Hansard, 2012-02-28

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission by the Speaker to be absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated:

21 February 2012

Order. At the sitting of Parliament on 17 February 2012, I informed hon Members that the Clerk of Parliament had written to Mr Yaw Shin Leong, the Member for Hougang, asking him to inform her in writing by Friday, 24 February 2012, if he intends to appeal against or challenge his expulsion from the Workers' Party.

I also informed hon Members that the decision on the vacancy of Mr Yaw's seat in this House would be taken when his reply is received or after expiry of the deadline given to him to reply.

On the evening of 20 February 2012, the Clerk of Parliament received a letter from Mr Yaw stating that he will not be appealing against his expulsion from the Workers' Party.

In accordance with Article 46(2)(b) of the Constitution, I have to therefore inform hon Members that the seat of the Member for Hougang became vacant from the evening of 14 February 2012, which was when he was expelled from the political party for which he stood in the 2011 General Election.

1 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is MUIS' position on food courts that market themselves as h alal outlets when only individual stall operators within these outlets are halal-certified; and (b) how can MUIS assure the public that such food courts or outlets are audited regularly to back their claims as halal certification is given to individual stalls which turn over on an ongoing basis.

Sir, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore, or MUIS, administers and regulates halal certification in Singapore. It issues individual halal certificates to a stall holder, food company or any other eating establishment that complies with the terms and conditions of its halal certification system. In the case of a food court, only individual stalls are issued with the halal certificates. Hence, it is misleading for a food court to claim that it has been halal-certified.

MUIS is committed to ensuring the integrity of the more than 2,700 halal certificates issued. Periodic and surprise inspections are conducted regularly to ensure that the halal certificate holders comply with the conditions. In 2011, 7,000 such inspections were carried out. MUIS views any breach of its halal certification system seriously and investigates all complaints by members of the public for any infringements of conditions or misuse of its halal certification mark. In 2011, 21 halal certificate holders were found to be in breach. Of these, 14 had their certificates suspended while seven were issued with a warning.

Food operators and members of the public can play a part in maintaining the integrity of Singapore's halal certification system. Halal certificate holders should ensure timely renewal of their halal certification. As halal certificate holders are required to display the halal certificates prominently, Muslim customers can check that the food outlets have a valid h alal certificate before patronising them.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am heartened to hear that the amount of enforcement is quite significant. But there is a certain perception among the community that MUIS does not go around to enforce and check. Could the Minister inform us how we could enlighten the community on how they could enforce their rights and, if possible, contact MUIS? Also, how do we ensure the accountability on the part of halal food providers?

Sir, on the integrity of the system, we take a three-pronged approach. First of all, MUIS conducts both announced and unannounced visit to the halal-certified premises. More inspections will be carried out for food establishments that were found to have not complied with prescribed conditions and these, of course, are investigated for infringements. As for those who are dealing with meat-based products, we take a stricter view of such outlets and will be inspected more often. MUIS also investigates every complaint that it receives. So, the role of the public is also very important and we hope that members of the public can continue to provide feedback to MUIS. There are channels in which they can register their complaints either through a phone call or an email on the MUIS' website.

Finally, Sir, we expect the certificate holders themselves will play their part by strictly complying with all the conditions at all times and, more importantly, to display their halal-mark, which has been certified by MUIS, timely. And if it needs to be renewed, we will keep them informed, in fact, three months ahead of the next renewal. So, the system is in place to ensure that there is timely renewal and information regarding whether or not the premise is halal-certified. In terms of inspection, we will continue to step up especially the unannounced inspection. Really, this is dependent upon the number of people that we have on the ground. We have been working with some other partners to ensure that we can step up our inspections across the board.

2 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for Law for the past two years, what is the number of bankrupts who are sent for debt restructuring schemes and the number who is discharged from bankruptcy.

Mrs Chiam asks for the number of bankrupts who are sent for "debt restructuring schemes". I take it that Mrs Chiam is referring to the Debt Repayment Scheme (DRS) under Part 5A of the Bankruptcy Act. The DRS was introduced in 2009 to allow debtors with regular incomes and debts not exceeding $100,000, an opportunity to avoid bankruptcy by paying off all or some of their debts through a repayment plan. In 2010 and 2011, 274 debtors in total were placed on the DRS. Of these, seven have completed the scheme while 29 fell out of the scheme as they did not adhere to the repayment plan. The remaining 238 are still on the scheme. Sir, Mrs Chiam also asks for the number of bankrupts who were discharged from bankruptcy in the past two years. In 2010, 2,252 bankrupts were discharged from bankruptcy. In 2011, the number was 1,391.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for answering the question. I would like to ask a supplementary question. What qualifies a person to go under the debt restructuring scheme?

Sir, the criteria for the courts referring a case to DRS are set out in sections 65(7) and 67(3) of the Bankruptcy Act. They are as follows: first, the total debt involved in a bankruptcy application does not exceed $100,000; second, the debtor is not an undischarged bankrupt and has not been a bankrupt in the last five years; third, there is no voluntary arrangement in respect of the debtor, either now or within the last five years; fourth, the bankrupt is not already in the DRS and has not been in the DRS in the last five years; and, lastly, the debtor is not a sole proprietor or partner of a firm, or a partner in a limited liability partnership. Upon referral to DRS, the Official Assignee will make a more detailed assessment on whether the referred debtor is suitable, and factors considered include whether there are any other debts owed by the debtor, whether the debtor earns a regular income and whether the debtor can propose a viable repayment plan.

3 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for Law (a) if he will give a detailed account of the annulment of bankruptcy orders issued in December 2011 to the three former directors of the National Kidney Foundation; and (b) how the bankruptcy laws have been applied in the case.

Sir, before I address Mrs Chiam's question, I should declare that my Minister represented the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) in its suit against, amongst others:

Ms Matilda Chua, ex-Member of the NKF board;

Mr Richard Yong, ex-Chairman of the NKF board; and

The late Mr Loo Say San, ex-Treasurer of the NKF.

Following bankruptcy applications filed by the NKF, Mr Yong, Mr Loo and Ms Chua were adjudged bankrupts on 16 May 2007 after failing to pay liquidated damages and costs to the NKF.

Sir, sections 95 and 95A of the Bankruptcy Act provide that the Official Assignee may annul a bankruptcy order if a composition or scheme is accepted through a special resolution, where a majority in the number of creditors, who together hold at least 75% of the total liabilities, accept the debt settlement proposal.

In the case of Mr Yong, Mr Loo and Ms Chua, the Official Assignee had completed the administration of their bankruptcy estates and realised all their available assets for the benefit of the creditors. A debt settlement proposal was put up to the creditors for their consideration. This was accepted by creditors, in accordance with sections 95 and 95A of the Bankruptcy Act, as earlier mentioned. As such, the Official Assignee granted Certificates of Annulment to the three of them on 2 December 2011.

4 Miss Penny Low asked the Minister for Transport what is the Ministry's vision of our public transport landscape in five years' time and what are the steps to be taken to move towards this five-year plan.

Sir, over the next five years, our focus will be on increasing the capacity of our public transport system, raising its service levels and enhancing the overall commuting experience. This is key to addressing commuters' current concerns and achieving our longer-term objective of encouraging more Singaporeans to take public transport.

We will continue to invest heavily in our public transport system to increase its capacity and coverage. The completion of the Downtown Line, North-South Line Extension and Tuas West Extension will add another 51 kilometres to our existing rail network. For existing rail lines, more new trains will be put into service and the signalling system for the North-South and East West Lines will be upgraded.

It will take time for these rail capacity improvements to be completed. In the meantime, we will significantly ramp up bus capacity to relieve daily congestion in public transport. The Government will partner the public transport operators to add about 800 buses over the next five years, or a 20% increase. Details will be given during the Ministry of Transport's (MOT's) Committee of Supply (COS) debate. We will also upgrade major bus stops and implement more bus priority measures to improve service reliability.

To enhance the accessibility and catchment of our public transport nodes, we will build more sheltered walkways for pedestrians, as well as cycling paths and parking facilities for cyclists. Over time, we will also make our public transport system more barrier-free and elderly-friendly by increasing the number of wheelchair-accessible bus services and barrier-free routes into MRT stations.

Lastly, we will ensure that public transport fares remain affordable by reviewing both the rail and bus financing frameworks and the public transport fare adjustment formula.

In five years' time, there will be significant progress in our efforts to make public transport a choice mode, and deliver a commuter-centric and well-integrated bus-rail network. Our strategies must serve us well even beyond the next five years and, therefore, we will also review the Land Transport Masterplan which was put out four years ago. Over the next year or so, we will engage key stakeholders and invite ideas from the public to develop an updated Masterplan to serve as our roadmap for the next 10 to 15 years.

I would like to thank the Minister of State for some early good news about the intention to improve the transport plan and also the people-oriented approach through feedback on improving the plan. May I ask two supplementary questions, Sir? One, what is the distribution plan for the additional 850 buses that are funded by the Government, and what would be the basis of prioritisation? In particular, in new towns like Punggol 21 where it is less well served than many other more mature towns, what are the plans in terms of increasing both the frequency as well as adding new routes to the new towns?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member, Miss Penny Low, for her questions. Since the announcement during the Budget Statement that the Government will be injecting substantial bus capacity, we have received largely positive feedback and also many requests for their estates to be prioritised. These will all be studied very carefully and we will have to balance where the benefits can be spread out and also bring more convenience to the commuters. I assure the Member that this issue will be touched on in greater detail during MOT's COS debate.

5 Miss Penny Low asked the asked the Minister for Transport (a) what plans are there to resolve traffic congestion even though the ERP is in place; (b) whether the Ministry will consider turning off ERP gantries when there is smooth traffic flow; and (c) whether the ERP system needs to be tweaked to be more flexible and responsive to live situations on the road.

Sir, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) adopts an integrated and holistic package of measures to manage traffic on our roads. Besides Electronic Road Pricing (ERP), this includes enhancing the capacity of roads, for example, through road widening; and optimising traffic flows through new traffic schemes and the use of Intelligent Transport Systems, such as the Expressway Monitoring and Advisory System, commonly referred to as EMAS. These traffic management measures are complemented by our Vehicle Quota System and the improvement of public transport services.

Currently, ERP rates are reviewed every quarter – in February, May, August and November – as well as during the June and December school holidays each year. During these reviews, the ERP rates are adjusted based on the prevailing traffic situation. An optimal speed range determined by a Nanyang Technological University (NTU) study is used to guide the review. This speed range is 45 to 65 km/h for expressways and 20 to 30 km/h for arterial roads. When speeds exceed or fall below the optimal range, based on measurements carried out by LTA over a two-week period once every quarter, the ERP rates will be adjusted downwards or upwards respectively.

By and large, this should ensure that traffic should be relatively congestion-free when we have the ERP in place. However, traffic flow is dynamic. Accidents and bad weather impact road conditions and, hence, driving speeds. There is also some lag in adjusting the ERP charges as we only do these measurements once every quarter.

If traffic flow is smooth such that speeds are above the optimal range, LTA will bring down the ERP charges at the next review. For example, the ERP rate for the Central Expressway (CTE) gantry north of Braddell Road for the period 7.00am to 7.30am was recently revised downwards. If this happens repeatedly because traffic speeds are consistently above the optimal threshold, it is possible that ERP charges will fall to zero.

ERP manages congestion by influencing motorists' driving behaviour. This is possible only when motorists know the ERP rates in advance. With advance knowledge of the ERP rates, motorists can then decide whether to travel as planned, or take a different route, travel at a different time, or change their mode of travel to public transport. They can also decide to travel somewhere else or even cancel their trip completely. Hence, we fix the ERP rates for a period of time until the next cycle of review, so that motorists can make informed decisions about their choice of travel time, route or mode.

To complement the ERP system, we provide timely information to motorists as much as possible. This allows motorists wishing to avoid ERP to do so, for example, when there is severe congestion caused by incidents on the road. If they are already on the road, motorists will be alerted of incidents through the Expressway Monitoring Advisory System (EMAS) Travel Information Displays (TID) and LTA's Traffic News on the radio. Motorists can also access real-time traffic information before they begin their travel, via LTA's traffic.smart on the One.Motoring website, and adjust their travel plans accordingly.

Once again, I thank the Minister of State for her reply. She mentioned that there was a lag in the adjustments of rates due to the quarterly reviews and that information provided to motorists is as real-time as it can get. Some time ago, there was talk about using a GPS-based system which would provide dynamic real-time information both to the agencies as well as the motorists. Is this currently being studied? Will it be implemented in due course? The second supplementary question is on the ERP. I am happy to hear that it could even be down to zero-rated. Has there been any such experience in the past?

Sir, I thank the Member for the questions. I believe that the system the Member is referring to is ERP2. The development of the ERP2 project is still in its early stages. We awarded a tender to four consortium groups last year to conduct a system evaluation test for the next generation ERP system. The tests are still ongoing. Because when we have a very built-up city and distances travelled by motorists can be very short, we have to make sure that it can be reliably used for the purposes of road pricing. The tests are still ongoing and, even if the ERP2 system is technically feasible, it is still some years before it is ready to be launched and implemented. Once the technology is proven, we will study how we can use the ERP2 system to influence motorists' driving behaviour more effectively.

When the GPS-based system is finally implemented, assuming that it works and will be implemented, what will happen to the physical gantries? Does it mean that they will outlive their function or will they be torn down? What will happen to them? And how much would that cost the Government?

It is a little too early to say right now. We first have to prove that the system is viable and it can be used reliably. Sir, it is too early to speculate what we will do with the gantries.

6 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Prime Minister (a) for each of the past five years, how many Singaporeans who relinquished their citizenship were new citizens; and (b) what were the reasons for doing so.

7 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the criteria for granting Singapore citizenship and permanent residency; (b) whether there is a rigorous system in place to ensure that the right people are given these status; (c) for the past four years, how many foreigners gave up their Singapore citizenship; and (d) whether these foreigners are required to sell their HDB flats and properties when they leave the country or are they allowed to profit from renting them out.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take Question Nos 6 and 7 together, please?

Yes, please.

Sir, every application for Permanent Residence or Singapore Citizenship is evaluated holistically on a range of criteria, including economic contributions, qualifications, age, family profile and length of stay in Singapore. We assess how well an applicant is able to contribute and integrate into our society and his commitment to sinking roots. For those with family ties to Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents, we also consider the local sponsor's ability to support the family.

An average of 1,200 Singaporeans renounced their citizenship each year from 2007 to 2011. Three hundred of these were naturalised citizens. The renunciation rates for both naturalised citizens and Singapore-born citizens were low, 0.1% or less. The reasons for emigration vary. Some emigrants leave for family reasons – because of marriage, or to reunite with family members overseas, while others do so for a different living environment. All Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who own HDB flats will have to sell their properties if they renounce their citizenship or cease to be Permanent Residents. There are no exceptions to this rule.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answer. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether there is any characteristic specific to this group of 300 new citizens who renounced their citizenship. For example, what was their original nationality? How long did they stay in Singapore? Did they have children who have taken advantage of our education system or do they have a child who is due for National Service (NS)? And is there any penalty for them when they renounce their citizenship?

Sir, there is no particular pattern to the naturalised citizens who have renounced their citizenship. Once a person is a citizen, he is liable for National Service if he is of National Service age and he has to fulfil those requirements.

Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister, for the answers. I would like to ask a supplementary question. What is the time frame for the Government for granting citizenship to foreigners and PRs? Is there a time frame?

The length of stay that the person has had in Singapore is one of the considerations. There is no specific time frame.

8 Miss Penny Low asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry could review (i) the blood-taking procedure in hospitals whereby patients are subjected to repeated blood takings within a span of one to two weeks because they are admitted under different departments within the same hospital; and (ii) the need for patients to stay as inpatients while waiting for blood culture results that may take up to three days and the patient is well enough to return home.

Sir, blood investigations are conducted for various purposes, ranging from routine health assessments, monitoring of a chronic condition, to the clinical management of an acutely ill person. The type and frequency of blood investigations are determined based on clinical needs after the assessment of the patient's conditions.

With increasing complexity of cases and specialisation in medicine, we need to ensure that care is better coordinated between different clinical departments and to avoid duplicated tests. Our healthcare institutions have introduced measures, such as electronic medical records, to reduce duplication of tests. As test results can be accessed online by healthcare professionals involved in the care of the patient, blood tests are often not repeated unless it is clinically required, such as monitoring of platelet levels in dengue patients and monitoring of white blood cell counts in a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy.

Another example of initiatives by our hospitals to reduce duplication of tests is the iSMART blood orders tracking system at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital's Specialist Outpatient Clinics. This system allows nurses to track the blood tests that have been ordered by different clinical departments to enable the samples to be obtained at one sitting and the results shared by the departments.

Going forward, the National Electronic Health Record System that is being rolled out nationally will enable doctors from different institutions, who are managing the patient, to see the patient's results from blood investigations that have been performed before deciding whether a repeat test is indicated.

Despite such efforts, there are still occasions where tests are duplicated unnecessarily. We will continue to improve on the process to minimise inconvenience to patients and reduce wastage.

On blood cultures, the decision to discharge a patient is made based on the patient's clinical conditions. A patient requiring admission and blood cultures tend to be generally quite ill and, hence, would usually stay in the hospital until results are obtained to inform treatment decisions and until the patient's conditions have improved. However, if the patient's condition improves or the illness has been determined to be non-infectious in nature, the medical team can discharge the patient earlier before the culture results are finalised and the patient would be given a follow-up appointment, as an outpatient for a review of his conditions as well as the culture results.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. I have been told that it is possible these days to use diagnostic kits with just a very small sample of blood for a number of tests, instead of taking specific blood samples for specific tests. Is that something that is also being practised in our hospitals? If so, then it could really reduce the number of times that a patient would be asked to give blood for tests.

Sir, I agree with the Member's general intention that we should minimise the number of tests that are done on the patient unless they are necessary. However, blood tests are such that they are usually for specific objectives and purposes. When we take blood samples, they are to be tested for specific results that we are looking for. Therefore, it is unlikely for us to be able to draw blood from a patient for a comprehensive test in anticipation of tests that would be needed in future. Usually, the doctors or nurses in attendance will decide the relevant tests that need to be done on the blood sample. So we will draw the blood and it will be subject to the tests that are prescribed by the doctors or nurses for the specific purpose of treating the patient's diseases. If the patient is admitted subsequently for a different episode, tests may have to be done again because the illnesses or the problems that the patient has may be quite different from the conditions before and, therefore, repeat tests may be necessary so that we can determine the conditions of the patient and are able to prescribe treatment more precisely. These are clinical decisions that will be decided by the doctors and the nurses on the ground based on the conditions of the patient. But I do agree with the Member that we should continue to see how we can minimise unnecessary tests or duplication of tests because tests are inconvenient and sometimes can be painful to patients. So, our objectives are in alignment.

I would like to once again thank the Minister for his very comprehensive answer. My question was really about using more advanced diagnostic kits where we could draw one blood sample for multiple tests that are required by the clinics. Obviously, if they have to go for repeated tests because they are admitted for different conditions, that has to be done.

Miss Low, please keep your questions short.

Yes.

Sir, I agree. The hospitals and the doctors will look at whatever technology that is available to minimise the necessity to draw additional quantities of blood. We will minimise the amount that we need for the tests. But, again, these tests would have to be prescribed by the doctors and the nurses.

Order. End of Question Time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clarification. In my reply to a supplementary question during the Parliamentary sitting on 17 February 2012, I had referred to the proportion of international scholars who have been awarded Second Upper Class Honours and above in our universities as being about 45%. [Please see Official Report on 17 February 2012, Pg 1202.]

This is incorrect. The correct figure should be 67%. Forty-five percent refers to the proportion of international students who have been awarded Second Upper Class Honours and above in the 2011 university graduating cohort. I am sorry for the error.

"to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund and the Development Fund of the sums necessary to meet the estimated expenditure for Financial Year 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2012/2013.

"to provide for making supplementary provision to meet additional expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012",

recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam; read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2012/2013.

Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question (17 February 2012),

"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the Financial Year 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013.". – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance]

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the Budget debate.

"A Budget for the Future", "A Carings Budget", "A thoughtful Budget" − these were some of the terms used to describe Budget 2012. I have had several dialogues and discussions in the last week with different business groups, residents and the online community on their reactions to Budget 2012. The Government's move in this Budget to pay attention to seniors, the disabled and lower-income Singaporeans and their families is welcomed. However, some feel that the Budget is not as inclusive as it did not address segments that they feel need support, given the high cost of living. These include the singles, the "sandwiched" class, the middle income, including retirees and those who live in private property but are not well off. Reactions to the measures to restructure our economy and managing dependence on foreign workers and support for SMEs were mixed.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam in Budget 2012 outlined the directions for the Government to embark to build an inclusive society and a stronger Singapore. He outlined the principal focus of Budget 2012 to be one of addressing Singapore's longer-term challenges and building a better future for Singaporeans. The Deputy Prime Minister announced a whole range of economic and social strategies to achieve these goals centered around two key strategies: (1) Sustaining economic growth; and (2) Building a fair and inclusive society. Both these strategies are not easy to achieve but are critical for the future of Singapore and Singaporeans. I am glad to see the directions set out in this year's Budget.

In my speech today, I would like to touch on three areas: (1) challenges faced by companies as they move to restructure their businesses; (2) our growing income gap and how Budget 2012 sets out to address this; and (3) older workers and the CPF reinstatement.

A key concern for businesses operating in Singapore, both large and small, is the issue of rising business cost. Labour, rental and energy costs have driven business costs upwards quite significantly.

Many do accept the fact that there is a need to reduce the reliance on foreign workers. With easy access to foreign workers, wages of Singaporeans, especially the lower-skilled workers, tend to be depressed. There is also an increasing burden stretching the limits of our infrastructure with a growing workforce. However, there are worries of the shortage of talent and the tight labour market in the short term which will impact the ability of businesses to operate effectively and address opportunities. This will result in increased costs to businesses and lead to higher cost for consumers.

While the calibrated approach of reduction in the Dependency Ratio Ceilings (DRCs) and S Passes is understood, companies, especially the SMEs, will have to adjust and they will feel the pain in making the transition. So, while the implementation of the changes to the DRC has been calibrated to allow businesses hiring foreign talent time until June 2014 to comply with the new DRCs, companies will not be able to bring in new foreign workers beyond the new DRCs from 1 July this year. This will mean that adjustments must be done now and businesses and their plans will be impacted.

In many industries where jobs are taken up by foreign workers, these jobs are not necessarily the jobs that Singaporeans want. Many have cited that culture plays an important role in shaping the perception and desirability of some of these jobs. Many have expressed concerns on whether companies will be able to attract Singaporeans to do these jobs. In the ICPAS pre-Budget roundtable that I participated in, panelists felt that the current income and offerings in the service sector were less than desirable and more must be done together with appropriate polices to tackle these issues. To make a concerted effort and to accelerate these efforts to attract locals to the sector, recommendation was made to perhaps appoint a champion agency.

For some industries, for the higher skilled jobs, the issue is whether Singapore is producing enough of the right skilled resources in time to fill the higher end jobs created as companies move up the value chain. In many business forums as well as in feedback from our members in the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Resource Panel, who are from various industries, both SMEs and MNCs, a common thread we hear is that many experience difficulty in hiring higher skilled Singaporeans in their respective areas. The concern is whether our educational system is providing the relevant training that graduates and employers want. Is the economy able to accept these graduates in jobs that align to their skills as well as their expectations? A stronger economy for the future will require a skilled labour force. Hence, the greater policy concern going forward, especially as opportunities for pursuing tertiary education are increased in Singapore, is the employment of higher skilled Singaporeans and how they will meet the needs of businesses. While businesses will need to invest to develop their talent base as they restructure, there needs to be better collaboration between industry and educational institutions in meeting future skills needs of the various sectors.

Another point on foreign talent that came up in the various dialogues was around Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) jobs and quality jobs for Singaporeans. Several expressed concerns of being "crowded out" of these PME roles, given the competition from foreign talent. While many agree that with the pace of growth and the focus on upgrading industries, Singapore must stay open to foreign talent. However, more needs to be done to ensure skills transfer and development of local talent for these roles and also a focus to reduce the heavy reliance on foreign talent.

To support SMEs to innovate and increase productivity, especially in the light of the economic challenges and the changes to the DRC, this year's Budget does have several welcomed measures. These include the enhanced Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Cash Payout up to 60% of $100,000, enabling PIC payout on a quarterly basis, the ability to use PIC for in-house training without the need for certification, and the changes of qualification for R&D expenditures and software development, the One-Off Cash grant, the Special Employment Credit, and a few other measures. These will definitely prove useful and helpful for the companies, especially SMEs, in addressing the cost of doing business and enabling their growth.

What is important, however, is to ensure that access to these funds and support is simple so that companies that most need it are able to access it, and enjoy the reliefs and obtain the funds when they are needed. This is where I feel improvements must be done. As it is often said, while the policies and schemes are the right ones, the implementation and execution are important to achieve the intended results.

Let me illustrate this point with the PIC application process. Currently, there is quite a lot of information on PIC to help companies. This is, however, where the problem lies. There is a bit too much information for most companies to handle and they will require time to understand the vast amount of data available. Let me give an example. The PIC guide, "Productivity and Innovation Credit revised in 15th July 2011", is a 66-page guide. You will agree with me that you can probably write a book with this. The FAQs guide, "FAQ for PIC and cash grant", is a 22-page document with 72 questions. The PIC forms in the IRAS website are not too difficult to fill. The challenge is in understanding the criteria which companies are required to check, validate and get the appropriate approvals from the relevant agencies against their other tax criteria. I think you get my drift now on the need for simplification. While promising small companies can and should tap the scheme, given their day-to-day operations and business pressures, they do not have the capacity to navigate the complexity of the application for the scheme.

For companies to make the shift and to restructure as well, it is more than just a matter of cost. What will be required is also appropriate skills and expertise to enable the change and to drive innovation. Many of these companies do not have the relevant skills and expertise. Enhancing productivity requires companies to focus on systems, processes and technology to innovate and improve quality of products and services. It may be worthwhile to explore a pool of expertise that can be made easily accessible and the aggregation of demand would lower the cost to utilise them. Change management and business process re-engineering is also required.

Now, let me now move on to touch on the point of fair and inclusive growth. I would not be discussing the details of the schemes announced, but I would like specifically to talk about the point on the growing income gap and how Budget 2012 has set out to address income inequality, and the steps taken towards income, redistribution and preserving opportunities for Singaporeans and ensuring social mobility.

Singapore, as we all know, is small, is an open city and open to market forces. Like many other global cities like Hong Kong, London, Seoul, New York, we face the same challenge of the growing income gap. But I am glad to see the deliberate steps and position taken by the Government to address this difficult challenge of the growing income gap. As outlined by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman in his Budget Statement, he said, and I quote, "we cannot leave our social compact vulnerable to market forces. We have to do all we can to contain inequality and to sustain social mobility in each new generation. We are therefore making a determined, multi-year effort to raise the prospects of success for lower income families. We must also give our middle income families every opportunity to achieve their aspirations in an evolving and often unpredictable economic environment."

Education and jobs will continue to be levers for all Singaporeans to achieve success. And we must ensure that there are opportunities for all children and workers to qualify for quality education, training and jobs. This will need to be supported and sustained by Singapore's continued income growth.

The need as expressed in Budget 2012 is also to be targeted in our efforts. Although it is not perfect, it will in some way ensure that we keep our efforts for income distribution and preserve social mobility. As I have said earlier, many have expressed that it is not as inclusive because there may be groups that are less well-off that may need help, and I think we need to be cognisant of this and ensure that they do get the help that they need, but we need to ensure that Budget 2012 stays targeted so that the groups that need help do get it. I am glad to see that the Budget while targeted in its approach, it does attempt to broaden the reach of the schemes to include the lower end of the middle-income group who may not be as well off.

Let me give Members some examples. The GST Voucher Scheme, which is based on income and the annual value of homes, does include Singaporeans living in the lower end private properties. The annual value criterion which is capped at $20,000 covers about 15% of private properties. I would ask that the Ministry consider the suggestion and feedback to refine the Medisave component of the GST Voucher to include those 60-65 years of age. Given the concerns of the rising cost of healthcare in our elderly, many in this age group who are already out of the workforce may not have sufficient provisions for their healthcare needs and require help.

The absorption of the GST and increase in subsidies for long-term care, including community hospitals, nursing homes, day care and rehabilitation facilities and home-based care packages will enable more in the middle income group to also benefit. Those who previously did not receive any subsidy will now be able to do so. MOF has also indicated that with these changes, 80% of elderly or two-thirds of Singaporean households will qualify for these subsidies. This will indirectly help their family members who are taking care of them and paying for their medical expenses.

Similarly, the schemes introduced to support Singaporeans with disabilities are welcomed. The measures on early intervention and education will benefit some 2,000 children, and supporting employment will enable more Singaporeans with special needs to participate. Adult care and subsidies for adult Singaporeans with severe disabilities will also enable middle-income families to offset about 50% of annual cost in attending Day Activity Centres while lower-income families will benefit more.

These measures, which I have highlighted, show deliberate steps to redistribute income and help Singaporeans cope with increasing costs while ensuring financial viability and sustainability of the programmes. Many of these measures are not one-off for the year and the Budget has put schemes with specific funds set aside to ensure financial stability and sustainability. For example, $3.6 billion has been put aside for the GST Voucher Fund, $2.3 billion for the Special Employment Credit and Top-up of $200 million for the Edusave Endowment Fund.

While I share the concerns of businesses of increasing cost of doing business with any increase in labour cost, I must say that I am glad that finally, we are raising the CPF contribution rates of older workers. CPF contribution rates for older workers were lowered in the late 1980s and, again, in the 1990s. The then seniority-based wage system discouraged employers from hiring older workers as the seniority based system at the time made the older worker more costly to hire than the younger worker. With the focus on productivity and the flattening of the wage system to one focused on performance, it is now only fair that older workers are recognised and rewarded for the work that they do. I personally find it hard to justify why any older worker is paid less just because they are older. If they are able to do the work, they should be rewarded for the same as any worker, young or old. On the recommendations for the rise in the CPF contributions for older workers, I would also encourage the Government to consider extending the CPF contribution rates for those above 65 years who can and are working.

Our economy today is dependent on services rather than manufacturing. And, hence, productivity while it still entails getting things done faster in a shorter time does imply the need for experience and knowledge. So while an older worker may be physically slower in some instances, it does not necessarily mean that they are less effective than their younger counterparts. Let me give you a very simple example. Take going into a store or going into a restaurant as an example: the quality of the service you receive from the service personnel really depends on their knowledge of the products and services and their ability to understand and match your needs and then to follow up and give you the products and services you require. The ability to complete the transaction in the shortest time and to provide you with a quality customer experience need not mean that each step must be done in the shortest time but rather the ability to complete it in the shortest time accurately. With older workers better educated and having more experience, their ability to provide good service and to understand customer needs will be strong. Their ability to retrieve products, input the service requirements or complete the order quickly can be assisted with suitable technologies to check stocks or to scan products or to use portable input devices to input service requirements.

We must recognise that there still exist perceptions and sometimes biases that older workers may not be productive as compared to the younger workers and it will take time for such perceptions to change. While the CPF contribution rates are increased, having the Special Employment Credit (SEC) in place will encourage employers to continue to employ older workers and keep them in demand in the employment market. Together with schemes like PIC and the restructuring of work to leverage the use of technology and automation to be less labour intensive and to improving the work processes, all these will enable older workers and disabled workers to be more effective and equally productive.

I would like to share a recent example that I was fortunate to come to learn about during the course of my commercial work. This is about a company that restructured their business processes and policies to address their business challenges to enable their workforce to be more productive. This company is called Eureka Call Centre Pte Ltd. Eureka Call Centre is a 30-seat Call Centre. It was facing high staff turnover and was not able to run its operations effectively. In 2008, it decided to embark on an ambitious re-engineering project. Eureka decided that they would run a Call Centre with call agents who were visually impaired. In 2009, they started with their pioneer batch of visually impaired call agents. They currently have 16 persons with physical disabilities (PWDs) and intend to recruit 12 to15 more every six months. They benchmark themselves with Call Centres that have able Call Agents and they set their KPIs at 10% higher than able Call Agents and aims to have their Call Agents to be more productive. They have been successful in achieving these goals. And their Call Agents handle an average of 30% to 50% more calls than able Call Agents. They are able to do an average of 16% higher talk time per hour. They were able to achieve this by re-engineering of their work processes and providing technology to enable the PWDs and the visually impaired workers do their work effectively. The User-Interface was re-programmed: they use technologies like hotkeys as shortcuts, voice synthesizers for the totally blind, screen magnifiers and high contrast displays, and real time monitoring for supervision, training and barging.

While they pay their agents competitively, they also realise that their needs to socialise and have outings was really what they valued. Job security and continuity were also important. They had the appropriate HR policies to align to the needs of their staff and they were able to retain a highly motivated staff as well. On that point, I would say that the Special Employment Credit that is in place, 16% for employers who hire SPED graduates, regardless of age, is definitely welcomed. I do ask if the Minister could consider extending this to include the employment of all disabled workers.

Would the Ministry also consider refinement of the SEC for older workers to not be capped at $4,000 a month? With a large proportion of our workforce who are PMETs, this will encourage employers to hire older PMETs. Currently, they are the more vulnerable group in our workforce when companies make decisions to downsize or restructure their businesses or operations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2012 is a Budget for the Future, a Budget that as Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has emphasised, sets out our direction and takes significant steps towards building an inclusive society and a stronger Singapore. He aptly summed up his Budget Speech with "Opportunity, improving ourselves, compassion", saying that this sets the tone of the character of the society that we want to build for all Singaporeans and a place that we can be proud to call home. This is the Singapore that I am proud to be part of and I hope that you will be too. With that, Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for allowing me to join this Budget debate. This year's Budget Statement heralds significant changes in our priorities as a nation. In the past decade, as one financial crisis after another hit our shores, our focus had been on mitigating the impact. Keeping and creating jobs were paramount. We had pulled out all stops to bring in new investments. Our efforts had paid off. Singapore has been topping international rankings, including those by the World Bank, as the easiest place to do business for the last few years. Investments have been propelling our economic growth and wealth creation.

However, not all Singaporeans could catch up and benefit from the changes in our job environment. Our income gap has widened. It is appropriate that we now implement measures to recalibrate. This new Budget seeks to build a more inclusive society by redistributing some of the new wealth to the poor and needy, elderly and disabled. In addition, to preserve the character of Singapore society, the Government has decided to reduce our dependency on foreign workers and slow down immigration, even though this may mean slower growth. We must be prepared to pay more to attract Singaporeans to redesign jobs in sectors where foreign workers make up a significant proportion of the staff.

We are well aware that this move will result in higher costs in a few areas which will ultimately hit our own wallets. Nonetheless, we can derive a sense of comfort, assurance and pride from knowing that it is a fellow Singaporean who had just fixed our laptop, took our order, cooked our lunch, and drove us to work; it is a fellow Singaporean who will be here with us for the long haul, not a transient worker; it is a fellow Singaporean getting decent pay to support his parents and children. This is what it means to be part of a nation tribe. In a world of over seven billion people, just over three million are Singaporeans. We are a very small tribe. Hence, all the more we should look out for one another. It is no longer as important to race ahead at all costs as to make the journey together as one family, slowing down now and then to check on the weaker members and ensure that they do not fall too far behind.

The measures to improve the conditions for older workers in employment send a good signal that while we should not expect to be paid more for seniority, we should not discount a person just because he or she has more grey hair or, for that matter, less hair. It is not what is on the head, but in the head that is more important. However, I would like to remind us that just because these measures and the push to reduce dependency on foreign workers are announced together, we are not expecting senior citizens to take on all the displaced jobs of foreigners. Jobs will certainly need to be redesigned to increase productivity and people's mindset need to change too to learn new skills and venture into new careers.

There is dignity in every job and in making an honest living, but there will be jobs that will be difficult to find enough Singaporeans to want to do and I will be happy that fellow Singaporeans need not take on these jobs and can find better ones. To me, these would include jobs of the construction workers and cleaners. There will also be professions that our local population will not be big enough to provide enough people to meet an increasing demand. For instance, the healthcare sector. I am glad that by 2020, the number of beds in acute hospitals will be increased by 1,900 beds and in Community Hospitals, 1,800 beds. How many more doctors, nurses and allied healthcare workers do we need? I support the move to improve conditions to attract more people to join the healthcare sector, but given that our population is not going to increase much further but ageing rapidly, how many can we attract or displace from other sectors? How many can our educational institutions train in time to meet the demand?

I find that the reduction in the Dependency Ratio Ceilings (DRCs), although calibrated, when applied across the whole manufacturing and services sectors, is too blunt a tool. I urge the Government to look into the needs and characteristics of specific industries and adjust the ratios accordingly. I am suggesting that for a start, cleaning, construction and nursing sectors be given more leeway to employ foreigners.

Mr Speaker, on the topic of foreigners in Singapore, over the past week, I have had some very direct responses from many Singaporeans regarding my comments over a remark made by a foreign student on a Singapore scholarship. I am grateful to many who understood where I was coming from and accepted my explanation. I am mindful that there are some netizens who are out to discredit whatever views to pursue a certain agenda, and that online comments do not necessarily represent the public opinion comprehensively.

In trying to give the benefit of doubt to what the student said, and attempting to soothe the hard feelings of some Singaporeans, I was accused of siding with a foreigner and not standing up for fellow Singaporeans. It was never my intention to undermine Singaporeans but to those whose feelings my words have hurt, I am sorry. I reflected myself and this is my learning: I do not think that we can just treat all the negative sentiments against foreigners as noise and expect that people would just learn or have to be rational.

A message to my Facebook account yesterday reads, and I quote:

"Many Singaporeans are very angry that the government has been giving free rides to foreigners €¦ Many students €¦ are given the red carpet treatment in Primary and Secondary schools. The government woos all the 2nd tier and 3rd tier students €¦ (the 1st tier students normally do not want to uproot themselves), give them scholarships and money to cover their expenses, so that they will uproot and come to Singapore, ... And when they do get here, they (are) given further privileges by the government moving them down 1 or 2 levels in their respective schools €¦ The excuse the government gives is that these people need to catch up on English. However, this gives the foreigners an unfair advantage over Singaporeans because they are 1 to 2 years ahead of the Singaporean kids in their standard, in terms of maturity, knowledge, intelligence €¦ They end up getting better results than Singapore kids. Many eventually get scholarships in post-secondary education as well in university education, at the expense of Singaporeans. The government has not been fair to Singaporeans at all. Double standards exist in favour of foreigners. Singaporean commoners do not get scholarships, but foreigners with such an unfair advantage, have scholarships thrown at them €¦ It is time for the Singapore government to put its citizens first €¦ How can Singaporeans be treated as 2nd class citizens in their own country ??? And that is how many Singaporean commoners feel."

Sir, I have skipped some very harsh words and phrases but I believe I have not paraphrased out of context. I do not know how many Singaporeans feel this way even though I know not all the points raised are factual, but suffice to say, there are such feelings among Singaporeans that the Government sometimes seems to place more emphasis on foreigners or prospective Singaporeans. When I was studying for my "A" levels, I was sent to an ASEAN scholar class. About a third of my classmates from Malaysia and Brunei joined us during the June holidays of our first year. They used to study the various subjects in their home country in Malay and had to catch up with the rest of us not only in the language adjustment, but also six months of curriculum. I was impressed with their diligence and many did well eventually. Some have settled down in Singapore and have given our country our new sons and daughters.

Over the last 25 years, the number and proportion of foreign students have increased. And because we only want to attract quality students, many of them competed against Singaporeans in examinations, competitions, sports, arts and scholarships. Unfortunately, there will always be black sheep in every community, any misbehaviour is easily amplified and this tarnishes the reputation of foreigners.

This presence of foreigners is also evident outside the schools. We used to have expatriates working and living in Singapore, and sometimes they tend to socialise within specific communities and spaces. Now, it is a good thing that foreigners are living in HDB flats, taking public transport and eating at hawker centres. They are better assimilated in the Singapore society. When I was living in London, I believed there were more of us foreigners in central London than the local British, but they lived in the outskirts or other smaller cities, towns, or villages where the population there is more or less homogeneous. However, Singapore does not have the luxury of space, and whether we are in Jurong, Queenstown or Tampines, we squeeze with more or less the same people queuing up for buses and taxis, or rushing to get into the MRT trains. We have to understand that when it is a daily experience of having to fight for places or space, people are naturally tested for their patience and emotions may run high. People felt squeezed out in their own homeland, not only for seats in the train or for vacancy in the school, or university, or for resale flat.

Mr Speaker, I would also like to highlight an interesting phenomenon in Singapore. Most of our new immigrants or foreigners working, living and studying in Singapore are from China. Most would expect that since the majority of Singaporeans are Chinese, there will be a natural fit. However, among the Chinese, we would be able to identify a different language, accent or slang in the way we speak. Hence, we might even be more conscious of the differences among us. I believe it could be a similar situation within the Indian community. As a non-Indian, I cannot differentiate between Tamil, Hindi or any Indian dialects, but I believe some Singaporean Indians would be able to tell from a glance whether someone is from northern India or southern India. Therefore, there is a certain dynamic within seemingly identical ethnic groups and sometimes, this leads to tension.

However, we cannot afford to be xenophobic given that the world is getting smaller and that talents are global, including Singaporean talents. NBA star Jeremy Lin must be the most newly-famous American now. Through his hard work and talent, he is a shooting star in the basketball arena and an inspiration for many, not only Chinese worldwide, but the world too, including Americans of all races. I am sure when his parents migrated from Taiwan to the United States, they would have struggled settling down in a foreign land. Even when Jeremy grew up in an American environment, he had suffered prejudices and I read that he has been called names like "wonton soup" and "sweet and sour pork". If he had not persevered, he probably would have become a volleyball or a table tennis player. If we care too much about what people call us, we will find it difficult to be more than a stereotype or an inaccurate label. Let us be confident and quietly proud of ourselves of who we are.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just as this Budget has set the broad direction to develop Singapore as an inclusive society, we must be mindful of what may tear us apart. I have learnt that no matter what my intentions may be, I need to be mindful and be more sensitive of what people might read into certain words. Likewise, in our policies and the way we implement our policies, we must be mindful of how people may perceive them. We need to communicate more and engage better. If a policy was not well received, let us try different ways to create a dialogue and explain our thinking. But we must always remain open to change a policy when necessary. We may want to persist in our argument that it is for the long-term interest, but we need also to demonstrate immediate benefits. We should not win a battle to lose the war, but we should aim to sort out any dispute before escalating to a confrontation. With that, Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I see Budget 2012 as a response to new economic, social and political realities facing Singapore. The Government should be congratulated for taking these changes into account, and with Budget 2012, we are better placed to address concerns of many Singaporeans, particularly those in the lower income brackets. I wish to focus my current comments, and those that I intend to make during the Committee of Supply debates, on this latter group of Singaporeans – those from the lower income and less skilled groups.

This new, inclusive approach of the Government in budgeting is a positive move. By allocating more funds to help the elderly, the needy and the less able, the Government is acknowledging that some groups of Singaporeans need special attention. I hope that in our upcoming debate, we will continue with this approach, and allocate the Government's budget to address current and immediate concerns of less fortunate Singaporeans.

To start with, Sir, I am deeply concerned with the plight of older and less skilled workers. I accept the Government's argument that the best and the most sustainable way to raise incomes is by improving productivity. And this comes through upskilling and use of technology and even processes. This approach is well and fine for many workers, but perhaps not so applicable to those in the lowest rungs of our workforce. Let me give you an example. Recently, I was approached by an elderly man, in his late 50s, approaching 60s. He works as a cleaner in a small company. To his credit, he said that he had heard a news report that his income could go up if he could improve his productivity. Then he asked me how he could go about improving his productivity. Honestly, it is not an easy answer. Because while I could tell him to attend a course to upgrade himself, or learn to use the cleaning machines, I knew that his company, which is a small one, was not going to send him for many courses, or buy many machines. For him, there would be a difficult way up. At close to 60 years of age, he struggles and is unlikely to learn a new trade. Realistically, he is unlikely to find a new job, even in more progressive cleaning companies. So, the Government's call for workers to improve productivity was irrelevant to him. This is not an uncommon view among workers in the services sectors like cleaning, health care, F&B, retail, etc. To these workers, in these sectors, it is all good and well to throw a big word like productivity at them, but they still struggle to come to terms on how it will really make an impact in the way they work, the salary that they earn and the career progression that they may have.

Sir, this is just one example – workers in many small companies in Singapore may be in the same situation – and my point is that at the macro level, it is reasonable to talk about improving productivity as a way of improving incomes. But at the micro level, we must have a more meaningful discussion about how individual workers can hope to raise their incomes, so that they too can benefit from the results of Singapore's progress.

I believe that we have not fully recognised the plight of the low-income workers and particularly so, the plight of older and less skilled workers. I urge the Government to place some emphasis, using the power of whole of Government, to look at how we can improve the lives of this group. While I am sure that they appreciate the rebates, the vouchers, and so on, that the Government offers from time to time, I think that there is a need for a closer examination of where each dollar of a low-wage worker earns goes to. A question that I would like to ask is: how much of the earnings of the low-wage worker go to paying direct and indirect government-related taxes, fees, charges and the like? If we do have some sense of the reality, we could consider options that are more effective in helping them cope with the challenges that they faced. Like, what scope exists to reduce these charges, for example? My logic is that a low-wage worker's standard of living can be improved not only by increasing his income, but also by reducing the cost of his living. I believe that now is the most opportune time to look at this issue because, in fact, our Minister for Manpower is also the Minister of Finance!

Sir, I accept that the issue of housing for low-income workers is a complex one too. I have previously suggested that the HDB look at managing the sale of 3-room and smaller flats differently – totally different from the way we do it now, so that poorer households can buy or rent homes at an affordable price. Today, I would like to suggest even more bolder and radical ideas to the Government. One idea is for HDB to consider selling homes on shorter leases – say 50 years or 60 years lease, for example – for Singaporeans with lower incomes and limited financial resources. HDB can put further restrictions like recovery of subsidies on sales and buy them back at a cost-plus basis. This can remove speculation of 3-room or smaller flats, and revert the HDB to its original mission of housing a nation. If we make enough effort, I am confident that we can think of a scheme to reduce the start-up burden on low-income families and even young families, and they can be assured of a roof over their heads at a reasonable price. This would be another way to reduce the burden of cost on low-income workers and also for young Singaporeans.

Next, Sir, beyond the low-income workers, I also wish to focus and discuss on workers in general, and whether our education and training system is preparing our students for the work life. We know that Singapore's brand and reputation on education is well-known far and wide. Our schools and tertiary institutions are ranked among the best in the world, so I think it is only reasonable to expect that our young people, having attended these schools, should be highly productive. Yet, when we talk to our businesses, this does not seem to be the case. They find school leavers to be book smart, but not street smart. They seem to know how to behave in a classroom, but not in a workplace. And they seem to lack a hunger to excel and are demanding in their expectation. I am not sure what the cause of this apparent gap is. Is it because we teach what is not exactly relevant to what the businesses want? Or is it because we teach theoretical principles, but not how these will be relevant in the workplace? Or does the issue lie with the students – after being told to study hard, work so hard that they can get comfortable jobs, they think that getting a degree means that they have arrived. Perhaps, it is true that they have arrived, but they need to accept that they have only arrived at the start of the next phase of their lives – where they can only achieve their aspirations through continued hard work!

Another point that we must consider is the difficulties that some of our workers face in retirement. Sir, we have received much feedback about the elderly in my housing estates who are very concerned about their retirement and employability in their old age. I was, in fact, very encouraged when the Government, in the past few years, was discussing ways to improve the returns of the CPF balances. It is good that the Government has decided to grant a higher interest rate for the first $60,000 of the CPF balances. But I am asking if there is a possibility for us to do more and give more whenever gains are good. We are aware of the magic of compound interest. For example, if you have $1,000 balance in your CPF account, at an interest rate of 2.5%, over 30 years, it will give you $2,098. But we know that if this interest can be better, the gains can be much more. Now, imagine if you are able to achieve an appropriate interest rate that is viable and also sustainable, this would mean that our retiring workers can look forward to more resources at retirement and little more comfort, after helping Singapore grow and prosper. It would also mean that they would be less reliant on the Government for their needs in later part of their life. It may be opportune time for us to relook at the interest rates of CPF accounts of Singaporean workers for their long term benefits. It is also timely, Sir, I think for us, as a whole of Government, to see how we can maximise the contributions of all in our workforce. Sir, allow me now to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Pg 1399 for Vernacular Speeches.] Sir, perhaps it is timely for Government as a whole to look at how we can use the potential and abilities of Singaporean workers so that we can maximise the economic contributions of all our workers. This means that each Ministry and Government institution will have to work together to educate our students and inculcate a deep sense of social spirit so that they have a continuous desire to excel, work hard to attain a higher standard, possess the desire to learn on the job, and, hopefully, when they have done well, they will continue give back to society and the less fortunate.

(In English): I think we must elevate our Budget discussions, sweep the slate clean and think from the overall macro perspective of how we can improve the lives of Singaporeans. While making routine cuts to address the issues of particular segments of our community has its place, we should spend more energy looking at how the Government's Budget is allocated. For example, if buying one less jet fighter means we can help hundreds of poor families take a step out of the poverty trap, is it worth the sacrifice to our national defence? Or if we build one less national park, but can help hundreds of poor students learn some work-life skills, is it worth the sacrifice? This is just my layman way of thinking, but I think we in Parliament have a duty to examine our Budget allocation, and assure ourselves that, overall, we are doing justice to all Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans can be justifiably proud of our many "Number One" accolades or being among the "Top" in the world. Our physical infrastructure rivals the best in the world, we have a Number One port and airport. Many tall and magnificent buildings grace our skyline. Now, with Budget 2012, we are presented with the opportunity to be Number One in another, perhaps more important, area.

I would like to propose that we work towards being Number One in helping our fellow Singaporeans, particularly, the most vulnerable amongst us, to achieve a better life: a better life through good education, a meaningful and fulfilling work-life, and a dignified and happy retirement. That would be a proud achievement indeed.

Sir, clearly, this year's Budget has managed to address the needs of Singaporeans who were most affected by the Government's past economic growth strategies, especially the older aged workers and the lower and middle income groups. Where previously they were most affected by stagnant or slow wage growth, they are now assured of some form of a safety net to help take care of their needs.

In healthcare, for example, I welcome the additional spending tabled in this year's Budget. Singapore spends far less on healthcare as a percentage of GDP when compared internationally. According to the World Health Organization's data, Singapore's total spending on health was only 3.3 % of GDP, lower than most developed economies such as US, UK, Japan and Korea, who spend between 6.5% and 15.2% in the case of US, and also lower than developing countries like China, India, Malaysia and Thailand, who spend about 4.1% of their GDP on healthcare. In fact, Singapore's spending on healthcare is only about half of the global median of 6.1%. So, the additional spending this year is a welcome move.

The GST Vouchers that the Government extended in this year's Budget were another good initiative. Previously, the Government would extend one-off GST credits but it still did not remove the anxieties among low-income Singaporeans as it was always viewed as a temporary scheme. So, the GST Vouchers, as a permanent assistance will provide more assurances and give many a peace of mind that they will get help regularly.

I am glad that the Government has realised that the widening income gaps will not go away anytime soon and therefore the increase in spending for basic things like education, healthcare, housing and transportation. However, while I am happy that the Government sees that it needs to play a bigger role in helping Singaporeans, we should not adopt a western style welfare system for obvious reasons, as we can see from what is happening in Europe today.

Therefore, we must have a more permanent way of improving the wages of Singaporeans so that they can still be better off despite shouldering some of the high costs that we see here in Singapore. Inevitably, we may have to move to some form of a Government-supported minimum wage system in the initial years, as I mentioned before, to be taken over by Productivity Improvement.

I am not suggesting minimum wage fully on the burden of employers, because they are already facing high costs, but to be shared by the Government. What I am suggesting is that we should start thinking about a wage that is reasonable, for the Government to support in the short term. This will give employers time to restructure in the long term and they can only do that by productivity improvements. This will shift the future cost of the minimum wage to companies as the Government cannot be seen to be supporting this forever. If the company fails to restructure in five years, for example, then it should realise that it may not be able to compete in Singapore in the future and will slowly fade out. This higher salary will also be one way to help our employers manage a tightened labour market as the Government reduces the intake of foreign workers as it will help attract the Singaporeans who are not currently working due to low salaries to re-enter the labour force. We should no longer accept low wages for our workers, like the $600 that our Singaporean cleaners earn. It is just not fair to them.

Sir, just like the vulnerable in society that need help, similarly our SMEs are badly affected by the double whammy of rapid costs increases and a tight labour market due to the Government's restructuring efforts. SMEs should therefore need more help and the Budget could have done more and to be a more inclusive one for them.

Today, the strategy of creating a productivity-led growth is not wrong but once again the Government is adopting an "instant tree" mentality of expecting everyone to make progress overnight. Business models take time to change with productivity improvements taking a longer time to set in and therefore the Government should be more realistic at the pace of change of the economic restructuring as in the short and medium term, we will be penalising our SMEs with higher labour costs.

In the past, the Government was too liberal with our foreign worker policies, opened the gates for too many foreign workers to come in and now when we realised the economic and social problems have been created, we are taking the other extreme and completely turning off the tap. This is not the right thing as companies need time to adjust to a tightening labour market. According to the team of economists from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, if Singapore were to achieve a moderate economic growth for this decade, there needs to be about a 1.5% employment growth even if we meet our productivity targets. Singaporeans alone will not be able to meet this job growth rate and therefore, at least in the medium term, companies here will have to turn to foreigners to supplement this. Hence, turning off the tap too drastically now will kill off the much needed labour supply for our companies and to grow our economy in the near term.

One area which is a huge concern for companies is the cost of renting or owning industrial or commercial space. The cause of this can be traced to a policy shift by JTC. Traditionally, JTC was very firm in its industrial land policy being only available to companies here for designated uses and at subsidised rates. In recent times however, JTC has offered their industrial land to REITs and other private developers, and these are now being redeveloped into strata-titled industrial units which are rented to non-industrial tenants for higher yields, and as we read from the papers recently, these are rented out for child care centres and even religious organisations. I recently spoke to some SME owners, who are tenants of a JTC development in Toa Payoh, which is now operated by a leading private property firm. Some of the tenants are now negotiating a lease renewal with the landlord and face a substantially higher rent at about 40% increase from what they were paying earlier. In a recent Business Times report on the same issue, it showed that some SME owners were quoted as paying as much as 56% higher rent when they renewed their leases.

Sir, this is clearly an industrial policy gone wrong. We should never allow industrial land to be used by investors. Now what has happened is that genuine companies who need the industrial land have to pay way beyond what it should be and therefore cannot survive as they cannot compete with similar economies such as Taiwan, Korea or Malaysia.

JTC should review this policy and go back to being a direct industrial landlord. The current JTC policy has created a major impact at the bottom lines of companies. In fact, JTC should practise a differentiated land pricing policy because pegging industrial land to market rates in Singapore is not realistic and we should in fact be comparing what similar companies in our competing economies are paying and pricing industrial land based on that – so that our companies can compete effectively with these economies.

I was disappointed that this year's Budget failed to address the shorter term problems faced by companies especially in the area of high business costs. Although the Budget included a one-off SME cash grant, capped at $5,000, this is insufficient to help SMEs, especially those have been in operation for some time. The Budget should have instead considered offering a tax rebate pegged against a proportion of a company's income so that this is more reflective of the size of the company. But there is a lot more that the Government can do in addressing the cost issue.

In theory, the measures implemented in the Budget to boost productivity may be sufficient but, in reality, many of the smaller companies may have trouble implementing them. They may not have the resources to focus on productivity for now as they are fire-fighting with the high costs and so the Budget should have looked at helping them in the short term with this cost problem. As such, many smaller companies may not even benefit from the productivity schemes as they may not qualify for them at this stage.

In the area of entrepreneurship promotion, I have bigger worries. The issues of high business costs and the availability and price of foreign labour may actually affect the number of start-ups that we see in Singapore. Moreover, for start-ups, the productivity related incentives do not mean much as they will not have a significant top line revenues and they will not benefit from the many productivity schemes that are pegged at pegged incentives.

So, the question we must ask is why did cost in Singapore rise so rapidly, beyond the rate of growth of incomes of Singaporeans and beyond the rate of growth of company profits? This can be attributed to the market driven pricing approach taken by the Government and its agencies. The Government has, many a time, been quick to increase the various charges, allowing costs to escalate, immediately upon a recovery of an economic recession. Each time this happens, we bring the cost base higher without an opportunity for cost reductions. This has led costs to unrealistically increase faster and more than profit and income growth of Singaporeans. If fact, in the 2008 recession for example, the worst was in the property market where we continued to see real estate prices increase despite the recession and this was because of our liberal policies on capital inflows. There are many foreigners who invested in Singapore. While the Government should not interfere in the private market except to curb speculation, it could have done a lot in the HDB market had it not pursued market driven pricing. Also market driven pricing has created huge cost burdens and will potentially edge out many of our SMEs because of squeezed margins.

While the Government has kept corporate taxes relatively low, and this is a good thing, there are other high overheads that companies here face that add to their high operational costs and erode their profits. There are many hidden taxes – GST is one, high levies for foreign workers, a series of duties and taxes on utilities, transportation costs such as COEs and ERP charges and many others that add to escalating business costs. Similarly, Singaporeans are left with little disposable income as they pay for higher HDB prices and also their share of higher taxes and levies. The Government should review all of these to see which could be removed or adjusted because these built-in taxes and high operational costs cream off the profits for our SMEs and lower the disposable income of Singaporeans. As suggested by Prof Tan Khee Giap and his team in an article in The Straits Times dated 4 January this year, "this approach of re-pricing Government services may lead to lower revenues or bigger subsidies for statutory boards, ministries and Government-linked companies. But it will also translate into higher income and employment for Singaporeans". What I am suggesting is that the Government does a thorough cost reduction review exercise. We must re-calibrate our policies to minimise upfront costs for companies and Singaporeans and let them earn better incomes. If done correctly, the Government may offset lower revenues by spending less on special transfers for social safety nets. We need to do more in the beginning and not at the end of the process by giving transfers.

In conclusion, everyone has a role to play to build an inclusive society and the Government, too, has a big role to play. Budget 2012 shows that the Government continues to recognise that, as we continue to grow rapidly, more Singaporeans are finding difficulty in keeping up. The Government therefore has to spend more to strengthen the Safety Nets to help reduce the stresses that Singaporeans face.

I would like to conclude that the strategy to restructure is not a bad one and that is one that would benefit Singapore and Singaporeans in the long run. However, the time horizon that the Government has provided for this restructuring to occur needs to be reviewed. We need to have a slower start but can accelerate later. For now, we should focus on short-term cost issues and allow companies to survive first. When we talk about restructuring the economy, we will also have to restructure the way the Government contributes to cost. If we are not careful at the pace of restructuring of the economy, we may end up hurting the future potential of our economy as we reverse many of the good things that we have been doing, as recommended by the Economic Review Committee in 2002. My fear is that once again the Government may be inducing a significant squeeze out of SMEs who are the biggest employers in Singapore today. And if we are not careful, the day that MNCs start to move out in large numbers, we will see a vacuum and a hollowing out of our economy without a strong base of home grown companies to take over. For the long-term view of Singapore, this is also not good and will undermine our restructuring efforts. If we want to restructure, to have a maximum effect, we need to work with our SMEs together on this journey. Sir, on the whole, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we must ensure growth for all, not the favoured few. We do not need blind economic growth, we need compassionate growth. For a long time, the People's Action Party Government drove growth without paying sufficient attention to the adverse effects of increasing income inequality, especially affecting our poor, elderly and disabled. In this Budget, the Finance Minister course corrected to ensure that our poor, elderly and disabled are not stuck in isolated pockets of poverty in our island of prosperity. The Workers' Party believes we can do more to ensure greater cohesiveness as a nation.

First, empowering our poor. For the poor, the Budget takes a right step in emphasising the importance of social mobility. Our income inequality has grown rapidly. The rich have more resources to get ahead, which endangers social mobility. If not addressed, there will be "two Singapores": one for the mobile and rich, and the other for the immobile and poor.

Let us all agree to never allow the formation of a permanent underclass. I am sure all in this House are affected when hardworking Singaporeans in rental housing share how they are struggling to pay bills, their spouses are in prison, and believing that their child attaining a polytechnic diploma or university degree is a pipe dream. Sadly, I have met many of these mothers.

To raise wages for our poor, all of us have to play a role. The Finance Minister is right by imploring us to bring back respect for our waiters, cooks, chambermaids, crane operators, construction tradesmen and factory operators. These are hardworking Singaporeans forming the bedrock of our economy, allowing many others to work in higher income jobs.

The incentive for business owners is to lower cost, and hiring low-cost foreign workers is the path of least resistance. However, compassionate growth means we have to bite the bullet to improve productivity by being wise about the number of foreign workers invited into Singapore.

Continuing Education and Training (CET) has to improve the productivity of our workers to command higher wages. However, are there more success stories such as the private security industry? Even for that industry, will it remain a low wage sector despite some improvement in wages?

The Workforce Development Agency should share more details with the public about the impact from its substantial training investment, especially how these have benefited our lower skilled and low-income workers.

Next, securing our senior citizens. Our elderly built the Singapore we have the privilege to enjoy. Many had raised, cared and sacrificed for us. Let us honour them with a dignified life. The Special Employment Credit and raising CPF rates are encouraging steps for older workers. However, affordable healthcare is at the top of the minds for our seniors, especially those in the lower to middle income groups. This Budget acknowledges that affordable long-term care is the Government's responsibility, but we must do more.

Earlier, the Member, Mr Inderjit Singh, shared data of how our total expenditure on healthcare as a percentage of GDP was far lower than international standards. More importantly, we note that the Government or public expenditure on healthcare is also far lower than international standards. Our Government expenditure on healthcare is about 1.6% of GDP, nearly four times lower than the 6.1% global average, based on World Health Organization's data 2009. In addition, the Singapore Government's contribution to the total healthcare expenditure has reportedly fallen from 51% in 1995 to 41% in 2009. This is much lower than over 60% in many other middle and high income countries.

Therefore, the Government is rightly catching up by doubling yearly healthcare expenditure from $4 billion to $8 billion over the next five years. However, this may work out to an end point of 2-plus per cent of GDP after five years, which is still much lower than the 6% global average.

I affirm the Government's focus in addressing the unaffordability of intermediate and long-term care. We know that Medisave, MediShield and Medifund provide only limited coverage for long-term care which involves recurring expenses over an extended period of time. Unfortunately, the Government had taken the back seat and pushed voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and commercial providers to take the lead in providing long-term care.

Many organisations had to raise charity dollars to subsidise bills of patients so that their families could afford care. Affected family members have been under financial strain due to substantial monthly nursing home bills. Some resorted to placing their elderly family members in institutions at Johor Bahru. This situation is untenable. We must do more. We must ensure that the long-term care subsidies factor in medical inflation. Towers Watson, a professional service firm, found that Singapore experienced 8.4% medical cost inflation in 2011, higher than national inflation and wage growth. The higher growth of medical inflation is a worldwide trend.

We must also explore how we can leverage on social risk-pooling to meet the high costs of long term-care. For a start, how can Eldershield insurance be expanded to help foot the cost of step-down care?

Our current Eldershield payout provides minimal coverage for long-term care needs. Viable insurance for long-term care will require higher premiums that may not be affordable for the less well-off. The Government should study how having better insurance coverage could help foot the cost of long-term care, and help Singaporeans pay or co-pay the higher premiums which will be needed.

Sir, we must also rebalance the need for family responsibility in our approach towards healthcare financing. I agree that family must be the first line of support, but many of us will not agree that all the children must deplete their Medisave accounts to pay for their elderly parents' medical bills before the Government intervenes. Given the longer life spans now, it has been noted that having a 60-year old withdraw his Medisave savings to pay the bill of an 85-year old parent is a reality in Singapore. Is this sustainable? This may, in fact, entrench intergenerational poverty, which would be more costly to society in the long run.

Next, on integrating our disabled. Our nation's cohesiveness is also reflected in how we care for the less fortunate, especially the disabled. We must help to integrate the three out of 100 Singaporeans who are affected by disabilities. Besides financial measures, can we do more to etch into the national consciousness that the disabled are one of us, with their hopes and dreams? Can we teach children from a young age that the disabled are part and parcel of our society? For example, how far do our school textbooks and children's TV programmes include disabled characters? Dare we consider incorporating disability as one of the admission factors for our institutions of higher learning, to recognise the more difficult circumstance disabled Singaporeans have to overcome?

Sir, one of the great American Presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, said this, in the depth of the Great Depression:

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

Sir, we must have compassionate growth. We must be in the same ship. We must not be in separate boats where the rising tide of growth lifts some so high while others sink. The Workers' Party has long advocated a caring society. We will work with the Government to build a more just, more equal and more caring society, because our nation cannot prosper if only the prosperous prosper.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I welcome the measures announced by the Finance Minister to build an inclusive society and a stronger Singapore. I would like to make three recommendations for the Ministry's consideration: first, to intensify efforts to help more Singaporeans get a job; second, to quicken pace of our strategy to achieve a deep-skilled Singaporean workforce; and third, to develop a self-reliant Singapore population.

On intensifying efforts to help more Singaporeans get a job, I would like to see more segments of Singaporeans being able to find employment more quickly, specifically older workers, back-to-work women and ex-offenders. Today, the unemployment rate for Singaporeans is 3%. Over in the United States and Europe, they are struggling with unemployment rates of 8% to 10%. So, have we done well in comparison? On the one hand, the answer is yes. On the other hand, while I am glad that the Finance Minister has announced plans to enhance the existing Special Employment Credits (SEC) scheme, I believe we can do more. In an interview with Channel NewsAsia some weeks back, I called for more to be done through the SEC scheme for older workers, back-to-work women, ex-offenders and those with disabilities. What the Finance Minister has announced was far beyond my expectations. It was an aggressive move and companies should take advantage of the new enhanced scheme.

The scheme is now expanded to include more older workers – those who are 50 years and above – and the quantum raised to cover workers earning up to $4,000, and the duration extended till 2016. It is also extended to employers who hire Singaporeans who graduate from Special Education schools. I hope the Ministry can consider extending similar help to back-to-work women and ex-offenders.

Many women who stopped work to take care of their families would like to go back to work. The employment rate for women aged 25 years to 54 years old rose from 71.7% in 2010 to 73% last year. Apart from providing childcare support and flexi-work arrangements, we can certainly do more to help back-to-work women return to the workforce.

The second group of workers is ex-offenders. A recent report released by the Singapore Prison Service in February indicated that the number of inmates who secured jobs before release rose by 35%. This figure is encouraging. I find it heartening to see more employers creating opportunities to help ex-offenders re-integrate back into society. I would like to propose that the same SEC scheme be extended to employers who hire back-to-work women or ex-offenders. Companies can receive SEC for up to one year if the new hires are back-to-work women or ex-offenders. Of course, the scheme needs only to cover those who are 50 years old and below. With this revision, we can tap on our latent pool of back-to-work women and ex-offenders to cover any shortfall in foreign workers that we currently need.

The second recommendation is to quicken the pace of our strategy to achieve a deep-skilled Singaporean workforce. During the last economic downturn, we had Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR). Not only were companies able to cut costs and save jobs; more importantly, many workers were better trained. In this year's Budget, the Ministry has continued to strongly support training. SMEs who upgrade their workers for courses certified by WDA and academic CET programmes will receive 90% course fee subsidy. Absentee payroll cap will be increased from $4.50 to $7.50 per hour. But, more significantly, self-employed individuals will also get to enjoy similar training benefits.

I would like to draw Members' attention to an article dated 3 February 2012 in MyP aper. Let me read. The title says: "Not enough Singaporeans to fill specialised jobs". The article noted that foreigners are favoured over Singaporeans for some jobs, because our local workforce lacks the skill sets and expertise needed in areas such as environmental engineering, energy solutions, shipping and logistics. What does this imply? Does it mean that the WDA programmes are ineffective? Is it because we are not spending enough to train Singaporeans? Or is it because our Institutes of Higher Learning, such as ITE, polytechnics and universities, are not able to train Singaporeans in these areas?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is obviously no. For example, I am heartened to hear that MOE will start the Singapore Industry Scholarship to develop future Singaporean leaders with deep knowledge in various sectors such as engineering, energy and tourism. While I am happy that many undergraduates will stand to benefit from this scheme, there are many more adults looking for a job or thinking of making a career switch, who will need similar assistance to acquire such deep skills. In addition, from what I observed on the ground, there are many companies which still regard manpower and training needs as an "afterthought". What do I mean by that? Let me share an analogy in Chinese to illustrate my point: yi nian zhi ji mo ruo shu gu, shi nian zhi ji mo ruo shu mu, bai nian zhi ji mo ruo shu. In English, it means this: it might take one year to grow rice; it might take 10 years to plant trees; but it will take a lifetime to invest in education and training of our people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the 2012 Budget is a plan for the future, to help Singapore be stronger and more competitive. Suppose a company decides to invest here − this is a planned decision for the future; land has to be identified; infrastructure built; material and machinery costs calculated; and manpower needs to be considered. Such planning is not done in the midst of construction. Everything is thought through even before a decision is made to invest here. Manpower and training needs should not be an "afterthought". If we have known ahead that a company is investing in Singapore and that time is needed to conduct specialised skills training, companies should work with economic agencies, MOM, WDA, MOE, ITEs/Polytechnics, unions, etc, at a very early stage. MOE's announcement to groom Singaporeans from young is one step in the right direction. But we need to go beyond the academic route. We also need to be aggressive in our Continuing Education and Training (CET) route. We need to understand what the manpower needs and skill sets required, develop the course curriculum and train Singaporeans, and give our locals who are looking for new opportunities to be trained to enter this new trade. This way, we can gear up our local workforce to cater to the company's needs ahead of time.

Let me share an example of how planning ahead pays off for a company. Rolls-Royce's new facility at Aerospace Park was officially opened by the Prime Minister just a couple of months back. I visited the place more than a year ago. Even before their building was completed, the company had talks with e2i, NTUC, the union and WDA to identify skill sets and the type of workers needed for their new facility. Together, we placed over 80 Singaporeans on an apprenticeship scheme to work for Rolls-Royce. Many are ITE graduates. Today, they have access to join a top-notch company, enjoy good pay, have good career prospects and have acquired specialised skills.

Through this, we are building a Singaporean core group who will have access to work in industries which offer good paying jobs. This behaviour is what all companies should adopt. More importantly, Government agencies overseeing different sectors should develop a comprehensive manpower strategy that will involve all stakeholders, one that allows us to build our own future-ready workforce comprising a core group of Singaporeans who are highly skilled.

My third recommendation is about developing a self-reliant Singapore population. I applaud the Government for the measures announced to enhance our existing social safety net. We have an even stronger support for the poor and low-income families now. There is also a special focus to prevent a permanent underclass from forming through the education route to enhance the social mobility of children who come from low-income families. Can we do more to encourage more of these families to break out and stay out of the social safety net?

I received feedback on the ground from social workers and others that the strength of our current social assistance and our compassion may have some unintended consequences. Let me try to illustrate. Some low-income families are concerned that if they earn higher income and as a result exceed the income criteria for social assistance, they stand therefore to lose out on a lot of subsidies. As such, many may choose not to earn higher income, preferring to stay under the radar. This may result in a disincentive to exit from the social support scheme. Many may even lose the drive to do better and earn more as they feel that their income increase may not be able to make up for what they lose out in subsidies.

So, on the one hand, while I welcome the new initiatives announced by the Government to top up our funds for social safety nets, our enhanced efforts to increase the mobility of children from low-income families, and our desire to hire more social workers to help them, I would like the Government to consider a complementary approach. May I propose that we reward those who have upgraded their skills, worked hard, improved their income and successfully moved out from the social safety net?

Perhaps we can consider two options to incentivise them to do better. One is to either hand out the same subsidies they were receiving previously for another year while considering giving them a lump-sum incentive. This is for those who were previously receiving social assistance but have decided to work hard and earn a higher income, therefore exceeding the income criteria for social assistance. This will send a very clear message to them that the Government wants to develop a self-reliant population whereby individuals will be encouraged to continue to work hard to improve their lives and the lives of their families.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important that we intensify our efforts to help more Singaporeans get a job so that more segments of those who want a job can do so quickly. It is also important that we quicken the pace of our strategy to achieve a deep-skilled Singaporean workforce so that we have a Singaporean core team to spearhead competitiveness in different sectors. Lastly, it is important that we encourage Singaporeans to stay motivated and continuously strive for improvement so that we can develop a self-reliant Singapore population. Sir, with that, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate. As a trade unionist, I am concerned about the issues pertaining to our workers, in particular, the low income and the elderly. These are the groups that I feel are most affected by the economic changes as well as the widening of the income gap. Sir, if we do not address these issues well, the gap between the haves and the have-nots will continue to widen, causing tremendous social frictions which would ultimately impact our overall economic performance and growth. I am glad that this year's Budget has addressed some of these issues to build an inclusive society and a stronger Singapore.

At the NTUC National Delegates Conference in December last year, the Labour Movement shared its vision for 2015 of helping our workers to achieve better jobs, improve wages and enhance their well-being. We hope to accomplish this through productivity gains, so that wage increases and improvements in employment terms are sustainable, and that workers can enjoy the fruits of our economic progress.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we thank the Government for encouraging foreign and local investments which generated jobs for Singaporeans. Our unemployment rate is the envy of those countries experiencing high unemployment. We firmly believe that to have a job is the best welfare for our workers. We in the Labour Movement are also committed to do our part, together with our tripartite partners, to grow our economy, to keep our workers employed and to improve their wages.

The Ministry of Manpower and the Department of Statistics, in its report in October last year, stated that the nominal monthly income of those at the 20th percentile rose from $1,200 in 2001 to $1,400 in 2010. Adjusted for inflation, this worked out to a real growth rate of about 0.3% per annum. With the high cost of living in Singapore, one wonders: how can our low-wage workers survive? I was told by many that, as a result, they have to turn to the casinos. I have noted some progress since but, in my view, we have a lot to do to grow productivity and to sustain real wage increase of 30% over a 10-year period to improve the standard of living for Singaporeans. This is a very challenging task.

I am particularly concerned about the bottom 20% of our workers who have put in a hard day's work but still have to struggle to see to the basic needs of their families. The correlation between work and well-being does not seem to exist for this group of workers.

I am glad to note the recent improvement by the 14 Town Councils, who stepped up to help our cleaners to bring their wages up from $750 to $1,000. This is commendable. However, there are many other cleaners out there who are not employed by the town councils. They are earning about $600 a month but are similarly looking for a breakthrough in their wages. The same also applies to our security officers, who have to work long hours to earn a basic median monthly wage of $600. And after clocking many hours of overtime, they are then able to earn a gross monthly wage of $1,300. This is also the case for our bus drivers.

To enhance our public transport system by adding 800 buses on the road over the next five years is commendable. Much has been said about why over $1 billion will be given to profitable public transport companies. Personally, I have no principled objection to this move. After all, there are all kinds of grants, incentives and tax credits given to the commercial companies all the time. I think it all depends on what the money is used for.

If $1 billion brings a better bus service to commuters, better pay for workers to join the industry, I think it is money well spent. If everything goes to shareholders and they become $1 billion richer, I think not only me but all Singaporeans will have a problem with this. So the real question to me is: how will the $1 billion be spent?

I think a large chunk will go probably towards purchasing the new buses which, I presume, if left on their own, the bus companies will not invest in because it is a money-losing investment. However, the additional bus fleet serves also to aggravate the shortage of bus drivers unless something is done to expand the pool.

Let me relate the bus drivers' plight to illustrate this point. The life of the bus drivers can start as early as 4.00 in the morning. They will have to arrive at the bus depot by 5.00 am. They then check the bus thoroughly to ensure it is in tip-top condition and start the bus service at 5.30 am. They have their 20 to 35 minutes' break for meals at around 9.30 am. But if the bus arrives late – on the ground they call it "lambat" – they may only have 10 minutes for their meal and toilet break. And they will continue to drive with two or three short breaks of seven to eight minutes in the interchange. They usually finish their work at around 3.00 pm with a couple of hours of overtime. Working overtime daily is a norm for bus drivers to supplement their monthly basic wage ranging from $1,375 to $1,700. This helps them to make ends meet and it is also compounded by the shortage of bus drivers. Encountering difficult commuters is also common. A slip of the tongue, momentary loss of cool, means getting a complaint letter and, at the end of the day, bonus or increment can get cut. Exceed the slow speed at the junction of the interchange and, again, you can get fined.

It is no wonder that Singaporeans find this a tough job. Unless we address the well-being of bus drivers, the demands on the public transport workforce cannot keep up with the expectations of commuters and the improvement of hardware.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our enlightened members in the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU) look to the Government to help their companies to explore ways to increase productivity and to help to keep cost low so as to channel the savings to workers in the form of better wages and benefits. The bus drivers on the ground have fed back previously to the Government to look into other ways of helping the PTOs to reduce their costs of operation for public transport which, I understand, include ERP cost of some $30 million per year and high rental cost of depots, and they hope that these savings can be shared with the drivers and contribute to improving their wages.

The commendable act of the Government to partner the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) in providing funding for the 550 buses is welcomed by the union; however, we would like to ask the Minister to ensure that part of these savings by the PTOs will be ploughed back to our workers.

Besides the cleaners, security officers and bus drivers, there are many other sectors of workers that are experiencing different sets of challenges. We recognise that the Labour Movement cannot do it alone by ourselves, and we call upon our tripartite partners to take a bigger role in raising productivity and, in return, through productivity gains, our workers will expect a fair share.

The Prime Minister said at our NTUC National Delegates Conference: "Tripartism is our national treasure". We have settled our many problems through tripartism and we are committed to take tripartism one step further towards the Labour Movement 2015 – Tripartism for All.

The question I have, Mr Speaker, Sir, is: does every Government Ministry, department and statutory board appreciate this treasure? From my observation, the spirit of tripartism varies across the agencies.

Take the National Environment Agency (NEA), for example. I understand they are proactively looking into a working group comprising Tripartite partners to work together towards improving the work and wages of our low-wage cleaners. Tripartism is alive and well at NEA. Or take the Workforce Development Agency. They have formed a close partnership with NTUC in developing and delivering training programmes for workers.

But there were other agencies where collaboration is non-existent, or where there is only lip service. This will not do. Every Government agency must understand, whatever industry or activity it is promoting or regulating, that it cannot fulfil its mission unless it pays attention to the people working in the industry or activity. And if workers are a key thrust of your strategy to achieve your mission, the labour movement will need to be your partner. I would like to call upon the various Government agencies to live up to the spirit of Tripartism and to build upon this national treasure. This could be in the form of the Ministry of Home Affairs championing the cause of low-wage security guards; Ministry of National Development for the low-wage construction and landscape workers; and even the Ministry of Trade and Industry for the low-wage retail workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the elderly, my concern is the strong prejudice against employing senior citizens, even with the enactment of the re-employment law in January this year. As it is, many in their 50s are increasingly finding it difficult to be employed. I am heartened that the Minister for Finance has put in place a Special Employment Credit which will soon take place. The Government would need to continue to proactively encourage and engage employers to help overcome this bias and, if necessary, to look into other incentives to encourage their employment. Having a job would help the dignity of the elderly and also to lighten the cost of their welfare and healthcare systems.

On CPF, I am glad the Government has responded positively to the call by NTUC and the then Vice President of NTUC, Mr Cyrille Tan, to review the CPF contribution rate for older workers. Sir, on the CPF issues, I am concerned about workers not having sufficient savings in their CPF accounts to retire with financial independence. I would like to make reference to the 1984 Report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged by the late Minister for Health, Mr Howe Yoon Chong. The Report mentioned the Government's ultimate goal of raising the rate of CPF contribution to a maximum of 50% of an employee's salary and the CPF withdrawal age to be further raised to 65 years in later years. I believe the proposal was mooted with the objective of enabling workers to accumulate sufficient funds in their CPF accounts for retirement. I also noted that back then, the price of an HDB flat was much lower as of today.

During the Singapore Perspectives 2012 Forum organised by the Institute of Policy Studies on 16 January, a professor shared on retirement adequacy measured by income replacement ratio, which is the proportion of the working income that one has at retirement. He shared that the current CPF contribution of 36% is not sufficient for retirement, and he suggested maybe 42% will be more sustainable, and this is on assumption if there is no withdrawal of CPF for housing. Sir, this again seems to suggest the inadequacy of the CPF savings to support the retirement needs of our workers. CPF contribution had been cut three times from 25% to 10% in 1986, 20% to 10% in 1999 and 16% to 13% in 2003. However, the restoration from 10% to 20% and 13% to 16% both took eight years to restore. This excludes the further CPF cuts for workers age 50 years and above.

To illustrate my point of how much Singaporean workers have sacrificed in their CPF savings, I take the case of a 30-year-old worker who earned S$1,000 per month in 1985 and the employer contribution rate then was 25%. If this 25% contribution had not been cut, the worker would have accumulated an additional of more than S$30,000 in his account by 2011, that is, 26 years later. This is excluding interests and wage increments. If he or she earned S$3,000 per month in 1985, the sacrifice would be more than S$90,000.

I have illustrated this for various reasons. Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, it is to acknowledge the sacrifice of our enlightened workers way back in 1986 and many of them are the elderly of today. Because of their sacrifice, because of their understanding, because they were discerning, they did not take to the street, they did not go on strike because they were enlightened. We progress as a nation to where we are today. Sir, the $30,000 would have meant a lot to our low-wage workers. Secondly, I would like the Government to review and look into a long-term plan to determine a reasonable CPF rate for our people, including the young ones, so that when their turns come for them to retire, they would have a nest egg to retire gracefully with dignity. Lastly, I would like to appeal to our Government, please no more CPF cuts. I therefore urge the Government not to implement a one-size-fits-all policy should there be a need to cut CPF.

In conclusion, I would like to commend the Deputy Prime Minister for delivering an inclusive, a caring as well as a pro-Singaporean Budget that goes a long way to help the weak, and truly, I believe, it is more blessed to give than to receive. On this note, I support the Budget.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 1400 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, the Government's Budget had always given the impression of being pro-business and pro-growth. The economic policies are also aimed at Singapore's long-term economic development. However, this year's Budget overturned this view.

For many SMEs, this year's Budget does not come across as being pro-business. Instead, the Government is stepping up the necessary reform in the labour market. But what is encouraging is that this year's Budget is more pro-people, more inclusive, especially in helping the elderly, the lower-income, and people with disabilities. This gives me comfort and I would say this is a compassionate Budget.

In this Budget, the Government is introducing a slew of well-thought, new measures for the elderly to enhance the safety net, focusing on jobs, housing and medical cost.

The assistance package for the elderly, as announced by the Finance Minister, reminds me of a saying by Mencius when he described his ideal world: "If you look after the old as if they are your own parents and look after the young as if they are your own children, then the whole world is in your hands."

It means that you should not only look after your own parents, but also take a further step to look after other people's parents; you not only take care of your own children, but also take care of other people's children. The country is like a big family, everyone should help each other, care for each other and respect each other. Nobody should be neglected just because he is vulnerable. We should look after our elderly so that they live well and live long. If we can do that, the whole society will be more loving and more inclusive. This will strengthen people's sense of belonging to our nation and society.

(In English): Sir, it is not often that we have the Finance Minister that also doubles up as the Manpower Minister, so in my remaining speech I will seize this opportunity and focus mainly on manpower issues and, in particular, how we manage our over dependence on foreign workers.

Sir, Budget 2012 will probably be remembered as one where it is less business friendly; one where we bite the bullet, take the pain and press on with the restructuring of our economy. Even with a number of enhancements to the assistance schemes available for the SMEs and the many other helping hands to improve productivity, this year's Budget is still seen as harsh to many of the businesses. The SMEs will be directly impacted by the further tightening of foreign labour. Some enterprises will experience severe margins compression as a result and some may no longer be viable. Others may choose to relocate elsewhere or exit the business altogether.