I cannot make any promise here that we are reneging or stepping back on a commitment to look for revenues to fund some of these policy objectives; because we do not have an insight into those things.
By and large, I think the vision, or whatever it is, before the WP in particular – I cannot speak for the entire Opposition – but we will have to work with the information that we have. We are not in Government. If it means that we have to look at all options, we will look at all options.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, as I mentioned just now, MOF will certainly continue to provide more information, where it is necessary, where we are able to. We have been putting out more information already and we will continue to do so.
If there is specific information that Members would like, we will be happy to reveal. If there is no security or difficulties, we will certainly want to put them up. That is our commitment.
But the basic point I was getting at is whether or not there is a difference in our fundamental fiscal philosophy. I think that is important because there was a time when there was alignment in this House between the PAP and the WP. There was a time under Mr Low Thia Khiang where it was very clear the ethos of fiscal responsibility was the same, across both sides of the House.
It seemed to me that this had changed under Mr Pritam Singh, that the position had changed under Mr Pritam Singh. The WP, of course, is free to change its position, but I think it should be clear if this is so.
As far as the PAP is concerned, our position is quite clear. It does not mean that policies cannot change. Of course, we review, when circumstances change, we update our policies.
But when it comes to certain fundamental principles and values like fiscal responsibility, a basic orientation, not just to look at today but for the future. This must never be compromised; this must never change. These principles were put in place by our founding leaders. They have continued under successive leaders of the PAP, and they will certainly continue under my watch. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think I have heard this before in this House. The point again I would make in response to that is, indeed, I have to agree with the Finance Minister. Policies change. A People's Action Party Government yesterday would return the money that it has used from the Reserves as a matter of principle. But today, a People's Action Party Government may not return the money it uses from the Reserves. That is my response.
Mr Speaker: Before I call the next Member, I just want to remind all Members. By all means, feel free to seek clarifications but do not make mini speeches. Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. I just want to bring up this point about the pre-funding of some of the major expenditures the Government committed. I do agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that we should pre-fund some of these major commitments that we have. It just demonstrates our prudence and our fiscal sustainability that the longer-term policy commitments are responsibly funded.
However, it may also limit the overall fiscal impulse of a current Budget. So, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: can he share whether the Government do take into consideration the utilisation of the earlier-funded packages to determine the total spending injection into the economy, so as to better calibrate the level of fiscal impulse to be injected in each Budget? So, that is my first clarification.
My second clarification is related to the NIRC, which the Deputy Prime Minister also mentioned. I do note that the NIRC for FY2023 has been revised down to $22.92 billion; and the NIRC for FY2024 is $23.5 billion. So, it suggests a flattish growth in our NIRC for these two years. Just wanted to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: given that we continue to grow the base of the Reserves with half the contribution of NIRC, why is the incremental increase not as high as the previous years? Just wanted a short clarification.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, on the first question, the short answer is yes. We take into consideration many factors when formulating the Budget. The fiscal impulse is just one of the many factors. But in thinking about the fiscal impulse, we do not look at the fund top-ups because these do not, as Mr Liang said, contribute to injections to the economy. When we calculate the fiscal impulse, we specifically look at injections into the economy; we look at the state of the economy and we assess what would an appropriate fiscal impulse be for the Budget.
But aside from the fiscal impulse, there are many other factors that we need to take into consideration too – how much fiscal space we have, what kind of fiscal commitments do we have to make, what are the needs of businesses and households during this period and then how do we allocate our resources to build a Singapore that we all desire? So, these different considerations come together and we have to balance them in order to put together the Budget.
On NIRC, I have explained just now how this is calculated. The broad strokes are: there is an expected long-term return, it is assessed and then we apply it on the net asset base. In order to get a figure, we take half of it for the NIRC. Generally, the NIRC flow is stable but there will be fluctuations from time to time, because we have to update the expected long-term returns every year. And obviously, markets will move up and down then there will be impact on the net asset base. But what is important – rather than look at the year-to-year fluctuations – I think, is the recognition that the NIRC flow is not going to rise as a share of GDP as we have been trying to explain. It provides us a good stable source of revenue – it is stable as a share of GDP – we should appreciate it, but we cannot on current settings, assume or presume that this will rise as a share of GDP because it would not.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, to piggyback on Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa's question on pre-funding, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister two questions?
One is that there are many questions raised during the debate on the endowment and trust funds. Another Member who has raised quite a number of questions – which I am interested – was Ms Foo Mee Har. Can I seek clarifications from the Deputy Prime Minister on the following questions: one, what is the rate of drawdown of the various endowment and trust funds and what happened to the undrawn amounts, which I have discussed and sought answers during the Public Finance Motion; two, how the Government determines whether expenditures should be paid out of endowment funds and trust funds or the operating Budget.
My second question is: it was also observed that there is a fair amount of volatility in the overall Budget position, which was also pointed out by Ms Foo Mee Har. So, may I know what steps the Government is taking to increase so-called \"Budget marksmanship\" this year?
Maybe I should go through some of the numbers to substantiate my question. One is that – first of all, the Budget for 2022 – the original estimate was a negative $5.3 billion. It was revised to $4.2 billion and then finally, the actual was a deficit of only $0.4 billion. And for 2023, the original estimate was $3.6 billion and then revised to $6.8 billion. We do not have the actual amount yet, but this revision of having a bigger deficit is on the back of what I have said yesterday; that in 2023, actually we have an unexpectedly large operating revenue in excess of our estimate, which is about $8 billion. So, despite that, the revised overall budget deficit for 2023 actually is a bigger deficit. So, I must say that that is puzzling and we seek clarification from the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, let me take the questions in turn. On the rate of drawdown: well, first of all, I should explain. There are Endowment Funds. There are a few of them but the bulk of our Funds are drawdown Funds. That means we are actually drawing down on the Funds for specific spending needs. On the rate of drawdown for these Funds, well, it will vary from Fund to Fund. For example, GST Voucher Fund, almost two or three years we will need a top-up, because it is being drawn down and we are using it every year to fund the Permanent GST Vouchers.
Majulah Package Fund will be different because it is really meant to support the Majulah Package. It will be drawn down in the first instance, but then it will continue for some time because there will be people who are young seniors who will continue to benefit from such a Fund.
The Future Energy Fund is a different Fund because, there, it is not something we will draw immediately but it is not also something that we will need only 20 or 30 years from now. We envisaged spending this, say, within a five- to 10-year time frame. That is why we are setting aside resources now and massive resources are needed. We have resources today – we set aside now to cover the spending.
So, the rate of drawdown will differ but the point is, all of the Fund information are published. Members can look at them and see the rate of drawdown – what happens to the Funds, how they are used and if there are any undrawn amounts left behind, they will be co-mingled back with Government funds. I mean, that is the rest of Government Funds. So, there is no issue there. I mean, this is how we will — But for most of the drawdown Funds, I would say, by and large, we expect almost all of them to be fully drawn down. So, we do not think there will be an issue with any undrawn amounts.
Endowment Funds are different. Endowment Funds are set up not to be drawn down but only to use the returns and they are set up with a very specific purpose, which is that whether in good times or bad times, whether the Government has money or no money, we want to ensure that through an endowment, we are able to generate the resources for specific groups of people. And that is why Edusave is set up as an Endowment Fund rather than a drawdown fund. So, it is not contingent on whether there are Government resources or whether there are surpluses or whether there are additional monies. But students can be assured, in good years or bad years, that Edusave monies will always flow. So, these are the considerations behind the different types of Funds.
On volatility, actually before COVID-19, our fiscal marksmanship was not too bad. It was within a range of within 4% to 5% of accuracy and that is comparable with many jurisdictions that we compare against. The COVID-19 years, threw many of our assumptions off, but it is not just in Singapore. I mean, name me a forecaster who can predict turning points and get the timings right of these turning points. It is inherently difficult.
We are not making excuses. We know that this has happened. The recent years of COVID-19 our forecast accuracy was not as good as we would like it to be but there is a reason for it. It is because of the discontinuities, the disruptions, the sudden changes brought about by COVID-19 and we are determined to keep on doing better.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Thank you, sir. Deputy Prime Minister Wong mentioned just now that our NIRC, as a contribution to our GDP, is going to probably remain constant over the years. I agree with him. Three weeks ago, when I spoke in Parliament, I had said that I wish that within 10 years, our corporate income tax collections will outstrip our NIRC. But within a month, I am pleasantly surprised that it has already happened because our corporate income tax collection for this year is budgeted at $28 billion; NIRC is $23 billion – 20% more. I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister whether we expect this trend to continue.
Sir, I have a clarification for the Leader of the Opposition too. He mentioned that the current People's Action Party Government does not return Reserves to its people, whereas the past PAP Government does so. I do not understand him because, are not returns from NIRC a way of returning money to the people – unless he is talking about a drawdown on Reserves?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, yes, corporate income tax revenue has exceeded NIRC. It is not clear-cut to us whether this will continue. It also depends on the revenue impact from BEPS – which as I said just now, is so uncertain. There was a boost to corporate income tax revenue in these recent times, because we have seen a strong rebound among some companies; particularly in a post-COVID-19 environment – tourism, hospitality – some companies really just rebounded very strongly and that is why it has caused the revenue upsides and brought about the revenue upsides in corporate income tax revenue. It is too early to tell whether this can be sustained, so we will continue to monitor.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, the response that I gave to Deputy Prime Minister is a point of fact. It was in response to what Deputy Prime Minister said about Mr Low having a certain position on the Reserves and that it had changed under me. I think this must be the third time he has mentioned it in this House and I have responded to it before and I responded to it the last time as well.
Global financial crisis – Government draws down, returns the money and I think there were some statements made about why it was doing that. This time round, Reserves are used for another emergency and they are not returned – just a simple statement of fact. Positions change.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sitoh.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Thank you, Sir. So, is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the Government has to top-up the Reserve it drew during COVID-19 because that will be a massive amount and how are we going to fund it then?
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you very much, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin. You have just made the case that I was making: in one situation, you can; another situation, you cannot. You have to look at the statements made when the money was returned, and then you see in a different situation a different context, there is a different explanation.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two areas of clarification for the Deputy Prime Minister. The first is on CPF. Does he believe that it is adequate to plan for retirement adequacy via risk-free returns instead of taking reasonable risks via a diversified, well-managed portfolio for the long term? So, in other words, if our investment entities are good enough for our collective reserves, why is it not good enough for individual Singaporeans' retirement reserves?
The second is in relation to LRIS, which I mentioned during my speech as well. Again, as the Deputy Prime Minister is now Deputy Prime Minister and soon to be Prime Minister, does he intend to still follow through on the Government's acceptance of the recommendation in 2016 on LRIS? If so, when and, if not, why not?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, the returns may be risk-free from the CPF members' perspective, but they are certainly not risk-free rates at all. I mean, if you want risk-free rates, then they will be much lower. The reason why we are able to provide such higher rates, compared to market risk-free rates, is because there is Government support behind the CPF system and we are providing additional interests up to 6% for those with lower balances. We are designing a system that will ensure that all Singaporeans who work consistently, contribute to their CPF, will be able to have their basic retirement needs met. That is our objective.
Going beyond that, can we improve it? As I said, we will continue to study. There are complexities in this and it includes the LRIS that was highlighted. It is not so straightforward because once you introduce a new element of risk in the hope of getting better returns, you have the issue of what happens when seniors retire in a bad year. Then how do you smoothen that out? Once you smoothen that out – Mr Louis Chua is from finance – insurance does not come free, who pays for the insurance? It has to come through the returns. Then, are you able to provide a better product than what is the current CPF rate? Those are the considerations and we will continue to study. We are not saying never but we will continue to work on making the system better.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I have some clarifications for the Deputy Prime Minister regarding the jobseeker support. I understand that it is going to be funded by taxpayers and it is not an insurance scheme like what the Workers' Party has been proposing since 2006. So, I am a bit concerned now about the fiscal impact and the sustainability of the scheme. What is the quantum that is going to be given to the jobseekers and what is the duration of support that is going to be provided? I believe Parliament needs to know because we are being asked to approve the Budget for this year.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, the scheme is not being rolled out this year. It does not impact FY2024 Budget. We will put up, provide details of the scheme, including the detailed fiscal impact and, at that time, there will be a full debate on the parameters and the fiscal requirements and whether it is sustainable.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): In an MAS macroeconomic review paper published in October 2022, a breakdown of the sources of inflation here attributed between a third to as much as three-fifths to domestic drivers, depending on the sector.
What might some of these domestic drivers be? I would contend that the decision to hike GST would likely have contributed to domestic inflation. To be clear, the data used in the MAS study predates the GST hikes, but we have plenty of examples globally that VAT hikes do, indeed, spark inflation. So, my first question to Deputy Prime Minister Wong is whether he still believes that the timing of raising GST was justified or if at least a postponement – especially given how the country has bumper tax receipts from other sources in recent years – may instead have been wise.
As an aside, I would state that the Workers' Party categorically objects to the insinuation that we are less fiscally responsible, not least because while it is true that it is Deputy Prime Minister Wong's prerogative to think that the alternative levers of revenue that the Workers' Party has suggested are untenable, but is not true that we do not think about fiscal balances.
My second question has to do with what Deputy Prime Minister Wong said about keeping Singapore competitive in the face of BEPS. Unlike what he said, I have no illusions, in fact, about the practicality. Indeed, the design of BEPS took into account the practicality of a race to the bottom and grants countries the right to apply a countervailing top-up tax if they believe that countries have not played by the rules or at least the spirit. So, my fully non-theoretical question that I have for Deputy Prime Minister Wong is: what will the Government do if other countries choose to apply this tax top-up in response to a belief that our RIC contravenes the spirit of the refundable tax credit scheme?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, on GST, does it impact on inflation? Yes, it does impact on prices, but the impact is once-off. It is not permanent. We have made that point clear. MAS has made that point clear. If you look at the overall impact on inflation, actually, we have seen the impact on that monthly inflation when GST went up. But if you look at the subsequent trends down the rest of the month, inflation continues to moderate as it has in other advanced economies.
You can look at the situation last year and we are quite clear that it is very likely to continue this year as well. So, the impact of GST is not the key driver behind our inflation spike. I have explained what the key drivers were and neither will it cause us to have inflation remaining high because disinflation trend is happening globally, we are seeing similar trends in Singapore and our inflation rates are also coming down.
So, that is on the first point. And to be very clear, even with the GST in place, we have deferred the impact of GST on the lower-income groups with the Assurance Package by more than five years for the vast majority of Singaporeans, and it is not even a temporary relief because, for the lower-income groups, we have enhanced the permanent GST Vouchers so that GST does not hurt the poor in Singapore. We have gone through these debates extensively and I think we are in a good position to explain why the GST was needed and why, in fact, the additional revenues are needed because we can already see the rising expenditure trends very rapidly. It will happen in the next few years. If we had not done it at the time we did, when will be a good time to do it? And if we were to do it this year or next year, will the Opposition therefore support it? I seriously doubt so.
So, I think our approach is, let us do it correctly. Let us do it in good time, put in place, make sure that our fiscal system remains sound and always ensure that we have sufficient revenues to cover our spending. That is what we have done.
On BEPS, the RIC is compliant with BEPS. This is something that was discussed as part of the BEPS conversations. These sorts of refundable tax credits are allowed under BEPS rules. That is why we are doing it. And that is why we need to understand the realities of the world. Governments all are doing it.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his round-up speech. I have two clarifications to ask. One regarding the future of our fiscal reserves, the second regarding the social reserves, which I mentioned during the Budget Debate.
On our fiscal reserves, Mr Speaker, we know the world ahead is dreadfully uncertain but there may also be opportunities which allow Singapore, if luck and good policy favour us, to have possibly some exceptionally good years in future. Can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, in the event of a run of exceptionally good years, better than our predictions, would there be the possibility of putting back some of what we drew down from the Reserves during COVID-19, putting some of that back if we happen to have an exceptionally good run in the future, better than expected?
Secondly, on our social reserves, Mr Speaker, I had spoken about how we need to give attention to our social trusts, social mixing, social togetherness. Can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister regarding the idea of the SG Togetherness office, which could be under the PMO Strategy Group, will the Government give consideration to that, so that with that togetherness in our society, we will be better placed to ride the challenges and perhaps have some of those exceptionally good opportunities in future?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, our immediate instincts naturally, when you look at what we had drawn from our Reserves for COVID-19, would be to say, \"Look, we would also like to put it back into the Reserves as we had done in the last round\". So, hypothetically speaking, if there is indeed such a bumper year, maybe it will happen, we will consider it. But in reality, if you look at the facts and if you look at what is going to happen, this will not happen. I mean, I cannot imagine that we will be able to produce surpluses that we used to have like in the past. That was what I was trying to say.
Where will the surplus come from? Even if GDP grows, revenue will likely grow at the same rate of GDP; so will NIRC. So, always think in terms of a share of GDP, do not just think in absolute terms. Is expenditure maintaining as a share of GDP? Hardly so. So many programmes are being spent on all the things that we think are important.
So, how do we then generate surpluses, as we used to in the 1980s or 1990s? It is not going to be the same. So, I think we just have to be realistic. Those days of structural surpluses are over. We are in a different environment and we will do well just to be able to maintain balanced Budgets on our current settings.
On the SG Togetherness office, there have been various proposals from Members – whether it was mental health, whether it is SG Togetherness – to keep on setting up offices in PMO, I think if we do that more and more, we will have many many offices in PMO and I am not sure that PMO will be equipped to handle all of these different functions. So, I think the point is, they do not all need to be centralised within PMO. There are many things we want to achieve: mental health and well-being, togetherness, social mixing. The Ministries will be tasked to do this important work and we will continue to make sure we achieve good outcomes and, in the end, we will track and monitor these outcomes and publish them.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: I have two questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. But before I ask the two questions, I would like to first respond to what the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier about the Opposition asking to spend the Reserves. I wish to clarify that PSP is not asking for past Reserves to be spent. At the recent debate on public finances earlier this month, we have made it very clear that we are not asking for spending past Reserves. What has been accumulated stays there, but we are asking for a slowdown in the further accumulation of that Reserve. I just want to clarify that point.
My first question is: the Deputy Prime Minister has said that MOF has done its five-year, 10-year fiscal projection; so, based on the Government's assessment, is there any need to raise GST further from now until 2030 to fund higher expenditures?
My second question relates to the chart that the Deputy Prime Minister showed earlier, showing that the income growth of the bottom 20% is much higher than that for the top 20%. Can the Deputy Prime Minister clarify whether the income that is used here in this chart includes investment income like dividends and rental income as well as capital appreciation?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, on the three points. First, Ms Hazel Poa clarified that the PSP has not advocated using Past Reserves. But the PSP has talked about using land proceeds. So, when we talk about Past Reserves, you may have a different definition, but the Constitution defines what Past Reserves is; and clearly, some of your proposals will require constitutional change and will require changes in our framework and using of Past Reserves as it is currently defined.
Number two, what was the second question again?
Mr Speaker: Ms Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: The GST increase.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Yes, whether there will be a need for GST increases up to 2030. Sir, we have published our forecast up to 2030. We have closed the funding gap up to 2030. The GST increase that we announced was intended for this, so we are okay up to 2030. We do not need further GST increases, up to 2030. This was made clear in our Occasional Paper too, but as I said, this is up to 2030. We will continue to update this on a rolling basis, not just at every year's Budget, but from time to time, we will update the projections of our medium-term fiscal needs.
So, post-2030, we will have to see what the picture is. And beyond that, we will have to see if, indeed, there is a funding gap, if there are increased expenditures and whether or not, additional revenues or tax changes are needed to close those funding gaps. But as of now, up to 2030, we are in a sound position.
On income and whether the figures I showed just now included investment income, I have to confirm it. I do not think it is all inclusive, particularly, capital appreciation, wealth-generated income. Not likely to. It was also a point that Ms He mentioned just now in the debate regarding the Gini coefficient and the measure of Gini coefficient looks at income from work and does not include all sources of income.
The Department of Statistics (DOS) is aware of this, and DOS is working on getting better income statistics, so that we can update our figures.
Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon Member, Ms Hazel Poa, sought clarification from me earlier, specifically on the ITE Progression Award. With your indulgence, Sir, may I address Ms Poa's points, please?
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead.
Mr Xie Yao Quan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, on whether there is really a wage gap between diploma graduates and ITE graduates who then go on to attain a diploma, I think it is not difficult to see that there is a real wage gap here.
Let us compare like for like and let us consider this baseline scenario. One student who enrols in polytechnic after secondary school, spends three years, graduates with a diploma, starts work at the average starting pay for a diploma graduate and then, works for, say, five years, so a total of eight years, as a comparison period.
In the same eight-year period, consider another student who goes through ITE, gets a direct higher NITEC in three years, for example, and then starts work at the average starting pay for ITE graduates for two years, and then enrols in polytechnic, graduates in three years with a diploma at the end of the same eight-year period.
The cumulative wage gap between these two students, in this very simple baseline example, is quite clear. And we can look at variations to the baseline example, for example, a work-study diploma scenario, but any which way you look, there is a wage gap. The wage gap manifests from the start of our young graduates' working lives and it accumulates over time. And so, I hope I have provided that clarification.
I would add that the policy design that is announced in this Budget to focus on ITE graduates when they are young, before they reach 30 years old, is an extremely important feature, because it is about intervening early in our young graduates' working lives, giving them the support as early as possible, try to close the gap as early as possible. So, this is a very significant feature.
On the wage gap between polytechnic and university graduates. Yes, there is a gap, and it is an issue that has been discussed in this House – and, I am sure, will continue to be discussed in this House.
The Government has already taken some steps to address the issue, for example, increasing the cohort university participation rate quite significantly so that more Singaporeans have the opportunity to meet their aspirations to get a degree. The Government is also working closely with industry, to leverage market forces, to uplift the wages of diploma graduates and close the gap.
I know that behind the scenes, there is a lot of work that is going into this.
Should we do more? My position as a backbencher is: I certainly hope so, but we cannot boil the ocean. The move in this Budget is a huge step in the right direction. Focus first on the gap between ITE and polytechnic graduates, and I hope in time, we can extend the same basic policy intent to further address the gap between polytechnic and university graduates.
But it will require resources, so we need to consider carefully, prudently and, most importantly, I think, if and when that time comes, it will require the whole of society to support such a policy direction. I hope I have provided the clarifications to Ms Poa.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: Sir, I would like to clarify that my understanding is correct. What Mr Xie is saying is that the wage gap is not so much that after they become diploma holders, they get lower salary, but that because they took a longer time to reach the point where they get the diploma and that, therefore, in terms of lifetime earnings, there is a gap. Is that correct?
Mr Xie Yao Quan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the short answer is yes. And I think that is the policy intent.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: In that case, Mr Speaker, I would like to follow up and ask Mr Xie if he thinks that, for any reason, any student has a delay in his studies and he ends up with a degree or whatever qualification and it is later than others, is it Mr Xie's position that Government ought to compensate for that difference in wages?
Mr Xie Yao Quan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is no. I have never said that, so please do not put words in my mouth. There can be any infinite number of permutations and scenarios, but I think that the job of Government is to look at structural issues and find the best way forward to address structural issues.
The starting point of this policy is that there is a structural gap between ITE graduates' starting pay and polytechnic graduates' starting pay. I have said that in my speech as well, if Ms Poa had listened to that, that is the starting point of my position, that I laid out in my speech. So, I think that is abundantly clear.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Thank you, Sir. I thank the Leader of Opposition for his patience, but I think this is too important a matter to just let it go.
I did a quick check. The last time we topped up our reserves after we drew them was in 2009, $4 billion after the Global Financial Crisis, and the economy recovered very fast, and as a result, the Government was able to top it up.
In COVID-19, it was more than $40 billion. I know the Leader of the Opposition said he is not in Government, and I also said some months ago, we cannot assume it is a PAP Government forever. I hope it is forever, but we cannot assume. So, I think, just for the next five minutes, can the WP teach me, assuming that you are in Government now, how do you top up $40 billion?
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I do not mean to belabour this, because we are going to get into a hypothetical argument here. But the Government announced a 24-month instalment for property tax in this Budget. You can pay by instalments, can you not? Perhaps, that could be a way.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sitoh.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Mr Speaker, Sir, three weeks ago when I stood here, I stated that the days of large fiscal surpluses are over. And Deputy Prime Minister also just mentioned that point. I think, surely, if we can get a $40 billion surplus over the next X number of years, sure, it is a happy problem, but teach me how you are going to do that.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I think I do not need to prolong this. The Member has not answered the point on instalments.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sitoh.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Sir, I also do not want to prolong this, but as I said, if there can be a surplus of $40 billion over X number of years, sure, everybody is happy to top it up.
But on another point, I heard the hon Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim as he spoke just now. Not too long ago, he was talking in this House about pawning your assets and borrowing when interest rates were very low. Had we followed that advice, we would be in trouble today, because subsequently, interest rates rose. So, let us be very careful and let us be very conservative in our fiscal policies.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Porf Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, perhaps it is worth clarifying, when I spoke in the context of locking in the interest rates at the time, it was in the context of SINGA bonds. In particular, I said that had we locked it in at that time, we would be able to lock in a low interest rate, which actually, if anything, I would argue circumstances have proven to be the case, because interest rates have since risen and we did not lock it in at the time.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sitoh.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Sir, I have got that video in my phone, but never mind that. It is not like that.
I read a speech recently. In 1977, then-Foreign Minister, Mr S Rajaratnam, said about pawning our assets. When I had that debate with Assoc Prof Lim, I hesitated using the word \"pawning\". I think I used the word \"mortgage\". But since Mr Rajaratnam used it in 1977, I think I can use it.
What he said was interest rates are low, go and pawn your assets and go and reinvest. I said then, he was in a stage of euphoria. He is assuming that tomorrow will always be better than today. If we had used that approach, Singaporeans may be waking up thinking that today will be bleaker than yesterday and tomorrow darker than today. That is the point I am making.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Mr Speaker, just a quick point. I am afraid I cannot speak for Mr Rajaratnam. My point was very clear.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Man Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, running the risk of prolonging this debate that Member Sitoh Yih Pin as started, I would like to remind the House that I have mentioned many times in this House, that during the COVID-19 period, although we have spent $40 billion, we have raised more than $250 billion with a new mechanism called the Reserve Management Securities (RMGS).
In a way, we do not need to replenish the reserves anymore, because we have actually accumulated more during the COVID-19 from the normal way that we are accumulating our reserves. Maybe the Deputy Prime Minister can confirm that, please.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, monies raised from RMGS are encumbered and do not add to our net asset base.
Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar: I thank Deputy Prime Minister for both a really good Budget Statement as well as a really good Budget round-out speech. I am sure people worked really hard on it.
So, in the context of the hard work and the request for more things to come under the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), I would like to reiterate that there are some issues that are really cross-cutting, despite the work that it entails, it really deserves to be sited within the PMO. I would like to repeat my suggestion in my speech where I asked if the AI, in particular, can be something that is taken under the wings of the PMO. I think the other similar thing would be climate change, another cross-cutting issue, which has a National Climate Change Secretariat within the PMO.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, we do have the Smart Nation Office, which does look at many AI-related initiatives. The Ministry of Communications and Information also drives our national AI strategy.
So, again, I just want to appeal to Members, there is a desire for many things to be centralised. I am not sure, in fact, that more centralisation is always the best answer. Over time, if we have a bigger and bigger portfolio, all residing within one Ministry, there will definitely be bandwidth issues.
Basically, the Government must work as a team, the Ministries must all work together. There are clear goals we want to achieve and we will work together as a team to achieve them.
Mr Speaker: I heard many Members reminding yourselves not to prolong this Budget debate. Mr Leong Mun Wai, you still have clarifications? Okay. One last one.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Sir. I thought we are scheduled to end at 3.00 pm?
Mr Speaker: We are, we are. But you yourself reminded everyone not to prolong it as well. So, I repeating everyone's reminderm.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, okay. Anyway, if there are questions to be asked, I think we should take the debate seriously.
Mr Speaker: Which is why I gave you the floor.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you. Thank you, Sir. First of all, I would like to take what Deputy Prime Minister had said just now about the drawdown rate for the endowment and trust funds. I would like to give a little bit more information of what I know about those funds, based on the financial data published by the Ministry of Finance. And I hope Deputy Prime Minister can clarify that.
I think Deputy Prime Minister is right to say that various funds have got various drawdown rates. But by and large, I think we need to tell Singaporeans that for all the endowment and some of the trust funds, they are for social purposes. The average drawdown, according to what I have calculated from the financial data, is about 5%. That 5% is based on payout divided by the asset balance.
However, the trust funds that are for economic purposes, like what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, like National Research Fund, GST Voucher, public transport funds – generally, these funds have got drawdown rates of between 20% and 30%.
In other words, funds that are for social purposes, for the benefit of Singaporeans, the drawdown may potentially last for 20 years. Five percent. Five percent means 20 years, the fund. And the funds for economic purposes, yes, it is less than five years. So, that is the data I got. And I think that is a more accurate answer. But, of course, I need the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm that.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, as I clarified just now, there are Endowment Funds and there are drawdown Funds. Endowment Funds are not drawn down.
So, we should look at Endowment Funds separately. Endowment Funds are created for a specific purpose so that whether good year or bad year, surplus or deficits, we do not have to worry. There will always be a continued flow that will allow spending for that particular purpose, whether it is Edusave or other types of endowments.
But for the most part, and certainly many of the Funds we have created more recently, are largely drawdown Funds and they are not limited to economic purposes. The GST Voucher Fund is a very clear-cut case. It is for the permanent GST Voucher Scheme and that is drawn down very quickly and topped up repeatedly, so that we can continue to fund the GST vouchers.
And there will be other examples too. So, all of these drawdown Funds are drawn down, as Mr Leong himself highlighted, well within a reasonable period. So, the monies are all given back to Singaporeans in different ways.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poa
Ms Hazel Poa: I have two clarifications to seek.
First, on the support scheme for the involuntarily unemployed. Can I clarify whether this scheme will be for all workers, or would it be only limited to lower- and medium-income workers?
And secondly, Deputy Prime Minister mentioned about how they have been helping to ensure that there are more Singaporeans in senior positions in the financial sector. I think that these senior executives in the financial sector earn higher salaries than in other industries and they are not the group that we are most concerned about. So, are there other sectors where lower- and middle-income Singaporeans are facing competition from foreigners that the Government is also paying the same level of attention to?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, I explained just now that we are looking at the support for the involuntarily unemployed for lower- and middle-income workers. What is the definition of middle? How far we go? I think, as I said, the parameters, the details will be released in due course.
On supporting Singaporeans in leadership positions, I gave Finance only as an example. We are certainly planning to grow the leadership pipeline across all fields, which I also stated in my speech, and not just in Finance.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Speaker, Sir. I still have a few more questions. First of all, I think one of the most important takeaways for this Budget debate is to have an accurate assessment of the cost-of-living crisis Singaporeans are facing today.
So, to that end, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm whether he agrees with our points of view.
One, part of our inflation problem is self-inflicted – due to the GST, which he had explained is a one-off thing, and other tax increases. But there is also the thing of escalating property prices, which has been an ongoing policies and also external environment-created phenomenon.
And two, Singaporeans have very little savings to cope with the crisis because, in our opinion, the schemes that the Government has put in in the past had not allowed the Singaporeans to build up their savings. So, as a result, this is a good opportunity when we are looking at how we restart and how we promote a new social compact, to think of new ways of doing things. What the PSP has proposed is that do pay attention to more permanent schemes, rather than temporary handouts. So, this is the first question I wish the Deputy Prime Minister can confirm and opine on.
The next question is, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government has a planning target for a minimum income for an individual and for a low-income family, and has the Progressive Wage Supplement help all workers and their families to attain their minimum income? Even if you say you do not want to put up a minimum income as an official thing, that the public know, do you actually, as part of your planning, have something to reference to? What is the minimum level of income you want Singaporeans to have in order to survive?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, are these all your clarifications? Because I would prefer you raise all the clarifications at one go.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, thank you. I think that would be a bit confusing. I think I have two more questions.
Mr Speaker: I would rather you raise them all now.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Can I leave it afterwards?
Mr Speaker: No, I would rather you raise them now.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Now?
Mr Speaker: Just the clarifications, yes.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, Sir. I have two last questions on retirement. The first question is, how much more the Government is currently paying to the Special Account (SAs), because of the difference in interest rates between the SA and the Ordinary Account (OA)? And second question, will the Government consider grandfathering the SA for Singaporeans who are above 55 years old now, going forward?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Sir, let me take the CPF questions first. I do not have the specifics on the additional amount that the Government is paying. I think these can be addressed at the Ministry of Manpower Committee of Supply (COS) later on.
But on the closure of the SA, we have made very clear why we do think it is necessary – because after 55, Singaporeans also have a Retirement Account (RA). The RA also enjoys and benefits from the same interest rate as the SA. So, almost everyone can transfer their monies from the SA to the RA, get the same interest rate because they can transfer up to the Enhanced Retirement Sum (ERS) because we have raised the ERS and they can get the same interest rate. And eventually, when they retire, they will benefit from higher retirement payouts through CPF LIFE. Many commentators out there recognise that CPF LIFE is the best annuity product that anyone in Singapore can get today.
On the cost-of-living crisis, whether it is self-inflicted – I thought I addressed that. The whole point of me going through some charts and addressing that, is to show this. If it were indeed self-inflicted and because of unique Singapore moves, then we would be standing out.
But it is not the case. Look at everywhere around the world. We are not the only country facing inflation, higher prices. In fact, we have been managing it better than many other places. And on top of that, as inflation has been coming down now, our inflation trends are also coming down. So, I think we should take it in that context to understand what are the key drivers of inflation.
Of course, domestic moves can contribute to inflation too. I accept that. For example, raising wages for lower-wage workers. That will contribute to inflation too. More demand for domestic services, wage pressures – that contributes to inflation.
But if you look at the big picture and where the big drivers of global inflation are, I think I have set them up quite clearly. It is not self-inflicted at all.
On minimum income, whether we have a target, our aim is to continue to push up, uplift lower-wage workers, but do so in a way that is sustainable and in a way where the increase in income is matched with increase in skills and productivity. And that is the basis of our progressive wage approach. It has worked. It has shown results. And we will continue moving in this direction.
There have been suggestions from Labour MPs and Members to expand the progressive wage to new sectors. We will study all these suggestions and we will continue to work on this.
Finally, on permanent schemes and the preference for permanent schemes versus handouts. Mr Leong seems to suggest that handouts breed dependencies, but permanent schemes do not breed dependencies.
But a poorly designed permanent scheme will breed dependencies permanently, forever. Is that not worse?
So, we do not look at this or that, either one or the other. We do both. We have temporary relief measures where necessary, particularly, when inflation was higher in the last two years and in this Budget we are doing a little bit more as well. That is temporary for good reason. I think Singaporeans understand why that is needed.
We also have structural schemes and in the structural schemes, these are not temporary at all. We continue to fine-tune them, make sure that they are designed well, so that we are providing all the support and assurance we need while also upholding our key ethos of individual responsibility and self-reliance, and avoiding dependency and entitlement – something which Mr Leong himself cautioned against.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan See Leng. Minister.
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to respond to Mr Leong's point on the closure of the SA.
Mr Speaker: Yes, go ahead.
Dr Tan See Leng: I think it is important, Members of the House, to understand that the closure of the SA is not aimed at saving interest monies. I will provide a fuller explanation and clarification at the Committee of Supply speech on Monday. I would urge Members to stay in the House and listen to that part of that speech, in particular.
I want to put this in perspective. First and foremost, we are going to expand the ERS to four times of BRS. With that, the migration and the right-siting of the SA monies in excess of whatever they have beyond their FRS today, can then go over to the enlarged ERS and that should cover more than 99% of members.
We have many, many esteemed financial experts in this House. I do not think that there is any system in the world, any financial institution in the world, any banks in the world that will pay a long-term, assured interest rate and allow you the flexibility to withdraw like an ATM machine.
I think it is one of those policy moves that we are now doing to ensure that the monies that are meant for long-term savings be sited in a long-term retirement account. And for those members who want the flexibility after 55, they can always have the option to leave it in the OA.
For the many people who feel that they have that ability to invest the monies wisely, they still have the option to invest their OA monies, whether it is in T-bills, in more secure investments. I think it is the option given back to them.
So, this is not about saving money. It is not about locking up money. In fact, if anything at all, at age 70, CPF Board does not have any option for members to continue to retain monies indefinitely. If there is such a word, by 70, everyone has to decumulate. I hope that clarifies.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, I thank the Minister for Manpower for clarifying on that issue. What, I think, we gather from this is that the change in the Special Account is not because of the Government wanting to save money on the interest paid, but it is a matter of financial management principles. I want to clarify that that is correct.
Secondly, and that is my final point, is that I totally agree with Deputy Prime Minister's point that any scheme, whether it is a permanent scheme or a handout scheme, it has to be properly designed in order to achieve its objectives. But generally, we still hold the opinion that the handout scheme has got a short-term nature and because it comes so often, it does create more dependency than a permanent scheme.
Mr Speaker: Order. We have completed the debate on the Budget Statement.
I propose to take a break now and we will resume the Sitting at 2.45 pm. I have revised the commencement time of the Committee of Supply — Yes, let me first put the question. My apologies.
[(proc text) Question put, agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.\" (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 Speaker","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Order. We have completed the debate on the Budget Statement. I propose to take a break now and we will resume Sitting at 2.45 pm.
I have also revised the commencement time of the Committee of Supply. With the change in commencement time to start Committee of Supply at 2.45 pm, the revised guillotine time for Head U, Prime Minister's Office, is 5.20 pm.
Hon Members will be notified of the revised conclusion times for the subsequent Heads of Expenditure. Order, order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 2.20 pm until 2.45 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025","subTitle":"Committee of Supply – Paper Cmd 27 of 2024","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 2024 to 31 March 2025 contained in Paper Cmd 27 of 2024. 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 Estimates Outlays for FY2024 on pages 6 and 7 respectively of the Command Paper.
A total of 598 amendments to the Estimates of Expenditure have been submitted this year. The guillotine times to the discussion of the Heads of Expenditure under Standing Order 92(7)(a) have taken into consideration the earlier commencement time of a Sitting, the reduction of Question Time and the extension of Sitting times of the Committee of Supply for each allotted day.
I must remind hon Members that the total time for discussion of each Head of Expenditure includes the replies from the front bench. With the assistance of the digital timer in the Chamber, I trust that hon Members will be able to keep to the speech times indicated against their respective amendments. I would urge hon Members from both the front and back benches to adhere to their time limits as I will be stringent in my time-keeping.
I shall deal first with the Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement.
Head U – Prime Minister's Office. Ms Poh Li San.
","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":"A forward-looking Government, a future-ready Singapore","sectionType":"OS","content":"Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
As an island nation, Singapore is vulnerable to the impact of climate change and the resulting more extreme weather conditions.
We have started on our transition to adopt more green practices to decarbonise. Although Singapore accounts for only around 0.11% of the world's carbon emissions, we want to do our part as global citizens to mitigate climate change. However, as an international oil and gas refining, storage and trading hub, the transition while reducing our primary emissions to zero will not be easy.
We will need to transform our economy and decouple growth from fossil fuel consumption. In order to achieve net zero, Singapore needs to reduce the net output of each person by 8.31 tonnes of carbon emissions by 2050. This reduction needs to come from the power, industrial and transport sectors, which account for more than 97% of our total primary emissions.
To decarbonise our power grid, we have to increase solar energy provision and purchase renewable electricity from other countries such as through imports of renewable energy from the Lao PDR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project. Up to 100 megawatts of renewable hydropower from Lao PDR will be delivered to Singapore via interconnections with Thailand and Malaysia.
Being a small country without natural resources, regional cooperation projects like this with larger neighbouring countries which are endowed with big land masses suitable for harvesting solar, wind and hydroelectric are necessary. Would the Ministry share what other regional cooperation projects are in the pipeline to boost our joint efforts to decarbonise as well as to manage and protect our regional environment and water resources?
What are Singapore's capabilities and strengths which we can bring to the table in these collaborations to help in the fight against climate change? How will the initiatives from the 28th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP28) affect Singapore? And how will the Government encourage stronger international cooperation to address climate change?
Singapore is well positioned to be the green finance hub for ASEAN and Asia. We can also play an important role in transition finance to help companies become greener via long-term initiatives. What can the Government do to encourage investment in climate action, especially in Southeast Asia?
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Poh Li San: In January this year, the Centre for Climate Research Singapore released the Third National Climate Change Study, which estimated more extreme projections for Singapore's weather conditions, including temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind speeds, and sea level rise. Which are likely to be the most major changes that Singapore needs to prepare for? What are the Government's plans in response to these projections? Will some segments of our population be more vulnerable in the event of these weather changes and how can the Government support Singaporeans, especially those with less resources, in the green transition?
How will the Government increase public awareness of the implications of more extreme weather conditions? How can businesses, households and individuals play their part in the fight against climate change?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Chairman, with climate change, countries around the globe have been bracing themselves for changes in the nature of global supply chains and economic policy. One of the changes we have been following is the opening of the Northern Sea Route and how this may affect the economy of Singapore. The question at hand is not merely a transport or maritime issue which Minister Vivian Balakrishnan and Minister Chee Hong Tat addressed in 2020 and 2021 respectively, but is respectfully at heart an economic one.
Today, Singapore is the second busiest port in the world and with the maritime industry contributing to 7% of local GDP, employing more than 170,000 people, the investment of $20 billion into the Tuas Mega Port can be seen as a vote of confidence in the development of Singapore's port capabilities as an economic strategy.
However, with climate change, should the Arctic sea ice continue with its current decline at a rate of 13% per year, an uninterrupted sea highway between Asia and Europe and the US that is navigable by large container ships will be created, allowing for a shorter route between Europe and the Pacific.
What this means is that cargo shipments may bypass the Suez Canal and the Malacca Strait, and hence Singapore. This raises concern of whether Singapore will remain the top transhipment port in the world and a major port of call, which may in turn have trickle-down effects to the economy that should not be underestimated.
Cargo passage along the Northern Sea Route has increased from 41,000 tonnes of cargo in 2010 to 285,000 tonnes in 2019 and is expected to only increase in the future, given that the warming in the Arctic has been four times faster than the rest of the world.
I would thus like to ask: one, whether the Government has an update on the climate developments of the Northern Sea Route since 2021; two, whether the Government has studied the possible economic impact of the Northern Sea Route to jobs and businesses in Singapore; three, has the Government studied the projected impact to the capacity of Tuas Mega Port in 2050 and beyond, should the Northern Sea Route become the predominant shipping route, and if so, whether it has taken any measures into account in the planning of the Tuas Terminals?
How will our economic policy adapt to the changes brought about by the development of the route in the coming years? And what are the Government's plans to ensure that the country remains economically competitive if the route should affect our status as a premier global hub, port and international maritime centre?
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I am glad the voices of activists were heard, and Singapore will raise our climate targets and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It is an ambitious target but one that is very much needed. Can the Government share whether we are on track to reach this target?
I am also glad that Singapore is leading efforts to combat climate change. At the World Climate Action Summit, Singapore led the charge on regional partnerships by announcing plans to raise S$6.6 billion to finance efforts to green the region.
Part of these efforts include the Sustainability Action Package (SAP) for sharing expertise and best practices on sustainability and climate issues. Under the SAP, Singapore will work with partners from the public and private sectors, and non-profit and international organisations to build capacity. Will the Government ensure that we cast a broad net and enable more diverse actors to contribute, including from smaller organisations and civil society groups who have valuable expertise to contribute?
In this spirit, will the Government also look into increasing access research funding for a greater variety of researchers to join the research efforts and this global fight?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Chairman, in 2022, the Government raised our climate targets to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 as part of our Long-Term Low-Emissions Development Strategy.
In addition, the Government has also committed to reducing emissions to around 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2030 after peaking emissions earlier as part of the revised 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).
These new targets have been duly lodged UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2022.
This is an ambitious undertaking given our constraints as an alternative energy-deprived city state. I applaud the Government for pursuing these stretched targets and doing our part fight global climate change. Can I ask for an update on the preparations and what steps is Singapore taking to achieve these targets?
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Mr Chairman, as a small island state, Singapore is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The fight against climate change demands unwavering commitment and bold actions. As we navigate the path towards decarbonisation, I want to raise several key questions.
First, how is Singapore keeping pace with emerging decarbonisation pathways? We need to be actively exploring and investing in low- and zero-carbon technologies like renewable energy, hydrogen and carbon capture. How can we ensure our efforts remain aligned with the latest advancements and evolving global strategies? How will the $5 billion Future Energy Fund be used to support the development of essential infrastructure especially those with long gestation periods like nuclear energy?
Second, how can we further engage the private sector and philanthropic organisations in supporting decarbonisation efforts? What specific measures are being considered to mobilise private capital and expertise towards ambitious climate goals?
Third, how will Singapore catalyse green and transition finance, especially within Southeast Asia? As a regional financial hub, we can play a leading role in channelling investments towards sustainable infrastructure, green projects and climate adaptation initiatives. Can the Government give an update on the Green Finance Action Plan? This is a comprehensive strategy to develop green finance solutions and capabilities, promote green finance standards and disclosures, foster green finance innovation and collaboration and build green finance talent and awareness.
Finally, can we leverage our unique position as a global hub to accelerate climate actions, both at home and abroad? While mandating sustainable aviation fuel for departing flights is a commendable way, what other strategic initiatives are planned across different sectors to leverage on our hub position? How will such initiatives affect Singapore's economic competitiveness as a travel hub?
Investing in decarbonisation is not just an environmental responsibility. It is an economic opportunity for us as well. By embracing innovation, collaboration and regional leadership, Singapore can chart a course towards a greener, more resilient future for all.
The Chairman: Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.
The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Ms Poh Li San and other Members have raised important issues which I will address from a whole-of-Government perspective. Some of the details will be dealt with by the individual Ministries during their Committee of Supply (COS) debates.
I speak as Chairman of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC).
Amid heightened geopolitical and economic turbulence, the world is currently on a pathway to 2.1 to 2.8°C of global warming by 2100. The Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) has been working to improve our understanding of the consequences of such a pathway. Today, we have a clearer projection. But it is a projection, because we are talking about what is going to happen for the rest of the century.
The Third National Climate Change Study, released last month, forecasts the extreme climate conditions that we could experience – higher temperatures, heavier spells of rainfall, longer and more frequent dry spells.
In the worst-case scenario, where global emissions continue rising rapidly, Singapore could face daily maximum temperatures exceeding 35°C almost year-round. This would be a marked increase from the historical average of 21 such days each year.
Ms Poh Li San asked how we are responding to these latest projections. We take a long-term and proactive approach, and we are developing our adaptation plans. These are regularly refreshed to keep up with the latest science, to help us be ready for the climate risks we will face – whether they are physical risks such as flooding, or health risks.
The physical effects of climate change also have wider implications for our economy, as Mr Dennis Tan has pointed out about the Northern Sea Route. If rising temperatures in the Arctic make this short-cut passable year-round, it could alter the flow of shipping between Asia and Europe. Our port will therefore have to be more efficient and better-connected to compete. This is why Singapore has been closely monitoring developments in the Arctic. Although Singapore is on the equator, we have been an Arctic Council Observer State since 2013 – for the last 11 years – and we contribute and participate actively in its discussions. Currently, the commercial viability of the Arctic routes remains low. It is a very difficult and treacherous route. In 2022, only 43 transit voyages were made through the Northern Sea Route, fewer than the 85 transit voyages in 2021.
Still, we cannot ignore how profoundly climate change can disrupt our lives and livelihoods. For Singapore, this means not just acting now to achieve our own climate goals, but also catalysing regional and global action, so that other countries do the same. Only then can we collectively achieve our global climate action goals. As Ms Poh Li San pointed out, we emit about 0.1% of the carbon dioxide each year, but we are affected by the other 99.9%.
Domestically, we have set ambitious targets. In 2022, we announced our enhanced climate targets, committing to reduce emissions by 2030 to 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, after peaking emissions earlier; and to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. We have essentially decided to target for the future, look at what the future will bring for us, shape our economy and our society and plan on that basis rather than doing incremental changes as we go along.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked how we are turning our ambitions into action. Our carbon tax, which was raised to $25 per tonne this year, is a key enabler. It shapes behaviour across our economy, and we continue to use the revenues to help businesses and households become greener. I am truly heartened that both sides of this House have expressed support for a broad-based carbon tax. Some have advocated, for example, from the Workers' Party (WP), much higher tax rates and sooner than what the Government is actually intending to implement up to 2030. What we are intending to implement is carefully calibrated to take into account the adjustment as needed by households and businesses and also the maturing of technologies that will make it more efficient for us to decarbonise.
We are also transforming our energy mix to run on greener power. We have doubled our solar power deployment since 2021 to over 1,000 Megawatt-peak (MWp), despite our limited land area. We aim to reach 2,000 MWp by 2030, or 2 Gigawatt-peak (GWp). As a comparison, our power supply consumption right now is about 8 GWp. Of course, 2 GWp is not the same – you cannot put them side by side. We are importing low-carbon electricity, allowing us to tap renewable energy beyond our shores.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked how Singapore can capitalise on emerging technologies to support our energy transition. This year, the Government will set up a Future Energy Fund (FEF) with an initial injection of $5 billion. The FEF will allow us to plan ahead to catalyse the infrastructure investments we need to deploy low-carbon technologies, when they are viable. There is a range of things it could be. It could be hydrogen, could be ammonia, could be a number of things and we need to start doing that within the next few years.
We are also looking at new solutions beyond the power sector. We have been monitoring carbon capture and storage (CCS). The technologies underpinning CCS are not new and there is growing recognition from countries and organisations, such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), that CCS can play an important role in achieving significant reductions of industrial emissions.
Countries in the region, such as Australia, Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia, have strong geological potential for carbon dioxide storage, and some of our regional partners have announced plans to develop as regional CCS hubs.
We are ready to work with like-minded partners on pathfinder projects to catalyse the development of such regional hubs. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) will provide more details on this.
Mr Chairman, the climate transition will take a whole-of-nation effort. Ms Poh Li San asked how the Government is supporting businesses and households in this transition.
Our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are benefiting from schemes that help them decarbonise and seize green economy prospects. One example is bbp – an energy efficiency solutions provider. Leveraging Enterprise Singapore’s Enterprise Development Grant and other scale-up programmes, bbp has helped businesses achieve more than $90 million of energy savings and avoid 240,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, across nine Asian markets. Of course, developing a nice business for themselves.
We will continue to enhance our schemes to encourage energy efficiency among businesses and households. These include expanding the Energy Efficiency Grant to more sectors, enhancing the climate-friendly households programme that offsets the upfront costs of switching to more energy- and water-efficient appliances. MTI and MSE will update this House on their efforts in these areas in greater detail.
Mr Louis Ng asked about support for our research community. The Government’s Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 Plan (RIE2025) allocates significant funding to R&D across every pillar of the Singapore Green Plan. This ranges from low carbon energy research all the way to research in coastal protection and flood management, and covers a wide range of things. We recently enhanced funding for the RIE2025 Plan. This will facilitate the research community’s contribution to climate action.
Ms Poh Li San asked how Singapore can play an active role in fostering international collaboration and catalysing global climate action. Mr Chairman, domestic action alone is necessary but not sufficient for us to succeed in global climate action. All countries and regions must do their part. This is why, under the Sustainability Action Package, Singapore supports capacity building for developing countries and brings together a diverse range of public and private sector partners to share best practices on sustainability and climate issues.
Let me share a few examples of the efforts we contributed to at COP28 in Dubai.
Minister Grace Fu helped broker a landmark consensus among the Parties to transition our energy systems away from fossil fuels. This is a strong signal of global resolve to pursue a net-zero future.
Beyond the negotiating rooms, the Singapore Pavilion at COP28 was a hive of activity. It brought key organisations and persons from the private and people sectors together to forge new partnerships. For example, Singaporean ocean carrier Pacific International Lines and Dubai-based port and terminal operator DP World signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to jointly develop green solutions to decarbonise global supply chains.
Our Pavilion was also home to Singapore’s inaugural youth delegation to COP28. Our young people deserve our support to apply their energy and ideas to the challenge of climate change and make a real difference. MSE will share more about how the Government is enabling youth action.
The world needs to continue the momentum from COP28 to accelerate climate action. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked how Singapore can leverage our strengths as a hub to do that. Let me highlight three ways.
First, green and transition finance. Asia will require an estimated US$1.7 trillion dollars in climate and infrastructure investment annually through to 2030. This substantial amount will need to be met by a combination of concessional and commercial capital.
As a financial hub, Singapore is well-placed to catalyse green and transition finance for the region. As an example, at COP28, I announced the launch of a new blended finance initiative – the Financing Asia’s Transition Partnerships (FAST-P) that will mobilise up to US$5 billion from public and private sector partners to de-risk and finance transition and marginally bankable green projects in Asia.
Singapore is also helping to build high-integrity carbon markets and pursuing collaboration on carbon credits under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement with various countries. At COP28, we signed our first Implementation Agreement, and this was with Papua New Guinea. MTI will share more about our efforts on carbon markets.
The second area is energy. Singapore is helping to accelerate Southeast Asia’s energy transition by promoting partnerships that benefit our nation and the region.
To support regional energy transition, we will establish in Singapore the first-ever International Energy Agency Regional Cooperation Centre outside of its Paris headquarters. The Centre gives Southeast Asia greater access to the IEA’s expertise and facilitates capacity building.
The third area is transport. As an aviation and maritime hub, Singapore can play a major role in developing the infrastructure and standards for green aviation and shipping.
The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) recently launched the Singapore Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint, which takes a balanced approach on the need for sustainability and competitiveness for our aviation sector. This will help catalyse the development of sustainable aviation globally and facilitate the industry’s progress towards decarbonisation.
We are also making progress on green shipping. In December 2023, we signed a memorandum of cooperation with Japan to establish the Singapore-Japan Green and Digital Shipping corridor. This complements similar partnerships with ports in the Netherlands, China and the United States (US), allowing us to support the decarbonisation, digitalisation and growth of the maritime industry.
Mr Chairman, I have explained why it is in Singapore's interest to commit to climate action, outlined concrete steps we are taking as a nation to meet our ambitious climate targets, and highlighted how Singapore is stepping up to encourage regional and global action.
We must stay the course in our green transition because we want to leave behind a liveable, resilient and thriving country and world for future generations of Singaporeans.
The Chairman: Mr Patrick Tay. You may take your two cuts together.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Singapore faces pressing demographic challenges such as an ageing population and a low birth rate. Life expectancy has also gone up and many choose to remain single. Even those married may not have children either by choice or otherwise. Social issues such as ageism and increased caregiving responsibilities are further exacerbated by an uncertain global environment and economic outlook which present challenging conditions for Singapore’s economic growth.
Within this operating context, what are the key population outcomes that the Government wants to achieve for our future Singapore and what are the Government’s strategies to achieve these outcomes?
With fewer births and an ageing population, our local workforce is shrinking. Our NTUC strategy team recently embarked on a research study on our ageing population as well as slowing workforce growth. The key insights are that in the next five years, Singapore's labour market is predicted to tighten with unemployment and retrenchments expected to stabilise in the longer term. We also expect to see a decline in job vacancies in manufacturing, construction and segments of the services sector.
The study found that there are barriers and drivers that enable mature workers and women with caregiving duties to find and stay in employment. We opine that other than automation, mature workers and women with caregiving responsibilities are untapped groups to supplement a shrinking local workforce. We further submit that professional networks, flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and training opportunities and skills relevance foster their continued employment and facilitate their entry into the workforce.
In the study, we also found that there is a disconnect between perception and the actual action of hiring mature workers. Implementing training plans for mature workers was perceived by employers to be the most effective in extending the career runway of mature workers but is unfortunately not among the top practices adopted. My question is, therefore, how will we continue maintaining a vibrant economy that creates good job opportunities for Singaporeans and future generations amidst this slowing workforce growth.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Chairman, Singapore faces pressing demographic challenges. Can the Government elaborate on the key population outcomes envisioned for our future? What are the Government's plans to achieve these outcomes within the current economic and demographic challenges?
Falling fertility is a challenge that developed economies are struggling with. Singapore is no exception. A shrinking workforce due to falling birth rates raises concerns about sustaining our economy. How will we continue maintaining a vibrant economy that creates good job opportunities for Singaporeans and future generations?
Our total fertility rate (TFR) has fallen to a historic 1.04. This raises concerns about our long-term demographic sustainability. This trend aligns with other developed nations like South Korea, where despite significant investments in childcare subsidies, birth rates remain low. What additional measures beyond existing schemes can alleviate concerns about starting and raising families?
While marriage and parenthood remain aspirational for many Singaporeans, factors like career goals and housing affordability can lead to postponed parenthood. This delay, combined with the realities of biological limitations, can make achieving such aspirations more challenging. I urge the Government to further support couples who want children and cultivate a national culture of proactive family planning.
In this context, I have three questions. What is the uptake of elective egg freezing since 2023? While awaiting the proposed extension of IVF co-funding to private clinics, what immediate options are available for couples actively seeking to start families? Can private clinics adequately address the affordability and quality concerns associated with fertility treatments?
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): In many developed nations, including Singapore, falling fertility has become a challenge. Fewer and later marriages, later and fewer births, a rapidly ageing population – these trends combined will have a significant impact on all aspects of our lives, our social fabric, workforce, economy, national defence and more.
Will we be able to sustain our society and our standard of living? Who will look after increasing numbers of elderly? Who will pay taxes? Will we have enough blood donors? How can we continue to maintain a vibrant economy and create good jobs for Singaporeans? We have to keep our country running. Even with advanced technology and artificial intelligence, manpower, especially younger people, are needed. What measures will the Government implement to reverse our falling fertility rate? Are we prepared to consider more extensive and innovative measures to support and encourage dating, marriages and procreation?
Accepting younger migrants and having more temporary foreign workers and employees in our workforce offer only a partial solution, as these measures come with their own challenges. There are also issues of social integration, cohesion and stability. Nonetheless, will the Government be reviewing immigration policies to counter our falling fertility rate?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, the Government has clarified that it does not aim for Singapore's population to increase to 10 million, and it is anticipating a population of significantly below 6.9 million by 2030. However, with 2030 only six years away and fast approaching, a key question arises – what are the Government's longer-term forecasts?
Population projections are a critical tool for public policy planning. Given current birth rates and the intake of new citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs), what are the Government's projections for Singapore's population in 2040 and 2050? These figures are pivotal not just for immediate policy adjustments, but for securing a sustainable future for all.
The Government claims that it does not seek to achieve any particular population size. I find this rather strange. If there is no population target, how does it decide how much to regulate the immigration tap or how much to invest in pro-natalist policies to achieve its desired economic, social and security outcomes over the long term?
The Chairman: Mr Faisal Manap, you can take your two cuts together.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, according to figures released by the Government in 2023, our total population stands at around 5.9 million, of which 4.9 million are residents and 1.8 million are non-residents. Racial demographics have remained largely stable. The most worrying statistic released was the all-time low fertility rate of 1.04. Set against the backdrop of an ageing population, these statistics become more worrying.
Sir, I would like to ask if the Government has a projection for the number of new residents and non-residents for the next five years. Following from that, I would like to ask for a progress update on the efforts to ensure that our infrastructure development is able to support an increasing population, in view of the delay and disruption in the construction sector resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sir, I also note from the figures released by the Government in 2023 that there are over 200,000 Singaporeans presently based overseas. This is testament to the resilience and adaptability of our Singaporeans. But I also wonder if there are concerns of potential brain drain resulting from greater emigration. Does the Government have a strategy of managing emigration to ensure Singapore itself does not lose out on our homegrown talent?
My final point is on the Government's effort in attracting Malay talent. In the past years, me and a few other Malay Members of Parliament, including former President Mdm Halimah Yacob, had asked through Parliamentary Questions and COS cuts on the measures and efforts taken by the Government in attracting Malay talent.
Sir, back in December 2012, the Prime Minister commented during a session of Our Singapore Conversation that the Government had done its best and worked hard to attract Malay talent from Malaysia and Indonesia, but the numbers were small. Hence, I would like to ask for updates on the Government's efforts in attracting Malay talents till date.
Sir, it is indicated on ICA's website with regard to the application for Singapore PR or citizenship that, I quote, \"ICA takes into account factors, such as the individual's family ties to Singaporeans, economic contributions, qualifications, age, family profile and length of residency, to assess the applicant's ability to contribute to Singapore and integrate into our society, as well as his or her commitment to sinking roots.\" In short, ICA will assess each application for Singapore PR and citizenship based on its merits.
As publicly known, there has been a Government stance in maintaining the racial balance in Singapore population to preserve social stability.
Sir, based on the two points I mentioned above, I would like to seek clarification from the Government whether there are instances where applications for Singapore PR or citizenship have to be rejected resulting from a fulfilled immigration quota so as to maintain the racial balance in Singapore's population, even though these applications have their merits?
Sir, if there are, indeed, such situations, I would like to ask how does the Government balance its commitment to maintain the racial balance of our population in the context of our immigration policy? For example, does it make it more challenging for foreign spouses and/or family members of Singaporeans to be granted permanent residency, which is necessary before citizenship is considered? I look forward to the Prime Minister's Office's (PMO's) clarification.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Sir, immigrants add to our workforce and add diversity and vitality to our population. With the immigrant community already forming a significant share of the population, integration amongst all those who call Singapore home is crucial to keep our society cohesive. For this to happen, we need more social mixing and business networking, and these efforts should start from young.
However, the vast majority of immigrant children attend international schools. We know that sports bring people together. So, perhaps including international schools in our national school games or forming joint sports teams between our schools and international schools is one way to bring Singaporean and immigrant students together, along with their parents.
What is the Government doing to support integration in schools, community and workplaces, and how can stakeholders across society do their part?
The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh, please take your two cuts together.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Chairman. With an increasing number of elderly who may be frail who need help to look after them, what is the projected numbers of migrant domestic workers (MDWs) required to support and meet the needs of our ageing population? How would the Government ensure that we can recruit and retain enough trained MDWs?
Our falling TFR will have a negative impact on the future of our society and economy. What will the Government do to encourage marriages and support young couples to have more babies? Many young people are working hard at their careers and further studies. How will the Government assist and support them to network and meet potential marriage partners?
The Chairman: Ms Ng Ling Ling, take your two cuts together.
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Chairman. On supporting marriage and parenthood, Mr Chairman, several hon Members of this House have already mentioned that in 2022, our TFR hit another low of 1.04 and there was also a 4% reduction in citizen births from the previous year.
Although we have seen an encouraging increase in citizen marriages over the past two years, the annual average number of marriages and births over the last five years remains lower than that of the preceding five years. With these demographic challenges that we are facing as a nation, despite increasing Government financial incentives for young couples to start a family and have more children, I would like to ask: one, beyond the financial support, what other proactive and innovative approaches is the Government exploring to address the factors contributing to the decline in TFR?
I suggested setting up a social ecosystem of mentoring on family planning and financial management to alleviate the financial anxieties of setting up families in my Budget speech. I would like to ask if this is something that the Government can facilitate in more local communities.
Second question, considering the rising median age of first marriages and first-time citizen mothers, what additional measures can be taken to increase awareness of potential fertility challenges and encourage earlier family formation?
Mr Chairman, in a recent pre-conference poll done by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) for the Singapore Perspective Conference 2024, seven in 10 of young Singaporeans aged between 21 and 34 believe that it is not necessary to get married, but most still want to do so. Seventy-two percent similarly think that it is not necessary to have children in a marriage, but most of them still would like to have children.
Our young people are increasingly focusing on furthering their education and career advancement over marriage and parenthood. This aspiration and reality gap can contribute to continued implications on our demographic challenges.
I would like to ask, given the importance of financial planning and fertility health in achieving family life goals, could the Government consider embedding financial education related to family planning and fertility health in our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), just like how career coaching is proliferated?
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Chairman, we need Flexible Work to be an imperative, as a country that needs to increase our total fertility rate – at the same time that people are coping with the rising demands of eldercare. One way to leapfrog this is to progress towards work-life integration, instead of getting stuck and caught with \"work-life balance\". This goes beyond mere semantics to a fundamental shift in mindset and concept.
\"Balance\" reinforces the idea that \"work\" and \"life\" oppose each other and that there is a need to cut back in order to achieve balance. With the push for higher productivity amidst manpower shortages, \"cutting back\" of any sort makes companies nervous.
But with \"Integration\", the two are melded – potentially mutually enhancing each other. Outdated notions like \"going to work\" or \"clocking in and out\" makes both employers and employees calculative when work encroaches into personal time or when personal matters encroach into work time. Such calculativeness is stressful and disempowering for both.
Life does not happen like clockwork, nor does business. Work hours and routine helped organise people and shifts – which was relevant during the industrial era with factory-based work. But now technology and communication tools allow many people to work anytime, anywhere. We do business in the information and digital age, but we are still stuck in the industrial-era mindset when organising our workforce.
Integrating work and life allows for tasks in each domain to get done, whenever it can be done. It enhances a sense of autonomy when employees can optimise their energies and time to organise their tasks in the most convenient and efficient manners that work for them. These will help boost productivity and mental well-being. Research has already shown that employees are willing to work for less pay with FWA. And that is how much people value such trust and autonomy.
What are National Population and Talent Division's (NPTD)’s and Prime Minister's Office's (PMO)'s plans to accelerate work-life integration for a triple-win for employees, employers and Singapore?
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Building a Singapore Made For Families requires a whole-of-society effort. Many parents desire greater support and FWAs to better enable them to juggle work and family commitments. In a recent survey by the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Women and Family Unit and the PAP Women's Wing, close to 90% of nearly 3,000 caregivers surveyed chose FWAs as their most preferred form of support. For effective FWAs to happen, we need the support of employers.
The NTUC has been advocating for FWAs since 1995, when we introduced FWAs in our collective agreement negotiations. We are also heartened to note that there are over 12,000 companies – mostly SMEs – which are signatories to the 2017 Tripartite Standards for FWAs. During COVID-19, introductions of FWAs in companies spiked with Singaporean firms offering FWAs rising up to 70% from 53% pre-COVID-19.
However, reports show that post-COVID-19, companies have started to cut down on their FWAs offerings – citing productivity and trust issues. For employers, FWAs must lead to productivity gains and a culture of trust must be created in the workplace. Beyond providing for wider and extended family and elder-caregiving leave, I believe employers see FWAs as a tenable, sustainable way to retain and attract talent. But our less resourced companies like our SMEs, may find it challenging to implement this on the ground in the same speed and scale as larger enterprises.
It is therefore important to ask: how will the Government continue to support employers in building a more family-friendly environment for Singaporeans?
The Government's continued support for employers in implementing FWAs is critical in creating a family-friendly environment that meets the needs of our working caregivers. Together, we can build a Singapore that not only supports aspirations of our workforce but also nurtures strong and resilient families.
Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Chairman, under current regulations, childcare leave ends when a child turns 12 – assuming they are independent by then. However, this overlooks parents of children with severe disabilities or rare disorders who are undergoing care regardless of age.
The level of care for these children does not diminish and may even intensify as their condition progresses. As a result, many caregivers have appealed to their employers to use their personal medical leave instead; believing they would not need it for themselves due to their dedication to their child's well-being.
I brought up this issue during last year's Budget Debate, if the Government would consider extending childcare leave for parents of children with severe disabilities past the age of 12? What alternatives are available for these parents in terms of childcare leave?
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng. Please take your four cuts together.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, last year, we celebrated the announcement of the extra two weeks of paternity leave. A year later, unfortunately, we are still waiting for these two weeks of paternity leave to be mandated. The sad reality is that – as reported in the media – some companies are waiting for the paternity leave to be mandated before they give it.
Fathers are losing precious time with their babies – precious family time.
We all wish this is not the case. We all hope that mindsets would have shifted, and paternity leave need not be made mandatory before companies give it. The Government must step in and ensure that we are indeed a Singapore made for families. Our policies and our firm commitment can help shape mindsets and change them more quickly.
Can the Government provide a firm timeline on when the extra two weeks of paternity leave will be mandated?
Next, Prime Minister Lee urged couples to add a little dragon in this Year of the Dragon. Our record-low fertility rate is an existential problem. We have been generous in giving parents bonuses, vouchers and tax rebates. But I hope we can give parents something even more valuable – time.
Every year, I know I sound like a broken record asking for more parental leave, more childcare leave, more parent care leave, fertility leave and annual leave. But valuable time is important to many people. I sincerely hope the Government will consider providing parents with more parental leave – both maternity and paternity leave; and commit to a firm timeline to equalise both maternity and paternity leave.
Can the Government also provide more incentives to companies to support them in giving their employees parental leave?
We support companies when it comes to giving their employees time to serve their reservist. We should provide the same level of support when it comes to giving their employees time to welcome their babies into this world. This will help us truly become a Singapore made for families.
Next, in a 2022 survey by the Breastfeeding Mothers Support Group Singapore, more than half of mothers stopped breastfeeding before their child turned one year old. The main reason cited was the challenges of expressing milk at work.
Under the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment, lactation rooms are only required for buildings with a floor area of above 10,000 square meters – this is less than 10% of more than 4,000 offices and business parks. For the rest of the offices, it is left to employers to provide lactation rooms. This can be challenging, especially for SMEs. We can do more to help.
Currently, there is an Accessibility Fund for building owners to upgrade their buildings or install a lactation pod. Can the Government do more to publicise the Accessibility Fund and urge people to apply for it? Can the Government also look into providing additional support for building owners to retrofit their buildings, with dedicated lactation rooms or install lactation pods?
Finally, under the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment, accessible toilets for adults with disabilities or seniors must be present at a huge number of locations.
However, under the same Code, there must only be one – at least one lactation room – only at limited areas. We recognise that our buildings should be inclusive in making sure that accessible toilets are widely available, even if some buildings may not have elderly or disabled users.
Why the disparity when it comes to lactation rooms?
About half of our population are female and many of them will go on to become mothers who should have the option of breastfeeding their children, if they wish to. We try to encourage Singaporeans to set up families through bonuses and vouchers. Designing our public facilities for families sends a visible and clear signal that this is a Singapore made for families.
It has been more than five years since the Code was last updated.
Will the Government make our Code more inclusive in the next iteration of the Code by lowering the gross floor area (GFA) threshold for the requirement of lactation rooms and also mandating more lactation rooms in buildings – the same way we do for accessible toilets?
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Chairman, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The practice of \"marrying first and then advancing your career\" is not common in today's society.
For many young couples, the pressure of raising children is very significant. Therefore, they often hope to strengthen their respective career foundation, has stable financial capabilities before they consider whether or not to welcome a new life. However, by the time they reach that point, it is often too late.
When they wish to add more family members, they have already missed the last bus.
How should the Government alleviate the pressure on young couples to have more children and assist parents reduce and cope with their expenses and burdens of raising children?
How should the Government provide reassurances to Singaporeans, especially those in the lower, middle-income families to ensure that our children have a good starting point, regardless of the family's financial situation, especially in terms of their healthcare and early childhood education.
(In English): As the saying goes “it takes a village to raise a child”. Hence, every bit of support – no matter how little – and be it through caregiving or financial assistance, is always a welcome relief to alleviate the stress encountered during parenthood journeys.
Not all couples are fortunate in the sense of having able-bodied parents, or being able to afford the cost of hiring a reliable helper to assist in caring for their young children. Based on the concerns that my Woodgrove residents have shared with me, these couples generally face greater concerns about caregiving arrangements – especially in the early stages of their child's life and even more so when they – the parents or their child – fall sick.
The ability to be present as the main caregiver of their children is one of the main wants of every parent and this, of course, includes daddies. I therefore applaud the Government's willingness to adapt to changing times by increasing paternity leave allowances, yet even that may not be quite enough as companies have been observed to be \"rebalancing\", by calibrating the number of remote working days allowed.
Therefore, I ask: how is the Government looking into other measures such as increasing the number of childcare leave for both mummies and daddies in response, to ensure that both parents are able to witness every important milestone of their children?
Besides the struggles of sourcing suitable caregivers for their children, families often also fret over the financial constraints while striving to provide the best for their children.
What is the Government doing to provide stronger support for parents in these areas – particularly when cost of living issues continue to have an adverse impact on this group? With regard to the Baby Bonus Scheme, will the quantum of the cash gift be periodically reviewed to be aligned with inflation? And can the Ministry explore widening the list of approved uses for the Child Development Account (CDA) to further assist parents with child-related expenses?
The Chairman: Minister Indranee Rajah.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their cuts.
Our vision for Singapore’s population is: a thriving people, a dynamic economy, an inclusive society and a resilient nation – a Singapore where all Singaporeans can achieve their personal and family aspirations; have good jobs, good incomes and good careers; and live fulfilling lives.
We must also lay the foundations for future generations to do the same.
However, we are confronted with the twin demographic challenges of a persistently low fertility rate and an ageing population. These challenges are not unique to Singapore. Many other advanced societies also face rapidly declining fertility.
South Korea continues to grapple with a fertility rate below 1.0 – far below the replacement level of 2.1. Closer to home, Malaysia and Thailand saw their fertility rates fall in 2022. European countries, such as Italy and Spain, continue to see record lows in births year on year.
Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the key population outcomes we want and our strategies for achieving them. Fundamentally, we need more Singaporeans. A strong Singaporean citizenry is the bedrock and wellspring of a thriving nation. We must hence continue to support Singaporeans in starting and raising families.
Second, we must manage the practical impact of slowing local workforce growth and an ageing population on our society and economy. This is where our immigration, foreign workforce and integration strategies come in.
Third, we must understand that this task cannot be undertaken by the Government alone. We can only succeed through our collective efforts.
Mr Gerald Giam asked about our population projections and how we plan our population policies.
As indicated at last year's Committee of Supply, our total population is likely to be below 6.9 million by 2030. This planning parameter remains relevant for the 2030s. Beyond that, our population size will depend on various demographic trends, such as birth rates, life expectancies, deaths and migration; as well as future social and economic needs. In planning for the longer-term, we develop various scenarios to ensure that we are adequately prepared for a range of possible outcomes, rather than focus on a single number.
In all scenarios, however, supporting marriage and parenthood remains a fundamental priority. We have been and will continue to invest heavily in families as this is an existential issue for us.
Also, our efforts to raise fertility will take time to show results. A carefully managed immigration policy is hence an important supporting measure to moderate the impact of low birth rates and an ageing population on our society and economy.
So, let me now elaborate on our population strategies, the trade-offs we face and the whole-of-society effort needed.
At the core of our population vision are strong and stable families. Last year, there were 26,500 resident marriages. We were also delighted to welcome 30,500 resident births. Overall, however, there were fewer resident marriages and births annually on average over the last five years, as compared to the preceding five-year period. Our resident total fertility rate, or TFR, has continued to decline. Preliminary estimates indicate a resident TFR of 0.97 in 2023, the first time it has dropped below 1.0.
There are various reasons for Singapore's low fertility. Some are temporal, for instance, couples that had their marriage plans disrupted by COVID-19, which may in turn, have delayed their parenthood plans. Others cite concerns about the financial costs of child-raising, pressures to be an excellent parent, or difficulties managing work and family commitments.
More broadly though, our low fertility reflects a global phenomenon where individual priorities and societal norms have shifted. This can be seen from a slew of articles on the TFRs of other countries.
Mr Chairman, Sir, with your permission, may I please distribute an Annex which has some of these articles, to Members of the House?
The Chairman: Please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you. Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL app. What I am circulating is the list, but the articles are accessible there, through the QR code and the links. These articles reflect a generational change in priorities and how young people around the world are increasingly finding meaning in other pursuits. They may not even see marriage or parenthood as important life goals.
Our falling TFR has serious implications for Singapore's future. We are already seeing the impact of our falling TFR on our society. Families today are smaller than before, with more sandwiched couples having to care for both the young and old. A growing proportion of Singaporeans are remaining single and will have weaker familial support networks when they grow older.
Our falling TFR will also impact our economy. As several Members have mentioned, a strong and vibrant economy is critical for Singapore, as it helps raise our standard of living and gives us resources to tackle challenges. However, a vibrant economy is ultimately driven by people. With fewer births, we will face a shrinking workforce. It will be increasingly challenging to maintain our dynamism, attract global businesses and create opportunities for the next generation.
This has been the experience of countries like South Korea and Italy, who are grappling with economic slowdowns and declining wages, further compounded by low fertility and the resulting demographic changes. We are therefore determined to address these challenges. The bright side is that our young Singaporeans still aspire towards marriage and parenthood. However, as several Members have noted, they may not proactively plan towards these goals.
As a Government, we respect Singaporeans' personal decisions on marriage and parenthood. But there is no denying that starting a family becomes more challenging with age. Singaporeans may prioritise their education or careers in young adulthood, only to face difficulty conceiving when they eventually try for children. We therefore strongly encourage young Singaporeans to actively build and develop relationships and intentionally factor marriage and parenthood into their life plans early on.
Several Members have asked on how we will support marriage and parenthood. We will provide a conducive environment for couples who wish to start, grow and nurture their families. We made significant moves in this regard at Budget 2023. To support working parents, we doubled Government-Paid Paternity Leave to four weeks on a voluntary basis. We also increased Unpaid Infant Care Leave to 12 days per parent per year in their child's first two years. To strengthen financial support for young families, we enhanced the Baby Bonus Cash Gift for all birth orders. We also enhanced the Child Development Account, or CDA, by increasing the First Step Grant and raising the Government co-matching caps.
We are continuing to address the housing needs of Singaporean couples and families. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has ramped up Build-to-Order (BTO) supply and remains on track to launch 100,000 BTO flats from 2021 to 2025. Furthermore, HDB is catching up on BTO projects delayed by the pandemic, having delivered 80% of such projects as of end-2023.
As announced at the National Day Rally last year, the new framework of Standard, Plus and Prime flats will take effect later this year, and cater to Singaporean families' different budgets and needs. The Ministry of National Development (MND) will help families awaiting the completion of their BTO flats by doubling the supply of flats under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme, or PPHS, to 4,000 units by 2025. In the meantime, as announced at Budget 2024, MND will also introduce a one-year PPHS (Open Market) Voucher, to support PPHS-eligible families to rent an HDB flat or bedroom from the open market and MND will share more at its COS.
As Mr Yip Hon Weng highlighted, some couples may also face fertility issues. Couples undergoing Assisted Conception Procedures at our public hospitals can tap on Government co-funding and use their MediSave to offset treatment costs. The Ministry of Health (MOH) is also studying the merits of extending co-funding to the private sector, taking into account clinical outcomes and costs. He asked about elective egg-freezing. Based on preliminary data, approximately 200 women underwent elective egg-freezing since it was implemented in June last year. But whilst this may be an available option for women, we still do encourage them to try for children earlier, to reduce age-related risks of conceiving and carrying a baby successfully to term.
Ms Ng Ling Ling and Ms Hany Soh asked about support to alleviate Singaporeans' concerns regarding child-raising costs. The Government is investing heavily to ensure preschool, education and healthcare remain affordable for families. The Ministry for Social and Family Development (MSF) will lower childcare fee caps in Anchor and Partner Operator Preschools by $40 in 2025 and will lower them again in 2026. MSF will share more at their COS.
Today, a Singaporean child can receive around $200,000 worth of education subsidies, including preschool subsidies, by the time the child completes secondary school. And, of course, there are significant subsidies for studying in the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs).
In addition, all Singaporean babies are covered by MediShield Life from birth and their parents receive a MediSave Grant for newborns to help with the premiums. And Singaporean children also enjoy fully-subsidised nationally-recommended childhood vaccinations and developmental screenings at polyclinics and GP clinics under the Community Health Assist Scheme. We had just enhanced the Baby Bonus Scheme last year and will consider the suggestions raised, bearing in mind the overall suite of grants and subsidies available.
Next, we are also focusing on supporting men in their role as husbands and fathers. Members on both sides of the House support this, and Mr Louis Ng, in particular, has been an active advocate and champion.
Our leave provisions are differentiated between mothers and fathers to meet their respective needs. For example, maternity leave is longer to allow mothers to recuperate physically from childbirth and to care for and bond with their newborns. Nevertheless, parenthood is a shared responsibility. This is especially so, as more women want to continue to work while raising their children.
Currently, around half of our eligible fathers take paternity leave. We encourage more to do so and play a part in caring for your newborns. Studies have shown that children benefit physically, cognitively and emotionally when their fathers are more involved in parenting.
At Budget 2023, we increased Government-Paid Paternity Leave by two weeks effective from 1 January 2024, for fathers whose employers are ready to provide it. One father, Mr Daniel Lim, looks forward to this. He and his wife have two children and are expecting another in April this year. Daniel welcomes the additional paternity leave as it allows him to focus on supporting his wife and caring for his children during this important period.
Mr Louis Ng asked when we will mandate this additional paternity leave. We will do so as soon as possible, to benefit more fathers. In the meantime, we encourage all employers to start adjusting to ensure a smoother transition when the mandatory provision eventually kicks in.
During our Forward Singapore engagements, parents shared that care needs are greatest during a child's first 18 months. We will continue to strengthen support for parents during this critical period. MSF has been ramping up infant care capacity. It also plans to grow childminding services as an additional infant care option for families. MSF will share more at their COS.
That said, we know many Singaporean parents prefer to care for their infants themselves and have asked if more leave can be given. We have studied the leave provisions of other developed countries like France and Denmark which have higher TFRs. These countries tend to provide parents with longer periods of leave during their child's infancy, sometimes at reduced pay. Parents appreciate the greater peace of mind, as they can care for their infants for longer while remaining employed. They can then return to work more easily once their children are older.
We are therefore actively exploring how to increase paid parental leave. We must recognise that this requires workplace adjustments and that employers may face challenges in making arrangements to cover for employees' extended absences. We will therefore closely engage tripartite partners on further enhancements and pace out any proposed changes.
Caring for and raising our children is a long-term endeavour. As Ms Hany Soh and Miss Rachel Ong have pointed out, this can be especially challenging when children fall sick or for certain groups, such as parents of children with severe disabilities or rare disorders. Hence, beyond leave provisions, we are exploring other sustainable ways to help parents better manage work and family commitments. These include flexible work arrangements, or FWAs.
We must strengthen workplace flexibility in a manner that meets the needs of both employees and employers. As Ms Carrie Tan mentioned, we want to provide parents with the flexibility to optimise their energies as they navigate the demands of work and family. At the same time, employers' ability to meet their business needs will be critical in sustaining such flexibility. Through open communication and mutual trust, employers and employees can work out arrangements that meet both their needs.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is working with tripartite partners to develop new Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests. MOM will share more at their COS.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked about Government support for companies. We recognise that some employees, including SMEs, may find it more challenging to adopt FWAs. We will consider ways to help all employers implement FWAs well and manage their teams productively. These are HR capabilities that will enable our employers to optimise their workforce and position themselves as employers of choice.
We are glad to see more employers distinguishing themselves by implementing family-friendly practices and features. One such local company is Hegen, which develops infant care products. Hegen offers its employees various forms of workplace flexibility, including work-from-home arrangements, staggered hours, part-time work and compressed work schedules. Hegen's family-friendly culture has helped the company to attract and retain talent, showing that businesses can pursue excellence and innovation while at the same time implementing family-friendly practices.
We encourage all employers to establish family-friendly workplaces and make a difference in practical ways. For example, fathers ought to feel supported when taking time off for their families. A CNA report cited an example of a father who wanted to take paternity leave, but encountered resistance from his female manager. She made passive-aggressive comments and pointed to the backlog of work he would accumulate if he did so. It would have been more helpful to discuss a mutually satisfactory covering arrangement instead.
Employer support can also include family-friendly office features, such as lactation rooms, which Mr Louis Ng spoke about. The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has progressively enhanced the building design requirements for lactation rooms and will continue to review them. We encourage building owners to voluntarily provide such family-friendly features beyond the minimum Code requirements. Premises which lack space for separate lactation facilities can consider lactation pods which are commercially available.
Building owners, lessors and lessees of eligible private developments may also tap on BCA’s Accessibility Fund to co-fund the construction costs of such features as well as lactation pods. BCA has actively promoted the Fund via press releases, social media posts, industry seminars and targeted engagements. They will continue to reach out to building owners to encourage adoption.
But ultimately, it will require a whole-of-society effort to build the family-friendly workplace culture that Members have called for. All of us have a role to play, whether as parents, employers or co-workers.
We want parents to be able to tap on workplace flexibilities without fear of stigma. Every small act counts, from exercising patience when a colleague’s child interrupts a work call, to being understanding when a co-worker takes time off at short notice to care for their children. We also trust that parents will tap on these flexibilities responsibly, and stand ready to reciprocate when other colleagues have urgent personal or family needs to attend to. Together, we can make Singapore a great place for all to work and live in, for generations to come.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about supporting the needs of an ageing population. Indeed, a key thrust of Forward Singapore is enabling our seniors to age well. Primarily, we want our seniors to have good health. Good health is a lifelong commitment, as lifestyles in earlier years affect how healthy we are in our golden years. Therefore, we will step up the preventive health focus through Healthier SG, to empower Singaporeans to live healthily with support from their regular family doctor.
We also want our seniors to age well in their homes and the community. This is the key purpose of Age Well SG, which complements Healthier SG by anchoring ageing well in the community. Through Age Well SG, we will encourage active ageing, improve support for seniors with care needs, and make our homes and neighbourhoods more senior-friendly. MOH, MND and MOT will share more information on their Age Well SG plans during their respective Committee of Supply segments.
Mr Gan asked about the number of Migrant Domestic Workers, or MDWs, needed to support our ageing population. We expect that demand for elderly caregiving services will rise in the coming years, and MDWs play an important role in supporting households with caregiving needs. However, the scale of this increase is uncertain. It will be dependent on a host of factors, including how well our society ages and other efforts to support seniors with care needs.
Even as we strive to support Singaporeans in their marriage and parenthood aspirations, and help seniors live healthier and more fulfilling lives, low birth rates and ageing will undeniably impact our economy and society.
Our immigration policies play an important role in mitigating this. In 2023, we granted about 23,500 new citizenships, including about 1,300 to children born overseas to Singaporean parents. We also granted about 34,500 new Permanent Residencies (PRs).
We continue to maintain a measured and stable pace of immigration, which moderates the impact of demographic trends on the size and age profile of the citizen population. The average number of new citizenships and new PRs granted per year since 2019 is slightly higher than that over the preceding period. We grant PR or citizenship to those who can integrate well, contribute to Singapore and are committed to making Singapore their home.
Our immigration policy also helps us to meet our future population needs. For example, in recent years, we have granted a higher number of PRs to healthcare workers to support our growing healthcare needs.
One such immigrant is Ms Josephine Marie Baljon Celis, who was granted PR in 2023. She has been a valued staff nurse at SingHealth Community Hospitals for almost 15 years, consistently delivering a high standard of care to her patients. Josephine’s colleagues describe her as friendly, positive and dedicated to her work. Beyond her core nursing duties, she has served as a Clinical Instructor for many years, guiding and training numerous batches of nursing students to help meet Singapore’s healthcare needs. She also does volunteer work.
Like our forefathers, many immigrants have found their way here and stayed on because they hope for a better life in Singapore. With time, they become our friends and ultimately, our fellow countrymen who will work alongside us to build a brighter shared future. But crucial to this brighter shared future is a strong economy, supported by a dynamic and productive workforce.
As Mr Patrick Tay, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Yip Hon Weng have noted, for Singaporeans to have good jobs, good incomes and access to services for a high quality of life, we need a strong economy.
Our low birth rates and ageing population have resulted in slowing local workforce growth. Even with immigrants, we do not have enough working locals to support continued good economic growth. We must, therefore, remain open to a diverse foreign workforce that complements the local workforce. Foreign workers create value for Singaporeans, for example, by filling manpower gaps in sectors that Singaporeans are less keen to work in, or in disciplines where we may need more time to develop our own pool of local workers. They can also generate opportunities for Singaporeans by bringing in new investments, networks and expertise.
So, even as we welcome these complementary foreign workers, we will continue to strengthen the development of the local workforce. As detailed in the Forward Singapore report, SkillsFuture is a key pillar of our social compact.
We will also support Singaporeans in gaining overseas work experience to provide opportunities for career development and progression. More information will be provided during MTI’s and MOM’s Committee of Supply segments, and we encourage all Singaporeans to make the most of these opportunities.
Mr Chairman, I have outlined how our marriage and parenthood, immigration and workforce policies work in tandem to help us overcome our population challenges. However, these policies can only succeed if we remain an inclusive society.
Globally, sentiments of disenfranchisement and xenophobia have gained momentum. A growing number of politicians across the world have stoked xenophobia to gain popular support. Some have been voted into office, the result of which has been division and instability.
We must not go down that path. The well-being of Singaporeans remains at the heart of what we do. But this does not prevent us from welcoming foreigners who can contribute to our economy and add richness to our multicultural society.
And we must, of course, also work hard at integration. This response extends to the enquiry Mr Faisal Manap made about how we can welcome Malays and others from the region to come and join us. All that I said earlier about welcoming foreigners here extends to those groups as well.
So, in conclusion, Mr Chairman, Singaporeans and their well-being are at the heart of our population strategies. These strategies aim to build a resilient nation, anchored on the key thrusts of the Forward Singapore Report: opportunities, assurance and collective responsibility.
The Government is committed to building an economy that will provide opportunities for all to achieve their aspirations. The Government will also provide assurance for Singaporeans at every stage of life. We will not let up on efforts to support Singaporeans in starting and raising families so that we may forge a strong Singaporean citizenry.
For this to happen, we need everyone to do their part. While some of the bolder changes and mindset shifts may require more time, I call on everyone – individuals, families, employers and communities – to contribute towards shaping a Singapore that is Made for Families so that we can secure our future and thrive for years to come.
The Chairman: Are there any clarifications for Minister Indranee? Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh: Thank you, Chairman. This is in relation to the Government's co-funding scheme for Assisted Conception Procedures (ACP). I can understand what Ministers have shared earlier on the rationale behind why we want to provide the better subsidy schemes for those who are below 40 years old.
But through my interactions with several of the residents that have approached me for support and help, I can also understand that, generally, as women, we want to try our best to conceive naturally and without resorting to undergo ACP like IVF, unless circumstances require us to do so. Several of them, due to factors that are beyond their control, have entered marriage at a later stage and have eventually resorted to trying attempts at IVFs but have failed.
I do hope that the Government can exercise flexibility in acceding to those appeals for those that have put in the effort and have unfortunately failed two attempts of the IVF trials and, as a result, have sought us to seek support for more additional fundings in order to eventually fulfil their dreams to become a parent.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Ms Soh for her clarification. We do have a lot of sympathy for those who, for whatever reason, were not able to try for children earlier. The only thing is that the fact remains that age does remain a factor. It does affect the success or the outcomes. So, we can certainly look at it and study it and, as time goes by, if technology gets better, if there are advances and improvements in medical science, then we can see how that can be done.
This comes under the purview of MOH. We will certainly refer it to them. We will do our utmost but, at the same time, just to remember, age is a factor. So, where possible, if we can encourage Singaporeans to have children earlier, that would be really the best solution.
The Chairman: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I thank the Minister for her response to my questions. The Minister, if I heard right, said that the population projections by 2050 will depend on trends in fertility and longevity. I understand there might be some concerns about publicly revealing population projections but does the Government have any internal projections for the population in 2040 and 2050 based on the different scenarios? Because in 2013, I recall that the Government was able to project our population until 2030. Now, in 2024, why is it not possible to project it until at least 2040?
Ms Indranee Rajah: The difference really is that planning for the future has become a lot more complex. There are a lot more variables. It is not like when Singapore was first starting off and you have a clear trajectory and you can say that there is this projection. So, having one particular figure does not really help because you would have a range of scenarios. That is what I was trying to explain just now.
Essentially, there are birth rates, TFR, we have just seen that it has fallen to an all-time low, life expectancy, deaths, migrations. So, basically, for the Ministries to plan, they have to plan on a range of scenarios and not all of them will plan on the same variables. For example, if it is public housing, you would just look at Singaporeans, when you plan your BTOs. But, obviously, if you are looking at some other things, then you would take into account the foreigners who work here as well.
One of the strategies we have for this is modular planning. So, for example, if you were building something like T5, you do not have to build the whole thing straightaway to take into account a very large number that is coming through. You would build stage one and then if it looks like you are having more traffic, then you can build stage two. We apply some of that when we are planning for public housing, for transport. So, having one particular figure does not really address the issue. I think for the agencies, they are learning over the years, to plan within a range of scenarios.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir. Can I ask again on paternity leave? Rather than just have ASAP, whether we can have a firm timeline on when we will mandate the extra two weeks of paternity leave. I think that is important for the fathers, but most important is for the companies, especially for the SMEs, which can then plan ahead and have resources made available in time for when we mandate this. I mean, we do this for carbon tax, where we are given a whole roadmap on when we will increase carbon tax so that companies can get ready. I hope we can do this also for paternity leave.
Second, on lactation rooms, we do have the Accessibility Fund. I am just wondering whether the Government can consider increasing the co-payment. The current rate is at 60%; whether it can increase it to 80%. Similar for accessible toilets, so that more building owners perhaps will be spurred on to build the lactation rooms and this will help the breastfeeding mothers as well.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, Mr Louis Ng is right that the companies do need time to implement it if we make paternity leave mandatory. So, this is something that we are looking at and the Member can be assured that as and when it does become mandatory, actually when it does become mandatory, it will factor in a lead-in time for the companies as well. And I thank him for his suggestions with respect to the building code. We will look at that.
The Chairman: Are there any clarifications for Senior Minister Teo? Earlier on, I did not see any Members raise their hand, so I moved on. Now, I do not see any. Senior Minister Teo is asking too, whether there are any for him? No? Okay. Mr Ong Hua Han.
Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, in my speech during the Budget Statement debate, I spoke at length about including persons with disabilities (PwDs) and why this is important. During the Committee of Supply debates, I will be shifting our focus more towards the \"hows\" to inclusion.
Let me start this series of cuts by calling for more concrete ways to tackle discrimination in insurance practices. Sir, discrimination by insurers affects the lives of many Singaporeans – particularly those living with disabilities. This raises the issue of fairness and it demands action.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore’s (MAS’) guidelines for insurance fair practice will soon address indiscriminate rejection of coverage applications. As an illustration: today, individuals with disabilities like Mr A, often encounter insurer assessments that exclude them from total and permanent disability benefits. In Mr A's case, Asperger's Syndrome and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) had been explicitly cited as reasons for his exclusion when he applied for a whole life insurance policy.
Unfortunately, Mr A's experience is not unique. PwDs who contribute meaningfully to society or hold stable employment, frequently face similar rejections or exclusions. Often, outright denials or vague explanations of underwriting decisions are also given. This reflects a systemic failure in our insurance industry that disproportionately harms PwDs. There is no transparency in the insurer's decision-making process.
Ultimately, PwDs are left guessing and are denied the insurance coverage they need and deserve. Therefore, we need appropriate measures that mandate insurers to disclose the data, research and methodologies used in the assessments to their customers and regulators, such as MAS and MOH. This will empower not just PwDs – but all affected Singaporeans – including those with mental health conditions, physical conditions or unrelated illnesses, to challenge unfair decisions and hold insurers accountable.
Where necessary, MAS must also step in to take decisive action against insurers that indiscriminately reject applications – solely based on disability or mental health declarations. Every application must be objectively assessed by the insurer, based on reliable information or data relevant to the risks being insured and auditable.
Clear examples of what is considered discrimination will provide clarity and guidance to insurers to ensure compliance with fair and transparent practices. Could MAS provide a non-exhaustive list of illustrations to show what constitutes discrimination? The use of irrelevant and discriminatory criteria in risk assessments is a barrier that must be addressed.
Insurers must be prohibited from using factors, such as intelligence quotient (IQ) levels or academic ability, in their underwriting assessments. Other factors, like sensorimotor skills, must be evaluated judiciously and holistically under strict conditions and only when directly relevant to specific insurance policies and aligned with ethical and regulatory standards.
Unfair or sweeping assessment practices not only perpetuate stigma, but also ignore the diverse experiences and capabilities of PwDs. Autistics have shared with me that they feel discriminated against when insurers exclude coverage for certain conditions – especially those related to mental health.
SG Enable says that autism is a range of conditions – characterised by difficulties in communication and social interaction, sensitivity to sensory stimulation and repetitive behaviour. Autism is not a medical condition, it is a neurological difference. Therefore, even if research shows a high correlation between autism and a particular condition, it is unfair to exclude coverage.
To achieve meaningful change, MAS should take in input from disability organisations and PwDs to refine the guidelines and monitor insurance practices. Their insights and perspectives are invaluable in ensuring that the needs and rights of PwDs are upheld and protected.
Yes, private insurance is ultimately a business and insurers need to consider the risks presented by each policyholder to charge premiums reflective of the risk.
However, this does not mean that insurers should be allowed to discriminate against any community in Singapore – including PwDs. By addressing the systemic discrimination in insurance, we can build a more inclusive and equitable society where all Singaporeans, regardless of disability, can access the financial protection they need to live with dignity and security. This will strongly signal the Government's commitment to work towards withdrawing its reservation of Article 25(e) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, PwDs or special needs often receive inadequate insurance coverage to cover to protect themselves. Even if they manage to get insured, the scope of coverage and the insured amounts is often limited.
MAS is proposing to issue guidelines to insurers that they should not indiscriminately reject an application, solely based on a declared personal information subject to disability. Instead, insurers are expected to carry out an objective assessment of every application, based on reliable information or data relevant to the risk being insured.
However even under the new proposed guidelines, insurers are not prohibited from declining applications, setting higher premiums or applying conditions in view of the risks presented by an applicant with a disability. Can the Minister explain when these guidelines will be issued and how they will be materially different or more beneficial to PwDs or special needs?
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Sir, in this environment of pervasive online scams, the Government should ensure that bank customers are adequately and fairly protected – both in prevention and in compensation. On this, I will raise two points today: developments in Australia and on Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre Ltd (FIDReC).
First, on developments in Australia. In November last year, the Australian treasury issued a consultation paper on proposed industry codes for the private sector in combating scams – named the Scams Code Framework. The proposed Australian framework is consumer focused. The extensive obligations on banks, include training of staff, detecting, blocking, verifying and tracing scams; and the need to implement anti-scam systems that are responsive to new products, services, designs and technologies. Importantly, it requires businesses to take all reasonable steps to prevent the misuse of its services by scammers, \"so that an undue burden is not placed on consumers to prevent scams.\" As far as Singapore is concerned, I acknowledge MAS' work, particularly in coming up with the two consultation papers in October on the Shared Responsibility Framework for phishing scams and on the proposed enhancements to the E-payments User Protection Guidelines (EUPG).
That said, the EUPG paper while imposing some duties on financial institutions, also has a whole section on how consumers should also be subject to enhanced duties – including preventive actions such as updating the browsers of devices and patching operating systems with the latest security updates. How does the MAS assess whether these duties are reasonable, given the wide demographic profile of consumers?
Second, FIDReC announced in January a public consultation on raising its monetary limit in adjudication cases – from $100,000 to $150,000. As few customers have the resources to sue their banks in Court, FIDReC is an important low-cost avenue for bank customers to seek redress. Should FIDReC consider raising its limit to $200,000, which is the daily threshold for PayNow transactions for consumers?
The Chairman: Minister of State Alvin Tan.
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan): Chairman, with your permission, I will be taking clarifications after this reply – if there is available time. I thank the Members for their questions and comments.
Allow me to start first by addressing Mr Ong Hua Han's and Mr Gerald Giam's questions on adopting fair and responsible practices towards PwDs and persons with mental health conditions. The MAS expects all insurers to deal fairly with their customers, including PwDs and persons with mental health conditions.
Over the past three years, MAS has reinforced these expectations with insurers. Let me explain how.
First, MAS has carefully reviewed individual cases that have been highlighted to us to ascertain that customers were treated fairly.
Second, MAS has worked with the MSF to consult relevant medical professionals and industry practitioners – to ensure that the underwriting standards of the insurance industry, in particular for PwDs and persons with mental health conditions, are grounded in scientific evidence and data.
Third, MAS has also worked with insurers to better explain underwriting outcomes to applicants. The upcoming revision to the MAS Guidelines on Fair Dealing – Board and Senior Management Responsibilities for Delivering Fair Dealing Outcomes to Customers, which Members have raised, formalises all of these expectations. MAS and MSF have engaged individuals and groups representing PwDs as well as industry practitioners in the process of refining these guidelines.
Under the proposed guidelines, an example of inappropriate differential treatment would be to reject an application solely on the basis of declared personal information, such as a disability or a medical condition. This would fall short of the expectation for insurers to conduct an objective assessment of every application, based on reliable information or data relevant to the risks that are being insured.
This applies to all types of insurance policies. Where an application is rejected or accepted with condition, insurers are to properly explain to the applicant the basis of the decision. This will also be set out in the revised guidelines, which we expect to issue by the middle of this year.
In other words, insurers should not reject applications from PwDs and persons with mental health conditions without an assessment. And after they have conducted the detailed assessments, the insurers may choose to accept applications as is, with higher premiums or with specific benefits excluded.
There may also be instances where the insurers assess the risks to be large and, therefore, are unable to provide coverage. Such cases are unlikely to be unique to Singapore, as insurers typically reference the underwriting guidelines of re-insurers which operate internationally, to which insurers would also transfer some of the risks.
Why? The reason is that prescribing a \"one-size-fits-all\" assessment criteria on underwriting would result in some insurers taking on risks that exceed their underwriting expertise and capacity, which will not be prudentially sound. It could also have unintended consequences. For example, it could impair access to insurance protection if insurers stop providing coverage under such circumstances.
Where the ability of insurers to adjust coverage and premiums for higher-risk individuals is constrained, it could then also lead to higher premiums for policyholders who pose lower risks. But I would like to assure the Members that MAS will closely monitor the effective and consistent application and implementation of the revised guidelines. This is part of our ongoing supervision of insurers.
This will include reviewing the insurers' underwriting policies and processes, including via on-site inspections, to ensure that insurers maintain robust underwriting frameworks that are in line with MAS' regulatory requirements, supervisory expectations and sound international practice.
When an insurer is found to have fallen short, or found to be dealing unfairly with its customers, MAS will take appropriate supervisory actions, such as directing the insurer to review their policies and processes to prevent a recurrence, and to review applications of the affected customers.
Individuals who have concerns over their insurer's underwriting decision can make an appeal through their insurer's feedback channel. In this vein, MAS expects insurers to have a robust process to handle customer complaints independently and effectively. Individuals can also write to MAS, and MAS will investigate accordingly.
Let me turn to Ms Sylvia Lim's cut. Ms Sylvia Lim asked about efforts to safeguard bank customers' interests. I would like to thank her, as well as Mr Derrick Goh in his speech yesterday, for raising this very important topic, and also for recognising and acknowledging the hard work that MAS – in partnership with our banking industry – has put in place to protect customers against scams.
Other Members of Parliament, such as Dr Tan Wu Meng, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Miss Rachel Ong, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Gerald Giam, have also spoken about this and advocated strongly about this topic in this House.
In her Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) COS speech, Minister of State Sun Xueling will more comprehensively outline the efforts by Government agencies and private sector entities to raise our collective defences against scams. These include initiatives and measures that have been explored under the guidance of MAS, such as the banks’ recent anti-malware controls, and the Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF) to strengthen the direct accountability of financial institutions and telcos to consumers.
Our efforts are bearing fruit, especially for unauthorised transactions. The number of reported phishing cases in 2023 decreased by 16% compared to 2022, and the amounts lost decreased by 14%. The incidence of malware enabled scams has also reduced significantly after major retail banks introduced anti-malware security features on their banking apps.
Despite this progress, we are not resting on our laurels; we will continue to push on. MAS will build on this progress by continuing to work with banks to further strengthen anti-scam controls. We will better safeguard funds by encouraging people to adopt Money Lock, and enhancing Money Lock's functionality.
MAS is also working with banks to improve their fraud surveillance capabilities and to strengthen authentication measures at account logins and when making payment transactions. Admittedly, these will add more friction to the banking process, but we acknowledge and understand that these will better safeguard customers’ interests and also reduce the amounts lost through scams in the longer term.
I would like to highlight to Members that today, the bulk of scams and amounts lost are cases involving authorised transactions, as compared to unauthorised transactions. Authorised transactions are transactions where victims willingly transfer monies to scammers under social engineering and deception. We cannot address such scams directly through banking sector-related safeguards alone. What we need is a vigilant public. We must all take steps to protect ourselves, by keeping up with new scam typologies which are rapidly evolving; and also banking controls, and checking for signs of scams. MAS and banks will continue to support national public education efforts, including the Government’s broader public education under the “Add, Check and Tell” anti-scam campaign.
I thank Ms Lim for her suggestions. We have made some collective progress together, but we must and we will continue to strengthen all of these initiatives that I have outlined to help further safeguard bank customers’ interests.
The Chairman: Are there any clarifications? Yes, Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank Minister of State Tan for responding. Sir, from what I understand from his reply, the guidelines will only benefit PwDs if insurers had hitherto been applying inappropriate differential treatment indiscriminately. But even if insurers properly followed all their underwriting principles, many PwDs will still find themselves excluded.
Does the Government have any plans to step in to assist these PwDs who do not have enough coverage?
Mr Alvin Tan: I thank Mr Gerald Giam for his clarification. In fact, we have received feedback on this through Mr Ong Hua Han, Mr Gerald Giam and others who have written directly to us, both at MAS and MOH.
Maybe what I can share is that MAS has not found instances where insurers have indiscriminately rejected applications by PwDs in our review of cases highlighted to us thus far. But we are doing a few things to ensure that overall, both insurers and the applicants are able to understand what PwDs and persons with mental health conditions require, and their circumstances. So, let me enumerate a few different aspects, so that it is rather comprehensive.
Government agencies are committed to continue working with stakeholders to improve the accessibility to PwDs and overall to provide greater assurance that PwDs are treated fairly. I explained that in my reply. In this regard, MSF, partners such as the Autism Resource Centre, the Life Insurance Association and us have embarked in the following efforts – and I hope that the Members can also support us in these efforts.
First, it is important to further enhance the awareness and understanding on PwDs and the various support systems in Singapore. This is to enable insurers themselves to better take into account all of these different factors in their underwriting. That is one.
The second is to provide further training on communications with PwDs.
Third, to raise an overall awareness on health underwriting among consumers, including PwDs.
Fourth, we are working on this – to explore initiatives to further improve the insurance application process.
Later on, in the middle of this year when the guidelines are out, many of these, as I mentioned earlier on, will be put in place, but there are also ongoing efforts to increase awareness in this regard. So, it is ongoing. And I think we are in line with international best practices. But it is an iterative process, it is an evolving process.
The Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Chairman. I have two broad clarifications for the Minister of State. During his response he mentioned several times about closely the MAS is working with banks to come up with guidelines, preventive measures. But he did not say anything about how MAS was working with consumers at all, before the draft guidelines are issued.
For instance, like I mentioned in my cut, the EUPG paper that sets out the enhanced duties of consumers. Were any consumers consulted about whether these duties are reasonable before the draft guidelines came out? So, the first clarification is about how MAS works with consumers, if at all, before it comes up with such guidelines in this area.
Secondly, on the Australian example, I did point this out to him earlier that I was going to raise it. I think he would have noticed from what was being proposed by the Australian Treasury was that actually there would be a consumer protection body at the top of the apex when it came to looking at consumer interests in the scam space. This body actually has an overarching responsibility that cuts across sectors – banking, telcos, digital platforms – all that would sort of come under that consumer protection umbrella and there is going to be legislation, I believe, intended for this.
I find that in Singapore, this is missing. There is no consumer protection overarching body that seems to be looking across the different industry sectors on whether consumers are getting a fair deal. So, I wonder if he can comment on whether he thinks that such a body would actually add value to our interest in protecting consumers.
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for her feedback. Maybe I will just add, on the EUPG first. The EUPG, as you compared to the Australia's E-Payments Code; there is a list of consumer duties within the EUPG, as the Member had mentioned. And these are cyber hygiene duties that the consumer ought to perform. And that is why as a whole, I think that is very, very important, not just for duties by banks, telcos; but also in order to address scams, the consumers need to play an important role.
They are also in line with public education efforts that the Government has been reinforcing. We also expect banks to treat customers fairly and take into account the specifics of the scams and the profile of the victims.
We are assessing this feedback on both in SRF as well as EUPG, and in many of the different consultations, we reach out to consumers. That is one. And we get their feedback.
The second on the SRF, the topic about the Australian example is the Scams Code Framework. The Scams Code Framework is quite similar to our SRF. SRF will be operational by the first half of this year. In the same way, it also looks at duties by financial institutions as well as telcos. I think the Australian example has other sectors as well that are inputted into this. We had mentioned in the SRF that we will continue to review it and see how these duties can be applied and where possible and where it is appropriate, we are looking at different countries' experiences with it and we may expand it. The SRF is not set in stone. We will review and it will evolve over time.
But I would also like to share with the Member that the experiences in different countries are also very different. The scam typologies are also very different. The way that the banks, the telcos, operators and other aspects within the ecosystem that deal with this issue is also very different. So, I want to assure her and I assure the Members that we continue to take all of these into account.
We studied the Australian Code. It is very similar to SRF. But we will continue to review them over time.
The Chairman: Ms Lim, I will come back to you because I just want to clear the rest of the cuts, and if we have time, I will come back to you. Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: The plethora and spectrum of issues confronting the Public Service are becoming more complex and cut across agencies. For example, COVID-19 showed that public health pandemic had implications on many other aspects such as the economy, education, work, social connections and support.
Beyond COVID-19, we also see families with more complex needs cutting across multiple areas such as jobs, healthcare, education, emotional support and financial assistance. We are also seeing major changes on other fronts such as geopolitics, generative AI and sustainability. To tackle challenges ahead that are becoming more complex, the Public Service must review and refresh its agenda.
To help develop and deliver this, public officers must also build new skills and experiences to better understand changing citizen needs. Public officers also need to understand changing external forces as geopolitics become more complex and even issues like sustainability have global dimensions and ramifications.
Generative AI has also morphed the way we can and should do things ethically and without compromising data security and confidentiality. How is the Government equipping the public service, including our officers, with the right skills, experiences and perspectives for the future?
Mr Yip Hon Weng: Chairman, as Singapore navigates an increasingly complex future, our residents' needs will grow even more diverse and interconnected. We must shift from agency-centric services to citizen-centric ones. We can no longer expect Singaporeans to navigate bureaucratic silos, going from agency to agency to access essential assistance for multiple needs which are in fact interconnected.
Imagine a scenario where families in need seamlessly access financial aid, job training, housing assistance and healthcare for seniors, all through a single, integrated platform. This holistic approach, where services revolve around residents rather than agencies, is not just a vision but a necessity today.
Initiatives like ServiceSG and the Municipal Services Office have made strides towards service integration. Can the Minister provide an update on the progress and impact of these initiatives. Can the Minister also share the Government's broader roadmap for further integrating and streamlining citizens’ access to services.
While digitalisation holds immense potential and we should continue to pursue this as much as possible, physical accessibility remains critical for those who need it. Can the Minister share plans to expand dedicated physical service counters for seniors and individuals lacking digital literacy?
Can the Minister also elaborate on the existing mechanisms for escalation across agencies, and how timely resolution is ensured? What are the types of cases that usually fall through the cracks? How is the Ministry addressing such cases to ensure no citizens are left behind?
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Sir, trust between elected officials and public servants on one side, and the public on the other, is important for a well-functioning political system. It is important to maintain and enhance this relationship.
Yet, ties between state and society do not exist in a vacuum. As Singapore becomes an ever more important commercial and financial hub, more money and interests will flow into Singapore. They will have interests to advance and protect. Doing so may involve lobbying. It may involve the appointment of sitting Members of Parliament to boards or the hiring of former Members of Parliament and senior public servants to advise on the shaping of policy and legislation. We often see events by industry associations and others attended by elected officials.
Lobbying happens in all systems. Yet what is important is how a system regulates lobbying to ensure that the proper political process is not circumvented, and there is no undue disadvantage given to different groups in society, especially those with less money, access and voice. To this end, how can we improve oversight on lobbying activities given Singapore’s changing circumstances?
Specifically, what prevents Singapore from passing legislation on lobbying? Such a law could include publicly available registers of lobbyists, lobbying contact with political appointees, Members of Parliament, and very senior public servants, as well as board memberships of Members of Parliament. Some of this information is already provided by political parties under legislation governing political donations and the recently enacted Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or FICA.
Some will say that such a move is not foolproof. Nothing is. The perfect cannot become an enemy of the good. Properly regulating lobbying activity and addressing potential conflicts of interest reduces chances of excessive influence by certain groups and a shorting of political processes. It is an improvement on the current absence of formal regulation.
Some may find allowing more public scrutiny onerous. Building public trust in increasingly complex situations also comes with those in positions of authority trusting the public, not just calling on the public to trust authority. This not only must be done but must be seen to be done.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Incorruptibility is fundamental to the success of the Singapore Government. Yet, public declaration of assets by Ministers is not practised here although Ministers do disclose this information as well as company directorships to the President via the Prime Minister in confidence as per the Code of Conduct for Ministers.
As described in the Code of Conduct, this would help counter potential allegations of corruption and unexplained wealth, and to avoid potential conflicts between private interests and public responsibilities. Public declarations would thus go a long way in ensuring public accountability, the Singaporeans to whom the executive serves, and not just accountability to the President.
In countries like the United Kingdom (UK), Ministers are required to disclose their financial interests publicly, including investment properties. Perhaps we can consider adopting such a practice in Singapore as well. Such declarations would go some way to bridge the trust gap between Singaporeans and their elected officials, and also help to prevent the spread of misinformation.
For a start, we need not make the full disclosures of sensitive details mandatory. For example, in the case of residential properties, unit numbers can be redacted to protect the privacy of the Minister involved.
I am sure that this practice will be appreciated by Singaporeans. The question of whether our Ministers can be trusted to scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between their official duties and private financial interests, as the Ministers' Code of Conduct requires them to do, has been raised before in this house.
During a Parliamentary Session on the rental of 26 Ridout Road last year, People's Action Party Member of Parliament Poh Li San suggested that it would be in the interest of transparency for Minister Shanmugam and Minister Vivian to declare all their property assets. However, this was not a requirement under the Code of Conduct at the time. It should be.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Chairman, we are currently operating in an increasingly hostile global environment – one that is marked by fear, uncertainty and doubt. For Singapore to successfully navigate ourselves through these uncertain waters, we must ensure that our Public Service officers have broad perspectives so that they are equipped to take on the challenges of the future.
I would like to ask how does the Public Service Division (PSD) intend to prepare its officers to expand their perspectives beyond the Public Service? How many Public Service officers have been seconded out of the public sector annually over the past five years? Does PSD plan to allow more of its officers to go on such secondments?
Beyond secondments to private sector and civil society, we should also groom officers to better appreciate international viewpoints and equip them with the ability to negotiate globally. Does PSD offer structured programmes for public sector officers to take on attachments at international and regional organisations?
I hope that the PSD will provide officers with a structured framework for rotation outside of the Public Service. This will allow future Public Service leaders to better understand the private sector, social sector and the international domain, and factor these perspectives when conceptualising and implementing policies.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, the global environment is becoming increasingly challenging and susceptible to rapid change. As a country, we also have matured and are now in transition.
To imagine and chart our future as a nation will require greater engagement and partnership between the Government and Singaporeans. For one, the Government does not have a monopoly on the best ideas. Further, the Government's aim is to serve our citizens and closer engagement is necessary to better gauge citizens' trust and satisfaction in public services and institutions.
The recent Forward SG exercise, launched in June 2022 to engage Singaporeans from all walks of life, has laid out a new social compact for Singapore. To move towards this new compact, changes are expected to be made in both Government policies and the way the Government engages and partners Singaporeans in creating and delivering policies and programmes.
The formation of the new Singapore Government Partnerships Office (SGPO) is an example of how the Government is reorganising itself to support the new partnership and engagement approach set out under Forward SG. It is a welcome move to strengthen partnerships between the Government, private and people sectors for the national good. The new organisation could become the first stop for people to share ideas or proposals, gather other like-minded individuals and organisations, and access opportunities for citizen-government collaborations.
Beyond the formation of the SGPO, may I ask how is the Public Service reorganising itself to better serve citizens and public good amid a changing environment and more frequent volatility? How can we better set ourselves up to tackle increasingly complex external forces and growing interdependency of issues as well as the build-up of complex domestic matters.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Chairman, many officers who join the Public Service are driven by the higher purpose of doing good, wanting to serve and make a difference to Singapore. Public officers can do good both through their, or during their work, or outside of work, fostering a culture of civic and engagement and social responsibility.
To this end, Minister Chan Chun Sing had announced last year that the Public Service is launching the Public Service for Good movement from July 2023. The movement calls for public officers to get involved in new ways to do good for Singaporeans, beyond their day jobs.
Such a movement is great. It helps foster volunteerism amongst public officers and also improves their understanding of ground issues. In fact, if properly matched, their voluntary services will enrich their beneficiaries with valuable manpower and skills.
I have personally had the opportunity to serve with several senior public officers like Permanent Secretary Teo Zsin Woon and Deputy Secretary Poon Hon Yuen in the disability and the seniors space in initiatives beyond their day jobs. Recently, I also heard that public officers across the Service signed up as befrienders to seniors who live alone in Marine Parade. So, there are many good things happening but not much is known.
I therefore would like to ask the Minister for updates on the progress of the Public Service For Good movement since its launch, and what more can be done to match more public officers to the needs on the ground.
The Chairman: Minister Chan Chun Sing.
The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Chairman, we thank all the Members for their cuts, questions and suggestions for the Public Service and how we can do better.
Indeed, today we have a Public Service that the vast majority, if not all Singaporeans, can be proud of. But we, in the Public Service, we are acutely aware of the need for us to stay ahead of the game.
As Mr Patrick Tay mentioned, technology is changing rapidly. The way countries are organising themselves and their Public Service are also rapidly evolving. We must be careful that we do not rest on our laurels. We continue to innovate, continue to want to do better and come up with new solutions, lest we be overtaken by others. And if we do not have a strong, committed and innovative Public Service, it will certainly not help us to inspire confidence in investors, local enterprises, to put their investments here to create good jobs for our people.
So, our Government believes that we cannot rely on today's or yesterday's solutions for tomorrow's problem. We have to constantly look for new processes, new organisations, to meet tomorrow's challenges. A forward-looking and future-ready Public Service is central to Singapore's success. Let me share how our Public Service is going to operate, develop and partner differently to ensure that we are ready for the future challenges.
Let me start with how we are going to evolve the way we organise ourselves.
Increasingly, our Public Service will be organised in a much more mission-centric way, given the complexity and interdependency of issues that many Members have mentioned.
For example, to more effectively tackle climate change, we set up the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) in 2010. This has worked out well and borne fruit. NCCS has allowed us to sharpen our focus on climate change issues across the whole of Government, cutting across many agencies. For example, NCCS worked with MSE to develop the Singapore Green Plan 2030 to achieve our long-term goal of net zero emissions. But behind that, there was participation from MTI, MOE, MOM and many other agencies.
In 2019, to better harness the potential of technology, we formed the Public Sector Science and Technology Policy and Plans Office, or what we call S&TPPO. We are seeing the fruits of this effort too. For example, robots are increasingly deployed in buildings for services like cleaning and security, but they cannot communicate with each other because of different manufacturers having their own proprietary software. This is inefficient.
To drive the adoption of robotics and automation, S&TPPO worked with A*STAR and GovTech to adapt and deploy a universal middleware for the Public Service. With this, robots from different manufacturers can now communicate with one another and with lifts, doors and security gantries to move autonomously around buildings. Successful trials have been completed in the Tampines Regional Library and the JTC Summit with the National Library Board (NLB) and JTC. S&TPPO is working with GovTech and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) to further test the product with other public and private sectors.
Yet another example where they have become much more mission-focused, mission-centric is ground operations. To improve efficiency, S&TPPO and GovTech are working with agencies to apply video analytics rather than just focusing on each agency's own CCTV video feed. S&TPPO is driving the consolidation of these sensitive feeds into a cloud video exchange before applying video analytics to the consolidated video feeds. This can improve decision-making and respond times, such as identifying an overcrowding situation that requires intervention or preventing worksite incidents. We will continue to build on these successes to refine the way we organise ourselves going forward.
In response to Ms Mariam Jaafar's earlier questions to Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong about centralisation, from a Public Service perspective, we just want to say this. Centralisation is not the only way that we can allow better coordination across the various agencies. In fact, depending on the nature of the problem, we have different methods. Sometimes, we may start up a new agency, centralise and put it under the PMO to incubate it. At other times, we may assign one of the agencies to be, if you like, the lead or the first among equals to coordinate that. But that agency, that lead agency, is, if you like, a mini joint staff. It must have people participating from other agencies to support it. Our hope is that over time, each and every one of our agencies, when tackling a new problem, can be a mini joint staff where it can harness the energies and capabilities and capacities of other agencies to come together. So, it does not mean that every new problem that requires more coordination needs to be centralised at the PMO or to create a new agency.
Next, let me respond to Mr Yip Hong Weng's questions on how we reorganise our service delivery for us to be much more citizen-centric.
In 2021, we formed ServiceSG to create a single touchpoint for citizens to access multiple services across agencies. In the digital sphere, we have made great strides in making services more intuitive, seamless and relevant for our citizens, and we will continue to improve.
For example, Singaporeans can use SupportGoWhere, a one-stop portal, to find Government support schemes and services. A key feature is the Care Services Recommender for caregivers to find the support they need easily and conveniently. Another example is MyLegacy@LifeSG portal, which helps citizens plan ahead for end-of-life matters.
Even as more services are digitised, the Public Service is committed to ensuring that our services continue to be accessible and inclusive for all.
Today, citizens can walk into the seven physical ServiceSG centres across Singapore and access close to 600 services and schemes from over 25 agencies.
Seniors who have difficulty making online transactions can simply walk in. Officers are cross-trained to help them access frequently used digital services. And 70% of citizens visiting ServiceSG centres in 2023 were aged 55 and above.
We will continue to expand the network of ServiceSG centres to prioritise areas with higher demand and concentration of citizens, particularly seniors, who require support with multiple digital transactions. In line with this, two new centres will be established at Woodlands Civic Centre and Bukit Merah Central by the end of 2024.
There are whole-of-Government service standards to ensure agencies uphold a consistent and satisfactory level of service. To avoid cases falling through the cracks, we have a no-wrong-door policy for any public feedback received. We will continue to ensure that our policies, standards and practices are inclusive to all.
For municipal services, the Municipal Services Office (MSO), coordinates across agencies and Town Councils to serve residents. For businesses, MTI and GovTech are continuously evolving the Go Business portal to facilitate a globally competitive, pro-enterprise operating environment in Singapore. The Go Business portal allows businesses to access services across multiple Government agencies by milestone movements.
So, these are just examples of how the Public Service is organising and evolving our organisation to be much more mission-centric and much more citizen-centric.
Let me respond to Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Melvin Yong's cuts on your feedback on how public officers need to cultivate different skill sets and perspectives to thrive in the new operating context.
Within the Service, public officers can gain new skill sets from formal training courses and increasingly through hands-on development opportunities. These range from short-term attachments, what we call Short-term Immersion Programmes (STIP) or gig work, to longer-term job rotations or structured job rotations (SJR). The take-up rate has been good. The number of officers matched to these opportunities jumped five-fold, from 730 in 2021 to 3,700 in 2023.
Just as an example – Service SG Centre Head, Ms Uma, signed up for STIP with the Agency for Integrated Care's (AIC's) Silver Generation Office. She engaged seniors to better understand their concerns and share how Government can support them.
We are happy to report that the people who have gone through this programme have found the cross-pollination of ideas very useful and at the same time it helps them to build the network of relationships required for a much more responsive Government service.
We are also deliberate in exploring alternative modalities such as boot camps and competitions to generate interest in building new capabilities. To build data capabilities, GovTech organises the annual Data Champions Boot Camp and Data Arcade Tournament. To build AI capabilities, GovTech launched a Prom Royale Award, a Prom Engineering Competition last year. This year, GovTech will launch a new AI Champions Boot Camp.
Public officers can also expand their perspectives through exposure beyond the Public Service. We are encouraging the public officers to experience the perspective of citizens and businesses through stints in the private and people sectors, such as the Talent Attachment Programme (TAP).
Under the TAP, Enterprise SG officers like Clarence Tan was attached to DBS Bank's business analytics team. There, he learned how to operate with big commercial data sets to achieve an all-round understanding of customers. These insights were helpful when Clarence subsequently returned to Enterprise SG to use data to further partner businesses on their growth journey.
We have set aside up to 40 hours per year for officers to pursue their own development opportunities outside the public sector. For example, Ivy Lee from NLB volunteered with Friends-in-deed Counselling Society as a certified counsellor. In her journey with three individuals over 10 months, she deepened her empathy and communication skills. This helped her to become a more empathetic middle manager in NLB.
An effective Public Service needs to operate well, both locally and internationally. We are equipping more public officers with broader international perspective through exchange programmes and deployment to international organisations at all levels where they fly the Singapore flag high.
Just to give some examples, Ambassador Rena Lee, who is the current CEO of IPOS, was elected as President of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ). In 2018, when she was an officer in Attorney-General's Chambers' (AGC's) International Affairs Division. As IGC President, Rena built upon her strong international networks and mastery of international law, which helped her build bridges during multilateral negotiations.
The success of Ambassador Lee's presidency has entrenched Singapore's standing in the international community as a top leader in international law and as an advocate for a rules-based multilateral system.
Another example, Mr Daryl Ong from the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) participated in a two-year Madrid Fellowship Programme administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). Through this, he built his network with other countries' trademark examiners and deepened his knowledge of the Madrid Protocol. Daryl transformed the way trademark data is communicated from IPOS to WIPO to be faster and more accurate. This benefits trademark owners in Singapore.
We will continue to look out for opportunities for our officers to be attached to international organisations at all levels, including the UN agencies, because this allows us to understand what are the issues that are evolving at the international circles and how we can better prepare ourselves to integrate and work with these agencies in time to come.
Beyond organising ourselves differently and building new capabilities in our offices, we also need to partner differently.
As part of Forward SG, partnership is a key component of the refreshed social compact. Strong partnerships are anchored on trust. The Public Service has worked hard over generations to earn the trust of Singaporeans and is committed to a strong system of governance.
Ms He Ting Ru asked whether our regulations or practices need any updates to ensure that our governance frameworks are not compromised and Mr Louis Chua asked about making assets declarations public for Ministers. I think I have responded to these topics previously, extensively in past Parliamentary replies, but if I may, I will just reiterate a few things.
I think different countries have different rules for their people and organisations and as all of us will agree, no one rule is a panacea to prevent corruption or lobbying.
But what we need to do is to look at the system holistically. What we also need to do is to look at the outcome that we have achieved and ask ourselves what is the scale and magnitude of our problem. Putting in new and more rules does not necessarily solve the problems that we may not even have to start with. Whenever we put in new rules, we must also be careful if it causes any unintended consequences.
For example, I just checked the data that was quoted by some Members about some of the countries that have perhaps adopted some of those rules.
In the Corruption Perceptions Index, Singapore in the last five years has been ranked consistently between number three and number five. But those countries who supposedly have some of these more elaborate rules are actually ranked much lower. For example, the UK was ranked somewhere between 11 and 20.
So, I think when we look at how to make sure that we retain the trust of our people, we must look at it at a system level. If I may reiterate what I have said previously, this must occur at three levels.
First, we must make sure that we select good people with the right values to understand not just the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law and uphold them.
Second, we must work as a system, as a team, to make sure that we look out for one another, check one another's blind spots, help to prevent one another from falling into a situation where they might be compromised.
And third, we must have layers of checks internally and externally to pick up issues whenever there are problems.
That is how we have managed to keep our system relatively corruption-free, lobby-free all these years. But we will be the first to admit that no system is perfect and the situation is evolving and every time we put in rules, there will be parties out there that will try to go around our rules and we have to keep constantly evolving our own rules to make sure that we are never complacent.
In trying to copy other people's rules, we must see what they have been able to achieve versus what we have been able to achieve, what problems they have been able to solve versus what problems we are trying to solve. There is no magic answer to this.
And we should also have a care for the confidentiality of the information, the privacy concerns of the senior officers in the Public Service, including the political office holders. Why stop at the Ministers? Why not the Members of Parliament? Why stop at the Permanent Secs? Why not the Directors? I think for every rule that we put in, there are implications that we should consider carefully and ask ourselves whether the price that we pay is commensurate with the problem that we are trying to solve.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked how the Government can partner citizens better. The formation of the Singapore Government Partnership Office (SGPO) signals our commitment to the next round of partnerships and engagements.
Beyond partnering on issues that are already on the national agenda, we will engage citizens to set the agenda. We are building from a position of strength. We have already established a clear track record of engagements and partnerships with the community from consulting to co-creating and co-delivering solutions.
For lower-income families and their children, we have moved beyond public consultations on Government proposals to proactively co-create and co-deliver solutions with the public. For example, under the Growing Together with KidSTART initiative, corporates and volunteers partnered KidSTART Singapore to co-create fun learning opportunities for KidSTART families and their children.
As part of the Singapore Green Plan 2030, the Green Action for Community (GAC) movement was launched in 2022 to involve the community in co-creating ground-up sustainability efforts.
We are also strengthening partnerships with the private sector. During COVID-19, many came forward to help and co-create solutions together with the government. We are doubling down on these new ways of working together. There are now about 15 active Alliances for Action (AFAs), covering a range of common interests.
We are also formalising our partnerships with corporates, such as the MOU with Singapore Airlines last month, to collaborate in areas such as training and volunteer management in essential support care roles in the healthcare sector and this will also allow the Public Service to search our capabilities in the contingencies, drawing upon some of the capacities in the private sector.
I thank Ms Denise Phua for her cut on the Public Service for Good Movement. I launched it in July last year to provide public officers with opportunities to actively partner citizens on a personal level. I am happy to share that in 2023, over 1,000 public officers signed up to volunteer their skills for meaningful causes such as being a community befriender for low-income families and mentoring ITE students.
Under the Public Service ITE Mentorship Programme, Higher NITEC students like Ryan and Ferris interned at GovTech for 20 weeks. GovTech officers Yeo Kian Chuan, Zorrel Chen and Supansa Tan noticed the interns' enthusiasm for learning and ensured ample opportunities for them to grow and eventually perform as Product Managers with the Public Service.
In 2024, we will expand the Public Service for Good Movement to include a wider range of social causes and initiatives.
This will include skills-based volunteering opportunities that empower our youths and families through mentorship, support seniors in ageing well, promote sustainability initiatives for a greener Singapore.
Having said that, I come back to where I started. Past success is no guarantee for future success. I have shared how we are going to evolve the way we operate, develop our capabilities and partner others for the future. This is an ongoing effort. We must look ahead and continue to plan ahead, even if it means disrupting ourselves. In fact, we rather disrupt ourselves before other people disrupt us, so that our Public Service can continue to transform and remain relevant to the future needs of Singapore, and it will be a Public Service where all Singaporeans can be proud of.
The Chairman: We are reaching the end of guillotine time. If there are any clarifications, I can probably allow one or two very short ones. Any clarifications for Minister Chan? Ms Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Chairman, thank you. In the interest of time, just on the FIDReC's jurisdictdion.
The Chairman: Minister of State Tan, a short reply please.
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, just quickly to Ms Sylvia Lim, just two things. One, the earlier question about the overarching consumer protection. First, we have the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) which deals with general enquiries, and FIDReC to deal with financial disputes. I think we just look at how other jurisdictions handle that and we have a framework and a process where it fits our jurisdiction.
On FIDReC, the Member would have noted that FIDReC is currently consulting on the terms of reference, one of which is to raise the current adjudication award limit from $100,000 to $150,000. This consultation closes on, in fact, 29 February, this week. So, please feel free to submit any feedback on this.
The Chairman: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San: Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $619,177,000 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $61,955,200 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head M (Ministry of Finance)","subTitle":"A forward-looking Government, a future-ready Singapore","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Sir, even as we remake our social compact, set out to build our shared future together, we should not lose sight on the other non-social aspects like growing the economy and to ensure that we have sustainable finance.
I am glad that both growing the economy and upholding fiscal prudence and fiscal responsibility are also featured in the Forward Singapore report. Having a strong and vibrant economy creates good jobs and gives us the means to tackle social challenges and enables us to bring about better lives for our people. The Forward Singapore report also reminded us that we are stewards of our limited resources.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
While as the current generation of Singaporeans, we are beneficiaries of the strong financial position that we are in today, we should also be good stewards of our finances so that the next and future generations of Singaporeans can continue to benefit from the financial security and the financial resources available. Our social compact must, therefore, be inter-generational; so that future generations, our children, our grandchildren and those not yet born can also be sufficiently resourced to be able to deal with the challenges of their times.
Sir, our Government spending has reached around 18% of gross domestic product (GDP) and is projected to increase to around 20% GDP by 2030. We are spending more for the better well-being of Singaporeans and to build for a more secure future. We cannot and should not cut costs to greatness, but we should ensure that our public spending is value-for-money and that we live up to the high governance standards.
The Government and Public Service are a gigantic machinery with extensive functionalities and round-the-clock operations. Public Service has become more complex due to the changing social, economic and political landscape as well as the deeper proliferation of technologies and the use of digital channels in our daily lives.
Understandably, the Public Service will need a comprehensive set of control and procurement policies and governance framework to administer its procurement of goods and services of this scale.
To strengthen governance and accountability, agencies are also subject to the audits by their internal and external auditors as well as the Auditor-General's Office.
As the agency that manages the Government's finances, how does the Ministry of Finance (MOF) ensure the effective and prudent use of public resources and that the intended outcomes are met?
Sir, many local enterprises are suppliers and servicers to the Government. While they have no issues with the credit worthiness of the Government in fulfilling the contractual obligations and paying the bills, many do hope that doing businesses can be made even easier.
For example, businesses hope that the Government's procurement contracts can be portioned into smaller bite sizes so that smaller businesses would not be disadvantaged.
How would MOF continue to improve businesses’ ease of transacting with the Government? Also, importantly, how does the Government ensure prompt and timely payments to suppliers to ease their cash flow challenges amidst rising costs?
Over the decades, Singapore has built up its reputation as the trusted hub for trade and enterprise. Trade serves as an important pillar for the economy; and along with rapid digitalisation, they are much better connected across the trade value chain today. Systems, such as the Networked Trade Platform (NTP) and TradeNet, helped us up the game and enabled greater efficiency and enhanced connectivity. In that regard, can I ask: how do we maintain and strengthen our position as a leading trade, supply chain and trading financing hub?
Sir, Singapore has committed ourselves to ambitious climate targets, including to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 as part of the Long-Term Low-Emissions Development Strategy. To achieve these targets, we have to transit to a green economy that deploys greener and more sustainable energy solutions. While the transition will pose significant challenges, especially to our cost structure, it also provides impetus for businesses and entrepreneurs to start seeking innovative green solutions and to explore new opportunities.
Can I ask how is MOF supporting companies to seize growth opportunities and develop capabilities in the area of sustainability?
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, in the Ministry’s Occasional Paper on Medium-Term Fiscal Projections dated February 2023, our total revenue is projected to shrink as a percentage of GDP up to FY2030, whereas Government spending is expected to increase from 18% of GDP today to more than 20% of GDP by FY2030. So, our fiscal headroom will get smaller.
Where we in this House have committed not to dip into our Reserves set aside for future generations, outside of exceptional circumstances, we must ensure that we spend public resources prudently.
But prudence does not mean incurring the lowest possible cost. I am sure most Members would agree with the Building and Construction Authority’s (BCA's) and Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM's) decision to raise the weighting of safety-related criteria in the evaluation of construction tenders from 1 April 2024.
Besides after-the-fact audits by the Auditor-General’s Office and scrutiny by Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, how does MOF ensure effective and prudent use of public resources? Can technology and artificial intelligence help?
The Chairman: Mr Pritam Singh. Please take your two cuts together.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Chairman, the registration threshold of $1 million for the Goods and Services Tax (GST) has been in place since 1994. The threshold works, for example, to exempt some small and medium enterprises (SMEs), such as hawkers and retail shops in our neighbourhoods. It also helps avoid incurring additional costs to comply with GST accounting and collection requirements. Almost 30 years later, this figure of $1 million remains in place.
In an earlier Parliamentary Question to MOF on this matter, it replied that the Ministry would continue to assess the appropriateness of this threshold as part of its regular policy reviews. Can the Ministry share the factors that it considers with regard to the appropriateness of the $1 million registration threshold for GST and why it has not been minded to raise this threshold, particularly in view of inflation?
Separately, are there plans to further simplify the compliance costs of GST registration, particularly for small businesses?
Chairman, the chargeable income tax for the first $20,000 of one's personal income is 0%. This has remained the case for many years. Even though the effective tax rate of 2% is in place for those earning between $20,000 to $30,000, a figure that comes up to $200, this amount is not insignificant, especially for low-income earners, much of whose salaries get spent on food and consumables.
An additional $200 to spend on such items can provide much respite and support for some families. For those who rent HDB flats under the rental housing scheme, and at the lowest tier, $200 can pay for seven months of rent. Would the Ministry be able to share how it determines the circumstances it takes into account in deciding when to raise its chargeable income threshold for the first $20,000, either to increase it, in view of rising prices and inflation?
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Sir, the RIE 2025 plan reinforces Singapore's commitment to long-term investments in enterprise development. It establishes Singapore as a leading global hub for innovation and intellectual property development, ensuring a sustainable competitive advantage for businesses. Given these goals, there is scope to expand our IP protection.
Could the Minister consider broadening the definition of qualifying IP for corporate tax purposes and enhance the IP development tax incentive to spearhead our overall innovation drive?
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Chairman, cost of living remains as a top concern on Singaporeans' minds. Thus, I wish to seek the following clarifications, please. Firstly, has the Committee Against Profiteering found any instances of profiteering, especially in light of the recent GST increments? The Government must continue to safeguard Singaporeans against profiteering.
Secondly, and specifically on food affordability, have food prices at dining outlets increased to the extent that Singaporeans have been materially affected from affording this necessity? I am particularly concerned about our seniors' ability to afford and access at least sufficient and adequate nourishment, whether they dine at home or outside.
Thirdly, how else would the Government assist Singaporeans with household expenses, such as from water and electricity consumption? This point is raised as an aside to encouraging and incentivising households to minimising consumption levels.
Fourthly, will the Government consider providing more support to social enterprises that provide free food to low-income families, especially those living in Housing and Development Board (HDB) rental flats, such as by giving matching grants to social enterprises? The measures under Budget 2024 are commendable and under which everybody will receive a slice of the pie. My concern is a nuanced one.
How can we raise greater awareness so that every Singaporean understands the nature and extent of the assistance or relief that they will receive? Simply put, the measures must not only work but also be felt by Singaporeans to be working.
Finally, how will MOF track the efficacy of Budget 2024's objectives and assistance to its beneficiaries? Mr Chairperson, we as a House and the Government have always worked to ensure that no one is left behind.
In my view, it is our duty to ensure that Singaporeans are aware and assured that we have been and always will do our best for our society. I look forward to the Government's response to my aforementioned points.
The Chairman: Mr Leong Mun Wai, please take your two cuts together.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Chairman, in the 1970s, MOF provided the House with detailed breakdowns of the fees and taxes collected. For example, we know that in 1972, the Government collected about $190,000 in car park fines. The information provided today is much less detailed in comparison. I would like to use my cut today to ask for more detailed information on the revenue and expenditure estimates.
First, on revenue. What are the taxes lumped together under “Other Taxes”, account code B90? This item has increased from an estimate of $6.3 billion to a revised estimate of $8.44 billion. What are the reasons for this increase? Why does MOF not provide a breakdown of these taxes, given the sizeable amount? What is the estimated amount of levy collected for Work Permit, S Pass and Migrant Domestic Workers respectively in 2023 and 2024? What is the account code for ERP revenue and what was the estimated amount collected? What are the reasons for the significant increase in corporate income tax from 2022 to 2023 of about $5 billion? Why is there a significant estimated increase in property tax collected for private properties of $753 million in 2024 despite the upward revision of the Annual Value bands announced in Budget 2024? Why is there a big estimated increase in land sale revenue from $18 billion in 2023 to $31 billion in 2024?
Next, on expenditures. How much has been disbursed to SPH Media Trust in 2023 and how much estimated for 2024? What are the HDB deficits for 2023 and 2024? How much was spent by Ministers travelling overseas to fulfil the obligations of their international appointments in their private capacity in 2022 and 2023? How many ongoing development projects have cumulative investment of more than $1 billion? How many projects with total investments of more than $1 billion are expected to be initiated in 2024?
Finally, what has been the amount invested by MOF as capital injections into Temasek Holdings in 2023 and 2024, and why is this not accounted for as a separate line item?
Chairman, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the Government’s efforts to support the retirement and healthcare needs of younger seniors through the Majulah Package. As usual, the Government has set aside money from the current-year Budget to fund the full cost of the package upfront. This time, the Government has set aside $7.5 billion and the projected cost of the package is $8.2 billion. But how do we know whether we have set aside too much?
Back when the Merdeka Generation Fund was set up in May 2019, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong told the House that the Government would set aside $6.1 billion and that the projected cost of the Package is over $8 billion. But on page 78 of the Government Financial Statements released in July 2023, there is now a note that says, “The estimated liabilities under the Merdeka Generation Fund as at 31 March 2023 are $6,021,419,859.64.” Even after adding the total net drawdown of about $400 million since 2019, the total cost of the Package now does not seem to add up to $8 billion.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain whether this means that too much money was initially set aside when the Merdeka Generation Fund was set up? If yes, what will happen to the excess funds?
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Chairman, in Budget 2024, as in previous Budgets, funds are allocated to support Singaporeans, reinforce our competitive advantage, build on existing strengths as well as upgrade sectors where we have competitive advantage. The allocation in this year’s Budget is $20.4 billion. An example of these funds is the top-up of the Financial Sector Development Fund by $2 billion. Other funds include the $5 billion Future Energy Fund to invest in critical infrastructures to catalyse the move to low-carbon electricity; the GST Voucher Fund of $6 billion; and the $2 billion top-up of the Edusave Endowment Fund to recognise and encourage our students to develop competencies, such as adaptive and inventive thinking, communication skills and civic literacy, that will prepare them better and be future-ready. These initiatives are longer term and span over a few years.
What measures does MOF take to assess and ensure the appropriate, effective and prudent use of public resources as they would be expected to be expensed over multi years?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Chairman, a resident, who is a single father taking care of two daughters in their early teens, shared with me that while he welcomed the change in law last year doubling the paternity leave from two to four weeks, the benefits which he received are significantly less than single mothers, divorced or otherwise, who are having care of their children. For example, he does not enjoy the substantial reliefs which a woman is entitled to under the Working Mother’s Child Relief. My resident, who has a full-time job, would like to engage a migrant domestic worker to help with housework and care for his children. However, he is not entitled to any tax relief under the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Relief. IRAS allows women who are married, separated from their husbands, divorced or widowed, and had children who lived with them to claim the relief.
Can the Government consider equalising the entitlement to this relief, such that men or women can qualify to apply for this relief as long as other criteria are fulfilled, so that single fathers like himself needing domestic help will get the same relief as single women in his position?
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: Mr Chairman, against the backdrop of geopolitical volatility, digitalisation and climate change, we are witnessing structural changes in the global economy. Singapore’s growth and success are dependent on an open and global economy. How is Singapore strengthening our value proposition to address the risks and capture the opportunities driven by structural supply chain shifts to continue to anchor Singapore as a trusted and preferred hub for trade and business?
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, I will speak on Government procurement processes, focusing on quality discernment, support for SMEs and green procurement.
Firstly, building Government capabilities is essential. Our public officers must maintain the Government's stewardship role in securing the best quality at the right price. How does MOF ensure the effective and prudent use of public resources and how do we ensure that procurement policies are not only cost-effective but are synonymous with superior quality? It is imperative to equip our public officers with the skills and knowledge to discern quality and excellence.
The introduction of the SME-lite tender system in late 2023 is noteworthy. However, local firms have provided feedback that the tender process has challenges. SMEs face difficulties in fulfilling track record requirements and meet minimum financial grading criteria for larger projects. Could the Ministry provide an update on the SME-lite tender scheme and how it is being refined based on feedback?
SMEs often face cash flow challenges. Hence, how is the Government ensuring prompt payment to ease SMEs’ cash flow issues and, in circumstances where the SMEs are the subcontractors, how does the Government ensure that main contractors promptly pay the subcontractors?
What additional steps can MOF take to enhance the ease of business transactions with the Government? How will initiatives like Invoice Now contribute to streamlining processes and what strategies are in place to expand its adoption across the private sector?
Finally, concerning green procurement, how does MOF enhance officers' understanding of genuinely sustainable initiatives to combat greenwashing effectively? Additionally, how does MOF support companies in leveraging growth opportunities and fostering sustainability capabilities?
Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Chairman, one way to support local businesses and SMEs to build up their capabilities and track record is through Government tenders. Industry groups have shared during my engagement with them that SMEs appreciate such opportunities, not just to increase revenues but also the chance to partner larger companies to sharpen their experience and learning.
While the Government has taken steps to reduce the administrative burden with new functions in GeBiz, such as an online repository, SMEs continue to feed back that accessibility and efficiency of Government tenders can be improved.
In particular, SMEs highlighted how contract specifications may at times be too stringent to fulfil or too rigid to allow room for SMEs to propose more innovative solutions to address requirements. They, therefore, hope contracts can be made more practical and flexible; while bundling and aggregation of contracts are logical, they could exclude smaller SMEs from bidding or compress their margins as they fulfil subcontracts with bigger SMEs as the middlemen; and startups, such as one specialising in AI video analytics which I met at the recent Singapore Airshow, asked whether the financial grading criteria can be eased to provide more opportunities for them to participate as vendors. The reality is that most are asset-light with different risk profiles from traditional companies and they are still in the midst of building up their financial track record.
On payments, I note that the Government has fulfilled payments on e-invoices below $5,000 well before the 30-day credit period. However, SMEs wonder if the invoicing and progressive payment process for larger contracts can be further simplified, such as in the verification of work completion and, especially when variation orders are involved.
I understand MOF had announced the Tender Lite procurement category in last year’s Budget to ease the Government tender journey for SMEs. On this note, can MOF: (a) update on the progress and effectiveness of Tender Lite’s implementation; (b) share if there are plans to further ease the administrative burden on SMEs during the Government’s procurement process, such as through further digitisation and automation; (c) consider improving inclusiveness of smaller SMEs and startups so that they can participate in Government procurement, such as by adjusting the requirements to prefer homegrown enterprises or MNCs that partner with them, so that our local businesses can also participate in the supply chain; and (d) share how the Government can improve the disbursement of payments and grants to be timelier and more frictionless to help SMEs ease their cash flow challenges?
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: Mr Chairman, the Government has outlined ambitious sustainability targets. In the drive to meet the targets and as a large purchaser of goods and services, public sector procurement plays a key role in catalysing the transition to green and achieving Singapore’s ambitious net-zero emission goals by 2030 and, subsequently, 2050.
What measures has the Government taken in its procurement policies to support and encourage suppliers of products and services to the Government to adopt more sustainable practices and grow their sustainability capabilities? Are companies participating in the Government tenders able to meet the standards and requirements and the Government’s procurement considerations? Is the Government on track to achieve its green procurement goals? What challenges has the Government encountered in its drive to green procurement?
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Chairman, the green transition, inherently complex, necessitates a catalytic role from the Government. It can help to mobilise funding and develop the right capabilities. By offering incentives, providing regulatory support and fostering a conducive environment, the Government's intervention will be instrumental in making the green transition a reality.
Sir, on philanthropic capital. With the growing number of family offices in Singapore, philanthropy can be a promising avenue. With last year’s announcement of the Philanthropy Tax Incentive Scheme, philanthropy from Singapore is increasingly borderless and can be used to fund climate projects around the region. This geographical flexibility will help boost the impact of philanthropy.
However, philanthropy alone is insufficient. Currently, it is estimated that less than 2% of the philanthropic dollars are allocated towards climate mitigation. We must find ways to rapidly scale this impact.
Sir, the true gamechanger will be in mobilising private capital to fund climate projects. We will see real sea change when the trillions in private capital can be effectively directed towards climate solutions.
However, private investors, who seek financial returns, say there is still a lack of sufficient bankable, investable and fundable deal opportunities on the ground. This is the main barrier. Many projects are sub-scale and are too risky for private capital to access.
Innovative funding structures, such as blended finance, have been seen as a solution. Singapore has made consistent efforts to grow blended finance, for example, through the MAS’ Financing Asia’s Transition Partnership.
Under this initiative, together with MAS, development finance institutions and philanthropies could provide concessionary capital in the form of grants, limited guarantees and debt or equity at below market rates of return. On the basis that concessionary capital has been put together, this creates the conditions for banks and institutional investors to crowd in private and commercial capital.
When blended finance works well, the impact is significant. A global example is the Zero Gap fund established by the Rockefeller Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation, which committed $30 million in catalytic investments. As of 2022, this sum has, in turn, mobilised more than $795 million in private capital for projects aimed at achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
However, the adoption of blended finance has been slow. Blended finance often involves complex structuring to balance the risks and returns for different types of investors. Many blended finance projects are in new and emerging markets, with relatively few historical precedents to demonstrate their viability and potential for success. This lack of proven track record can make investors hesitant to commit funds. I therefore call on the Government to build awareness and understanding of blended finance amongst potential investors.
Sir, on climate disclosure regime. As the net-zero goal will increasingly become a pre-requisite in the expectations of customers, investors as well as regulators across the world, it is urgent that we support our businesses to take action to stay competitive and relevant. Companies will increasingly be subjected to tighter sustainability reporting and regulations – particularly those with trading partners, such as those in the European Union, which have placed higher standards. Government support to build a framework to help companies comply with reporting requirements and compliance practices that are required by their counterparties will be critical.
Finally, on green procurement. The Government's green procurement can significantly bolster green transition. By prioritising the purchase of eco-friendly and sustainable products and services, the Government sets a powerful precedent – encouraging suppliers to innovate and shift towards sustainable practices.
I would like to ask the Government how it is progressing in its goals and targets towards green procurement?
Mr Mark Lee: Sir, I would like to inquire about the timeline for both listed and non-listed large enterprises within Singapore to commence the implementation of Scope 3 climate reporting disclosures. This initiative – of paramount importance amongst the business community fearing the tight timeline might leave them unprepared, risking their compliance and operational continuity.
Could MOF share insights into the extended milestones and how the Government plans to support companies – especially SMEs – through this change?
Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Mr Chairman, it cannot be gainsaid that philanthropy and volunteerism are key ingredients for building a strong social compact in Singapore. They foster our sense of togetherness, in addition to supplementing Government spending in funding social programmes and initiatives.
That is why we have traditionally offered generous tax deductions for cash donations made to Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) for causes that benefit the local community. The Corporate Volunteer Scheme – previously known as the Business & IPC Partnership Scheme – extended that tax benefit to corporates whose employees volunteer and provide services for IPCs.
So, I was quite surprised but also personally grateful, when Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced the new Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme. The 100% tax deduction offered should catalyse increased cash donations to approve overseas emergency humanitarian assistance causes. There are many people elsewhere who are in greater need. Ultimately, regardless of the beneficiary, we can foster a culture of giving.
What are the initiatives undertaken by MOF to strengthen our culture of giving and enable more people to contribute to our society? Also, how do we monitor the approved list of overseas emergency humanitarian assistance causes?
The Chairman: Second Minister for Finance, Mr Chee Hong Tat.
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their questions and suggestions for MOF.
The cuts cover four areas. First, improving businesses' ease of transacting with Government and supporting their green transition; second, building a strong society together; third, strengthening Singapore's competitive advantage as a trusted hub for trade and enterprise; and fourth, effective and prudent use of public resources.
I will speak on the first two areas and Minister Indranee Rajah will cover the other two areas.
Sir, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Edward Chia asked how MOF improves businesses' ease of transacting with Government and facilitates their participation in Government tenders.
Last year, we said that MOF will work with the business community to design Tender Lite – a new category of Government tender with fewer and simpler conditions. Over the past year, MOF has been engaging the Association of SMEs (ASME) and the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) to gather inputs from businesses to co-create Tender Lite together.
We have incorporated suggestions and inputs from our business leaders, to make Government contracts more accessible to SMEs.
First, MOF will cut the number of contract conditions by about 20% by streamlining the clauses. Second, we will share risks with businesses, while maintaining public accountability. MOF will remove the requirements for Security Deposits and Liquidated Damages by default for Tender Lite. This will reduce the cost on the businesses and the risk they bear when taking part in Tender Lite tenders.
MOF will be launching Tender Lite from April 2024. Tender Lite will cover tenders up to $1 million for general goods and services. With quotations and Tender Lite, around 90% of Government contracts will be subject to simpler procurement conditions which will benefit our SMEs.
We have also implemented the GeBIZ Supplier File Repository, which enables suppliers to upload their relevant business documents once – for use across multiple bids for all Government quotations and tenders. With the Repository, suppliers can save up to 5,000 hours in total across 100,000 bids submitted annually. Mr Derrick Goh asked if Government procurement could further support SMEs by giving preference to home-grown companies or to MNEs that partner with local SMEs.
As a buyer, the Government needs to ensure prudent use of public funds by selecting cost-effective solutions that provide value-for-money outcomes. Our procurement rules are designed to achieve this in a fair and transparent way. For many SMEs, Government contracts are an opportunity for them to build credibility and track record, which is helpful when they subsequently bid for private sector and overseas contracts; a point that Mr Goh mentioned too.
We are able to achieve this because the buyers know that the Singapore Government awards contracts based on merit via open and fair competition – focusing on quality and value-for-money outcomes. Our aim is to level the playing field and remove unnecessary obstacles that prevent competitive and innovative suppliers – including our small and new businesses – from participating in and winning Government contracts. So, this is what we seek to do under Tender Lite and other initiatives.
Today, over 80% by number and about 40% by value of Government procurement opportunities have been awarded to SMEs. This is higher than the targets in Australia at 20% by value; and in China at 30% by value.
We are also helping businesses reduce the cost of transacting with Government through eGuarantee@Gov, which is a simple and secure digital process for businesses and individuals to provide guarantees to Government agencies. Since its launch in 2022, we have tripled the number of participating financial institutions and agencies. Today, we have around 60 participating financial institutions and 45 agencies and key regulatory processes across Government have been enhanced as a result.
For example, almost all guarantees submitted by businesses registering for import/export permits today, are now done through eGuarantee@Gov. This has reduced the time taken for the entire lodgement process of guarantees with Singapore Customs – from five working days to just one day. Businesses also benefit from not having to incur courier costs to deliver the physical guarantees to Customs.
Over 120,000 eGuarantees were issued to date and eGuarantee@Gov is expected to bring annual cost savings of around $600,000 to businesses, financial institutions and Government agencies. We target to expand eGuarantee@Gov to all Government agencies with guarantee needs by end 2024, which will lead to even greater savings opportunities for the entire ecosystem.
Sir, I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Edward Chia and Mr Derrick Goh for their comments on ensuring prompt payments by the Government to our suppliers. Today, over 99% of the invoices billed to Government agencies adopt 30 days' or shorter credit terms. We have committed to keep prompt payment rates above 95% and have consistently achieved this target. In FY2022, 98% of invoices were paid within their credit terms. This is comparable with the practices and commitment for prompt payments elsewhere, such as the UK and US. To ensure that we maintain these standards, the Accountant-General's Department (AGD) monitors the prompt payments indicators regularly across the public sector.
We understand that businesses would prefer faster payments where possible to ease their cash flows. Since 2021, the Government has been paying ahead of the credit terms for invoices below $5,000, after the receipt of goods or services. From April 2023 to January 2024, Ministries and Organs of State paid 98% of invoices – below $5,000 – ahead of their credit terms. More than 85% of such invoices were paid to SMEs, benefitting over 15,000 of them.
I would like to correct for the record, what was said during MOF's Committee of Supply (COS) in 2022. Then, we said, \"As of end-January 2022, about 97% of e-invoices below $5,000 were paid within 12 days – ahead of the usual credit term of 30 days.\" [Please refer to \"Committee of Supply – Head M (Ministry of Finance)\", Official Report, 2 March 2022, Vol 95, Issue 52, Budget section.]
Sir, this is incorrect. Instead, it should be, \"For the period of September 2020 to January 2022, 97% of invoices below $5,000 were paid ahead of their credit terms. The average time taken to pay these invoices was about 12 days.\"
Sir, there have been cases of incorrect billing and unsatisfactory delivery of goods and services by businesses – where invoices were rejected. While such cases remain below 10% of all invoices, they do contribute to SMEs' concerns over cashflow.
We aim to do better. The Government will work with our trade associations and chambers (TACs) – including SBF and ASME – as well as businesses to identify specific areas where we can enhance our processes and enable more businesses to receive payments promptly. Similar to what we have done by working together with our TACs and businesses on Tender Lite. We will also study best practices from other countries and private-sector companies as part of our review.
Public sector agencies have also collaborated with one another to improve services to businesses. One example is the upcoming One-Stop Payroll initiative developed by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board and Ministry of Manpower (MOM). Currently, employers need to use different systems to report an employees' income to IRAS for tax purposes – to CPF Board for payment of CPF and to report updates to employees' occupational and employment details to MOM. The agencies got together to combine IRAS' existing Auto Inclusion Scheme seamless filing service with new filing services from the CPF Board and MOM, as an integrated digital solution offering.
One-Stop Payroll will enable businesses to use the same payroll software to submit annual payroll to IRAS and monthly CPF contribution data to CPF Board; and seamlessly update employees' occupational and employment details under MOM's Occupational Employment Dataset. Three birds with one stone. A win-win outcome which is good for businesses and good for our agencies.
Ms Foo Mee Har asked how MOF is helping companies capture opportunities with the green transition. The MTI will be addressing this at its COS. The support for businesses will also cover new requirements for sustainability reporting.
Let me provide an update on sustainability reporting. In 2022, ACRA and the Singapore Exchange Regulation set up the industry-led Sustainability Reporting Advisory Committee (SRAC) to advise on a roadmap for climate reporting by companies in Singapore. The SRAC has made its recommendations and ACRA issued a public consultation last year to gather feedback.
The Government has considered the public feedback carefully and will introduce mandatory climate disclosures in a phased approach – starting with listed companies, then larger non-listed companies. Other jurisdictions, such as the European Union, United Kingdom and New Zealand, have similarly introduced mandatory climate reporting requirements for both listed and non-listed companies.
From FY2025, all listed companies will have to prepare climate reporting based on local prescribed reporting standards, which are aligned to those of the International Sustainability Standards Board.
From FY2027, non-listed companies with annual revenue of at least $1 billion and total assets of at least $500 million will be required to provide climate-related disclosures.
Listed companies and large non-listed companies, as defined above, are also required to obtain external limited assurance on Scope 1 and Scope 2 Greenhouse Gas emissions two years after they start reporting, from FY2027 and FY2029 respectively.
ACRA will review in 2027 whether to extend the requirements to smaller non-listed companies. We have not made a decision on this. ACRA will give companies sufficient notice before introducing any requirements.
We recognise that some companies may have started climate reporting using different internationally recognised standards and frameworks to meet investors’ information needs and requirements of the jurisdictions that they operate in. For such companies, we will provide a three-year transitional period during which we will exempt them from the new requirements, if they are using other internationally recognised standards and frameworks.
Mr Mark Lee asked about the timeline for mandating Scope 3 climate reporting disclosures. Sir, while we recognise that Scope 3 disclosure provides a holistic view of companies’ emissions and supports decision-making for investors and the supply chain, we will need to take into account readiness of the companies before introducing such requirements. It is better to take a phased approach, which I think Mr Lee will agree.
Listed companies will be required to disclose Scope 3 emissions from FY2026, a year after mandatory climate reporting. As for non-listed companies, we recognise that they need more time to build capabilities for Scope 3 disclosures. Hence, we will not require non-listed companies, including large ones, to disclose Scope 3 emissions before FY2029. We will consider the industry's readiness and implementation experience from the listed companies before deciding when to require Scope 3 disclosures for non-listed companies. Companies will be given at least two years' notice if the decision is to proceed with Scope 3 disclosures. The Government is also stepping up efforts to support large companies and SMEs through the green transition, including support to develop sustainability reporting and assurance competencies. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) will elaborate on these support measures.
Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Edward Chia asked about policies to promote greener procurement practices by the Government. As buyers, our agencies are also encouraging and recognising the development of green capabilities by enterprises through green Government procurement. This helps our businesses build capabilities to meet the demands from consumers and investors for more sustainable products and supply chains.
Over the years, the Government has incorporated environmental sustainability considerations into our procurement and continuously reviewed our policies to procure greener solutions. Starting from FY2024, we will set aside up to 5% of evaluation points for sustainability-related considerations, for larger construction and infocomm technology (ICT) tenders, which are in addition to the existing high standards that we require for our buildings and ICT equipment.
We have implemented this for selected projects in 2023. For example, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) set aside additional evaluation points for greener suppliers for a number of their tenders for the Cross Island Line, such as for Clementi station and King Albert Park station.
It will take time for businesses to adjust to new sustainability considerations, so we are phasing these into Government tenders gradually, in consultation with the business community. We are happy to see that companies participating in Government tenders are gradually adopting sustainability practices, such as disclosing their emissions and greening their operations and supply chains.
Within the Government, we are also developing training programmes to strengthen public officers’ capabilities on sustainability. We are on track to achieve our target to include environmental sustainability considerations in all Government procurement by 2028, but further progress also depends on industry readiness and international developments.
The Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) will provide more details of the industry consultations and pilots. Mr Chairman, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Although there are signs of improvement in the inflation situation, the Government is aware that our SMEs are very concerned with operating costs. Hence the Government will introduce various initiatives to help businesses reduce costs and simplify transaction processes between businesses and the Government, allowing businesses to save money, effort and time.
Starting from April this year, we will implement Tender Lite, simplifying terms for over 90% of government contracts and making it easier for businesses to participate in government tenders.
We have also taken into account feedback from businesses and introduced a series of platforms to reduce the administrative cost for businesses and make transactions more convenient. These include eGuarantee@Gov, which allows businesses to quickly provide bank guarantees or risks guarantees to government agencies and a one-stop system to report employee income: One-Stop Payroll.
Apart from assisting businesses in reducing costs, the Government will also help them to expand their business capabilities. In this regard, we will work with businesses to advance the transition towards sustainable development and acquire new skills in digital economy and environmental sustainability, thereby enhancing their competitiveness.
The Government will continue to take a multi-pronged approach to build an efficient and sustainable pro-business environment, to actively support businesses in their development and transformation.
(In English):\tMr Chairman, I thank Members for their questions and suggestions on taxes. Mr Mark Lee asked whether MOF could broaden the definition of qualifying IP for corporate tax purposes, and whether the IP development tax incentive could be enhanced. The Government supports businesses to leverage IP for their growth through various tax and non-tax measures. Enterprises may tap on Government grant schemes administered by Enterprise Singapore. The Singapore IP Strategy 2030 was also launched three years ago to strengthen Singapore’s position as a global intangible assets and IP hub. MinLaw will elaborate on this.
In parallel, our corporate income tax regime also provides support through various schemes. The scope of qualifying IP for our tax schemes broadly follows the definition used by the World Intellectual Property Organization, as well as international tax standards. MOF will continue to review our schemes for relevance, with careful consideration of their costs, benefits and consistency with international standards.
Mr Pritam Singh asked how MOF considers when to raise the chargeable personal income tax threshold for the lowest tiers, as well as the $1 million threshold for GST registration. The Government has taken steps to address cost-of-living concerns, especially for lower- and middle-income Singaporeans. Deputy Prime Minister Wong mentioned some of these during the Budget Debate.
On the personal income tax exemption threshold, our $20,000 exemption threshold is higher than jurisdictions like Malaysia, the UK and Australia, where thresholds range from around S$1,500 to S$16,000. The threshold, taken together with our progressive tax rates, tax reliefs and rebates, results in around 40% of all workers not having to pay any income tax. Among those who do pay personal income tax, 80% of them have an effective tax rate of less than 6%. The vast majority of income taxes are paid by the top 10% of taxpayers.
We review the personal income tax regime from time to time. We raised the top marginal tax rates in recent years and have just announced an increase in the annual income threshold for dependant-related reliefs from $4,000 to $8,000 this year. MOF will continue to review the regime, including the exemption threshold, and ensure that it remains competitive, progressive and fiscally-resilient.
As for the GST registration threshold, the current threshold of $1 million was put in place when the GST system was introduced in 1994. It was set very high to exempt most SMEs from the additional costs necessary to comply with GST collection requirements; around 90% of businesses in 1994 were exempted from having to register from GST.
At that time, the UK VAT registration threshold was just £45,000, which is about S$75,000, while Australia’s was A$50,000, or S$45,000, when they introduced GST in 2000.
The $1 million threshold remains relevant today, as around 90% of businesses continue to be exempted from GST registration. And our threshold remains significantly higher than in most other jurisdictions. For example, the UK’s threshold now is £85,000, or about S$145,000, while Australia’s threshold is now A$75,000, or about S$65,000.
In addition, around 70% of businesses that newly register for GST today do so voluntarily, even though their turnover falls below the threshold. We will continue to assess the appropriateness of this threshold as part of our regular policy reviews.
Mr Dennis Tan asked about extending the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Relief (FDWLR) to divorced single working fathers. Deputy Prime Minister Wong announced in Budget 2023 that the FDWLR would lapse with effect from the Year of Assessment 2025. He explained that this was because we already have a migrant domestic worker levy concession, which provides more targeted support for families who need help caring for their dependants, regardless of whether they pay income tax. This includes single working fathers with young children living in the same household. They can qualify for the migrant domestic worker levy concession.
Sir, Ms Hany Soh asked how we are alleviating cost-of-living pressures and addressing concerns, and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how we will support and encourage more people to give back and contribute to our society. We will continue to implement comprehensive support measures to address the concerns of Singaporeans and foster an enabling and supportive ecosystem for community giving. This is key to helping us build a strong social compact, and a caring and cohesive society.
As Deputy Prime Minister Wong explained, we apply monetary policy levers to temper imported inflation, and fiscal policy to further cushion the impact of inflation on Singaporeans. We enhanced the Assurance Package in Budget 2024 to provide near-term relief, as we think this is needed even as inflation moderates.
As the Government deploys these measures, we actively monitor the impact and we are prepared to do more to support Singaporeans should it become necessary. And we will do so in a manner which is fair, effective and sustainable, for both current and future generations, as Mr Liang Eng Hwa said earlier.
We have also been actively strengthening our enabling ecosystem for mutual support, and this helps forge a strong and united society that progresses together as one people. MOF provides various forms of support for community giving.
As Mr Saktiandi Supaat pointed out, we provide various tax deductions schemes – for qualifying donations made to Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs), for corporate volunteering, and for qualifying overseas donations towards emergency humanitarian assistance causes.
Beyond tax deductions, we also support charitable giving through Government matching grants. For instance, during the challenging COVID-19 period, we enhanced our support for charities through Tote Board’s Enhanced Fundraising Programme which provides dollar-for-dollar matching for eligible donations received by charities. The programme has supported 480 charities and matched almost $200 million in donations since 2020.
A key ingredient in building a strong society is partnership. When we harness the expertise, experience and passions of diverse stakeholders and combine our efforts to serve our community, this can create a ripple effect and lead to a sustained positive impact on our society. The Government has brought together the People, Private and Public sectors to support community and ground-up initiatives. This is a key element of Forward Singapore – individuals and corporates stepping up to work together on challenges facing our society and to care for our fellow Singaporeans.
Tote Board, together with the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities and the Institute of Policy Studies, launched the Future-Ready Society Impact Fund and Knowledge Partnership last year to provide funding support for piloting innovative, evidence-based solutions that can enhance the resilience of our social ecosystem.
Another initiative – called BAGUS Together – was launched in January this year by Tote Board, Temasek Foundation and the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre to strengthen our groundup ecosystem. BAGUS Together – which stands for Building All Groundups for Success Together – will rally funders, corporates and volunteers to support groundups in their journey. It will provide groundups access to critical resources and networks to enable them to deliver stronger and more sustained community impact. Groundups play an integral role in meeting the needs of local communities and particular groups that are not easily catered for with broad-based programmes. So, this is why we want to support them. And, this is where BAGUS Together can come in as a first-stop platform to connect changemakers with a community of skilled volunteers and like-minded partners to share resources, grow capabilities and support one another's efforts to create a positive impact on our community.
The Chairman: Second Minister for Finance Indranee Rajah
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how the Government ensures effective and prudent use of public resources, including for spending needs that span several years. We seek to achieve prudent spending with good outcomes, that is, value for money.
Today, our Government expenditure as a share of GDP is about 18%, which is among the lowest across advanced economies; yet at the same time, we are ranked highly on many economic and social indices. Based on 2022 OECD data, general government expenditure in other advanced economies, such as the UK, Korea and Germany, exceeded 40% of GDP, while that of Switzerland was about 30% of GDP.
As our spending needs rise, we will continue to manage our expenditure growth carefully. We have mechanisms to evaluate our spending and to reallocate resources across the Government. For instance, in FY 2023, the Government implemented a 1% cut to the budgets of all Ministries and Organs of State and channelled the funds towards new and emerging priorities. Aside from prudent spending, at the macro level, we also constantly strive to optimise our spending.
First, for large expenditure items, such as major infrastructure projects, MOF applies additional scrutiny to evaluate their worthiness and cost effectiveness.
Of the large infrastructure projects submitted for approval in 2023, MOF was able to achieve total cost avoidance of around $1.6 billion, or 7.6% of projects' capital costs, by working with agencies to explore more cost-effective solutions and alternatives, and size the scope and budget of the projects judiciously.
Larger-scale and more complex projects are also reviewed by the Development Projects Advisory Panel, comprising experts from across the private and public sectors and academia. This is in addition to agencies' own efforts to ensure cost-effective infrastructure spending when they are developing their designs. For example, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) considers rail alignment, site and ground conditions in determining the appropriate tunnelling design for our Mass Rapid Transit system.
For phase 2 development of the Cross-Island Line, it was assessed that twin-bore tunnels instead of single-bore tunnels could be used for selected stretches. This is expected to achieve cost avoidance of approximately $310 million.
Second, Government programmes are subject to evaluation and reviews to ensure that their purposes are met. Where relevant, the findings also inform how these programmes can be refined to enhance their effectiveness. For example, a study commissioned by the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) showed that parents and caregivers who received KidSTART home visits had more positive interactions with their children than families who did not receive such support and these children also showed improved socio-emotional development. As a result, the revised KidSTART model will deliver child development interventions mainly through home visits.
Government agencies also constantly re-engineer their processes and digitalise them for greater effectiveness and efficiency. For example, the Accountant-General's Department digitalised audit workflows across the public sector through the Audit and Governance Enterprise Management System to enable timely identification, analysis and remediation of audit issues across the Government.
The public sector is committed to ensuring that our processes are kept lean and efficient, while providing ample guidance and ensuring sound governance for public offices to respond in an agile and nimble manner.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Jessica Tan also asked how MOF is strengthening our competitiveness and hub status. Through decades of hard work, we have built an international reputation as a reliable and trusted hub for business and trade. A key enabler is to have a strong and robust accountancy and audit ecosystem.
Accountants play a vital role in safeguarding and supporting businesses, and Singapore's strong accounting sector has been the bedrock of our trusted business hub. But the sector has faced manpower challenges in recent years. Fewer students are enrolling in accounting degrees and among the graduates, fewer are pursuing accounting-related careers.
MOF set up the Accountancy Workforce Review Committee (AWRC) in 2022 to study these challenges and see how we can build a sustainable pipeline of local accountancy talent. The AWRC's work is almost completed and the Committee expects to issue its recommendations in the coming months.
In line with the AWRC deliberations, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) and the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants (ISCA), have expanded the pathways for Singaporeans to consider accountancy as a career and obtain the necessary professional qualifications and experience to practise as an accountant.
One key initiative is the enhancement of the Singapore Chartered Accountant Qualification (SCAQ), which will create more opportunities for local polytechnic graduates to become professional accountants. Some of the programme's requirements will also be streamlined while maintaining rigour and quality.
MOF and ACRA have also been galvanising stakeholders to support the AWRC's work. For example, the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) recently launched a new four-year Bachelor of Accountancy in Sustainability Management and Analytics. This builds on NTU's existing three-year Bachelor of Accountancy programme with new features, such as a 30-week internship component, for practical industry exposure and opportunities to work or study overseas. Through these, students will be able to accumulate more work experience and career development opportunities earlier, and enjoy an accelerated pathway to becoming a chartered accountant.
I am confident that our partnership efforts with stakeholders will strengthen the accountancy sector and, in turn, Singapore's position as a trusted business hub.
Another key competitive advantage of our business hub is our pro-business, pro-trade stance. MOF continually works to enhance our trade processes to facilitate the flow of goods and reduce regulatory costs for businesses.
Singapore Customs has played a leading role in developing the Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA), signed by all ASEAN member states. The MRA will recognise each member state's authorised economic operators (AEOs). Under this arrangement, the AEO companies will enjoy faster documentary and cargo clearance for movement of goods within ASEAN. This saves time and money and shortens the time for goods to reach market. A six-month pilot has commenced with six ASEAN member states and we aim to implement the arrangement in the third quarter of 2024.
This is our first multilateral MRA and adds to the 12 bilateral MRAs we already have with other jurisdictions. As trade with ASEAN member states accounts for a significant 28% of our trade in goods, this will benefit many businesses.
By improving and streamlining our trade processes, we are also strengthening Singapore's position as a global trade node. We cannot take Singapore's hub status for granted and I urge all stakeholders to work with our businesses and help them acquire new capabilities and be more competitive.
Mr Leong Mun Wai asked whether the Government has over-resourced the Merdeka Generation Fund and may be doing likewise for the Majulah Package Fund. This suggestion is not correct.
Let us first start with the principle underpinning our approach. For large commitments like the Merdeka Generation (MG) Package, we set aside resources as and when we can to meet our commitment to every single one of our MG seniors. This is the approach of the Government.
Back in 2019, we projected that we would need more than $8 billion in total to meet our commitments to all MG seniors. This was based on projections of spending and life expectancy. However, to meet this spending, we did not have to set aside the entire $8 billion. We needed to inject only $6.1 billion into the MG Fund because every year, the fund grows from investment and interest income.
In the four years since 2019, we have disbursed $0.9 billion from the fund. At the same time, we have concurrently earned investment and interest income. As such, the net drawdown is $0.4 billion. The fund balance is now $5.7 billion. This can be found on page 79 of the Government Financial Statements. $5.7 billion is less than what we would need to meet our remaining commitment to the MG seniors.
Taking into account that we have already met some of our commitments from paying out over the last four years, the estimated amount needed to meet remaining liabilities is $6 billion. That is at page 78 of the Government Financial Statements. This is more than the $5.7 billion remaining in the fund. There is a shortfall. We will continue to carefully monitor healthcare utilisation and longevity trends, and make top-ups in future, if necessary.
Mr Leong then had several other miscellaneous questions. His questions can be categorised into two groups: one, on revenue; and the other group on some specific expenditure items.
In relation to the first group, I think he suggested that we had not provided sufficient information on taxes. Actually, the information is already available in the Revenue and Expenditure Estimates – also known as the Budget Book – which can also be used for weightlifting.
Let me deal with his questions quickly.
He said that we did not explain what \"Other Taxes\" were. Actually, this can be found in the Overview of the Budget Book at page XIX, which tells you what the \"Other Taxes\" comprise, which essentially include Foreign Worker Levy, Water Conservation Tax, Land Betterment Charge and the Annual Tonnage Tax. And it is also on page XX; and it is in the footnote of page XX; and it is again on page XXI and it is also elaborated there. And again, it is on page XXII; and there is a further footnote at page XXII.
So, actually, we explained what the \"Other Taxes\" were not once, not twice, not three times; but four times inside the Budget Book.
Mr Leong also asked for the reasons that we collected higher revenue on Other Taxes and Corporate Income Tax. The reasons can be found in the Analysis of Revenue and Expenditure, which was published on the same day as the Budget Book and can be found on the MOF website.
Very briefly, the FY2023 estimates for Other Taxes were revised upwards because of higher Land Betterment Charge collections from unforeseen redevelopment projects, and the increase in the FY2023 estimates for Corporate Income Tax was due to stronger-than-expected economic growth in 2022.
So, now let me deal with the second group of questions.
On Electronic Road Pricing (ERP), the revenue estimates are reported under the C16 Account: Transport and Communication, Licence and Permits. For both FY2023 and FY2024, ERP collections are estimated to be about $80 million annually.
On Foreign Worker Levy, the total levy collected is projected to be around $6.5 billion for FY2023 and around $6.8 billion for FY2024. Based on actual collections from January to December 2023, Work Permit and S Pass holders accounted for around 77% and 17% of total collections respectively, with the rest attributable to Migrant Domestic Workers.
On land sales proceeds, the receipts fluctuate based on the projected number and value of land sales each year. These are driven by our physical planning needs. We are estimating higher receipts in FY2024 because we expect more higher-value land sales in the coming year.
On property taxes, because Mr Leong asked why there is a significant increase for property taxes of private properties in 2024 despite the revision of the taxable Annual Value (AV) bands, we would like to clarify that the revisions in the AV bands will only take effect from 1 January 2025. I should also point out that the $753 million figure was actually the change in property tax collections for all privately-owned properties, not just private residential properties. In other words, non-Government properties. So, it would include commercial properties as well.
Mr Chairman, there are about 33 seconds left. I would only need maybe a couple more minutes to complete. I think there is some extra time for me, if I may complete the reply.
The Chairman: Yes, there is. We have got up to 6.50 pm, so please proceed.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you. More generally, any report, including the Budget Book, presents data in meaningful ways for its users. So, not every single tax, fee, line item expenditure or capital receipt is listed. You can imagine how many more pages the Budget Book would need to have if that were to be the case. We therefore aggregate smaller items into larger groupings in our reporting and highlight the more salient changes. As it stands, our Budget Book has a comparable amount of detail to jurisdictions like Hong Kong and India.
Moving on to expenditure, some of these cuts would have been better addressed by other Ministries. Nonetheless, since Mr Leong has raised them, I will touch on them briefly.
On SPH Media Trust, the Minister for Communications and Information will share more at MCI’s COS.
On HDB’s deficit, it is on the books of HDB, which is a Statutory Board. Hence, information on HDB’s deficit can be found in HDB’s Financial Statements, rather than the Revenue and Expenditure Estimates. Mr Leong can refer to the FY2022 Financial Statements available publicly for the latest figures. FY2023 and FY2024 information will be published in due course.
With regard to Ministers travelling overseas for official appointments in their private capacities, this information is not tracked as a separate item of expenditure.
First, it is important to understand that Ministers taking up international appointments in their private capacities are allowed to do so only when it is in the interest or in the service of the nation. In other words, in those situations, they are travelling and working on behalf of the state, albeit in their private capacity. In other words, they are doing it for the state even though they are using their private capacity. This is not a case where it is the state funding their own personal things. They are allowed to do this because it is in the interest of the state that they do so.
As such, it would be part and parcel of the normal expenditure that you would expect and it comes under the expenses reflected in two accounts, \"2100 Consumption of Products and Services\" and \"2400 International and Public Relations, Public Communications\", on page 8 of the Budget Book.
In any case, there are very few who have done so. And I should also say that when the few Ministers travel in the private capacity, do not forget when they go there, they may well also have official meetings. In fact, to save time, very often, we would do that. So, one trip may serve multiple purposes, some in their official capacity and then, one or two meetings in their private capacity.
The spending on all development projects is available in the Budget Book. This includes ongoing projects with total project costs exceeding $1 billion, such as the Woodlands Health Campus and Phase 2 of the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System. The focus of providing these spending figures is for accountability of spending on these projects. As the total project cost and annual spending of each development project is listed in the Budget Book, Mr Leong can look these up, based on his area of interest.
And finally, regarding capital injections into Temasek Holdings, Mr Leong previously filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on this topic in January last year. MOF provided him the figures for 20 years up to March 2022. Since then, capital injections into Temasek are similar to the average annual historical capital injections mentioned in our earlier PQ reply.
Mr Chairman, MOF is committed to ensuring fiscal sustainability, prudent spending and achieving good value-for-money outcomes for the benefit of current and future generations. Let us continue to work in partnership to build a strong, united, and inclusive Singapore.
The Chairman: We have till 6.50 pm for clarifications. Mr Don Wee.
Mr Don Wee: Thank you, Chairman. Firstly, I would like to declare that I am a Council Member of the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants (ISCA).
To Minister Indranee, pertaining to the Singapore Chartered Accountancy Qualifications or SCAQ, on behalf of ISCA, I thank MOF for making improvements to the Singapore Chartered Accountancy Qualifications. We shared these improvements to the IHLs last week. They were well received.
May I ask if MOF can support and promote Singapore Chartered Accountancy Qualifications to the civil servants in the Statutory Boards and Ministries, who are performing financing functions?
Ms Indranee Rajah: I think we can certainly bring the attention of the SCAQ not just to civil servants but to everyone who is looking to come into the accountancy sector, looking to upskill, upgrade and find new career pathways. And the accountancy sector comes under MOF, so we would recommend it in general.
The Chairman: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee: I thank Minister Chee for his response to my questions. I am glad to hear about the Government's ambition to be an IP hub. I have two subsequent questions.
First, some businesses have patented IPs but prefer not to officially register to safeguard sensitive information, like formula and proprietary knowledge. Will the Government actually consider expanding the IP Development Tax Incentive to cover this?
Second, I think IP valuation is both an art and a science. In our pursuit of being an IP hub for the region, what are the Government's plans in building this talent base?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Chairman, I thank Mr Mark Lee for his questions.
To his first question, we will take a look at the specific suggestion that Mr Lee has brought up. But I just want to go back to what I mentioned in my speech earlier, that MOF, when we review some of these schemes, we have to take a look at the cost benefit but also to check on consistency with international standards. I think this is important because at the end of the day, we do need to also make sure that our standards that we apply here are consistent with international standards.
As to Mr Lee's second question, certainly this is a very important area under the Singapore IP Strategy 2030, because if you do not have a talent pipeline, you cannot execute and implement many of the good ideas. So, I think the Ministry of Law will elaborate on this during their COS.
The Chairman: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Chairman, I thank the Minister for the detailed reply to the various questions, when I asked for more details on the estimates. However, I would like to ask on the Other Taxes, even in the Budget Book, it did not break down the Foreign Worker Levy, Water Conservation Tax and Land Betterment Charge. Minister, can you confirm that?
Ms Indranee Rajah: When you look at the Budget Book, Sir, what it says is that Other Taxes, which include the Foreign Worker Levy, Water Conservation Tax, Land Betterment Charge and Annual Tonnage Tax, are estimated to be $8.86 billion, which is $77.7 million or 0.9% higher than the Revised FY2023.
Essentially, as I mentioned earlier in my reply, you would give as much information as is necessary for people looking at the Budget Book to use it meaningfully, but you do not go down into — you have got line item, then every single one, then you go down further and further and further. There comes a point where the degree of granularity does not really serve as much of a useful purpose when you are considering the Revenue and Expenditure Estimates for an entire financial year.
So, basically, the information that is provided in the Budget Book is very similar to what is provided in many other countries and the purpose, of course, is to allow people to see what the Revenue and Expenditure Estimates are like, and for Parliament to be able to debate and decide on the financial policy.
The Chairman: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Chairman, yes, I thank the Minister for the further clarification.
So, now we have confirmed basically that this big item of $8.44 billion, which consists of the Foreign Worker Levy, Water Conservation Tax, Land Betterment Charge, it is all lumped up into one very big amount and there is no further breakdown on it. It is okay. I mean, I just want to confirm that that is the case, that that is the way we are treating the accounts.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, all I am confirming is that in the Budget Book that is how it is presented. As to whether there is any further detailed breakdown elsewhere, I would have to check. But for today's purposes and in my response, because you must remember that the initial cut was that we did not explain what these other taxes were and that we did not give a breakdown of the taxes. And, hence, my reply was that we have given a breakdown of the taxes because we told you exactly what they are.
The Chairman: Yes, Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Chairman, okay, I will let the matter rest. But before that, my question actually specifically asks for a breakdown of these taxes, but okay, we let the matter rest.
We are just talking about I think today and over the whole process of the Budget debate, one of the key themes that we were talking about is transparency. We hope that we can get more data and information so that we can understand the whole Budget process better.
And over the years – this is my fourth Budget debate – I found that there are actually many information that is still lacking. However, I will let the matter rest.
I just have one question left for the Minister and that is in view of what I said just now, to increase the amount of information that we can get, there are three areas at least I do not know whether the Government can commit to offer to us going forward.
One is that MOF had come up with the medium-term fiscal projections last year, but the whole report is actually very brief. Going forward, can we offer more details as to how the analysis is being done, what are the basic data and all those details and things? I have seen a lot of financial reports in the course of my career. I would say that by the standard I know, the medium-term fiscal projections report is very brief. There is not enough information. It is like you want us to just take the conclusion. But I think we need to know the analysis behind it.
The Chairman: Mr Leong, may I invite you to ask your questions?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, the question is whether going forward, MOF can provide us with more detailed fiscal projections, spending and revenue projection, one? Secondly, is that the projections on the endowment and trust fund. How do you decide what amount you want to put in, the expected payout and all those things? I think that would allow us to understand the whole budget process better. Because right now, it seems that there is a budget process and there is also an off-budget process. All the money is in the endowment and trust funds. So I think we need actually an integrated view of this whole budgeting process.
And the third thing we want to know is that since we have already passed the SINGA Bill and the big infrastructure projects are under this SINGA Bill and the SINGA Bill is also reported in the Budget – in terms of the capitalised costs and all that – so can Parliament have more information on the projects that are inside the SINGA Bill, that are under the SINGA financing? So all this I think would help us a lot going forward, to understand better about how we have used our money.
The Chairman: Ms Indranee Rajah. I would like to remind Members that we are fast approaching the guillotine time, 6.50 pm.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, I thank Mr Leong for his further clarifications. For his first clarification, he asked whether or not for the medium-term — actually no, before he got on to that, he was asking whether or not we could give even more granular detail on the \"Other Taxes\". I come back to the reply that I made earlier, which is that the Government's Budget is a huge budget. There are lots of different items and the question is what level of detail do you need?
And already, as you can see from the Budget Book, a lot of detail is already given. So, there is a question of how much do you actually need for the purposes of the Budget and what we have given, as I said, is the same as what other countries give. We adhere to the same general standards, so it is the same level of transparency.
Then the second question that he raised was for the medium-term fiscal projections. Now again, I come back to this – which is that firstly, they are driven by long-term drivers. But at the end of the day, when we put out our projections – it is the same kind of standards that other countries use. Mr Leong says that he has seen lots of other financial documents. They may be documents of companies, but financial documents of other countries?
When you look at a country – that is very different from reporting like a company. The volume, the business, the things that a country has to look at and the Ministries, the items are huge. So, what you do is you put forward projections in a way that gives sort of a meaningful direction; it sets out the Government's thrust; it sets out the key items or things that you think you will have to deal with. If the Member has questions or queries, then of course the Member can file questions and then that will be answered at the appropriate time.
I was not quite sure I understood the thrust of that projection on the endowment and the other funds. But if he was asking how we decide whether our funding for specific purposes comes from the funds or the annual Budgets, is that the thrust of the question? So, generally we fund our spending through the annual Budget and we use funds for specific needs, which we know will come up, including large commitments. And that, I think was dealt with by Deputy Prime Minister earlier. So that is the general approach.
The Chairman: Mr Liang Eng Hwa, may I invite you to withdraw your cut?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, allow me to first thank the Deputy Prime Minister and the MOF team for a very impactful and forward-looking Budget. And also for their continuing assurance to Singaporeans to cope with the current cost situation. I also want to thank Minister Indranee and Minister Chee Hong Tat for their comprehensive reply. Sir, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the cut.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $1,150,716,900 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $161,511,500 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 J (Ministry of Defence)","subTitle":"A safe and resilient nation in turbulent times","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Head J. Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Sir, we live in a dangerous world. Following the end of World War II, the great powers of the world came together to build a cooperative framework for international relations. This included the setting up of the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions – namely the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
The Charter of the United Nations enshrines the prohibition against the use of force – except in self-defence. This rule is generally regarded as jus cogens – or a peremptory norm of international law – which means it is a rule that permits for no derogation.
Against this backdrop, Russia's invasion of Ukraine – in breach of this rule – is a direct challenge to the rule of international law itself. Russia is a member of the Security Council of the United Nations (UN) – the body that is supposed to lead the collective response of the UN to uphold international law.
When the rule of international law is threatened or breaks down, it leaves small nations like us particularly vulnerable.
Non-state actors are also becoming more powerful and potentially destabilising. The Israel-Hamas conflict has escalated dramatically since October, resulting in devastating loss of life. This is a conflict between Israel, which is – some argue – an occupying power in the Gaza; and Hamas, an organisation that has de facto control over the territory, but as a non-state actor. The violence has spread beyond the Gaza Strip, spilling into Lebanon and the Red Sea – threatening to destabilise the Middle East.
The world is likely be more volatile and unpredictable in the coming year. As a small country, Singapore is vulnerable to changes in its external security environment – a peaceful order is critical to Singapore's success.
Could the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) therefore provide an update on the major global and regional trends that MINDEF and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) are closely monitoring, and how MINDEF and SAF will be affected by these trends?
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Chairman, in the last few years, we stood witness to the winds of change sweeping across our globe. The pillars of international order have trembled and weakened under the weight of discord and conflict – casting shadows of uncertainty on all of us.
Let us take for a moment to reflect on the sobering reality that the Russia-Ukraine War, is now into its third year. It has transcended mere territorial battlegrounds and has spilled into the virtual realm of cyber warfare and disinformation – shaping perceptions and narratives everywhere. Ukraine's resilient defence, buoyed by initial international solidarity – albeit now more tenuous than it was at the start of the war – stands as a testament to the indomitable spirit of the Ukrainian people. Yet, regrettably, the horizon remains shrouded in ambiguity – devoid of a clear end to this protracted conflict.
And while the world's gaze was on Europe, another conflict rages now in the Middle East, where the ancient sands bear witness to a modern-day tragedy unfolding before all of us. The clash between Israel and Hamas serves as a poignant reminder of unresolved grievances and deep-seated animosities that have marred the region not just for decades – but for centuries and millennia. The hopes for a lasting peace seem now dashed against the rocks of historical enmity, leaving the world grappling for solutions in the face of entrenched divisions – not just far from our shores but within our own borders and between communities.
In this crucible of conflict, we witness the evolution of warfare itself, where traditional boundaries between conventional and unconventional tactics now blur into obscurity. Tactical innovation have birthed a new breed of weaponry, where hybrid tools serve as the vanguards of destruction in an ever-shifting landscape of battle.
Amidst this chaos and turmoil that grip our world, we must not lose sight of the implications that they hold for all of us – especially here in Singapore. Singapore, despite our small size, stands as a beacon of stability in a turbulent sea and it is incumbent upon us to remain vigilant, adaptable and resolute in the defence of our sovereignty.
As we navigate the treacherous waters, let us stand firm against the tides of adversity – fortified by the knowledge that together, we can overcome even the greatest of challenges.
In conclusion, I call upon the Minister for Defence to shed light on how MINDEF and the SAF are adapting plans and priorities to the evolving threats that confront us and how we can collectively chart a course together towards a future defined not by conflict, but by cooperation and peace.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Chairman, the world is unfortunately experiencing more political turbulence and military strife. We have witnessed two major conflicts in the last few years and despite many international appeasement attempts, there are no signs of abatement. The rising temperature of US-China relations further adds to the global woes.
Wary of the implications and the undercurrents of all these discords, many governments have increased their defence spending and some have gone on defence shopping sprees to fill their capability gaps.
In Singapore's case, we have always put national defence as our priority. It has always been a non-negotiable since our Independence. In spite of the trade-offs and opportunity cost, our Government – with the trust and confidence of our citizens – has made steady investments in defence, as we have understood the importance of self-reliance.
It is in this light that I would like to ask the Minister for Defence about our defence expenditure. What are the projections for our defence spending this year and what are the Ministry's priorities? What are the main issues or challenges in the process of procurement and maintenance and how is the Ministry overcoming these constraints?
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Chairman, as my Parliamentary colleagues have said, it has been over two years since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. As Ukraine faces mounting shortages in traditional weapons systems and ammunition, their military has had to deploy low-cost drones on an improvised basis – which they have done with considerable success.
Earlier this month, the Ukrainian President announced the creation of a separate branch of the Ukrainian Armed Forces devoted to drones. This is not the first conflict where unmanned aerial vehicles are being deployed in significant numbers, but the scale at which the drones have been deployed has resulted in major changes to the warfighting on the battlefield.
In fact, the unprecedented numbers have led some to call this the world's first drone war. Apart from electronic-warfare drone swarms, we are also seeing the use of cyber warfare not just to target civilian infrastructure but also to achieve battlefield intelligence dominance in the Israel-Hamas conflict.
In the Red Sea crisis, the Houthis are weaponising civilian technology to disrupt international trade flow and leveraging asymmetrical warfare by using anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. In the coming years, we can expect that warfare will be further shaped by the use of artificial intelligence and direct-energy weapons.
With all this going on, can MINDEF share on the progress of the SAF's Next Generation transformation plans? With technological advances changing the face of warfare so rapidly, how can MINDEF ensure that that the SAF is able to deal with evolving security threats in a timely, but financially prudent manner?
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): : Chairman, at last year's COS debate, Defence Minister Dr Ng said to the House that \"we must never forget that defence is a long-term business.\" He went on to elaborate that for the SAF, major systems and platforms take 10 to 15 years to conceptualise, build and integrate into its fighting force, assuming all goes well.
I am glad that Singapore has always taken a long-term view on defence. We cannot wait until conflict is at our doorstep, in order to prepare and defend ourselves.
Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, governments around the world have been rushing to build and buy new weapons as the war has put a significant strain on their stockpiles. However, even with increased spending in defence, it could be years before countries start to reap the dividends of their increased investment. Such are the unfortunate consequences of not making consistent investments in defence.
In March last year, the online publication Defense News reported that Italy was considering the quick procurement of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to serve as gap fillers before long-term projects took shape. The war in Ukraine has brought to the fore the importance of ground warfare capabilities, and Italy's stock of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles were ageing and depleting.
I hope that in Singapore, we take in the hard lessons learnt by other countries. We cannot wait until things are heating up to prioritise investing in defence. Hence, MINDEF previously informed the House that the SAF would be adding more platforms and capabilities over the next decade.
As the nature of conflict evolves, it is important for Singapore to be able to effectively defend herself against increasingly sophisticated conventional military and non-conventional threats. In particular, the war in Ukraine has shown us the continued importance of countries maintaining high-end, conventional military capabilities. Would MINDEF provide an update on the progress of the SAF's acquisitions and capability development plans?
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Chairman, MINDEF had previously announced plans to acquire the F-35B fighter jets. Can MINDEF provide an update on this acquisition? As a small country with no strategic depth, it is important for Singapore to have an effective military to deter potential aggression. We are keenly aware that it is necessary for us to modernise our military and ensure that the SAF can protect Singapore.
Over the past few years, MINDEF has provided updates on the modernisation of the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) through the purchase of advanced fighter aircraft and other systems, which play a pivotal role in a nation's defence capabilities.
In March 2019, MINDEF announced that it would purchase four F-35B aircraft, with an eye towards procuring a fleet of F-35s to replace the RSAF's ageing F-16 fleet. Since then, MINDEF has announced that it would acquire an additional eight aircraft, for a total of twelve. The Minister for Defence had also said that the RSAF would take delivery of its first four aircraft in 2026.
However, over the past few years, the world seen many supply chain challenges, which have impacted the timelines for the delivery of some military platforms. Could MINDEF provide an update please?
Mr Vikram Nair: Chairman, given Singapore's declining birth rates, we can expect that our full-time national servicemen and operationally ready National Servicemen (NSmen) cohorts will shrink in the coming years. The SAF will need to do more, with less manpower. It is clear that new technologies have the potential to help organisations optimise and streamline operations.
Notably, the use of drones and other unmanned technologies can help to make up for tighter manpower constraints, and I understand that MINDEF has already made significant progress in this area. Unmanned technologies also enhance the military's capability edge. Mechanised warfare reduces the need to put troops in danger. There is also an ability to fight with precision, while limiting human frailties and vulnerabilities. For this reason, I ask about updates and developments in this area regularly in COS debates.
I am heartened that MINDEF normally reports impressive developments on this front each year. During last year's COS debate, the Minister for Defence highlighted that when used at scale, unmanned platforms in the air, land and sea would be a game changer in the future. We have seen examples of drones being used in ongoing conflicts, such as in Ukraine and in the Middle East.
Given the role that unmanned and autonomous technologies will play in the military domain moving forward, it is more important than ever for the SAF to utilise and integrate such technologies. The Minister for Defence also said that more unmanned aerial and ground vehicles would be introduced in our combat units, and the RSN would be shifting towards a force structure, in which half of its vessels would be unmanned.
On the flip side though, automated technologies also pose greater risk to our forces, given barriers to entry and costs are relatively low. This may provide opportunities for enemies, including non-state actors, to use these technologies to threaten Singapore's securities.
Could MINDEF provide an update on how the SAF has been integrating unmanned technologies to enhance its capabilities, and also dealing with the potential threat from these technologies?
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Chairman, in January this year, Houthi rebels fired what the Associated Press reported as their \"largest-ever barrage of drones and missiles\" targeting shipping in the Red Sea. And just days ago, the US Central Command said that it had observed the Houthis using underwater drones against ships for the first time.
There is growing commentary on the increasingly consequential role drones will play as a terrorist tactic and in the wars of the future. Many of these drones are relatively inexpensive. They can also be deployed at scale and pose a significant threat to our security. One-way attack drones, like the ones that the Houthis are using in the Red Sea, are estimated to cost roughly US$2,000.
In its attacks on 7 October 2023, Hamas deployed commercial quadcopter drones with explosives to disrupt Israeli military infrastructure. In the Ukrainian-Russian war, drones have changed the complex of what was a conventional war. The attacks have changed because of attack and kamikaze drones. There were reports of commercial drones being retrofitted with explosives to attack conventional armies. Furthermore, there has been greater use of drones for surveillance and to direct artillery fire.
Even the most advanced militaries are still grappling with how best to respond to these threats and new developments. One British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) report described how the United States (US) Marine Corps had modified its fighter jets to serve an air defence role, in response to Houthi drone attacks.
The US' interceptions have proven to be effective. However, one can imagine that the risks to servicemen to perform these missions are significant and the cost of each mission is high. If adversaries were to scale up such attacks, existing military responses would not be sustainable.
We have not even examined how a swarm drone attack could be successfully defended, especially when it could be fully autonomous in time to come. Large swarms of drones can overwhelm conventional defences. This leads to questions on whether current air defences are adequate.
The threat that I have described is just one that we are aware of today. But bad actors are continuing to find even more creative and cost-effective ways to evade and weaken conventional military defences. These tactics could exploit new technologies or commercially available, dual-use platforms.
How is MINDEF/SAF meeting the drones challenge? Given the rapidly changing security environment, what is MINDEF/SAF doing to safeguard against emerging and evolving technologies and tactics that can be used to undermine our security? How is MINDEF training its personnel to meet evolving threats?
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Chairman, the nature of warfare is evolving, with battles no longer confined to the traditional physical domains of the sea, air and land. It is taking place in the digital domain. Increasingly, it is possible to inflict more damage by infiltrating networks, sabotaging government or civilian infrastructure and disrupting day-to-day operations. Similar to conventional warfare, such attacks target a country by eroding trust in the government, undermine social cohesion and weaken military industrial capacity.
We have seen this strategy play out, for example, the hacking operations on Israeli sites and apps, as well as multiple Internet blackouts in the Gaza Strip since the start of the Israeli-Hamas conflict. Closer to home, we also remember the disruption caused by the SingHealth data breach in 2018, the distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on StarHub in 2016 and the 2017 cyberattack on MINDEF systems.
In view of Singapore's vulnerability to such attacks, could the Minister for Defence provide views on what MINDEF/SAF is doing to address threats in the digital domain, including steps that the Digital and Intelligence Service (DIS) is taking to guard against these threats?
Mr Don Wee: Chairman, in a commentary published by the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Asst Prof Michael Raska wrote that the main source of strategic advantage in the next 10 years will lie in the ability of modern military organisations to fully integrate innovations in artificial intelligence, cyber power and data science, as well as cognitive science and robotics across all levels of operations and warfare.
For the SAF to maintain its edge, it should continuously evolve to take advantage of new digital technologies. The SAF should also continuously develop responses to defend against new threats.
In view of these rapidly evolving developments, I think that the establishment of the SAF's DIS over a year ago was very timely. It may take many years to fully integrate various digital and cyber capabilities and assets across all levels of operations, and of course, across the three Services, and for the service personnel to build up operational experience. The Ministry is taking the right and necessary steps.
Can MINDEF provide a progress update on the DIS? What steps have been taken to build up its capabilities? How has the DIS been working together with the other agencies in Singapore that operate in the digital domain, in order to boost our security?
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Chairman, many SAF regulars and NSmen have had the opportunity to train overseas, which allows them to gain ground experience and apply their skills and knowledge in an operational context. This is especially critical for certain types of training that would otherwise be challenging or impossible here, given Singapore's space constraints.
As our global outlook becomes more uncertain, we cannot assume that we will always be able to maintain our current access to overseas training areas. It is, therefore, important to explore different ways to ensure that our NSmen and women train well and remain operationally ready.
Can MINDEF provide an update on efforts to improve local and overseas training? In particular, how are we leveraging technological advancements to maximise the value and efficiency of the SAF's training? What opportunities has the SAF taken advantage of, to provide our servicemen with practical experiences in either conflict zones or humanitarian missions abroad?
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Chairman, my cut is on using technology to improve processes. While the worst of the pandemic might be behind us, it has impacted how we live and work, and pushes us towards embracing new ways of working, specifically going digital and leveraging technologies.
From cloud technology to AI tools to robotic assistance, we have read about how these technologies are transforming the modern workplace. As the world becomes more digitalised, expectations for greater productivity and efficiency will likely ensue. We will need to seize the opportunity to lock in the digital gain and deliver better and also faster.
MINDEF and the SAF has embraced digitalisation and modernised many generations of our forces since decades ago. I would like to ask how MINDEF and SAF is using technology, including generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), to improve the day-to-day experience of its servicemen and servicewomen and uplift their collective capabilities?
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Sir, as a maritime nation, Singapore is dependent on unfettered access to sea lanes of communication and air routes, bringing goods and people to and from our shores. Disruption of these connections could prove costly.
Indeed, continued investments in our Air Force and Navy, as well as efforts to work with regional and international partners, provide Singapore with an added guarantee of such access.
Our nation's interests beneath the waves are no less important. Submarine cables bring data from everything from our financial markets to design blueprints and overseas orders to and from Singapore. These cables also help connect the Middle East, South Asia, and with us in Southeast and Northeast Asia.
I understand that there are even plans to increase the number of submarine cable landing sites in Singapore. There are also plans to provide electricity to Singapore via undersea cables. They come in addition to undersea pipelines to carry gas, including from West Natuna in Indonesia. We know that these undersea assets can become targets for attack or sabotage during crisis and are also subject to accidental damage during peacetime.
This is evident from the 2022 Nord Stream 2 explosion, as well as the severing of submarine cables in the Baltic Sea and between Taiwan and Matsu last year. These risks are more real, with increased tensions in Asia and the South China Sea, driven by US-PRC competition and growing maritime traffic. Could the Minister for Defence assure Singaporeans of our ability to protect and repair these undersea assets independently and in conjunction with partners? What are the efforts to enhance such capabilities?
The Chairman: Mr Alex Yam. Take your two cuts together.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Chairman, in our rapidly changing world, the nature of threats we face is evolving. We now on confront a growing array of non-conventional security challenges. Terrorism, cyber-attacks and the spread of disinformation are on the rise, both in frequency and impact.
Just last October, a devastating terrorist attack orchestrated by Hamas struck Israel, claiming the lives of innocent individuals. This heinous act sparked a brutal conflict between Israel and Hamas. Israel's disproportionate force and violence, despite the right to self-defence, has led to the loss of thousands of lives and the displacement of countless others.
The repercussions of this conflict extend far beyond their immediate battlegrounds. Here, in Southeast Asia, a prolonged Israel-Hamas confrontation heightens the risk of radicalisation, posing a threat not just to Singapore but to our neighbours as well.
Furthermore, cyber-attacks and the dissemination of false information have become preferred tactics for hostile entities seeking to further their agendas. These attacks are insidious, widespread and challenging to trace, capable of inflicting severe damage on our critical infrastructure and undermining public trust. Given Singapore's heavy reliance on digital technologies, we must remain vigilant against such threats.
Take, for example, the issue of ransomware, which remains a serious concern in Singapore. Ransomware groups are becoming more sophisticated, swiftly extracting data and using tailored threats to coerce victims into paying up.
It is clear therefore the challenges cannot be tackled by any single nation alone. Cooperation and coordination are essential. Therefore, I am eager to learn about the strategies and initiatives undertaken by MINDEF to address these common threats that transcend our national borders.
To address these challenges, Singapore took the proactive step of establishing the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting Cybersecurity and Information Centre for Excellence, the ADMM ACICE, in 2021. This move came amidst the growing digitalisation of society and the increasing prevalence of cyberattacks as well as disinformation and misinformation. I am pleased that the physical centre for ACICE was officially launched on 18 July last year.
This initiative is crucial because cyber and information threats are multifaceted and constantly evolving. It is clear that collaboration with other ASEAN member states and international partners is essential.
Therefore, I am also keen to find out from the Minister for Defence about the progress of ACICE and its plans for the future. How does ACICE intend to build upon its existing work to enhance cybersecurity and combat disinformation?
The Chairman: Minister Ng Eng Hen.
The Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Chairman, Mr Vikram Nair began his cut by asserting that our world is a much more dangerous world. Subsequent Members of Parliament (MPs) gave their spiels on the events around us. I do not think anyone in this House or out of it needs to be convinced that indeed the world has become a more dangerous place.
Just last week was 24 February, another day in infamy. We are now in the third year of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. As many of the Members rightly pointed out, the Israel-Hamas conflict risks a contagion effect over the Middle East and there is a de facto trade war between the US and China.
We are all concerned that the US and China can clash over Taiwan. If that happens, that will be a very bleak Asia for a very long time.
When was this region beset with such trouble? If you remember your Shakespeare: \"double, double toil and trouble; fire burn and cauldron bubble\".
The last time the region experienced this kind of turmoil and potential danger was probably in the 1980s during the Sino-Viet Conflicts that lasted from 1979 to 1991. The Singapore's Pioneer Generation (PG) lived through those tumultuous, perilous times, not only through that period, but for 60 years. The Japanese Occupation in the 1940s, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Konfrontasi. 60 years. Mr Lee Kuan Yew recounted that he had to sing four national anthems because of the political upheavals that lasted 60 years. Those experiences hardened the PG that were born in the 1920s and 1930s.
And the first order of the day when we gained Independence was to form the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). It was a visceral reaction.
My generation and for some of us in this House, were born in the 1950s and 1960s, the Merdeka Generation (MG). We lucked out. Many families like mine were poor at the start, but as Singapore prospered, so did we. It was the heyday for open trade and liberalisation, and when the Cold War ended in 1991, the global economy took off, lifting standards of living even higher today.
So, Singapore's per capita gross domestic product (GDP) is the highest in Asia. When did we exceed Japan, the second highest? In 2007.
With a strong dollar, overseas travel has become less expensive. I still remember as a boy when £1 was more than S$7. Fish-and-chips was expensive at that time.
Prices in Japan were prohibitive. Now, hordes of Singaporeans go to Japan – not quite expensive.
Sixty years of confrontation the PG lived through. The MG has lived through 30 years of relative peace. And we have assumed that this is the norm. Which is the norm – what the PG went through, or what the MG went through?
If you had asked me even five years ago, I would have said that the current generation – they are lumped together, Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z and other alphabets – would be just as lucky as the MG. Because despite Brexit, the European Union (EU) held – if you remember, the EU was formed in 1993.
During that time, there was a rising economic co-dependency with Russia, even in energy supplies. Before the Ukraine invasion, Russia supplied 55% of gas consumed in Germany. You do not buy gas in that proportion, if you did not believe in peace and lasting peace.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine dealt a death blow to Europe's integration for a generation at least. Worse still, seeds of future discord and conflict have been sown. As the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell said at the Shangri-La Dialogue held here last year, \"This war is changing the role of Europe. Europe was and is a project for peace and about peace. But now we face a world where war is something that is in every corner, and these corners are close to our houses.\"
In the Middle East, the signed Abraham Accords held out the future of accelerated peace and progress in that region. The zeitgeist following the Abraham Accords, not seen or thought possible for a long time, was to avoid conflict and find common cause so that that region could develop economically. This was a dictum following Deng Xiaoping: \"to get rich is glorious\", instead of war. And for this higher cause, even Saudi Arabia's Mohammed bin Salman reversed his position with the Houthis in Yemen, whom he had unleashed deadly strikes on earlier on. So, in this conflict, there is a reversal of roles. The US is striking the Houthis and the Saudis are saying: I want to make peace. That attack by Hamas on 7 October 2023 upended, delayed, if not decimated, these aspirations in the Middle East.
Between the US and China, a trade war has already started. The plan on the US side is to conscribe it to limited areas, particularly high-end technology that have a bearing on national security. In theory, this seems possible. \"Small yard, high fences\" is the neat way that the US puts it. But in practice, it is much harder because in the name of national security, the yard could get bigger. Right now, a bill in the US Congress targets to exclude Chinese biopharma manufacturing because, I suppose, you could produce something, pharmaceuticals, that weakens your national security. Tomorrow, it may be electric vehicles.
And of course, there is capital, the most fungible of all assets. If a country or company invests large sums in China, would it be seen as helping the potential adversary? And if so, what punitive measures or restrictions might be taken against that country?
In this inter-connected world, will borders erected for national security regress the world to alliances and trade blocs as it did pre-World Wars I and II, and the Cold War?
We are seeing this before our very eyes. That is the privilege of this generation. We are seeing it play out: all the world's a stage. It will take one, two decades for these various scenarios to come to fruition, whatever the outcomes.
Two weeks ago, I was at the Munich Security Conference, the 60th. They titled this 60th Munich Security Conference as \"Lose-Lose?\" because everywhere they turned, and they analysed all the situations, every scenario they had talked about, both sides lose, and the world loses.
This was my 12th Munich Security Conference. In 2014, I attended the 50th Munich Security Conference. There was a special session organised. I will never forget it. On stage was Henry Kissinger, Helmut Schmidt, former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. All three gentlemen have passed away since. It has been the 50th Munich Security Conference. Helmut Schmidt and Henry Kissinger had been present in the inaugural Munich Security Conference in 1963. It was such a special forum. It had been 50 years of peace. The mood was one of celebration. I remember President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing saying that Europe had eliminated the concept of war. It was just one decade ago.
All those dreams have been decimated. I can assure this House that surprises and unintended consequences are in store, some linked, others completely out of the blue. When the ambient temperature of geopolitics rises, sparks and fires will arise from multiple sources.
So, I have reversed my assessment for today's generation in Singapore and elsewhere. The risk of regional and even global conflict, even in the next decade, has become non-zero. I do not make this assessment lightly.
What are the precise odds? It is not productive. We are not Nostradamus. It is imponderable and your guess is as good as mine. But the most important question, I think, is what some Members here have said – Vikram Nair, Alex Yam and others. What can Singapore, as a small country, and Singaporeans, do realistically to prepare ourselves as best as we can for disruptions and unintended consequences? Because there will be disruptions and intended consequences – that we can be sure. How we meet it, we are not sure.
I remember US Defense Secretary Gates; I quote him often for this quote. He was addressing West Point Military Academy graduates. And he told the West Point graduates that for the last decade, the US Department of Defense's record for predicting where they would be within a year of the conflict, was perfect. They never got it right. One year, with all its machinery of intelligence collection and prediction, the US Administration never got it right. So, we cannot pretend to know what will come and yet, we have to prepare. So, how do we prepare Singapore for this uncertain future?
First, I think, we should recognise that Singaporeans have more to protect and with more resources to do so, compared to the PG and MG. Some Singaporeans may remember the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990. Among the justifications for the invasion, Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing oil – there was a particular field, it is called Al-Rumaylah oil field, which straddles both states, across the borders. Iraq said, \"you are pumping from your side, but you are siphoning off from my side.\" Geographically, I think it is possible, but that was the claim, anyhow. Wealthy, small Kuwait with its rich resources was a tempting and lucrative victim. Wealthy, small Singapore can be a lucrative target, without a strong defence.
In that invasion, the US came to the rescue of Kuwait and led 42 countries to join forces in an air and ground war. The SAF provided support for casualties. We deployed a 30-member medical team to the region.
But I want to make clear here, that if ever something similar happens to us here in Singapore, this Government, MINDEF and the SAF do not plan on the basis that we can depend on another country to come to our rescue. If Singaporeans will not or cannot defend Singapore, there is no backstop. That is the simple truth. A strong SAF acts a deterrent against aggression towards us and keeps adventurism at bay.
When I listen to the speeches of MPs, it was heartening because all of you understand, across the aisle, of whatever political persuasion, we are on our own. And I want to thank Members of this House for supporting MINDEF's Budget every year.
We do spend precious dollars consistently on defence, as some of you observed. Money which could have benefited other causes, but we know that without security, there can be no progress. Singapore was ranked the sixth most peaceful country in the world in the latest Global Peace Index. I do not know and do not want to find out, what our ranking would have been if we had not put in the necessary investments to build a strong SAF. I think that experiment would be too costly.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked to give us details on the defence spending this year and subsequent years. Let me do that.
In the coming Financial Year, MINDEF projects an expenditure of around $20.2 billion – a 2.5% increase from last year, FY23. If you compare this to 2022, the increase is higher, but that was because we were catching up – projects and activities disrupted by the pandemic.
Despite nominal increases for defence spending over the past years, the share as a percentage of GDP has been falling mainly because Singapore's GDP has been growing faster than defence spending. That is a good outcome.
With your permission, Mr Chairman, I have asked the Clerks to distribute handouts.
The Chairman: Please go ahead. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Thank you. These handouts are instructive, so, while you are listening, take your time to peruse it. You can also access this through SG PARL MP mobile app.
First, our GDP. As Members can see, two decades ago, we were spending 5% of GDP on defence. By the way, every time Budget comes around, I pick up and compare figures. The average Middle East spending, Middle Eastern countries is about 4% of GDP. Europe, of course, is undergoing huge turmoil, they have not spent even 2%.
But two decades ago, we were spending 5% of GDP on defence. Now, we are down to about 3%. That is a 40% reduction in share.
Now, we could be decreasing because Total Government spending has been either maintained or is reducing. But total Government spending as a percentage of GDP has increased, from an average of 16% in the early 2000s to an average of 18% in recent years. I think if you listen to Deputy Prime Minister Wong, there are structural reasons why our economy and our revenue flows will not be as high as before. I think it is good that we reach this level, and some of you have asked, including Mr Chong what are our future defence spending is, I would say that our spending can stay around 3%, move up or down a bit, but in this range over the next decade, with one important caveat: barring conflicts and wars, obviously.
Mr Alex Yam, Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Don Wee asked \"That is the overall picture, but where has this spending gone? And how are you preparing the SAF?\" These are excellent questions.
Let me make clear the decrease in defence budget as a percentage of GDP was not because the SAF cut back on what is necessary to defend Singapore. Our defence capabilities have never been compromised. It is also not because our manpower has come down. I think Mr Vikram noted that our NS cohorts, he said, \"will be coming down.\" I must tell him it has already come down. And the last time we were in a dragon year, all of us expected that to have good news. Today, our total fertility rate is 0.97. We all expect a mini dragon. We never had real dragons for a long time since 1988. That was the last real dragon. Beyond that, every dragon cycle are mini dragons. I hope we are proven wrong this year, but let us leave that to another Ministry.
It has come down because as various Defence Ministers and including MPs have said, we sustained defence spending and that was the most effective and efficient means of building a strong military over the longer term. So, today, we are reaping dividends of the sums we put in steadily over the past 20 years. And if we continue to invest wisely, we will reap more dividends in the future.
If you read the newspapers today, what the Denmark, either the Defence Minister or Prime Minister was saying, \"we should cut back on welfare to increase our defence spending.\" We never want to be in that position. We actually want to do both. Steady long-term defence spending enables platforms and capabilities to mature over the necessary timeline and to enhance synergy and reap efficiencies.
Let me illustrate to make it more clear with practical examples along the way. Ms Poh Li San asked about our F-35s. So, that is a good place to start, to illustrate what I mean. The F-35s when operational will put the RSAF in the Premier League. That is it. The sixth generations are being developed, but it will take some time. So, when they are operational, we will be in the Premier League.
When did we start looking at the F-35 programme? You think it is a matter of course, right? You pay the money, you get it. But we are in a very, very different position. We are in Singapore – 5.5 million people, looking at F-35s. And we started evaluating the F-35s in 2004, 20 years ago. First, as a Security Cooperation Participant, and then we dipped our feet in the water tentatively, ordered four aircrafts for evaluation. But since then, as Ms Poh Li San recognised, events have overtaken that. Because since that period, the F-35s have been deployed by other air forces for real missions, which is the final test of any evaluation, final test of any combat platform. So, for example, the US and the UK, their F-35s, they conducted successful strikes against ISIS in the Middle East. More recently, the US used their F-35s to locate and identify surface-to-air missile sites of Russian units in Ukraine. This information was shared with NATO countries.
So, to-date, more than 900 F-35s have flown in operations around the world. When we began our evaluation, these were not the numbers. And their battlefield successes have prompted more countries – Switzerland, Germany, to jump on board the F-35 programme. Other countries, South Korea, Japan, UK, have placed additional orders. So, a question was asked whether there are supply chain disruptions? Not for the F-35, in fact, the reverse. More orders have gone in because around the world, they have recognised that the F-35 is a proven fifth generation fighter aircraft; advanced sense and strike capabilities.
So, globally, there are close to 2,500 F-35s, and that is a healthy pipeline on the order book. Because of that the price is now more competitive. In fact, if you buy an F-35, put in an order for it, it is not like a car, but you understand what I am saying. If you put in an order for an F-35 today, the price is comparable to an F-15EX. That is how competitive it is.
So, we will capitalise on this window of opportunity to accelerate our F-35 programme. We have ordered, as Ms Poh Li San said four plus eight F-35Bs. This time, we are putting in an order to acquire eight F-35As, adding to our 12 F-35Bs.
The RSAF could take these decisions deliberately, cool and calculated mindset, because of the steady defence spending over the years. And this allowed our mid-life upgrade of F-16Cs, our Ds and D+s, which the F-35 will replace. The F-16s, after their mid-life upgrade, will be drawn down progressively from mid-2030 onwards.
We will receive the first four F-35Bs which we ordered four years ago in 2026; it seems to be on schedule. And the subsequent eight F-35Bs that we are in 2028. That is a couple of years from now. The F-35A variant that I am announcing today, if Parliament approves this Budget, will arrive around 2030.
We have to deprioritise other projects for this opportunity buy, but we have done our calculations and we think that this is the best time to put in the order for the F-35As. Why? Because the F-35As are designed for greater endurance. They have the ability to carry a payload at higher capacity. They complement the F-35Bs which are short, take off and vertical landing, because the F-35As are bigger, bulkier, bigger range, and provide more operational flexibility.
In sum, after the F-16s retire, the RSAF will operate F-35As, F-35Bs and F15SGs. Premier League. Capable of performing the full suite of missions required to defend Singapore skies. This will be a capable Air Force above all to protect our skies.
For the Navy, our first invincible class submarine returned to Singapore last year. You did not notice. If you notice, then it is not doing its job. Submarines are a hefty investment and obviously, I cannot use them for National Day Parade, like I do our planes. But rest assured that our submarines will silently and stealthily protect the waters around us.
Later this year, we will commission her, as well as launch the fourth and final submarine in Kiel. This submarine programme, custom made for the RSN – this is the first time we have got them custom-made. Previously, we ordered used submarines, adapted for our use, of course. But this is the first time, from scratch, we dealt with the defence supplier, this is what we need. When did we start this? 2000. Twenty years ago.
Defence is a long-term business. And as some of you rightly pointed out, including Mr Don Wee, you cannot decide that you are going to have defences up. President Zelensky spoke at the recent Munich Security Conference, in person. He sent a chill down the audience's spine, when he said, I think, \"You European countries, are not ready for an invasion!\" Ukraine, despite all its preparations, was not ready.
For the next few days, that was the question back and forth, \"Are we ready for an invasion?\" So, if you look The Economist's front page, the title is: Is Europe Ready? It is not. Because they have not committed to that defence spending. Questions were asked, what happens if the US – they are looking at elections, too – what happens if the US reduces its commitment? And only now are the Europeans saying we have to be responsible for our own defence.
Defence spending is a long-term business and because we stuck to it, all four submarines will be operational around Singapore waters by 2028. Submarines are a strategic asset. Those of you who are military buffs will understand what I mean.
For the Army, the next-generation Armoured Tracked Carriers (ATCs) and the next-generation Howitzers\twill be brought into service. The ATCs will operate alongside the Bronco Tracked Carrier and replace the older BV206. Some of you may have used it – more protected, more mobile. I know that some Members here are from the artillery and will appreciate the difference between the new Howitzer and the old field Howitzer 2000 that they operated. You have memories of your old Howitzer that you operated. The new Howitzers are self-loading, shoot faster and move, and require 60% less manpower.
Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Henry Kwek asked what about unmanned capabilities. The Ukraine situation, the situation in the Middle East, have proven that unmanned platforms are already part of today's current war, not even future. And it is a given in any modern military, and it will be increasingly used, and we will do the same. So, this year, the Navy's Unmanned Surface Vessel (USV) goes fully operational. In other words, no person on it, fully unmanned, automated. It will patrol the Singapore Strait alongside our Littoral Mission Vessels and patrol vessels.
Locally designed, manufactured, these USVs, fully autonomous, can navigate our busy shipping lanes. Touch wood, that is what they promised me. It is a busy shipping strait, and these are unmanned, but I think they were put to trials and they performed.
In addition, our Navy ships will have Close-Range Unmanned Aerial Vehicles by the second half of this year to extend their range for surveillance. So, UAVs on ships.
The UAVs will also filter down to the soldiers in the Army. Some of you are sci-fi buffs and you know the movies where you have your own personal android that follows you that can survey and shoot people and protect you. We are not there yet, but our Army soldiers can use their own micro-UAVs.
They will be an asset for soldiers on foot for last-mile surveillance. And we are tapping on a new generation of NSmen who are tech-savvy. So, for example, Corporal First Class Zubayr. He is an avid drone enthusiast. They tapped on his expertise. He comes from 3rd Battalion Singapore Infantry Regiment (3 SIR) to refine the drone tactics, techniques, procedures, including launching and operating from a Terrex. And we will continue to harness the skills of our NSmen to strengthen our capabilities.
Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Vikram Nair asked if we can use it, and they gave examples of current missions in Ukraine, in the Middle East, others can use it against us. You are absolutely right. You have to assume that a potential aggressor can do the same. They can scale it.
Terrorists can use low-cost drones to launch attacks here. It makes very little sense to launch a couple of million-door missiles to attack a couple of thousand dollars drone. The attrition of costs will bankrupt you. So, that cannot be the modus operandi. We are alive to these security threats. We set up groups to brainstorm and develop sustainable countermeasures.
And they include off-the-shelf solutions: jammer guns, or our usual rifles fitted with a smart fire control system, an on-board computer to accurately shoot down a small drone.
Mr Shawn Huang and Mr Don Wee said that the digital domain is an increasingly contested battleground. I agree completely with them. And that was the reason we formed the DIS in 2022, to build up competencies, to work closely with other national agencies. Mr Alex Yam also talked about this. The DIS co-organised the Critical Infrastructure Defence Exercise (CIDeX) in November last year.
We had about 200 frontline cyber defenders, 25 other national agencies. Scenarios simulated attacks by both ransomware, some of you talked about it, and nation-state cyber attackers on our key infrastructure: power, water, 5G telecommunications. So, in other words, you sit them in a room, you simulate the attacks, how do we defend?
This exercise will be like their live firing, will be held regularly to expand and cover more sectors. We are building a digital range because you cannot do it on live systems, right? But we have a digital range that replicates these systems. That digital range will be completed in 2026. It will allow us to scale, add complexity and realism in this digital domain.
All in all, when it concerns hardware and systems for SAF, our steady defence spending has built up an SAF that is modernised and effective with a full suite of capabilities against threats: air, land, sea and cyberspace. This is a short summary statement and it belies the decades of hard work and commitment by our servicemen and women, including some in the House, and your constant support for MINDEF's budget.
I have shown Members what it looks like in the ORBAT in the handout, but we must never forget people. We are only as good as our people, no matter how advanced our platforms. And we have made sizeable investments in building up infrastructure to train our NSmen and Regulars. So, if you look at the handout, SAFTI City Phase 1, together with our three Instrumented Battle Circuits.
During my time, some of you maybe also, when you do exercises, you use blanks and bang, bang, bang, bang. So, I pretend to shoot you, you pretend to shoot back and nobody dies. Well, we have come a long way from that. Now, it is transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), which are electronic RFID things. If somebody shoots you, you are \"dead\". If your vehicle is shot, it does not move. It has become more realistic.
We have built that up, but for urban built-up areas, we do not have that. That is what SAFTI City Phase 1 will do. Instrumented Battle Circuits means you go into a building, in a room, it is the same outfit, and if you are shot, you are shot. So, it is very good training because you can do an after-action review (AAR), video playback, see what you have done wrong.
Shoalwater Bay Training Area is near completion. Last year, we deployed 4,300 personnel, 450 platforms to Shoalwater Bay. It was the largest-ever edition of Exercise Wallaby. So, not only is Singapore committed to its defence, we have friends who are willing to open up their country to allow us to put all these platforms there.
And this year, the expanded training area will allow us to increase the scale of exercise by close to 50%, with an increase in training duration for six to nine weeks. Then, there is the adjacent Greenvale Training Area. The SAF will have a combined training area 10 times the size of Singapore. We can deploy up to 14,000 personnel, 2,400 vehicles and equipment annually. We will have improved administrative medical facilities by 2024. This took years to build up, but it is coming to fruition.
We have been training in the Shoalwater Bay training area since 1990, and I want to thank, on our behalf, the government and the people of Australia for these opportunities.
I have tried to give various examples to see where our defence dollars have gone over the years, and the overall picture is one of continuous progress and virtuous cycle, spiralling up even when new threats arise. But it is about the mindset among MINDEF and SAF personnel, the way we approach challenges, the constant emphasis to do things better, safer, not only to protect Singapore, but to improve the lived experience of our soldiers.
Mr Patrick Tay said this is \"digital gain\", and I agree with him. So, we are using smarter chatbots to answer HR enquiries so that you do not have to go back and forth. Another example is the use of biometrics. For some restricted areas in MINDEF HQ, facial recognition is the norm to control access. It recognises you. If you are a foreign person, it shoots you. Not quite. This is a joke. It just does not let you enter. I am just trying to see if you are still awake. It just recognises you, and if it does not, you cannot go in.
DSTA employees no longer require a camp pass to go to work because of this technology. The 2nd People's Defence Force (2PDF) is in the process of operationalising facial recognition for camp access. The aim is to progressively roll this out to the rest of our camps and bases to be the norm during peacetime. During war and periods of tension (POT), I think there may be issues. The applications of AI, when we apply it, but we have to do it judiciously.
You will see in your handout, the new Central Manpower Base (CMPB) opposite Cashew MRT. My generation is Dempsey Parade Square.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order No 91(3)(d), I propose to extend the time of this day's Committee Sitting for a period of up to 30 minutes. Minister for Defence.
","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 J (Ministry of Defence)","subTitle":"A safe and resilient nation in turbulent times","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Head J (cont) – (proc text)]
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Mr Speaker, I want to assure the Members of the House I will not need that time.
My time was Dempsey, right? Now, it is occupied by swanky restaurants. I am not sure who else; some of us in that vintage, we were none the wiser 18-year-olds. You go to Dempsey, and after that you go to General Equipment Base (GEB). Some of you grew up in the era of Depot Road. That is your memory. Well, the new CMPB is opposite Cashew MRT. I think this will be probably the permanent home. In the picture that you see, Phase 1 will be opening from 2025, and Senior Minister of State Heng will speak on this in more detail.
At the outset, I posed this question: what can Singapore do to secure our future in a turbulent world? The answer is mundane but never simple – build a strong SAF for deterrence, but even that is not enough. To survive, Singapore needs Total Defence. We commemorate the 40th anniversary of Total Defence. Deputy Prime Minister Wong launched the Exercise SG Ready. It is an apt reminder. Members may have participated and Senior Minister of State Zaqy will speak more on this.
I also said that we must not expect another country to come to rescue us like Kuwait. But that certainly does not mean we do not work with like-minded countries. This is what Members are talking about, to deal with transnational issues, Mr Alex Yam and Ms Sylvia Lim. I agree completely with Ms Lim that we have critical underwater infrastructure, subsea cables and pipelines. In law, it sounds protected, right? Because in 2019, ASEAN developed guidelines for strengthening the resilience and repair of telecommunications submarine cables. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sets an international legal framework to govern underwater critical infrastructure.
Singapore works with partners to protect this infrastructure because we are either the intermediary or the tail end, and we are a hub for fibre optics subsea cables, including more subsea cables. But, in truth, it is thousands and thousands of miles of, whether it is gas pipelines, subsea cables. And they can be sabotaged. We cannot run away from it. We should not give false assurance. If they are sabotaged, there will be disruption.
Certain militaries have now commissioned ships to map the entire universe, meaning subsea cables all around the world. You can map it. But all you need is to disrupt one point far away, and the whole so-called supply chain is disrupted.
We have some redundancy because we have more than one fibre optic subsea cable. The natural gas pipelines of Singapore are designed and built to international standards. So, within our waters, they are protected with rock armour and laid in no-anchor zones. But of course, they move elsewhere. For redundancy, we have the capacity to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) to meet our electricity needs. Terrorism is another prime example, and I think Mr Alex Yam talked about the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Cybersecurity and Information Centre of Excellence (ACICE).
This is to deal with cyber disinformation and information threats. We opened it. And we held our inaugural Digital Defence Symposium and ASEAN Roundtable. We have to work with other partners. That does not mean all problems can be solved, but we have to build credibility and partnerships.
And lastly, for humanitarian efforts, Mr Zhulkarnain Rahim talked about this – our Changi Regional Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Coordination Centre was set up in 2014 to better coordinate our efforts with local and international agenices.
Mr Chairman, I want to close, and Senior Minister of State Zaqy and Senior Minister of State Heng will deal with other issues that Members have raised. But let me again reiterate my deep thanks to the Members of this House. We have not had difficulty passing MINDEF's Budget. Your questions have not been too hard or too spiky.
And I think it reflects: one, the understanding that we are so vulnerable. So many examples and, honestly, for the last five years, it has not been difficult to sell defence. We see a turbulent world, but we must remember even in peaceful times; I gave the example of a PG that underwent 60 years of turbulence versus this generation of 30 years of peace – which is the norm. We may very well revert to the PG – 60 years of turbulence.
We do not know what the future will bring but as long as we have a strong SAF, we have some deterrence, protection, and we can determine our own future if our people are united and with a strong SAF and various other agencies. Thank you for your support.
The Chairman: It is a sobering yet assuring message. Minister for Defence, Dr Ng.
The Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): 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 and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow.\" [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister for Defence.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: I assume, Mr Speaker, you are asking for Parliament to be adjourned?
Mr Speaker: For the debate to be adjourned.
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for this year, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
Mr Speaker: So be it. Leader.
","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.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 8.05 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alternative Measures to Address Ongoing Concerns on Affordability of BTO and Resale Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"9 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry is exploring alternative measures beyond the existing support measures, including reducing the overall cost of HDB BTO flats which may lead to reduced resale flat values, to address ongoing concerns regarding the affordability of BTO and resale flats; and (b) what are the specific risks and concerns related to such an approach.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Government remains committed to providing affordable public housing for Singaporeans. The COVID-19 crisis disrupted our BTO building programme and led to a supply and demand imbalance, as delayed BTO project completions and longer waiting times drove up demand for resale flats. The demand for flats also increased as more Singaporeans sought to move out to live on their own, a trend accentuated by the pandemic. As a result, resale prices increased. To address the supply and demand imbalance, we have undertaken a series of measures for both the BTO and resale markets to keep prices stable and affordable.
First, we have significantly ramped up housing supply, made progress on delays and secured more shorter waiting time flats. Over the last three years, HDB offered more than 63,000 flats for booking. With the planned launch of about 19,600 BTO flats in 2024, we remain on track to offer 100,000 flats from 2021 to 2025.
In 2023, HDB completed over 21,400 flats across some 23 housing projects – the highest number of projects and flats completed annually in the last six years. We have completed and delivered around 80% of projects delayed due to COVID-19. Barring unforeseen circumstances, HDB aims to complete all pandemic-delayed projects by early 2025.
In 2024, we will launch about 2,800 BTO flats with shorter waiting times of under three years. We are working on having about 75% of new BTO flats with waiting times of four years or less.
Second, we have implemented three rounds of cooling measures since December 2021 to temper housing demand and encourage greater financial prudence among homebuyers. As a result, HDB resale prices increased by 4.9% in 2023, less than half of the increase of 10.4% in 2022. This is the slowest growth since 2019. We expect that the housing market will continue to stabilise in the coming year as a significant supply of new homes comes onstream and as demand moderates in anticipation of expected easing of global economic activity and interest rates remaining relatively high for an extended period of time.
Third, we have also kept BTO prices stable in the past few years, even as we saw a rise in resale prices and construction costs. HDB does not price new flats based on cost. Instead, HDB establishes the market value of flats by looking at prices of comparable resale flats, and then provides significant market discounts to ensure affordability.
Fourth, to ensure that our public housing system continues to meet the needs and aspirations of Singaporeans, we announced a new flat classification framework at the National Day Rally last year. This will come into effect from the BTO launch in October. The new flat classification framework seeks to keep housing affordable for Singaporeans, ensure a good social mix and keep the system of subsidies fair.
On top of the market discounts for Standard flats, Plus and Prime flats come with more subsidies to keep them affordable to Singaporeans from a wider range of income levels. To maintain parity with other BTO flat owners who are not accorded these additional subsidies, owners who bought Prime and Plus flats from HDB must return a percentage of the resale price or the valuation of the flat (whichever is the higher) upon the sale of their flats. These flats also come with tighter restrictions, such as a 10-year minimum occupation period and an income ceiling on resale buyers, to help moderate demand and keep prices affordable.
Fifth, HDB offers substantial grants to offset flat prices. Eligible first-timer buyers can also receive Enhanced CPF Housing Grants (EHG) of up to $80,000, with more help for lower-income buyers. In 2023, HDB increased the CPF Housing Grant for resale flats to $80,000 for 4-room and smaller flats, and $50,000 for larger flat types. Together with the Proximity Housing Grant (PHG) of up to $30,000 to facilitate mutual care and support, eligible first-timer families buying a resale flat to live with/near their parents/child can now enjoy up to $190,000 in housing grants.
Taken together, our various measures have ensured that public housing remains affordable for homebuyers. In 2023, more than eight in 10 first-timer families who collected keys to their new flats or bought resale flats had a mortgage servicing ratio (MSR) of 25% or less upon key collection. This means that they can service their monthly HDB loan instalments with their CPF contributions, with little to no cash outlay.
We will continue to keep a close watch on the affordability of public housing, and adjust our policies where necessary. Households should continue to exercise prudence when taking on new financial commitments, including long-term mortgage debt service obligations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Citizenship Demographic Within Public Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Prime Minister (a) within the Public Service, what is the current number of (i) Singapore permanent residents and (ii) foreigners employed; and (b) where are non-citizen officers employed in the Public Service.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): \tCurrently, there are about 144,000 Singapore citizens, 5,000 Singapore permanent residents and 3,000 foreigners employed in the Public Service. Non-citizen officers generally serve in positions that require skills that are in shortage among our local workforce, such as engineering and information technology; and where the security concerns can be managed adequately.
2 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Prime Minister from 2010 to 2023 (a) how many individuals who applied to civil service jobs were rejected; and (b) how many of these rejections were due to failing background or security checks.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Public Service Division does not track the number of applicants who are not selected for Civil Service positions.
3 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the current amount of budget spent on outsourced IT and non-IT activities for the whole of Government.
Mr Lawrence Wong: \tA procurement contract will be classified as Information Communications Technology (ICT) contract if the majority of the contract value is for this purpose. On that basis, over the last three years, the Singapore Government awarded an average of about $2 billion and $24 billion per year for ICT and non-ICT contracts respectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Targeted Outcomes Not Met Under Grants Governance Framework and Average Returns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance since the introduction of the grants governance framework in 2020 (a) what is the number and proportion of economic and social grants disbursed under the framework that did not meet their targeted outcomes; (b) how does the framework require accountability from these grant disbursing agencies; and (c) for grants that met the targeted outcomes, what was the monetary value of the average return on grant.
Mr Lawrence Wong: MOF's grants governance framework sets out rules and provides guidance on the grants management process – from grant design, approval and disbursement, to monitoring and anomaly detection. It emphasises the importance of proper planning and risk management, to ensure effective use of public funds and to safeguard against fraud and abuse.
While this framework provides central guidance over the grants management process, individual grant-giving ministries and agencies are ultimately responsible for setting out objectives and outcomes, instituting appropriate control measures as well as monitoring the performance of the schemes under their management.
The relevant ministries will track the intended outcomes from their respective schemes and will be able to provide more information, if there is interest to find out more.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Crowd Control Management During Festive Seasons and Ensuring Effective Coordination Between Entities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the measures in place to manage increased crowd volumes in city areas during festive seasons; (b) how does the Ministry ensure effective coordination among various entities, such as police, emergency services and Government agencies, before and during festive events; and (c) how is the Ministry leveraging on technology, such as surveillance cameras and crowd monitoring software, to enhance crowd control and ensure public safety.
Mr K Shanmugam: Regarding the query on the response of emergency services and the protocols in place, the Police deploys on the ground for festive events with large crowds to ensure law and order and to coordinate swift response to any incidents, including by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF). Depending on the Police's assessment of the event, SCDF resources may even be forward deployed on the ground.
As for the other queries, the Member may wish to refer to the response by Minister of State Sun Xueling to Parliamentary Questions No 9 to 15 during the 28 November 2022 Parliament sitting. [Please refer to \"Measures to Prevent and Manage Risks from Crowd Surges during Festive Periods and Public Events\", Official Report, 28 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 76, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Possibility of Reviewing Industry Transformation Maps to Ensure Consistency with COP28 Outcomes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Government will conduct a review of the Industry Transformation Maps to ensure that they are consistent with the outcomes of the 2023 UN Climate Change Conference (COP28), including but not limited to transitioning away from fossil fuels, tripling renewable energy capacity, doubling rate of energy efficiency and cutting methane emissions.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Most of the 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) have been refreshed over the last two years. Their strategies and plans are consistent with our international commitments on sustainability, and our national ambitions to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implications of Dominant Player in Ride Hailing and Taxi Services on Consumers and Drivers and Measures to Prevent Monopoly","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the potential implications of a dominant player emerging in the ride hailing and taxi services market for both (i) consumers and (ii) drivers; and (b) what measures are in place to prevent the creation of a monopoly in the Singapore market and to ensure a competitive landscape.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The emergence of a dominant player is not problematic per se, as long as it does not abuse its position to undermine consumer, driver or supplier interests or create barriers that prevent the entry of new players and competitors. The Point-to-Point (P2P) Transport Industry Act sets out the regulatory framework for P2P operators. This includes maintaining an open and contestable market and prohibiting operators from offering exclusive arrangements that \"lock in\" drivers and prevent them from driving for competitors. In addition, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore is empowered under the Competition Act to take enforcement action against anti-competitive mergers or the abuse of dominant position.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Tracking Companies Tapping on Government Grants for Internationalisation to Uphold ESG Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry tracks that companies tapping on Government grants for internationalisation uphold responsible Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practices in the countries that they expand into; (b) what actions does the Ministry take if these companies are found to be irresponsible; and (c) what are the measures to guide these companies to uphold Singapore’s reputation as an ESG hub.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Businesses expanding overseas would need to comply with the prevailing Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) requirements in those markets. However, as ESG requirements and recommended practices vary across economies, it is not possible for the Government to track compliance.
Through Enterprise Singapore and the Singapore Standards Council, the Government encourages companies in Singapore to adopt relevant international and local standards related to sustainability. Enterprise Singapore has also launched the Enterprise Sustainability Programme, which includes courses, playbooks and schemes to help with decarbonisation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Singapore Costal Waters Bacterial Contamination and Measures to Monitor, Mitigate and Prevent Such Contamination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether an update can be provided on the current status of bacterial contamination in Singapore’s coastal waters; (b) what monitoring systems are in place to detect harmful bacteria levels in sea water; and (c) how frequent are bacterial contamination tests conducted.
10 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how will the bacterial contamination in Singapore's coastal waters affect marine ecosystems and biodiversity in the coastal areas; and (b) what steps are being taken to assess and mitigate the environmental impact of such contamination.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) collects water samples along seven popular recreational beaches on a weekly basis. The water samples are analysed for the level of Enterococcus bacteria, given the known health risks of ingesting coastal water with elevated levels of Enterococcus.
NEA publishes two beach water quality assessments: the annual beach grading exercise and the weekly Beach Short-term Water Quality Information (BSWI). In NEA's annual beach grading exercise, to assess the suitability of recreational beaches for primary contact water activities, the weekly results over a three-year period are benchmarked against criteria contained in the World Health Organisation's Guidelines on Recreational Water Quality (2021). In addition, as Enterococcus levels can fluctuate due to the currents, tidal influences and other factors even when the beach is graded \"Good\" by the annual beach grading exercise, NEA publishes the BSWI to provide the public with additional information on beach water quality over the preceding three weeks.
On 5 February 2024, NEA issued an advisory that two recreational beaches, Pasir Ris and Sembawang Parks, have been graded \"Fair\" in the annual beach grading exercise, due to increased occurrences of elevated Enterococcus level. The public are advised against swimming and engaging in other primary contact water activities at these beaches.
The other five recreational beaches, namely Changi, East Coast Park, Punggol, Seletar Island and Sentosa Island, have been graded \"Good\" and are suitable for all kinds of water activities. As the Enterococcus levels can fluctuate, beachgoers are encouraged to refer to the BSWI and associated health advisories on the NEA website or the myENV app if they intend to engage in water activities at these recreational beaches.
An elevated level of Enterococcus bacteria is just one factor that causes deterioration of water quality and must be read together with other water quality parameters to assess the impact on marine biodiversity. As there have not been any significant changes to the other water quality parameters, NParks currently does not expect any significant impact on marine ecosystems and biodiversity due to the elevated Enterococcus levels at Sembawang and Pasir Ris Parks. NParks will continue to monitor the habitats and biodiversity along our shores.
My Ministry and NEA are working closely with other agencies, such as PUB, NParks and the Singapore Food Agency, to investigate and address possible sources contributing to the elevated Enterococcus levels observed at the two beaches.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Safe Consumption of Food Items Due to Extreme Weather Conditions Prolonging Delivery Timings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what are the measures taken by the Singapore Food Agency vis-à-vis local cooked food retail establishments, supermarkets, food e-commerce sellers and delivery platform operators to assure Singaporeans that the delivered food items are safe for consumption in view of extreme weather conditions extending the time taken for delivery and hotter weather.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Under the Sale of Food Act and Environmental Public Health Act, food businesses and delivery platform operators are responsible for ensuring that the food they deliver is transported in a manner that does not compromise food safety.
In addition, all food delivery service providers are encouraged to adopt the Singapore Standard (SS) 672: 2021 Guidelines on delivery of ready-to-eat food, which include recommendations on ensuring that food items are maintained at the correct temperatures during transport. Consumers can also do their part by checking and storing the food products under proper conditions upon receipt of their delivery.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Reassure End Users that Water from Water Coolers is Safe for Consumption","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what are the measures put in place to assure end users that water from water coolers at buildings, public sites and schools is safe for consumption.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: PUB has a comprehensive sampling and monitoring programme to ensure the safety of the potable water supplied by PUB. This includes piped water supplied to buildings, public sites and schools, which may be fed into water coolers. The water supplied by PUB complies with the Environmental Public Health (Water Suitable for Drinking) 2019 Regulations and is well within the World Health Organisation Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality.
Building and facilities owners are responsible for ensuring the proper installation and maintenance of water coolers on their premises. PUB and the Singapore Food Authority (SFA) will jointly investigate any water quality feedback received from the public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Timeline for Dedicated Lactation Room in Schools and Tertiary Education Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education for schools and tertiary education institutions that do not have a dedicated lactation room, what is the Ministry's timeline for working with them to set up such a room.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Member may refer to MOE's reply to Parliamentary Question No 19 for written answer on the Order Paper for 3 October 2023. [Please refer to \"Percentage of Schools and Tertiary Institutions with Lactation Facilities for Nursing Mothers\", Official Report, 3 October 2023, Vol 95, Issue 113, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installation of Stair Lifts or Escalators or Redevelopment for HDB Blocks without Direct Lift Access","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB has considered (i) installing stair lifts or escalators or (ii) redevelopment, for HDB blocks that still lack direct lift access and, if not, why not.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB blocks built since the mid-1990s have direct lift access on every floor. Amongst those blocks built before then, most do not have direct lift access on every floor. To address this, HDB launched the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) in 2001. Since then, HDB has implemented the LUP in more than 5,000 blocks.
In implementing the LUP, HDB has piloted and adopted different design approaches and innovative solutions to bring direct lift access to more blocks. Some examples include machine room-less lifts, home lifts and bubble lifts.
As mentioned in previous replies to the House, HDB has also studied installing wheelchair stair lifts and assessed that this is not feasible for large-scale adoption. This is because staircases within HDB blocks need to be kept clear for fire escape and retrofitting a stair lift will encroach into and impede the evacuation route in the event of a fire. Moreover, such stair lifts may potentially cause injury if not operated properly. Escalators are not feasible due to technical and space constraints.
Currently, around 99% of all blocks have direct lift access on every floor. However, there are some blocks where the LUP is currently not feasible because of very high cost or technical constraints. HDB has no plans to redevelop these blocks. That notwithstanding, we recognise that there could be some households in these blocks who may urgently need direct lift access due to their family members' medical or mobility conditions. For such households, HDB provides a Lift access Housing Grant (LHG) of up to $30,000 to assist them in buying a flat with direct lift access. Households with such needs can approach HDB for advice on how they can apply for the LHG.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Single Unwed Parents Applying for Interim Housing under Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme in 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many single unwed parents applied for interim housing under Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme in 2023; and (b) what are the outcomes of the applications.
Mr Desmond Lee: In 2023, eight single unwed parents applied for the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). HDB assisted four of them with Interim Rental Housing. Of the remaining four, one was invited to select a PPHS flat but did not do so and three were not successful in the ballot.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Cooling Measures in Addressing Concerns over Million-dollar and High-value Resale HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider assessing the effectiveness of cooling measures implemented to address concerns about million-dollar and high-value resale HDB flats, particularly the extended waiting period for private property downgraders; and (b) whether this measure has influenced the quantity of million-dollar or high-value resale transactions and, if so, to what extent.
Mr Desmond Lee: Since 30 September 2022, current and former private property owners (PPOs/ex-PPOs) must wait out 15 months from the disposal of their private property before they may buy a non-subsidised resale flat. This measure was introduced to moderate the demand for resale flats and ensure that they remain affordable, especially for first-timers. To support seniors' retirement needs, Singapore citizens and their spouses aged 55 and above who are right-sizing from their private property to a 4-room or smaller resale HDB flat are exempted from the wait-out period.
Following the ramp-up in BTO flat supply and implementation of three rounds of cooling measures, the rate of increase in resale prices has continued to moderate. HDB's quarterly Resale Price Index (RPI) increased by 1.1% in 4Q2023. This is slower than the average quarterly increase of 2.5% in 2022. For the whole year of 2023, resale prices rose by 4.9%, less than half of the 10.4% increase in 2022.
Prior to the implementation of the 15-month wait-out period, PPOs/ex-PPOs constituted about 34% of buyers of flats sold for a million dollars or more, between 1 January and 29 September 2022. Since the wait-out was implemented, this proportion has fallen by more than half to about 14%, between 30 September 2022 and 31 December 2023.
The Government will continue to keep a close eye on the resale market, with a view towards keeping public housing affordable and accessible for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures in Place to Manage Gaming Addiction among Youths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what policies or regulations are in place to manage the exposure of youths to potentially addictive gaming content; (b) whether the Ministry has any plans to deal with gaming addiction among youths; and (c) what preventive measures are being implemented to educate youths and their families about the risks of gaming addiction.
18 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Ministry has current data on the prevalence of gaming addiction among youths in Singapore; and (b) how does the Ministry assess the impact of gaming addiction on the physical and mental health of youths.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Ministry of Communications and Information's (MCI's) focus is on encouraging healthy gaming habits amongst youths and ensuring age-appropriate access to online games. To these ends, we have worked with partners from the people, private and public (3P) sectors to support parents in guiding their children to navigate the online world safely and responsibly.
In schools, MOE's Cyber Wellness education programme equips students with the knowledge and skills to protect themselves, support their peers and seek help when faced with issues of excessive internet use and gaming. The National Library Board's (NLB's) Source, Understand, Research and Evaluate (S.U.R.E) programme also provides useful resources and tips on positive online habits and responsible online gaming for parents and youth.
The Digital for Life (DfL) portal now provides bite-sized resources including tips on healthy online gaming habits. MCI, MOE and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) are also working on a Parents' Toolbox to equip parents with practical strategies to support children's well-being and their digital journey. The Toolbox will be launched in phases from 2024.
Beyond these public education initiatives, MCI and IMDA are working to strengthen our regulatory levers to address concerns over harmful content on mobile apps, including gaming apps, with the introduction of a new Code of Practice for App Distribution Services (ADSs). The new Code will require designated ADSs, which may include Google Play and Apple App Store, to put in place systems and processes to mitigate users' exposure to harmful apps.
Gaming addiction, also known as gaming disorder or Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD), is a medical diagnosis associated with behaviors serious enough to result in significant impairment in one's personal and social lives. MCI does not have data on gaming addiction, which requires medical diagnosis.
Parents who suspect that that their child may have IGD should seek help from their family doctors and public healthcare institutions, such as the National Addiction Management Service (NAMS), for their child to be assessed on the severity of their condition and determine suitable interventions. Alternatively, they may approach community partners, such as TOUCH Community Services, which runs counselling and intervention programmes for youths who may be exposed to excessive gaming and device use.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Making Work Injury Compensation Designated Insurers Manual Public","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower whether the \"Work Injury Compensation Designated Insurers Manual\" specified in the licensing conditions for insurers under the Work Injury Compensation Act can be made public and not just to insurers.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Insurer's Manual issued by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) contains detailed technical guidelines to assist in processing work injury compensation (WIC) claims, which are specific to designated WIC insurers and not relevant to members of the public. Information that employers and claimants require to understand their responsibilities and eligibility with respect to work injury compensation claims is already available on MOM's website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigations Involving Employers Receiving Kickbacks from Migrant Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower for each year in the past three years for investigated cases involving employers receiving kickbacks from migrant workers (a) what is the number of migrant workers affected per employer; and (b) what is the range of the amount of kickbacks paid.
Dr Tan See Leng: From 2021 to 2023, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) investigated about 210 cases per year for alleged kickback offences. However, after investigations, about 70 employers were taken to task each year for receiving kickbacks from migrant workers. The corresponding number of migrant workers affected was about seven per employer, with each worker paying about $2,000 to $7,000 in kickbacks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Travellers Crossing Land Border at Woodlands Checkpoint by Public Transport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the current median number of travellers crossing the land border at Woodlands Checkpoint by public transport per day; (b) what is the maximum recorded number of travellers crossing the land border at Woodlands Checkpoint by public transport per hour; and (c) how does this maximum compare against the projected number of passengers that can be cleared per hour in each direction by the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: In December 2023, about 96,000 travellers crossed the land border at Woodlands Checkpoint to and from Johor Bahru by public transport every day. In the same month, the total number of arriving and departing public transport travellers cleared at Woodlands Checkpoint peaked at around 10,000 per hour.
The Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link is expected to have a peak capacity of up to 10,000 passengers per hour per direction.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister of State for Trade and Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was in the reply given by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling) for Parliamentary Question No 6 in the Order Paper for the Sitting of 28 February 2024: (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling): Enterprise Singapore has a very extensive network and when I last looked at the numbers, we have about 37 overseas centres in 21 cities. [Please refer to \"Supporting Singaporean Businesses to Navigate Changing Economic and Trade Opportunities in Region\", Official Report, 28 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 126, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Ms Low Yen Ling circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to the reply given for Parliamentary Question No 6 in the Order Paper for the Sitting of 28 February 2024. My reply should read as follows:
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling): Enterprise Singapore has a very extensive network and when I last looked at the numbers, we have about 37 overseas centres in 23 countries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6042,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240228/vernacular-28 Feb 2024 - Ms Nadia A Samdin - Debate on Budget Statement.pdf","fileName":"28 Feb 2024 - Ms Nadia A Samdin - Debate on Budget Statement.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6043,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240228/vernacular-28 Feb 2024 - AP Razwana Begum - Debate on Budget Statement.pdf","fileName":"28 Feb 2024 - AP Razwana Begum - Debate on Budget Statement.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6044,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Carrie Tan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240228/vernacular-Carrie Tan Budget 28Feb2024-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Carrie Tan Budget 28Feb2024-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6045,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hany Soh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240228/vernacular-Hany Soh PMO 28Feb2024 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Hany Soh PMO 28Feb2024 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6046,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Chee Hong Tat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20240228/vernacular-Chee Hong Tat MOF 28Feb2024-Chinese(mof).pdf","fileName":"Chee Hong Tat MOF 28Feb2024-Chinese(mof).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}