Hansard, 2012-02-29

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:

Order. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of Standing Order 92, I have fixed the times for the conclusion of consideration of the heads of expenditure in the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2012/2013 in the Committee of Supply (COS).

In fixing these times, I have taken into account the reduction of Question Time to 30 minutes on the days allotted for the COS debates and the sitting times of the COS. I have notified Members that the sittings on the allotted days will commence at 11.00 am. Additionally, pursuant to SO 91(3)(a), I have extended the time for the sitting on these allotted days to 7.30 pm on each day. The "guillotine" times I have fixed have been notified to hon Members and will appear in the Official Report (Pg 1543-1545).

1 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for Trade and Industry for each of the past five years, how many pioneer certificates were issued to local SMEs and how many were issued to foreign companies and MNCs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Pioneer Incentive is intended to attract and root new economic activities into Singapore, and to encourage companies to acquire new technologies. The aim is to drive the growth of high value-added or high-technology industries in Singapore. Through the Pioneer Incentive, we try to anchor what we call "queen bee" companies to locate here and build up a cluster. These "queen bee" companies would in turn attract other companies in their respective clusters to locate and expand in Singapore. In the process, they create business opportunities for our local companies, and generate spin-offs for companies in the services sectors, such as professional and financial services.

The Pioneer incentive is open to all companies. The criteria for award of the Pioneer Incentive are deliberately set high. Companies awarded the incentive are required to commit to generating new economic contribution of a substantive scale in Singapore. So quite naturally, it is the bigger companies who would tend to qualify for the Pioneer Incentive. Over the last five years, a total of 97 companies have been awarded the Pioneer Incentive. Of this, only 11 were SMEs, of which five were local SMEs. The total commitments from the 97 Pioneer Incentive companies amount to $8.8 billion in Fixed Assets Investments, $4.8 billion in annual Total Business Spending and the creation of over 10,000 skilled jobs.

One supplementary question. Is it possible to know the names of the five SMEs that have obtained the Pioneer status?

These companies are in the new sectors that we are nurturing, particularly the medical technology and the bio-tech sectors.

2 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry would consider providing guidelines to employers of Work Permit holders on the issuance of payslips to their workers; and (b) how would the Ministry encourage these employers to pay their workers promptly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the failure to pay salaries promptly is an offence. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has put in place a range of measures to ensure that employers pay salaries to their Work Permit holders on time. The Employment Act requires employers to pay their employees within seven days after the end of the salary period. Failure to pay salaries promptly can result in prosecution. In 2011, 26 employers were convicted of Employment Act offences, of which 22 were for salary-related offences. Thirteen other salary arrears cases are currently before the courts. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA), employers of non-Malaysian foreign workers and foreign domestic workers are also required to put up a $5,000 security bond that can be forfeited if salaries are not paid promptly.

MOM has also put in place measures to ensure that foreign workers are kept informed of their salary components prior to entering Singapore. Since June 2011, employers have been required to declare the foreign worker's basic monthly salary, allowances and deductions when making their Work Permit applications. These declarations are clearly stated in the copy of the In-Principle Approval (IPA) letter that Work Permit holders are required to present to immigration officers in order to gain entry into Singapore. To further ensure that Work Permit holders understand their employment terms, we have provided IPA letters in native languages for foreign workers and will be doing so this year for foreign domestic workers as well.

After workers enter Singapore and begin employment, their employers should ensure that the workers are kept informed of their salary components by keeping a record of monthly salary payments, inclusive of over-time earnings and deductions, and providing workers access to these salary records. A survey recently conducted with more than 3,000 non-domestic Work Permit holders indicated that 91% of Work Permit holders were allowed to see a record of their salary payments and received a physical record of their salary payments.

MOM also works closely with our tripartite partners to conduct regular industry briefings and dialogues with employers to educate them on their responsibilities under our employment laws and to better understand their constraints and challenges. We have also disseminated collaterals to facilitate better understanding of our laws and employers' responsibilities. Lastly, we are also studying the possibility of requiring the issuance of payslips to workers.

Sir, I would like to find out more details. Of the cases that were mentioned by the Minister of State in his response, were they recurrent cases, in the sense that these were employers who were caught more than once for non-payment? Is the Ministry also looking at further fine-tuning the system such as using a demerit point system to identify these employers who are recalcitrant? And also for Work Permit holders who incur high hospital bills – beyond $20,000 for example – are there avenues to assist them?

Mr Speaker, in terms of the Employment Act prosecution statistics, we had in 2009, 29 offences; in 2010, there were 33 offences, inclusive of three cases prosecuted under EFMA; and in 2011, there were 26 offences, inclusive of one case under the EFMA. I do not have the figures for recurrent offences. That is something that we would look at. When we look at companies in terms of fulfilling their obligations to their employees, clearly, if employers are seen to be recalcitrant, measures will be taken. That is something that we will look into. With regard to tightening up these measures, we are looking at EFMA in the course of this year, especially in terms of enforcement. We are looking at how we can tighten it and how we can deal with companies that violate the rules and regulations.

3 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs since the launch of the Yellow Ribbon Project in 2004 (a) how many ex-prisoners enrolled in this Project have been able to secure a job; (b) what is the success rate of the Project; and (c) what are the follow-up programmes and whether these programmes track those who are still jobless to help them secure jobs again.

Mr Speaker, the Yellow Ribbon Project seeks to engage the community and garner community support for ex-offenders and their family in order to give them a second chance in life. However, the Yellow Ribbon Project does not offer any direct employment help to ex-offenders. Employment assistance is provided by the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE), a statutory board under MHA, whose work I will describe later.

The Yellow Ribbon Project has achieved some success in spreading this "second chance" message. In a survey conducted in 2010, 91% of the respondents indicated that they were aware of the project and its key message. The Yellow Ribbon Project has also helped to nurture important community partnerships with key stakeholders such as corporate organisations, Government agencies and schools. These partners have supported the project through volunteerism, donations and sponsorships. In addition, the Yellow Ribbon Project has helped to garner more support from employers to offer jobs to offenders. The number of employers collaborating with SCORE has increased by more than 100% from 1,381 in 2004 to 2,872 in 2011.

Mr Speaker, with regard to helping offenders and ex-offenders to look for jobs, this service is offered by SCORE. It is a statutory board under my Ministry. SCORE provides such employment assistance through skills training, case management and job placement exercises. To help offenders transit from Prisons into the workforce and stabilise in their jobs, SCORE also introduced the Case Management Service in 2007. Offenders who have successfully secured jobs are assigned SCORE Case Managers for six months. In 2011, 1,586 offenders were case-managed at work. Of these, 78% had stayed on the job for three months and 54% had stayed on the job for six months. Ex-offenders who are looking for a job or have lost their job can approach the Employment Assistance Unit of SCORE. In 2011, 492 ex-offenders sought SCORE's assistance. Of these, 363, or 74%, successfully secured jobs and have started work.

Underpinning these efforts are the ex-offenders' commitment, discipline and preparedness to work hard and remain in stable employment. The community also plays an important role in giving them a second chance and helping them to successfully re-integrate into society.

I thank the Minister of State for answering my question. I would like to ask one supplementary question. What are the follow-up programmes and how does the Ministry track the ex-offenders who cannot or are unable to secure jobs?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. We do not track the offenders after they have got the job. The nature of ex-offenders is that once they have left the prison, they want to leave the prison behind. Generally, they do not want to have anything to do with the Prisons. However, help is still offered to them if they want to come back or if they are out of a job or if they need particular assistance in getting re-integrated into society.

4 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports what is the number of divorces from 2008 to 2011 and what are the reasons for most of these divorces.

Sir, in 2008, there were 6,800 divorces and about 7,000 in the subsequent two years. The data for 2011 is not available yet. The main reasons cited by couples in their divorce applications include unreasonable behaviour, having lived apart for three years or more, domestic violence, and financial problems.

Sir, I thank the Minister of State. I have one supplementary question. What is the average life span of the marriages that end up in divorce?

Sir, I do not have the information with me right now as this was not requested in the Parliamentary Question (PQ). I could provide the answer to the hon Member, or she could subsequently file a PQ. Marriages are of varying lengths, although we do detect that when marriages include young couples of the age of 20 or below, these marriages tend to be a lot riskier. Chances of the marriages failing are much higher compared to more matured couples who marry.

The larger issue is, of course, how we help marriages to continue to be sustainable and to remain strong. We have many programmes where we work together with partners like VWOs and the National Family Council, in order to help families to remain intact and marriages to remain strong. Various measures are in place. We also have the interests of the children at heart. In the event that there are children below the age of eight involved, there is a provision under the law that makes it mandatory for the divorcing couple to go for counselling and mediation. At the heart of it all is our intention to ensure that the welfare of the children when a couple divorces is taken care of.

Order. End of Question Time.

Order read for 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, Sir, as Chairman of REACH and Mayor of the South West District, I have had the privilege of being at close quarters with different segments of the population who have responded to Budget 2012. Since the Budget Speech on 17 February 2012, REACH has received more than 600 feedback inputs. The theme "Building a Fair and Inclusive Society" clearly resonates with many people. It is gratifying for me to hear the spontaneous reactions and support for the Budget. Words like "great", "responsive" and "caring" have been used. It is the Government putting the money where its mouth is.

Many feedback contributors have said that they like the Budget as it reflects how we are part of a community that cares for one another and, more importantly, that the ground has been heard and their views taken into account. I can testify that REACH does not get only pro-Government feedback but the overall support is, indeed, encouraging. However, as with all Budgets, we cannot be all things to all men. There will be some trade-offs, which could lead to some stakeholder segments feeling neglected. Already, businesses and some middle income have lamented that this Budget offered few goodies for them. But it must be said that whilst the middle income segment is not singled out, many of the measures such as extending subsidies in the intermediate and long-term healthcare sector to cover to two thirds of Singaporean households do benefit them. Let me now highlight some key concerns raised and which the Government could address.

The move to increase CPF contributions for workers aged 50 to 65 years to encourage them to continue working is welcome. However, it can be argued that since people are becoming more educated and skilled, living longer and healthier and even as we increasingly embrace a performance-based wage system, the CPF contribution rates should be similar for all workers regardless of age and should be extended beyond 65 years. Otherwise, the signal would still be that older workers are less valued.

It is also suggested that the Special Employment Credit (SEC) and Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) for the disabled be extended to Persons with Disabilities (PWD) but who did not graduate from SPED Schools. Feedback from the disabled community is that even those who graduate from mainstream schools are still discriminated against and the SEC would help to ensure that employers are not discouraged from employing them.

For businesses, the criticisms to Budget 2012 have been sharper. There are few objections towards the statement that Singapore needs to reduce its reliance on foreign workers and steer its economy toward higher productivity. But, growing productivity takes time and replacing foreign workers with more locals in a tight labour market will be extremely challenging in the short to medium term. Hence, there are concerns that the shortage of foreign labour may hurt small businesses and eventually increase costs for everyone.

We need to stay the course in climbing the productivity ladder, lest cheaper foreign workers become an intoxicant that numbs us to the need to restructure for the long term. However, we should also not dismiss these concerns, especially pressing when a slowdown in the global economy is looming. Despite increases in foreign worker levies since 2010 and the Government's gradual tightening of foreign worker employment, the number of foreign workers in Singapore has grown. After a strong 11% labour productivity growth in 2010, our productivity growth virtually ground to a halt in 2011 at 1%. Although this may be attributed to a lower 4.9% GDP growth and more jobs being created, it does show that shifting the economy to a productivity-driven model is not so simple. It is very difficult to wean companies off their dependence on foreign labour because that is the quickest fix, and SMEs rarely have the luxury to think long term when the entrepreneurs who run them have to deal with day-to-day business challenges.

Besides the measures announced in Budget 2012 to incentivise companies to improve productivity, the Government will need to work closely with the various industry sectors to change mindsets and more aggressively drive productivity initiatives. Employers will also have to make concerted effort to adapt their work processes to include more flexible work hours and better HR policies and pay structures to accommodate older workers and other untapped labour pools such as back-to-work women. Here, the Government could take the lead by employing older workers and back-to-work women across all Ministries and agencies. For work that the Government best sources, such as cleaning and security, it could stipulate minimum standards required of these workers, so that they will be able to get better pay commensurate with better skills and improved productivity.

There is significant resentment that public funds are being used to boost bus capacity even though doing so to improve service level is welcome. The Government has always maintained that the privatisation model is the best way to ensure that the public transport system operates effectively and efficiently. Given their size and credit standing, the publicly listed bus companies can quite easily raise funds via bond or share issues to buy the buses. So, many people cannot fathom the logic for the direct use of public funds to ramp up bus capacity. Moreover, it is argued that these companies have been making substantial profits over the years even though their bus business may be running operating losses.

If the $1.1 billion subsidy is inevitable, then the Government must have strict oversight over these operators and impose conditions to ensure that we achieve the desired service level improvements and the extra money does not go toward boosting dividends or share prices. These conditions should be made known to the public. Some questions also remain unanswered – if Government pays for the buses, will they be "given" to these bus companies, or more appropriately, leased to the bus companies at market rates? The very idea of public funds being used for the purchase of buses for private transport companies also raises the question whether nationalisation or some hybrid model similar to those in Australia and the UK should be the way forward.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at this juncture, I want to take a step back and look at the Budget from a macro perspective. From the point of view of depicting priorities, Budget 2012 indicates a stepped up response to realities that have asserted themselves more and more forcefully. The Opposition would like to think that Budget 2012 is a reaction to the GE last year. But, clearly, deeper forces are at work. Let me organise my thoughts under four headings: (i) a persistent problem; (ii) a fresh approach; (iii) a social partnership; and (iv) a real danger.

First, a persistent problem. Mr Speaker, Sir, globalisation, which Singapore has wholeheartedly embraced and continues to do so, has two opposite effects. Firstly, it produces big winners: a start up of the "Next Big Thing" that goes IPO and enriches its founders by millions, top financial talent that attract salaries and sign-on bonuses which international banks clamour to offer, obscure artists on YouTube that go viral and draw the attention of record companies or sports promoters. But, globalisation also produces big losers.

While Singapore has one of the highest percentage of millionaires in the world, the lower segments of the population find it difficult to pull themselves out of their difficulties. Our Gini coefficient without Government transfers and taxes increased from 0.442 in 2000 to 0.473 in 2011. While Government transfers and taxes have brought down the corresponding Gini coefficients for 2000 and 2011 to 0.434 and 0.452 respectively, it has thus far not reversed the general rising trend of income inequality. This is despite the higher and higher amounts of funds allocated to social development. For instance, social spending rose from $13 billion, or 5.5% of GDP, in FY 2006 to $21.5 billion, or 6.6% of GDP, in FY 2011, both in absolute terms and in proportion to share of overall budget. Even so, the gaps have not closed.

These observations point to deepening and chronic income divisions that need urgent attention. This is compounded by the rapidly ageing population which many people have noted, with the attendant problems of slowing growth in the domestic workforce, and a higher fiscal burden for health care. It will be foolish to jettison the dogma of globalisation and free markets because it has brought enormous benefits to Singapore. Millions have been uplifted from their poverty in many countries that have embraced market reforms and plugged their economies into the global trading system. But, we need to address the inequalities which plague dense cities like Singapore. The problem will not easily disappear anytime soon. In fact, perhaps alarmingly, it is likely to worsen as the numbers of dependent aged rise. The investment in up-levellers like education, which this Budget also offers, pays dividend only in the long term. The persistence of the widening income gaps thus calls for a reinforced fiscal policy to tackle the problem.

Hence, my second point: a fresh approach. When the global financial crisis broke out in 2008, central banks around the world resorted to a massive and co-ordinated injection of liquidity to decisively unclog credit channels and help re-start bank lending. In the US, they pursued an unconventional fiscal policy called quantitative easing or QE, and Mr Ben Bernanke even initiated three rounds of it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not at all advocating that we start pouring vast sums of money into the social sector, but – poor analogy as it is – there is a need for the rough equivalent of QE for social development. In this respect, I am grateful to Minister Tharman for heeding comments that others and I have made last Budget about the need to raise the social allocation even further. I call this a responsive government although some Opposition Members would label it a populist move. But, this is not a course correction as the Member for Aljunied, Ms Sylvia Lim, suggested yesterday. It is the reinforcement of an existing policy.

What Budget 2012 implies is a further loosening of the purse strings to help the most vulnerable segments of the population, with full awareness that the help they receive may be prolonged over many budget cycles. Indeed, Budget 2012 signals, in my view, a fresh approach the Government has taken in cognisance of these social realities. It is a fresh approach because the Government has brought to bear substantially more funds than hitherto to try and decisively tackle the income gap. Hence, we have a permanent GST Voucher scheme.

We already have a number of "permanent" assistance schemes such as Workfare and now, we have a permanent GST Vouchers scheme. But a "QE" for the social allocation does not and should not negate the core principle of self reliance. The GST Vouchers are subject to some measure of means testing and equally important are targeted. For instance, only about a third of the GST Voucher scheme is in cash whilst the other two portions are directed toward Medisave for the elderly and utility subsidies. Whilst some of these might need further refinements, we must never veer away from the goal of all such schemes, that is to give a leg up and promote self reliance as far as possible. At the same time, measures to ensure social mobility for the young who may come from low income families are crucial so as to ensure that they have a chance of getting out of the poverty trap. We must do all we can to preserve social mobility, which is likely to get harder over time, so that a permanent underclass will not coalesce.

Thirdly, a social partnership. Building and being an inclusive society does not just mean the Government singularly putting in place policies to redistribute resources to help the vulnerable. It is also as much about individuals wanting to be helped and to help themselves, families bearing responsibility and the community coming forward to lend a helping hand. Everyone must chip in and do their part. This is the social partnership Singapore needs to forge and strengthen even as we face a period of greater economic uncertainty.

While the Government has done more, and no doubt, will continue to do so in the years ahead, the problems have to be collectively owned and comprehensively tackled. They will require a total response from everyone. Having more social workers as called for in the Budget will help, but the problems still cannot be resolved without the support of the family and other stakeholders. I draw an analogy from the short video clip and frequent announcements at MRT stations. In the clip, a suspicious looking man boards an MRT and deposits a bag under his seat. He disembarks the train several stations away but leaves the bag on the train. Shortly after he disembarks, the train explodes as it enters a tunnel. The message is clear, and is reinforced by the announcement over the PA system – if anyone sees a suspicious object at the station that is left unattended, he or she should alert the station staff, lest it turns out to be an explosive device from a terrorist. The responsibility falls on everyone so that everyone is safe.

Likewise, we need to pursue a social partnership that leverages off the strengths of each party – the Government's resources, the community's local networks, the neighbour's alertness to specific people in need. The community must look out for one another, and the able must stoop to help the less able. In this way, the holes are plugged and more sustainable solutions can be proffered.

Let me cite an example to further illustrate this. This is a case of a resident in my constituency who alerted us of the Chow family of four siblings in a neighbouring HDB unit. All four were afflicted by a genetically inherited disease and all became blind. Life has dealt many harsh blows on them. One of them is now in a nursing home, one works as a masseuse supporting himself and his two sisters staying at home.

Grassroots leaders (GRLs) did not know about the family as the family never switched on the lights − since they were blind − and slept early every night. Hence, we never reached them even though we have done many house visits in that block. The masseuse was able to support the family until he tragically fell down. The neighbour alerted GRLs that this family needs help. The CDC is now helping them with monthly cash, food rations and other subsidies. And the RC visits them every month. I visited them and was impressed that even though they were blind and only the youngest sibling − already aged 50 − has some vision, they kept their house very neat, without a speck of dust on the floor; in fact, much neater than mine. And they were very independent, able to cook and feed themselves.

Hence, we need the community to come forward to reach out and support such vulnerable families, hand-in-hand with the Government.

Finally, a real danger: while we pursue inclusiveness, and open government purse strings, we must also jealously guard the principles of individual and collective responsibility and not go down the unconditional welfare route which will erode our work ethic and our sense of responsibility. I cannot stress this enough.

Ultimately, growing the economic pie via productivity, innovation and higher skills must be done so that we have the resources for the programmes and initiatives that will help us achieve a vision of an inclusive and stronger Singapore. To do so means we must also have a robust and sustainable fiscal policy that can ride through the economic cycles.

A number of my fellow Members have indicated these concerns, and I myself have raised this during last year's Budget debate. Amidst the pressure to spend and spend and spend to address real needs, we need to preserve the ethos of prudence in our fiscal policy needed to buffer ourselves against global volatilities.

We must not go the way of countries like Greece and France whose large government spending, often in excess of 40%, on welfare payouts and unemployment benefits are funded by cripplingly high taxes and unsustainable budget deficits. Their high social spending has not prevented but instead entrenched a permanent underclass dependent on handouts and experiencing high unemployment within the community.

In sum, balancing the Budget and removing obstacles to sustained growth are the best safeguards against welfarist budgeting. Sir, I support the Budget.

Sir, the Minister of State, in her speech, talked about the income gap and also the GST Voucher. I would like her to clarify this. It seems to me that she says that the GST Voucher is a fiscal measure of the Government in an attempt to bridge or close the income gap. Was that what the Minister for Finance said?

Perhaps the Member can clarify what his question is because I am not quite sure what he is driving at.

In her speech, she talked about the income gap. And she went on to talk about GST Voucher and alluded that GST Voucher is part of the measures where it would close income gap. That is my understanding. So I want to ask her to clarify whether it is her view that GST Voucher is a fiscal measure of the Government in an attempt to close the income gap, and whether that was an intended purpose as announced by the Minister for Finance.

I think he would need to seek this clarification from the Minister for Finance himself. What I have said very clearly is that we have had many measures that were implemented to assist the low-income segment of the population, and this is among the many measures.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I rise in support of the Budget proposed by the Minister for Finance. In particular, many of my unionists and residents applaud the Budget measures focusing on older workers, disabled and needy Singaporeans. Being the Executive Secretary of the Healthcare Services Employees' Union representing healthcare workers and appreciating the long-term challenges of an ageing population, I thank the Government for devoting significantly more resources on healthcare and focusing on manpower development of healthcare professionals.

Unlike some of the previous measures and handouts which were once-off and for a shorter period, this year's Budget saw the Government entrenching many of the help schemes such as the GST Vouchers to alleviate the burdens of low-income families. I am particularly heartened when the Deputy Prime Minister announced the upward revision of the income limits for the MOE's Financial Assistance Scheme, as this was posed as a parliamentary question for the Minister for Education to consider just a few months ago after the opening of the Twelfth Parliament.

Notwithstanding, I have been engaging various groups of people from unionists to residents and various informal networks. Suffice to say, many agree to what I have alluded to earlier but there are areas which I feel we can do even better.

First and foremost, many of the middle income families, mostly PMEs, also at times called the sandwiched class, I spoke to remain concerned about the high and rising cost of living in Singapore. A family of four having a meal out at a local fast food restaurant will easily set them back by between $30 and $40, depending on which restaurant they choose. Perhaps it is now $20-plus because of the recent round-the-clock Extra Value Meal promotion at certain particular outlets.

There are some benefits for them in this Budget but many remain not "poor" enough to qualify for the various aid schemes to adequately stave off the ever increasing cost of living in Singapore. There are no signs that the cost of living is relenting anytime soon. Petrol over the pump now costs more than $2 per litre even after a Fuel Card and Credit Card discount. In Mercer's 2011 Costs of Living Survey, Singapore has moved up three rungs to 8th globally and 3rd in Asia, just behind Tokyo and Osaka. Our inflation rate continues to hover between 5% and 6%, although dipping slightly below 5% in certain months. With an uncertain economic outlook, it is difficult to envisage huge increments or bonuses for many employees. For a middle income earner having to support a family of two children and elderly parents on both sides, life is challenging indeed. Due to the high cost of living, it is now even more difficult for middle income workers to plan for their retirement needs.

I strongly urge the Government to consider introducing programmes that will help the middle income sustain their livelihood and move their families up the social ladder, that is, enhance their social mobility. This can only come through the acquisition of new capabilities and moving up the ladder for the main breadwinners. A senior technician should move up to be an engineer or an executive should move up to be a manager. My view is that the current productivity and skills-upgrading related programmes, such as the PIC (Productivity and Innovation Credit), and increase in absentee payroll are rather employer-focused. Even though the training support for SMEs will be enhanced, I am unsure whether this will translate into skills upgrading and enhanced wages for their employees. This is particularly so as SMEs are already facing a manpower crunch in our tight labour situation and sending workers for training may compromise manning levels. For one, I do not object to the "incentive" approach in encouraging businesses to embark on training and productivity drives. Nonetheless, we must acknowledge that the top priority of any business or private enterprise is to maximise profits. A business is neither a charity nor should it be expected to be a provider of jobs. To survive, a company would sometimes need to embark on painful measures. Moving forward, we would therefore need a better understanding of the existing productivity and skills upgrading schemes and areas to enhance it. We need to know how many in the middle income bracket have or will eventually benefit from these schemes and whether they have seen a significant increase in their income as a result of these schemes.

The competition posed by foreign manpower and threat to the jobs of local PMEs has been a concern to all PME segments. Statistics show that there has been an almost 80% increase in foreign PMEs from 63,000 in 2006 to 112,000 in 2010. In the Budget, I am glad to note that the Government will be tightening the inflow of foreign work permit holders although no specific mention of Employment Pass holders. I am aware the Government has taken measures with effect from 1 January this year to tighten the Employment Pass criteria and I eagerly await to hear in the upcoming months how it takes shape. I believe when we adequately control the flow and with the tight labour market situation, our employers would take an even keener interest in levelling up our local PMEs. At the same time, our young local PMEs would also have a better chance of securing employment. Currently, the unemployment rate of our young PMEs between 15 and 29 years old stands at 3.5% in 2010.

That brings me to something that happened to me a couple of weeks back. It was a Sunday afternoon, and I had a couple of hours. I brought my two sons – one, seven-and- a-half years and the other, four-and-a-half years – for a cycling venture at the park. I bought both my sons' bicycles about one-and-a-half years ago. The bicycles were fitted with two extra wheels from behind, so that they would not fall when riding. But on that fateful Sunday, three weeks ago, I decided to take the hard measure and removed those two rear wheels from both of my sons' bicycles, and I said, "Let us go to the park and ride your bicycle." I guided them, and said, "If you fall to the right, try to steer to the left. If you fall to the left, try to steer to the right. I will give you some assistance from the rear, holding your back seat." So they tried and tried, sustained quite a few permanent lacerations which I saw this morning – they are still present – but after a couple of hours under the scorching heat and sun, they managed to ride the bicycle on their own. As a proud father, I was happy but more happy when my son came up to me and said, "Dad, you have taught me to ride the bicycle without those two rear wheels. I did not know it is much more fun and much faster." They were happy children.

This brings me to this issue of foreign manpower management. I think foreign manpower is like the additional two rear wheels. With it, you are stable, you can still move but without it, and focusing on your core two wheels, you are much faster, you are more productive, and you can even go for competitions.

I would now like to move on to the next part of my speech on how measures in the Budget to help the disadvantaged segments can be augmented with market realities to make the policies more effective. Touching on the elderly, I would like to applaud the Government for taking the bold measure to restore the CPF contribution rates from between 0.5% and 2.5%. This will certainly help to improve the retirement provisions for our elderly workers. Other pro-elderly measures such as the Special Employment Credit (SEC), the Silver Housing Bonus, family grant for maids, enhanced Medifund and top-ups to MediShield demonstrate a committed and holistic framework in taking care of the not-so-young.

Since the release of the Budget, we know that there has been feedback that the Silver Housing Bonus is not particularly attractive as most of the elderly are accustomed to their own house and selling it is really a last resort. The more critical aspects thereby lie in their ability to continue to draw an income and the medical care that they are able to receive. Our employers' attitudes are paramount in helping our elderly sustain meaningful jobs and income. However, I worry for some quarters, including SMEs, who face increasing cost pressures and I hope that employers will be enlightened not to offset the costs of the CPF rate increase through other cost-cutting measures and in a worst-case scenario, cut their jobs. I believe the subvention provided by the Government to them will alleviate their costs. I urge MOM and TAFEP to closely monitor the situation when the new CPF rates are effective from September 2012.

One of the most innovative features of the Budget is the issuance of GST Vouchers which will benefit many, particularly the lower income households. What is notable is that it will be a permanent feature in our tax system. The GST Vouchers show in very tangible terms the Government's care and concern for Singaporeans and its tenacity in wanting to alleviate their financial burden. I would like to suggest for the Government to take into consideration the Rate of Inflation and Consumer Price Index in future disbursements of GST Vouchers. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 1546 for Vernacular Speeches. ] One of the most innovative features of the Budget is the issuance of GST vouchers which will benefit many, particularly the lower income households. What is notable is that it will be a permanent feature in our tax system. The GST vouchers show in very tangible terms the Government's care and concern for Singaporeans and its tenacity in wanting to alleviate their financial burden.

What I would like to request is for the amount of GST Vouchers in future to take into consideration the Rate of Inflation and Consumer Price Index. Many have called for GST to be exempted for basic necessities such as rice and essentials, including healthcare and education. I hope the Government could review and consider this suggestion. I am pleased to note that there are many measures in the Budget to help lower-income families and their children to cope with the rising education cost. For new learners, this is the most positive and encouraging news.

(In English): Sir, in the last part of my speech, I would like to cover an area which was not featured in the Budget. It is on building a family. While there will be higher provisions in the Budget set aside for the Baby Bonus in anticipation of a Dragon Year, I would like to ask about the overall approach of our procreation policies. We all know that men and women are getting married at a later age and thus starting a family at a later age. The challenge is that our strong work ethos, out of financial need, is getting in the way of developing a balanced and happy family life. Greater attention needs to be devoted to how the social and work environment can be geared towards providing better support. Even when people do get hitched, the huge financial costs of a house and wedding are pushing our people either into debt or cold feet, whichever may come first. In the final hurdle, the affordability of having a child will set anyone thinking. To further exacerbate, the jobs of working mothers are also at stake. In fact, today's papers as well as on Monday, TODAY carried a report of a lady being terminated after she discovered she was pregnant and informed her bosses. On wrongful dismissal complaints filed by pregnant women which had increased by 33% to 112 cases in 2011, more than nine in 10 of the women who filed complaints last year were sacked during pregnancy. Furthermore, women, particularly PMEs, who leave the workforce for extended periods to look after their child or children also find it extremely difficult to return to their previous occupations.

Sir, in supporting the Budget, I would like us to overcome the challenges set before us in making Singapore an inclusive society for all, so that not only we find meaning in what we do but we also provide the support to those who fall through the cracks. The principles behind which this Budget is rolled out have shown the Government's commitment to build a more inclusive society and to better the lives of Singaporeans. More importantly, many of the measures embarked on are to prepare Singapore and Singaporeans for the longer term. I believe and support the move in growing the entire cake for all to have more and not merely altercating over who gets how many slices, how much of the topping or which part of the marzipan. On that note, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate and to support the Budget. I would like to begin by quoting the late Senior Minister S Rajaratnam, who was very prescient in assessing the challenges of developing a global city. He said, and I quote:

"Laying the economic infrastructure of a Global City may turn out to be the easiest of the many tasks involved in creating such a city. The political, social and cultural adjustments such a city would require to enable men to live happy and useful lives in them may demand a measure of courage, imagination and intelligence which may or may not be beyond the capacity of its citizens."

That was in 1972. Yet, there may be no more timely opportunity than this Budget debate to recognise the continuing relevance of his words. As a Nominated Member of Parliament with a special interest in the arts and culture, my question is this: have we adequately made the cultural adjustments in tandem with our fast-changing economic situation? Are we capable of the courage, imagination and intelligence required for men and women to live happy and useful lives here? My answer to both questions is "Yes, but."

Yes, because Singapore's greatest asset is its people, who continue to participate daily in a bewildering array of cultural practices from religious worship to community arts to cooking up a storm. In so doing, they make life meaningful and Singapore a place of constant discovery and excitement for visitors and locals alike. But people are also increasingly anxious about the distribution of resources, and frustrated at limited opportunities to participate in public debates that need to happen if difficult issues are to be properly addressed.

Yes, because Singapore boasts a growing population of artists who are passionately committed to their public, their craft, and the place they live, and who work day and night to honour and provoke, stimulate and delight. One of them stands before you now. But our artists also labour against a host of bureaucratic and financial constraints to realise the full scope of their talents, and to meet the very human desire for free expression.

Yes, because Singapore is a vibrant, eye-catching cosmopolitan city with beautiful heritage buildings, state-of-the-art facilities for arts education and practice, and plans for further cultural development. But our cultural infrastructure has developed much faster – and sometimes at the expense of – the ability of Singaporeans of all tastes and ages to participate in the arts.

The Arts and Culture Strategic Review Committee recently released its report recognising this situation. It proposes ways of bringing the arts and culture to everyone and involving as many people as possible in arts participation, with a view to developing "an inclusive society and a stronger Singapore", as the theme of this year's Budget puts it. The arts alone are no panacea, any more than economic policies are. However, I would like to elaborate on three cultural strategies which I think are key to achieving this vision:

First, including many stories. What do the arts teach us about inclusion? That it must be qualitative, and not just quantitative. The beauty of art is that it does not limit itself to addressing us as Singaporeans. It addresses us as human beings – one of whose characteristics is a powerful desire to belong, with the capacity to achieve more together than we can alone. How important this becomes in a place like multicultural Singapore, where we continue to welcome and live alongside new immigrants and foreigners, jostling along together on our densely populated island. An inclusive society is one where the arts and culture belong to everyone and Singaporeans should be encouraged to embrace those connections that identify them as a people, whether it is our food, architecture, traditional customs, religious practices or language.

But as we increase and extend the scale of inclusion, we also need to look at deepening the nature of our participation. This means giving Singaporeans a greater say in what our cultural heritage is. This should include involvement in debates over the conservation and preservation of our natural and historic spaces, as well as a greater recognition of the languages we use to express our points of view. Our various dialects, as well as Singlish, are also part of our unique cultural identity, because culture is the way we live – it resides in our bodies, it is in the way we communicate.

Our heritage is made up of many different stories. The works of visual artists like Han Sai Por and Donna Ong, the songs of local bands like Electrico and The Great Spy Experiment, the writings of Isa Kamari, Alfian Sa'at and Alvin Pang, the stories portrayed in the films of Royston Tan and Boo Junfeng: all these not only give voice to the diverse experiences of Singaporeans, they allow us to make connections with other people, places and ideas.

If we want to build a people who are connected to Singapore and to each other, we must expect our artists to claim the space and licence to express those varied, multiple and complex layers of the Singapore experience. Only then can we pick up a book, listen to a song on the radio, or catch a performance at the theatre, and say: "Yes, I feel that way too. That's about us."

But Singaporeans are not a homogenous bunch. Sometimes, we might say instead, "I never knew you felt that way", or "I hadn't thought about it like that", or even "I'm confused!" or "I disagree". But none of these responses stop you from feeling, "That's about us." On the contrary, it deepens our understanding of the often exhilarating and sometimes maddening complexity of all human beings, including ourselves, and it reminds us what an incredible opportunity our multicultural society offers for appreciating that complexity in all its variety. And may I add, Mr Speaker, Sir, that for these reasons, the Government should not shy away from supporting creative expression that may even challenge its views. To be truly inclusive, the Singapore Story must be the sum of stories and experiences of all Singaporeans, and even non-Singaporeans who have been touched by Singapore.

The second cultural strategy towards building an inclusive society and a stronger Singapore is developing Arts for Life. Oftentimes, we think of the arts as a product. After all, that is how we encounter them most of the time, right? A concert planned for, a book read on the MRT, an exhibition visited on impulse. So, when we talk about "Arts for all", we typically see it in terms of putting a cultural product into the hands of consumers. But artworks are the result of a long and often painstaking process. This process of art making challenges us to question, to share perspectives and allow for differing points of view. It encourages us to take risks and be accepting of failure. It serves as an excellent platform to raise difficult issues for discussion, and through the process of engagement, builds understanding and empathy. To say that these processes take time is an understatement. In fact, one of the best ways of looking at the arts is as something we make or encounter throughout our lives. That is why the benefits of arts participation for all, including children, young people, the elderly and vulnerable segments of our society, cannot always be calculated in terms of audience attendance or number of activities.

I have a story from Ms Noorlinah Mohammed, who is an experienced arts educator currently pursuing her PhD in the UK. She told me about teaching drama to a group of Secondary 2 students in Singapore. There were several cliques amongst the students in the class, and they were split along language lines – Hokkien, Mandarin, Malay. Six weeks into the weekly drama workshops, Noorlinah asked the students to create a 10-minute performance. It was challenging. One boy, in particular, could barely communicate in English. His life was tough. He had problems at home. He was angry. He hated school, and he just thought drama was plain silly. But he wrote an honest scene about a boy talking to his mum, expressing the hurt caused by her neglect. It lasted 30 seconds. For a boy who seldom expressed himself at all, a half-minute monologue is a major feat.

Later, the boy decided he would perform his script in English. He attended school every week just to work on this scene. His teachers were impressed that drama was pulling him back to school. He worked hard at memorising his script and, one day, he finally did. Despite the inadequacy he felt speaking English, he found the courage to stand up in front of others to tell a story that was deeply personal. The triumph he must have felt in defeating the English language, for 30 whole seconds! It was enough to give him a sense of achievement, beyond school grades and exams. The following year, he went on to do digital art, and his teacher says that he is doing quite well in that now. I salute arts educators like Ms Noorlinah Mohammed, and the teachers who were instrumental in sustaining arts education in Ang Mo Kio Secondary School, where this boy studies. They recognise that the arts can make a ground-level difference, especially to students who have difficulty with life skills that many of us take for granted.

It does not stop there. Theatre for Seniors is a new group given a head start by theatre company The Necessary Stage. In the last three years, this wonderful bunch of more than 40 active seniors have been trained in theatre-making, and they have brought their Mandarin, dialect and Malay skits to over 1,000 elderly audiences in community centres and eldercare homes across Singapore. Mrs Gladys Tan, who heads this group, tells me that she is surprised that at her age, she has managed to find a new lease of life. She has made new friends and it takes her back to her pre-university days. Seen in this light, the arts have the power to become catalysts of lifelong change. It has a role to play in community building, in shifting attitudes and instigating positive change. It empowers the individual, and makes them feel included and relevant in our society.

I would like to urge Government agencies like MCYS, MOE and HDB to support and work closely with our Singapore artists and arts groups to make positive changes in our communities through the arts.

The third and last cultural strategy towards building an inclusive society and a stronger Singapore is the promotion of our local art. Ever since the release of the Renaissance City Report in 2000, Singapore has been positioning itself as a global arts hub. Culture had to be harnessed to make Singapore the choice destination to visit, work and live. And we have done well in this area. The Esplanade, the Singapore Arts Festival and the Writer's Festival, and our museums consistently showcase the work of major talents from around the world.

But being a world-class cultural capital is not just about hosting other people's art or realising their visions. We are not a satellite of London or New York. Sure, we should enjoy great art from elsewhere – we just cannot adopt it as our own. For my money, a hundred eye-popping Broadway plays cannot compare to a single poignant local production in terms of what it means to belong in and to Singapore today. In fact, it is because there are powerful local works in Singapore, and a discerning audience for them that attract international artists to present their work here.

In his Budget speech, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman spoke about the need to preserve the "Singaporean character of our society". Our arts and culture play an integral role in helping us address this question of who we are and what we stand for. How then can we better promote our art and culture? Not just to the world, but, more importantly, to Singaporeans. How do we break away from the age-old mentality that our artists need to be proven internationally, before they are recognised back home? How many Singaporeans, in fact, how many of us here in this House are able to name more than a handful of local writers, visual artists, musicians or choreographers?

I recently spoke to several local musicians who lamented to me about the lack of opportunities for home-grown bands to be seen and heard. One of them, Daniel Sassoon, was so incensed by how indie bands have been sidelined from the local scene that he approached his MP, Ms Indranee Rajah, about the pressing need to develop more platforms to showcase local music. As a result of that discussion, a free, outdoor gig featuring six local indie bands called Lepa(r)k! was born. The name Lepa(r)k is a pun on the Malay word lepak, which is a colloquial for "chill out" or "relax". Organised in conjunction with Tanglin-Cairnhill CC, it was held last November in Tiong Bahru Park, and played to over 500 audiences. It was a small start, but it is an excellent example of a ground-up initiative to promote the arts and widen audience access to the works of local artists.

To make our arts, culture and heritage a source of civic pride, we need to make them easily accessible to Singaporeans from all walks of life. And we need to take collective ownership of this process – it is not just MICA's job. Anyone of us here can do it – especially as a Member of Parliament in your own constituency. Let us not be lepak about this. We need to hear more local music on radio, we need to see more local films on the big screen, we need to see the works of our pioneering artists in our museums and galleries, and promote local literature in schools and libraries. We need to make ticket prices affordable to all. Not all the work may be good – but some will be world-class. That is not the point. If we take pride in our own cultural treasures, we will encourage the production of more high quality work, and the world will take notice.

Since I am on the topic of local music, I also want to applaud the commitment by Changi Airport to fill at least 25% of its playlist in its terminals with local music. Not only does this help Singaporean music reach out to the millions of passengers at Changi, it also provides a stream of royalty income that support the livelihood of local musicians.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Finance Minister identified opportunity, improving ourselves, and compassion as attributes that define the character of the society we are building. He also says that an inclusive society will only blossom if we grow this spirit of responsibility and community. I agree with this, and I would like to add that the arts, our culture and our heritage are among the key building blocks that will help shape and strengthen the Singaporean character of our society. When we include and embrace the many stories that make up Singapore, when we give Singaporeans a say in their cultural heritage, when we recognise that participating in the arts is also a lifelong process, when we develop a sense of civic pride in our cultural icons, we must inevitably strengthen our sense of community and our sense of place. This is not just any society. This is our society.

For this Budget debate, I would like to ask the Finance Minister if he would agree with me that our culture and the arts have a critical role to play in the strategy to build a more inclusive society and a stronger Singapore. And if so, I urge the Government to wholeheartedly support the arts community in working towards this goal. Sir, with that, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. I would like to thank the Finance Minister for delivering a Budget that is inclusive and far-sighted. This year's Budget is one that sets the foundation for several key challenges that we are facing now and will intensify in the future.

Sir, the influx of foreign workers has led to good economic growth but it added strains on our social infrastructure such as our public transport, recreational facilities and schools, and this may have caused deep-seated grievances amongst some Singaporeans. While these grievances must be heard and addressed, whatever measures the Government takes to address them must be calibrated and not carry out to extremes to the detriment of our country and economy.

Sir, the Labour Movement is cognisant of the need to calibrate our reliance on foreign labour and the importance of pushing for productivity to form the basis and ensure any wage growth is sustainable in the long run. As a labour Member of Parliament, I welcome the tightening of the foreign workforce and the support given to companies, especially SMEs to boost their productivity. The policy of tightening foreign labour is thus an important step in redefining our engine of economic growth. SMEs must adapt to this "new" normal to operate their business. Peter Senge said, "The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage". The challenges that lie ahead for businesses, especially SMEs, which are to increase productivity and send workers for training – will undoubtedly be a more challenging path to take compared to just hiring foreign labour as a quick-fix solution. SMEs will be affected by these structural changes and 2012 may see SMEs making strong calls to the Government to review this policy. I would like to call for the Government to resist such calls and to "bite" the bullet in recalibrating the fabric of our workforce.

While these changes are taking place, there will be many Singaporeans that will be affected as companies restructure, especially given the fact that more than half of our workforce is employed by SMEs. I would like to ask the Minister for assurance that the Government will provide support to Singaporean workers who are affected by restructuring. At the same time, there will be a time lag as restructuring takes place and there may be shortages of workers in the affected industries. This may affect the level of service, and I hope Singaporeans will be understanding and patient during this period. The key point is that regardless of which policy we adopt, there will be repercussions. Reducing the inflow of foreign workers will, hopefully, ease social tensions but we will have to manage the other areas that will be impacted by this move.

Sir, the Labour Movement will respond appropriately to this policy of tightening the inflow of foreign workers. We will step up our efforts to push for higher productivity through our Inclusive Growth Programme, Best Sourcing Initiatives, re-training or up-skilling the workers, and encouraging more women and elderly to enter the workforce. At the same time, we will work with employers to ensure the road ahead is less thorny. The workers, however, want employers to share their productivity gains with them either in the form of better wages, higher bonuses or better employment benefits.

Sir, Confucius said, "In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." I am heartened by the measures announced to help the elderly, the disabled and the low-income families cope with rising costs as we strive to be an inclusive society. This is not the first time that the plight of the low-wage workers has been the centre of attention in Budget debates. Various initiatives had been implemented in the past; many tripartite and working group committees formed and millions of dollars had been spent to help low-wage workers. How did we do? Despite the numerous measures taken, the income disparity continued to widen, and this has been explained in greater detail by the Minister of State, Dr Amy Khor. While many countries have implemented a minimum wage policy, we have gone against the tide and resisted such move. Instead, we have relied heavily on moral suasion to encourage employers to pay fair wages to the workers and use Government social transfers to reduce the income inequality. This year's Budget seems to echo the same tune.

Sir, we need to take bolder steps to help low-wage workers earn better wages. While I am not advocating a national minimum wage policy, I would like to call for the various Ministries and Government agencies to look at their arsenal of policies, and choose the appropriate levers to help low-wage workers earn fair wages and employment terms. A good example is the effort by the Ministry of Home Affairs, where together with its tripartite partners, it has actually leveraged on the security licence to improve the security industry that resulted in better wages for the security officers. I also support the call by my labour comrade, Nominated Member of Parliament Ms Mary Liew, for every Government Ministry to adopt an industry where there are a large number of low-wage workers and form a tripartite committee to look into improving their working conditions and wages. I would like to stress again the urgency for this to be done for every day we procrastinate, the longer will be the injustice done to the low-wage workers. Gandhi once said, "Poverty is the worst form of violence."

Sir, many of us, without even realising it, are underpaying for the cost of many essential services such as cleaning, security and transport, and have caused the salaries earned by these workers remaining low. A typical local Town Council cleaner has to work for eight hours in a day to clean four HDB blocks to earn $1,000 per month. Translated in another way, the cleaner is paid about $10 to clean one typical HDB block in two hours. If the cleaner is not WSQ-trained, he will receive an even lower amount. Moreover, given the fact that 65% of our local cleaners are aged 50 and above, many will find it difficult to clean the required number of blocks within the stipulated time and, hence, will be earning less than $1,000 per month. Sir, when I asked my residents how much they expected to be paid to clean the corridors of an HDB block in two hours, they quoted me $50 to $300, which is far from what the cleaners are actually paid. I am not calling for them to be paid this amount, but let us pay them according to the job worth which has been partly depressed by the cheaper foreign labour.

The practice of cheap sourcing has encouraged service providers to push down their prices so that they could put up low bids that will win the tender. This means that as companies cut corners, the salaries of these low-wage workers, who are essentially the ones who are providing the bulk of the services, are being cut. This gross injustice and slavery of the poor must stop.

Recently, it was announced that the Public Service Division is reviewing the salary for its several thousand junior and mid-level civil servants where a pay rise of between 5% and 15% is expected this month. Other than the need to keep pace with those in the private sector to justify the salary increment, there was no argument for such increase to commensurate with productivity improvements or skills upgrading. Unfortunately, for many low-wage workers, working based on contracts outsourced to their companies, any wage increment must be justified by productivity improvements and skills upgrading. Sir, the reality is that even with training and higher productivity, any potential wage increase would be negated by the business practice of cheap sourcing. As such, not many low-wage workers will experience wage increments.

In a survey conducted by the Unit for Contract and Casual Worker, which I am heading, involving a sample size of 400 local cleaners, 75% claimed not to have any wage increment for the last three years. In the same survey, 80% of our locals working in the landscape industry shared the same experience as well. The percentage of workers not getting wage increment in the last three years for workers in F&B, logistics and retail, ranges from 61% to 69%.

Sir, I am heartened that the Government has pledged to take the lead in practising Best Sourcing instead of cheap sourcing in the Civil Service sector. I would like to urge the Government to do more for these workers in terms of ensuring these workers get fair wages for their work. I would like to call for the Government to do more to ensure Best Sourcing will gain traction in the private sector as well. I want to repeat this − for the Government to ensure Best Sourcing will gain traction in the private sector as well. We must go beyond moral suasion, advisories and guidelines, and consider making Best Sourcing to be the market norm by making it compulsory for service buyers to buy from accredited companies in those industries dominated by low-wage workers. For example, let us make it compulsory for companies to engage only accredited cleaning companies where we could then influence the wages through the accreditation framework.

Sir, the tightening of the supply of foreign labour will force employers to look for other sources of labour like the older workers. The initiatives announced in the Budget also aim to make hiring older workers a more attractive and viable option for employers. However, there are challenges that need to be overcome as some employers may not have the perception that "old is gold" and are reluctant to hire older workers. Sir, reports in the newspapers have shown that companies such as Old Chang Kee and Robinsons, who have been employing older workers for years, see benefits as many of these workers are dedicated and loyal. We must provide not only financial incentives for employers to hire older workers, but the message of "old is gold" must be spread so that employers are aware of the talent pool that they can tap on. It is not only employers' mindsets that need changing, I feel that more can be done to educate the public to be more tolerant of older workers who are in the service sector and accept that while they may be doing their best, they may not be as fast or nimble as younger workers.

Sir, I am not calling for a tolerance of bad service, for many older workers provide good service and many are exemplary workers, with some even outshining the younger ones! In an article that appeared in the Forum page of the Straits Times yesterday entitled, "Unproductive to stereotype older staff", the writer debunked the ageist belief in the superiority of the younger worker that some employers may have. She related her own positive personal experience with an older worker in a pest control company, who knew the importance of customer service and also possessed the required knowledge and skills to do the job well.

Sir, in this new norm, let us develop the soft-skills as a nation to build a gracious and tolerant society that respects older workers and regards them as possessing experience and skills that younger less experienced workers may not have. Sir, allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Pg 1547 for Vernacular Speeches.] Sir, the measures announced by the Finance Minister in the Budget 2012 Statement are important and must be studied carefully. It will especially bring benefits to older workers, the elderly in general, poor families and those who are handicapped or disabled.

The Government's move to reduce the growth rate of foreign workers means that more job opportunities will be available for Singaporeans. The sectors involved will find ways to ensure that their businesses are not affected. To local citizens who are unemployed or wish to change their jobs, take the opportunity offered and do the job to your best ability. Another example is the Government's announcement to spend $1.1 billion to buy around 550 buses, and to fund the cost of bus operations. This will mean that vacancies for jobs as bus drivers will definitely increase.

However, some of these jobs may be jobs that are not attractive to Singaporeans due to the long working hours, a working environment that is not so conducive as well as low pay. Local workers must change their way of thinking and try to adjust to the jobs involved. Several workshop sessions on skills upgrading opportunities will be organised by the trade unions, and I would like to urge Malay workers to participate in these workshops so that they understand the opportunities available and be aware of their rights as workers.

(In English): Sir, on that note, I support the motion.

(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Pg 1548-1550 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, in my opinion, this year's Budget is special. In my memory, all previous Budgets had focused on the economy. This Budget has focused, instead, on helping the elderly, the vulnerable and raising the income of low-wage earners. In terms of the economy, in order to increase low-wage earners' income, we must reduce our dependence on foreign workers, restructure our economy and improve productivity so companies can pay more to their workers. These measures may even slow down our economic growth.

This is the first Budget after the 2011 elections, and it signals the future direction of the Government in terms of governance and policies. From focusing on the economy to social policy, from emphasising economic growth to raising the wages of low-income Singaporeans, it is a major shift in the Government€˜s thinking and mindset, and a formal display of the Government's determination to change in the aftermath of the 2011 elections. In my opinion, this is a genuine people's Budget.

Next, let me talk about the content of the Budget. The focus of this year's Budget is to improve productivity through economic restructure, and raise the income of low-income Singaporeans through higher productivity. We all hope we can raise workers' income, the faster the better, because the cost of living has been increasing. However, it will be a long and arduous journey to restructure the economy and increase productivity.

Currently, the Government's strategy is to increase productivity by controlling the supply of foreign labour and encourage SMEs to change their business and operation model. Among measures designed to help SMEs, such as increasing absentee payroll for staff training, productivity and innovation incentive schemes and M&A schemes, I wonder how many SMEs, who are already in a vulnerable position, can truly benefit from these schemes and transform successfully; get through the torment process of this economic restructuring.

Most SMEs are run by Singaporeans; some small businesses can only get by with enough profits to cover living expenses. I am worried that many small businessmen will eventually become unemployed, and I am also worried that the restructuring will become a process of "the big fish eating up the small fish", and the Government becomes an accomplice of "the big eating the small". I urge the Government to be cautious in the economic restructuring process.

I agree we should not be over-reliant on foreign workers; we should not allow foreign workers to take away Singaporeans' rice bowls. This is not protectionism, but a responsibility of the Government to the people. However, we also know that we have limited population, and we need foreign workers to fill up the gap in our domestic labour market. It is not easy to strike a balance between the two. The Government is applying a two-pronged approach by manipulating the Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) and the foreign worker levy. I think, based on current experience, these two mechanisms are blunt policy tools which do not differentiate between the different needs of various industries and do not set out customised DRC and foreign worker levy. I will discuss the issue further during MOM's COS debate.

However, the Government should note that, as policies that attempt to compel SMEs to transform and raise productivity by limiting foreign workers kick in, foreign workers will become crucial to the survival of companies. Those who are able to comply with the Government's requirements and continue to employ foreign workers will gain the upper hand. Those who cannot fulfil Government's requirements and, hence, are unable to employ foreign workers and, at the same time, are unable to change their way of doing business and do not benefit from the Government's assistance package, will eventually decline or even close shop. Hence, in terms of foreign worker policies and controls, the Government must be fair to all companies, regardless of whether they are medium-sized or small-sized companies.

If one of the objectives of limiting the number of foreign workers is to prevent foreigners from taking away Singaporeans' rice bowls, then besides foreign workers, the Government should also take note of how issuing Employment Passes affects the employment market and raise the overall productivity of companies. For example, in 2011, the Government issued 176,000 Employment Passes, this is 63,000 more than the 113,000 Employment Passes issued in 2010.

If the trend of rapidly increasing Employment Passes continues, how does that affect Government's objective of reducing reliance on foreign labour? In addition, the Government should also learn its lesson, and not be too lax in approving permanent resident applications, as the practice of being overly relaxed in granting permanent resident status to foreigners in the past few years has also added pressure to Singaporeans in finding jobs. This is because permanent residents do not need to apply for work permit, and are not restricted by the Government's limit on foreign workers. The number of applications approved for permanent residents has decreased from 79,000 in 2008 to 29,000 in 2010. Looking at the current situation, I think the Government should limit the number of approvals for permanent resident applications to 30,000 a year.

Mr Speaker, this Budget also commits to significantly increase the budget of the Ministry of Health, from the current budget of $4 billion a year, to $8 billion a year in the next five years. As the population ages, the medical care required by the elderly and other related expenses have become a heavy financial burden for ordinary Singaporean families, the move by Government to significantly increase spending to relieve the burden of the people is in the right direction.

The Government has also relaxed the requirements for applying for subsidies. Previously, patients with monthly per capita household income of $2200 do not get any subsidies when they stay in community hospitals; now, they can get a 45% subsidy on hospitalisation. This is an expansion of the pool of Singaporeans who can benefit from subsidies, from the previous benchmark of per capita household income of $1,500 to lower middle-income Singaporeans.

During the 2004 Budget debate, I spoke on the Government's move to implement means testing in providing public service and social assistance. I said, "If the target of our healthcare assistance scheme are households with monthly per capita income of $1,000 or less, then does it mean that households with monthly per capita income of $1,001 do not need similar assistance? Certainly, low-income Singaporeans need help, but does that mean the sandwiched class middle-income 'new poor' who face unemployment, wage cuts, asset depreciation and bordering on low income do not need help?"

The Government is now willing to adopt new benchmarks in giving out subsidies, and relieve the healthcare burden of the middle-income sandwiched class – this is a welcomed change in attitude. The Government should regularly review all the benchmarks for subsidies that require means testing, especially in healthcare services and social services, to avoid gaps in our social safety net, where the sandwiched class is unable to receive the assistance needed.

For last year's National Day message, the Workers' Party decided to position it as a "tribute to our first generation Singaporeans". We said, in our National Day message, that the first generation Singaporeans built Singapore amidst the struggle for independence, this generation exemplifies the Singapore Spirit, the willingness to work hard and determination to overcome difficulties, for a better future for our children. They should enjoy the fruits of Singapore's success. Our country has the duty to ensure that they do not have to worry about their livelihood during their lifetime, to make sure that they live a fulfilling life, in comfort and with dignity.

Although this Budget cannot ensure that the older generation of Singaporeans can live a carefree life, but, at least, in the area of basic social welfare and healthcare, the Government is able to see the problems and has made a great stride towards a first-world nation social safety net.

Sir, thank you for the opportunity to make my maiden speech at the Budget debate. Let me say at the outset that my reaction to the Budget Statement is mixed. Starting with what should be commended, I am encouraged that the Government is heeding the calls to address social realities on the ground. The Budget has more heart. Stepping up social policy to build a "fair and inclusive society" is something much needed.

This year there are major firsts – bus transportation subsidies, Special Employment Credits and the permanent GST Voucher scheme. There is also substantial focus on boosting the financial security of seniors and helping those with special needs.

I know that reactions have been generally positive to the social aspects of the Budget. But still I feel a bit underwhelmed. Let me explain why. First, there is no larger vision on what Budget 2012 is founded on. On the economic side, the Budget needs to take reference from what our new economic model might look like, and, particularly, how we see ourselves doing business and creating value in future. Yes, we need to wean ourselves off cheap foreign labour, and we should aim for higher productivity and innovation. But we do need a theme beyond the need to "restructure to sustain growth". Of concern to me is that our nation ends up producing goods that the developed world, in their debt-laden state, cannot afford, and the developing world would not buy. It could be a case of incumbents like us overshooting what the customers want, and not being open to disruptive innovations. Increasingly, our new customers are in emerging Asia. How then are we positioning ourselves to be able to produce products and services that will be demanded by these under-served populations?

On the social side, we likewise need to be able to take reference from a new shared vision and new social compact. Again, without a larger vision or strategy on which our Budgets are founded on, the Budget would tend to come across as somewhat tired, even while new initiatives are announced and welcomed. In fact, many elements in the Budget seem to be about continuing with policy U-turns, playing catch-up, and avoiding future costs.

Certainly, we must strive to be inclusive. But we cannot do this only through social policies and programmes. Inclusiveness is fundamentally about how our people treat one another, not just about what the Government can do for its people, which, do not get me wrong, is still important because the Government represents the people. Besides, inclusiveness is more a mindset and value system, which the Government needs to lead the way in but cannot deliver alone. Inclusiveness here is a sense of belonging, of being respected and valued for who you are, not what you should be, and ultimately, being always treated with equal dignity and compassion, no matter how old, how rich, how educated, what titles you hold, and how different you are. People are the ends, not the means.

Being an Inclusive Society must be something that Singaporeans firstly want. Otherwise, the Government's efforts will be futile. You can give the Silver Housing Bonus to seniors, but other residents may reject the building of studio apartments and services for seniors in their midst. You can give the Special Employment Credit, but employers may refuse to hire and fit jobs to suit the disabled and senior workers.

Recent signs are that we are still not an inclusive society. In fact, I would venture to say we are in a social recession. We see this generally in the weakening of individual resilience, the loosening of family bonds and a decline in community cohesiveness. The symptoms include rising levels of mental ill-health, loneliness and increased addictions, and it is caused by the stresses of living, and by individualism and materialism. More objectively, we should establish a basket of social indicators that we track each year to measure the social health of the country. Sir, this social health index would be the social sector's equivalent of the GDP indicator for the economy. But short of having this, I simply looked at the social outcomes from the wider list of desired outcomes of the Ministries in the Budget Book and compared the achievements of the relevant KPIs of the latest year with those of the previous year. On balance, the number of desired outcomes that worsened was marginally more than the number that improved. And these KPIs excluded many of the relevant ones.

For every economic recession in the past, we would immediately be responsive and pull all our energies together as a nation to have an economic committee conduct a major revamp of our economic vision and strategies. We had four recession years in independent Singapore, and four corresponding major economic committees, with different names, to deal with them. On the social side, we have had only two – Singapore 21 and Remaking Singapore. And even if you do not believe, like I do, that we are in a social recession, I think it is critical for another major public exercise. Sir, I propose we convene a Social Review Committee to create a new shared vision and new social compact, which were missing from Budget 2012. We cannot tackle individual issues in a compartmentalised way, as all systems relate to one another. Even the social affects the economic.

The Prime Minister, at the debate on the President's Address last October, said that after last year's General Election, a committee was set up to review social policies comprehensively within Government. Sir, such a major effort cannot be entirely Government-driven. It must be equally community-driven. We live in uncertain times and face a complex array of social issues, many of which the Government has limited direct control of. Hence, citizens need to be firmly engaged in tackling the challenges and opportunities, reflect on their ingrained values and habits, and be part of the hard problem-solving and opportunity-enhancing work that produces societal progress. In Singapore, one key challenge is the growing dependency on the Government to solve all problems, big and small, where the community disowns roles it can and should take on. We need to break out of this unhealthy dynamic. The Government, itself, would need to learn a new type of adaptive leadership. How do I see this exercise progressing?

Firstly, this exercise needs to be co-led by Government and civil society – at all levels, including at the Steering Committee. There should be social dialogue groups with public, private and people sector representatives being at the table with equal status having deep discussions on a variety of social issues and reviewing fundamental current assumptions. Secondly, the dialogue environment must be safe. The Government must be prepared to be transparent and participants enabled to share freely and have equal access to data and information. Everyone needs to feel and be a part of the change. Thirdly, the committee should evolve into a permanent platform, or even a movement. This gives social partners a continued platform to co-create with the State, and the Government a way to harness the energies of the community.

Finally, the deliverables must be an articulation of the shared vision and values that most Singaporeans would subscribe to, and a broad architecture of how we want our society to be organised, with clarity on the roles and functions of the state versus community. Any strategic blueprint from the exercise must be a living document that is dynamic and evolving, as many policies and programmes require experimentation, learning and refinements before they work.

Now, allow me to touch on some aspects which I think this exercise could cover. I will just touch on five: (i) a shared vision and new social compact; (ii) defining Government-to-People relations; (iii) defining People-to-People relations; (iv) rethinking our social policies; and (v) improving diagnosis of social realities.

First, a shared vision and new social compact. Here, there are many questions that beg to be answered. What are the social ethos and values that shape our society? What is our conception of the good life? How do we deal with each other, with increasingly divergent interests? What are the principles and foundations of the new social compact? What is the Government's role? For me, I believe in a more communitarian society, with a more egalitarian ethos. The State must do more to protect citizens from the vagaries of the market, to ensure a more sustainable level of distributive justice and build social infrastructure. At the same time, the State needs to do less in social and cultural activities. Government should refrain from undertaking activities that the community, the family and the individuals can take on. Instead, the State should step in only when the initiatives clearly exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently. But these are only my beliefs. I want to hear from others.

Secondly, in the area of Government-to-People relations, I would advocate that the Government focuses more on enabling and empowering citizens and civil society to do more. This is related to my last point. Enabling means building capability and developing leadership in the community. Empowering means a real ceding of power, decision-making and ownership of projects, with a tolerance for a degree of messiness and inefficiency. The language from Government is so far more of communication and engagement, not empowerment. Power is often seen as a zero-sum game – the more you have, the less I have. But I believe, instead, that power is something that can be grown and shared. We need to put more power back into the people, both into designing their futures and into taking charge of what affects their everyday lives, like how to design their neighbourhoods, use common spaces, site facilities, and restrict noise levels and other negative externalities. We should devolve power to the communities and grassroots, away from the more centralised methods of today. There are good process tools that community leaders can use to help people make good decisions – through community visioning and planning, and large group decision making centred on community values linking the selves to groups and finally to the community. The National Volunteer & Philanthropy Centre is experimenting with some of these tools on the ground through our Asset-Based Community Development approach.

Thirdly, I return to the theme of inclusiveness, or People-to-People relations. I believe the core value of inclusiveness is that everybody has something worthwhile to contribute. When you look at kids play a game, sometimes they exclude somebody in the group from playing, and it is often because they think that the kid is not good enough and would make them lose. Likewise, when a company does not hire a senior or someone with special needs, it is thinking it will lose; in this case, lose money. When we speak the language of inclusiveness, we must change our mental models. The underlying philosophy is that each individual has some fullness. Every person we classify as needy has something to contribute, and we need to encourage inclusion by recognising potential, not discounting it. For example, seniors have experience, autistic persons have the eye for detail, and poor families have strengths to be harnessed. When we design policies and schemes, we must always take this strength-based approach. Otherwise, programmes like the Special Employment Credit, which is certainly useful, would not work.

A sign of an inclusive society is a society that gives, not just takes. We need to mobilise entire communities, build relationships among local assets for mutual problem-solving and mutual self-help. In any case, while the Government can cater to material needs, the people need to bring in the soul and cater to social, emotional and even spiritual needs.

Fourthly, I think we need a fundamental rethink of our social policies, particularly our social safety nets. The Government's reflex reaction is that strong safety nets erode economic incentives, undermine competitiveness, are unsustainable and increase moral hazard. There is, of course, truth in that. But we know that it is a matter of balance, and I acknowledge the Government's efforts and Prime Minister's reassurance that the Government will redress the situation. But I think we need a more radical review, and not merely build on current policies and programmes. We need to find a new social contract that achieves a better balance between growth and equity, and between individual responsibility and social insurance.

The realities today are different. Economically, there is much more uncertainty. In our first 30 years we had one recession; in the last 15 years we had three. The Gini coefficient continues its relentless climb, and it does not even take into account the wealth gap. The sandwiched class are more stressed. Inadequacy in old age savings is showing its cracks. Social mobility has fallen. Inflation is persistently high. So, for example, I believe the balance between self insurance and pooled insurance is skewed in healthcare, with the Government constantly forcing more into Medisave, a form of self-insurance. Singaporeans are not pooling their healthcare risks enough. Some 55% of healthcare spending is financed directly by patients; much higher than the case in other developed countries in Asia. It is economically inefficient to have such high precautionary savings, much of which may never be used, except to be passed on to their kids.

Likewise, we have used housing as a key way to store up retirement savings. We are now a victim of that success and cannot seem to unlock its value. Even with the Silver Housing Bonus, most would still use their existing flat as catastrophic insurance, downgrading or leasing back only when desperate. It would have been much better if we had controlled housing asset inflation, kept the first home much more affordable, at around three times the buyer's annual income, and allowed much less of the CPF to be used for housing.

I am also very concerned about the plight of people facing insufficient or declining incomes, as well as income inequality. Unfortunately, education, the great potential leveller, has increasingly become a positional good that only the well-to-do can afford. We also need better schemes to protect the vulnerable from the risks of unemployment and income loss, while avoiding moral hazard. Singapore Perspectives 2012, organised by the Institute of Policy Studies, threw up many suggestions worth considering. And yet another major area of concern is that inflation has risen so fast. We need new strategies to keeping costs down, beyond appreciating the currency, so that people can get by and young couples find it less challenging to get married and start a family. Let it not be said that Singapore is only a good place to live in only if you are rich.

A quick note on financing increased social spending for the future. If it is part of a shared vision to strengthen social cohesion, I am sure the more well-to-do Singaporeans can be convinced to finance this with higher income taxes, instead of needing to increase GST again. The era of racing to the bottom in global tax competition is over. But, first, I am sure people would need to be convinced that we are exhausting other options, like re-allocating budgets across Ministries and maximising the Net Investment Return Contribution, which I believe has headroom to grow while preserving the real value of our reserves.

My last point, which needs to be a short one, is that we need to have better data, information and knowledge of social realities, and evaluation of past and current programmes. One major complaint from academics, private sector analysts and people working in the non-profit field is that there is a dearth of data that will help give us greater insights. The Prime Minister promised last October that more information would be released, but I think the pace is not fast enough. May I suggest that the Government adopts a negative list approach to information? Just decide what cannot be released, and make a commitment to release everything else.

Another major problem that I have with our Budget statements in general, not just this Budget 2012, is that there is little evaluation of past policies and programmes. What is the effectiveness of redistributive programmes like Workfare or GST transfers? There is a lack of detailed research on how families are coping on the ground. For this, we need longitudinal studies to track people over time because cross sectional data gives an incomplete picture of reality. Likewise, there is also very little evaluation of incentive programmes. Have they worked? What is the deadweight loss? There is sometimes a perverse effect in providing incentives. Studies have shown that people who are rewarded for altruism become less altruistic. Sometimes, incentives mark the thing you want to sell as a bad deal, and make it even harder to sell.

In conclusion, I am making these fundamental proposals for a major review out of optimism, not despair. Optimism because we are here today working from a position of strength, including, quite importantly, fiscal strength. Optimism also because I think the majority of Singaporeans would embrace the language of inclusion. Our young have impressed me with their high sense of social consciousness. Also, our social recession is nowhere a social depression and, indeed, on many indicators, we fare much better than many other countries.

But the world is changing fast in a way that we cannot ignore. In particular, there is an imperative to deal with the income divide and wealth gap, which has clearly manifested in growing political problems – the Occupy movements, the Arab Spring uprising, and increasing labour and political instability in many countries. We are changing domestically and politically as well, as outlined by many Members in this House. It is my firm belief that we need a different type of leadership, an adaptive leadership. This is not a straightforward kind of leadership. But if we succeed, we will find each person, individually or in groups, having something unique to offer to the community, because, not in spite of, their differences. And when each of us starts contributing meaningfully to the communities that we live in, we will feel more fully citizens of this country and this is when a place to stay becomes a home. And maybe then, we can rely less on incentives to induce the right behaviours. And maybe then the Minister for Finance will not need to have to decide whether to raise GST or to raise income taxes. Sir, on balance, I support the Budget.

Sir, I rise in support of this Budget. I went on a house visit last night and I asked residents for their feedback on the Budget. Except for one family, the rest had no adverse comments and were generally happy with the Budget. I have three points to make on this Budget.

First, I note that whilst most Members in the debate strongly endorsed the increased social spending which they see as a necessity, a couple have expressed reservations whether this could result in over-reliance on the Government. These are valid concerns. However, I see this Budget as giving a strong boost and support to self-reliance, independence and employment. Consider the employment of older Singaporeans and those with special needs. By incentivising employers to employ older workers and the disabled through the SEC, the Budget aims at boosting employment, and therefore helps our elderly and disabled achieve independence and a greater sense of self-worth, which no amount of social assistance can provide. People want to lead dignified lives that come from earning an income through their own efforts. By making it easier for employers to employ them and making it worthwhile for them to work through the WIS and the increased CPF rate for older workers, the Government helps to boost independence and self-reliance.

The Government is also sending a strong signal that everyone has a part to play, including those who need help. It is clear that these Budget measures alone will not make a great change in the employment of older workers or those with special needs. Employers have to take the leadership by redesigning their work processes, introducing technology and changing their perceptions to view such workers as a resource and not a liability. Take the case of Tony who suffers from polio and who works in the dessert stall of a social enterprise called "Dignity Kitchen". Dignity Kitchen went to great length to devise their own training programme and modify the workplace to make it disabled friendly, including installing a special machine to make it easier for a disabled worker to make bowls of noodles to serve customers. Tony will benefit from the WIS as well as a number of his colleagues who suffer from various disabilities, from hearing impairment to autism, some of whom are below 35 years old. His employer will be so relieved to know that his efforts to provide employment opportunities to the disabled is strongly supported by the Government and he will be able to enjoy the Special Employment Credit of 16%, which is a significant savings for him.

Second, this Budget marks a shift in the Government's approach to middle-income earners. Greater social protection has now been extended to them as they too are affected by the rising cost of living, especially those sandwiched between caring for their children and their frail elderly parents. I have a resident in my constituency, a PMET, with two children and who is paying for his degree programme at a private educational institute. When his father's dementia worsened and he could no longer keep him at home and had to send him to a nursing home, he really struggled to pay for the nursing home fees as he did not qualify for the subsidies. This year's Budget will bring him great relief as he will now pay lower fees. Indeed, with the new subsidy framework in place, two thirds of all Singaporeans and 85% of our elderly will now receive subsidies. This is a significant improvement and will benefit many middle-income families.

Johannes Jutting, the OECD's Head of Poverty recently wrote in an article entitled "Rise of the Global Middle Class". He said, "In today's volatile situation, most of the middle class is one income shock from being pushed back into poverty." To counter this risk, he suggested "that social security programmes should be gradually extended beyond social assistance". Our situation in Singapore is not as severe as what he had described. Nevertheless, we know that with an ageing population and rising costs, the middle-income earners are also feeling squeezed and greater Government support in healthcare will certainly help to reduce some of their concerns.

Sir, other than healthcare, PMETs will also need stronger support in job placements and retraining. Many had worked only in one sector almost their entire career and find it extremely difficult to switch to another sector or another industry because of lack of skills or knowledge of the jobs available and, in many cases, also the difficulty of having to adjust to a much lower pay. It is not so easy for an engineer, for instance, who has worked for 20 years in an electronic sector, to switch to a sales or marketing job, but it is still possible with support and assistance. We do need greater labour market intervention measures to assist displaced PMETs.

My third point, Sir, is that this Budget is pro-family and, more specifically, pro-children. Many more children will now be subsidised with the raising of the family income level to $3,500 for student care, and the introduction of the PCI for the enhanced subsidies under KIFAS, CFAC and student care. More mothers could now go to work or remain in the workforce knowing that their children will be taken care of. This continued focus on education and children's development is important to ensure that social mobility continues to be not only a hope but an achievable reality for our low-income Singaporeans. I dare say that many of us are here today in this Chamber because of social mobility. Although an MCYS survey shows that social mobility is still alive today, it also warned that we cannot expect the same level of mobility for subsequent cohorts.

Let me at this point surface an issue raised by many women with me and which I hope that the NEA could look into. Many women from our low-income and needy families want to work to earn an income to support their family or to supplement the family income. Quite a number are also single mothers and may be the sole breadwinners. They want to be self-reliant and avoid having to depend on the Government for social assistance. Despite our enhanced childcare subsidies, many of these women cannot work outside their home because they may not only have young children to take care of but also frail elderly parents. Some are also suffering from disabilities or other illnesses which make it difficult for them to secure outside employment.

One way in which many of these women could earn an income is through running a home-based food catering business. They love cooking, something which they have been doing for years for their own families. However, recently many had received warning letters from the NEA and they are worried and confused, and their source of income has been disrupted.

A couple of weeks ago, I was invited by DEWI, the women's arm of the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce, which held a dialogue jointly organised with Berita Harian. This was a dialogue session which was attended by more than 300 women. The women strongly appealed to the Government to relax its rules prohibiting home kitchens. They were told to cook at central kitchens which are commercial cooking facilities but many cannot afford the rent and other related costs, and because of their caregiving responsibilities they cannot work outside their homes. So using a central kitchen is not a viable option for them.

The women understand and are mindful of NEA's concerns over hygiene, safety and neighbours' complaints. Therefore, in their proposal, they had suggested various measures to address these concerns, including even devising a contraption to absorb smoke, grease and smell from their cooking. Sir, I would like to urge NEA to look into this proposal. The spirit of this Budget is to build an inclusive society and a stronger Singapore. It is in this context then that we should view the appeal from our needy women to allow them to operate home-based kitchens. Their main desire is to be self-reliant and to enjoy a steady stream of income doing something which they are really good at, which is cooking. Through this, many of them aspire and hope to build a better future for themselves and their children.

Still on the issue of women, Sir, I note our efforts to attract more women back to work through the Flexi Works! scheme and the WOW! Fund. Thousands of women have gone back to work under the NTUC's Back-To-Work programme since it started in 2007. But these two schemes have been in place for a few years now, so it is timely to review and reassess how to make them even more effective and relevant to the needs of businesses and our women as feedback suggests that an overhaul is needed. Also, with the cutback on foreign manpower, non-working mothers will become a very valuable resource for employers to tap on and we could do more to facilitate their employment.

Sir, in his speech at the IPS Singapore Perspectives 2012, Mr Tharman said, and I quote: "Building a fair and inclusive society is at the heart of our role as government. It is about both social and economic strategies, as they are bound inextricably together." I want to echo that point, which I agree with completely. A balanced social and economic development is the only sustainable model of growth. Without economic growth, Government will not have the means to collectively invest in people and infrastructure to sustain social growth. On the other hand, unbalanced economic growth will cause inequality to widen which will gnaw at the very sinews of our society and, over time, undermine economic growth.

Sir, we have come this far because of heavy investment in social capital. Not just through this year's Budget but since the time we became independent, we have invested so heavily in education, housing and health. But we were able to do it because we were pulling together – the Government taking the lead, with the strong support of the people. We need to strengthen this social compact, not just between the Government and the people but also between the people themselves. Even as we debate about how this Budget will help create a more inclusive society, we have to agree that this is a shared responsibility. Everyone has a part to play. Take the case of Tony, who I mentioned earlier. Tony lives in Yishun and travels by bus every day to his workplace at Kaki Bukit. That is an example of true grit and spirit of this person. What is sad is that Tony, who suffers from polio and has difficulty walking, often has to stand in the bus because no one wants to give up their seat to him. How wonderful would it be if each and every one of us does our part to make someone else's life a bit better by simple everyday acts of kindness.

The Government alone cannot create an inclusive society. We need socially responsible employers. We need strong VWOs who, because of their very nature, will be better able to galvanise people and resources much more effectively than the Government is able to do. We need those who need help to help themselves by going for training programmes and job placements or by supporting other measures to support self-reliance. Finally, Sir, we need Singaporeans to be engaged, involved and concerned about the well-being of their fellowmen and to do their part to make ours a truly inclusive society. On this note, Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. First and foremost, let me congratulate and thank the Deputy Prime Minister Tharman and his team for a very well thought through Budget for 2012 – one that is not only inclusive but with a heart for the elderly and the less privileged in our society, but also sets a very clear direction for the future.

What strikes me most is the overall theme of this year's Budget – "An inclusive society, a stronger Singapore". The Government has set forth a whole array of social and economic strategies to achieve this. However, this is no easy task and will always be work-in-progress. It will take Singapore many years, or even generations, to evolve into a truly inclusive and strong society.

There is no doubt that Singapore has done well economically. We have transformed ourselves from a Third World, to a First World country in just over four decades, in spite of our lack of natural resources and many other challenges. Our strength is in our ability to transform and adapt to the ever changing environment, both regionally and internationally. Besides making Singapore economically strong by constantly upgrading and restructuring our economy, there is also an urgent need to make Singapore strong socially, by building up social resilience among Singaporeans. However, we are currently still far from the ultimate goal of being a socially resilient Singapore, as evident by the responses of many Singaporeans to many recent events, including the SARS and H1N1 outbreak.

Let me quote an article published in the Singapore Medical Journal in 2003, entitled "Heroes and Heroines of the War on SARS", by Professor Chee Yam Cheng. And I quote:

"Nurses faced the unknown when the SARS outbreak began. Many of those falling victims to the disease were colleagues. What made it especially difficult were the prejudices nurses faced. Taxis and even buses refused to stop at the hospital. Neighbours did not want to ride the lifts with them. At any packed food court, there would always be a seat for a Tan Tock Seng nurse. Queue lines would shorten when a nurse joined that queue."

I personally encountered an unpleasant experience demonstrating the loathsome attributes of humankind in challenging times when I was working at ground zero in the heat of the SARS outbreak. Indeed, there is a real fear that fragmentation will occur in times of adversity and major catastrophes. The Government has been fostering social resilience among Singaporean and this effort must be strengthened to ensure Singapore can cope with any future attacks on our social fabric.

Let us go back to 2011, where the last GE introduced a new word into the political vocabulary of Singaporeans – "a new political norm". We had witnessed several milestones in the political arena, both in the ruling party, as well as in the opposition. After the elections, everyone – politicians, people and society – agreed that there is a need to forge a new social compact based on this new political norm. One where the Government is more receptive, more consultative and more engaging. One where the populace is more vocal and more aware of its rights and not afraid to voice its opinion. This, I think, is inevitable with a more educated, aware and developed society.

While a new social compact is forged upon this new political norm, there must be a common consensus on the tasks that lie ahead and what we, as Singaporeans, and not just the Government alone, must do. This is something that we have often heard – the Government cannot do this alone, we must work hand-in-hand. And this is no less true. An often heard Chinese adage tells us that one chopstick is broken easily, but 10 chopsticks, together, make for strength in unity.

Yes, while we have a right to be heard, and for questions to be answered, let us, as a nation, be very clear about the challenges we will be facing in the future. We have heard so much about the Silver Tsunami and calls by many parliamentarians in the House to face this impending reality head on. To put things in perspective, by 2030, 20% of Singapore's population would be above the age of 65. That is close to 800,000 to 1,000,000 people, more than the total number of people living in Ang Mo Kio, Bedok, Tampines and Sengkang today. The infrastructure and the planning strategies needed to address this ageing problem take time to be realised and we really need to act now before it is too late. We need to take care of our own elderly population and that is why we need to understand the urgency of ensuring that there is infrastructure available to support the elderly now and in the future. We are all getting older. Tomorrow will be our turn. Growing old is something inevitable for every one of us. To put it very bluntly, we are actually doing this to prepare for ourselves in the future.

However, two recent events have made me realised that while the Government can plan to build the infrastructure, there needs to be a paradigm shift in the mindsets of people such that we are all attuned and aligned to the problems ahead. All of us, I believe, have heard of the Woodlands and Toh Yi incidents, where residents protested against the building of elderly facilities, such as the day care centre and studio apartments respectively. I do agree that residents in Woodlands and Toh Yi have a right to be heard and their views should have been sought about the building and siting of the proposed facilities. But when I heard some of the reasons cited, I was stunned and disappointed. What alarms me most is what we coined the NIMBY, or Not In My Backyard syndrome – where people refuse to have facilities sited near their homes, but far away. Other past examples include: in 2010, residents in Pasir Ris and Tampines objected to plans to build rental flats close to their blocks and, in 2008, Serangoon Gardens residents were up in arms when a proposal was made to convert a disused school into dormitories for foreign workers.

The problem lies in the fact that we do not enjoy the same sort of luxury of space as in other larger countries. Singapore is a small country. Space in Singapore is scarce and we need to optimise land use as much as possible. If we do not build it here, then where? What if everyone refuses to allow these necessary facilities to be built near their homes? During the debate on the presidential address last year, I raised the issue of taking care of our elderly and not sending them to nursing homes in Johor Baru – yet, if we are not united on the need to come together and build for the future, then that could be a very sad but real possibility.

Japan, too, faces the same problem as we do – a rapidly ageing population and a huge proportion of the elderly in the population. Yet, the Japanese people have a common consensus on what needs to be done. Recognising that family care giving for elderly people was becoming increasingly difficult, the Japanese government developed and implemented the Gold Plan in 1989 which defined specific goals to be achieved over a 10-year period, which included the number of day care centres, nursing homes, home care aides, etc.

The Japanese government commissioned each of their own municipal governments to survey the number of elderly living in the area and draw up their own specific action plan to tackle the issue. In making these plans from the lower levels of the municipality and prefecture, the Japanese government built a consensus and common understanding of the priority of building infrastructure for the elderly. This raised the policy priority of the issue to a much higher level within both public and private spheres.

That said, I think making policies from the ground up, empowering the grassroots to do their own policies is just one way of creating consensus. We also have often seen the Japanese coming together in drills, practising for earthquakes, tsunamis, disasters together, even from young. We see children participating in mass-public drills alongside adults and the old. Whenever the drills come on, the Japanese would participate in the most serious manner, for they recognise that how fast one can react will determine whether lives are saved.

This happens not because theirs is a culture of compliance but, rather, the Japanese recognises the severity, priority and seriousness of preparing for the inevitable.

What I want to say is this: a common understanding of what we as a people face is thus just as crucial, if not more crucial, than the build-up of infrastructure and amenities to meet the needs of the elderly, or for the common good of the population.

In a place nearer us, we all know that in the second half of 2011, Thailand was hit by severe flooding. Lasting more than two months, it was billed as the worst floods in Thailand's history. The World Bank estimates it to cost US$45.7 billion in economic damages and losses. But the issue I want to raise is not the severity of the floods or the economic damage caused. Rather, I want to highlight that while the Thai military, aid groups and VWOs were key players in flood alleviation measures, distributing life-saving supplies, aiding people, it is not just these organisations and institutions which have come together to fight the flood. The flood alleviation effort was a national one for Thais all over the country donated food, water and clothing to help their countrymen – far exceeding donations for previous years. A CNN report called this true teamwork among the communities – those who have a boat would use it to transport aid or to help neighbours carry their possessions as water levels rose and engulfed homes. Whenever there were donations, they were shared with fellow countrymen. Even Thais here in Singapore, who were not affected by the floods, pooled their pockets together and conducted fund raisers for their homeland. The coming together of the Thais, I believe, shows how people can come together and help one another because they have a common national identity. In meeting our own tsunami, let us Singaporeans realise that the building of such facilities is for the elderly, people who are Singaporeans like our parents and grandparents. Every Singaporean, not just the state, the Government, the institutions, has a responsibility to make this happen.

As the Member for Sengkang West, I have had my fair share of such instances too, when the announcement was made that Sengkang General Hospital would be built in my ward. Naturally, like Toh Yi residents, some of my residents were concerned about the building of the hospital. Fortunately, the majority agreed that there was a need to do so. One resident even joked, "Well, if I'm sick and old, at least I know that there's a hospital downstairs", although he was quite young and only had recently married. I am heartened by this response, as well as other recent examples – the Family Service Centre in Marine Parade and a campaign by Nanyang Polytechnic students for Singaporeans to embrace ageing.

In my opinion, while the Budget has catered for the building of more long-term care facilities and acute care hospitals, even more important is that we Singaporeans must excogitate and reach a common consensus on what the task is ahead and how we can all come together to help. Japan and Thailand have done well so far, building that common understanding of what is needed of the country to face the threats together.

There was an article reported in the BBC last year after the tsunami and nuclear reactor disaster that took place in Fukushima. And I thought it will be most apt to share the story in this House:

"The deadly tsunami had struck and resulted in a nuclear leak crisis in Fukushima last year. It was while watching the news on television that Mr Yasuteru Yamada decided it was time for his generation to stand up and volunteer themselves. No longer could he be just an observer of the struggle to stabilise the Fukushima nuclear plant. The retired engineer reported back for duty at the age of 72, and organised a team of pensioners to go with him. A group of more than 200 Japanese pensioners volunteered to tackle the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima power station. The Skilled Veterans Corps, as they call themselves, was made up of retired engineers and other professionals, all over the age of 60. They rationalised that they should be facing the dangers of radiation, not the young.

Mr Yamada had said, 'Volunteering to take the place of the younger workers at the power station is not brave, but logical. I am 72 and on average I probably have another 13 to 15 years left to live. Even if I were exposed to radiation, cancer could take 20 or 30 years or longer to develop. Therefore us older ones have less chance of getting cancer.'."

Such is the courage and resilience we see in the Japanese in the face of adversity. The Japanese have faced many disasters, from world war to earthquakes and deadly tsunamis. These have helped built social cohesion and resilience in its people. The fact that he was elderly showed how the elderly too had a role to play in our society.

As a nation, we are far from achieving this ultimate goal of being a socially resilient society. We must learn to work together as a team, as one people, in handling difficult situations, including the silver tsunami. We must discard the mindset that "this is not my problem" and that "the Government will solve all our problems". We must learn to take responsibility of our living environment, our lives and our own destiny.

We must take the responsibility of looking after our senior citizens well. Our children are watching and learning from us. We will grow old one day and, similarly, we want our children to take care of us in our silver years. We want a Singapore that is strong and inclusive, where its people can live meaningfully and age gracefully and with dignity. Sir, on that note, I support the Budget.

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

I am happy to note the focus on the social dimension of this year's Budget that addresses the needs of the older workers, elderly, low and middle income and the disabled. This has certainly struck a chord with many Singaporeans. While we cannot expect a country's budget to solve all problems or address every need, Budget 2012 adopts a long-term strategic approach to these issues of the vulnerable amongst us. This will reap far more social value, narrow the social divide and pay economic dividends in the long term.

Today, I would like to touch on three areas – perception of the elderly, retirement age and caring for our elderly.

First, on perception of the elderly. We have heard many times how rapidly our country is ageing. Today, we have 352,000 people over the age of 65, about 117,000 more than what we had 10 years ago. This is a 50% increase. The number of people aged 85 and over are close to double in the same period. These numbers are significant and they will continue to rise quickly over the coming years, with the first cohort of baby boomers turning 65 this year.

We are sailing into uncharted territory as a new ageing generation is forming and society is trying to catch up. Companies are watching the age of their workforce. Policymakers are trying to keep financial and health support systems up to speed. Researchers and scientists are fervently finding treatments for age-related illnesses and businesses are scrambling to provide wellness and anti-ageing solutions.

As the structure of our society changes, the challenges facing us are how we can shape positive perception towards the elderly and older workers. How the elderly are perceived can have implications on how they are treated in our society. Older people are generally stereotyped as sick, frail and physically dependent on others. While names and characterisations may vary, the message is the same: older men and women are incompetent and lack self-sufficiency.

Steps can and must be taken to reduce the stereotyping of the elderly, curb ageist attitudes, promote a sense of inclusiveness and compassion towards our elderly. Whether it is about building or locating an elderly care centre or taking the MRT train, caring for our elderly at home or in the community, we need to shape positive perception to look after this special segment of our population who has contributed and sacrificed much for our country.

Our educators, parents, employers, healthcare providers, journalists, the arts, media and the Government must all step up our game to shape positive attitudes and perception of our elderly. Our seniors are also evolving in the way they perceive ageing. Surveys done recently revealed 87% of respondents believe that seniors can play an active role in society. While there may be a stereotypical view of the elderly as being weak and frail as a result of natural ageing, I think we should emphasise that many of our seniors are becoming more active, socially engaged, technologically savvy, trendier and independent.

Sir, allow me to now speak on retirement. Today, as a result of improvements in nutrition, exercise, healthcare and, generally, a focus on well-being, the average life expectancy of Singaporeans has risen. As the population ages, the pattern of retirement is changing rapidly in Singapore. People are increasingly coming to terms with and understanding the impact of living longer and the need to adequately prepare for an extended period in retirement.

These changes in demographics represent a squeeze on those of working age as well as on the Government, as we look to provide retirement incomes and healthcare for the ageing population. This also impacts the workforce as the retirement age has been increased from 62 to 65 this year and will be raised to 67 later. We will have a larger pool of older employees who can form an invaluable manpower resource as they can still continue to contribute economically.

Hence, this "silver" Budget is timely. I believe that real social inclusion is achieved when our workforce, comprising our older workers, can contribute and participate in the improvement of productivity and economic growth; and has access to salaries that improve their living conditions and the welfare of their families.

For those entering retirement today, their experience will be quite different to the one that their parents enjoyed in the past and their grandchildren will experience in the future. Today, seniors in their 60s are different from those 10 years ago. Advancements in health and nutritional awareness have helped to nurture fitter and more active seniors, many of whom have expressed their desire to work beyond 65 and continue to contribute towards the function of society.

From my interactions with my residents, there are rising levels of concern about the ability to cope in retirement. It stems from fear about not saving enough for retirement and also about ill health in retirement. Many say that they can still continue to work with the same vigour and energy and are disappointed that they have to either retire, or be re-employed at a lower level, take a pay cut and see a reduction in the employer's CPF contribution. These older workers have a wealth of experience at their disposal and it is a waste to eliminate these experiences through retirement. Older people who are still able to work past their retirement age should be supported to do so.

Sir, we must encourage people of all ages to make their invaluable contribution to work. We must not stereotype age, which is potentially discriminatory, such as older people lacking of ideas or motivation. Having a mixture of age groups in our workforce can enable companies to benefit from a richer diversity of opinions and experiences.

Our seniors should age with dignity, especially so in employment. They should not be discriminated against under the pretext of renewal or cost management for the companies. Employers must appreciate their older staff and pay them fairly for the work done. If the older workers are giving the employer the same effort, time, talent and value as any of their younger staff, why should they be paid any less in wages and employer CPF contributions? The Government is making the right move in Budget 2012 to increase CPF contribution rates for older workers. I hope that in time to come, the Government can move towards restoring the full employer's CPF contribution for older workers aged 50 and above.

Removing the retirement age will encourage anyone aged 65 or older to apply for jobs based on their skills and experience, and allow employees the freedom to work beyond the age of 65 without prejudice or employer discrimination, unless in roles that demand exacting manual labour or involve public safety. For instance, education is a timeless profession, and teachers who are seniors are valued for their wealth of knowledge and experience. I am certain there are many examples of timeless professions where seniors would be valued for their accumulated experiences.

To encourage continued workforce participation beyond the mandated retirement age, our employers will need to adopt a new mindset change. Rather than view matured workers as more expensive or slow, they can actively plan and assist older workers to continue contributing to the success of their organisations. This may mean providing training as well as adopting flexibility in the job design or in the employment of people in their 50s and 60s based on their skills and experience. Employers should also focus on "workplace wellness" by reinventing or restructuring the workplace for older workers to perform more optimally and safely without a reduction in productivity.

Sir, I would like to now touch on caring for our elderly. Chronic illnesses, immobility, disability and ageing are realities. In caring for the elderly, the family is the bedrock of support. This year's Budget provided much relief as we strengthen healthcare support and make healthcare more affordable. Expanding capacities and increasing subsidies are commendable.

Sir, I am happy that the Government is taking several measures to facilitate assistance for more home-based care. There is a significant and growing number of domestic helpers who are hired to double-up or solely look after the elderly. Many of these pre-deployed domestic helpers are not mentally prepared, physically able and trained to care for the elderly sick, making them an occupational risk. It does not help that, in most cases, the domestic worker is usually alone with the elderly at home. Hence, I would like to urge the Ministry to put in place training schemes for pre-deployed domestic helpers and to build a pool of trained domestic caregivers who are certified to provide basic care for the elderly sick or disabled.

Similarly, I am particularly concerned with the low-income families coping with the financial burden of care-giving at home. I would urge the Government to consider increasing the grant to fully cover the domestic helper levy for hiring domestic helpers to care for the elderly with disabilities. For such cases, domestic caregiver is a necessity rather than an option. It will encourage family members to continue with their jobs while at the same time ensuring their loved ones are well looked after and making them more productive and better workers.

I would also like to ask the Government to consider extending the monthly $120 grant to low middle income families caring for their family members with severe disabilities regardless of his or her age. A person with severe mental retardation, or someone who had suffered from a stroke, will need more intensive support and supervision for his or her entire life. Many will require full-time care and will benefit from full-time domestic help. I do urge the Government to consider extending the monthly grant to these families too.

I am happy to note the Finance Minister's announcement to help the elderly unlock the value of their flat and putting cash in their pockets. I do hope that this good policy measure would not be negated by a lack of sufficient smaller or studio flats for them to downgrade to and realise the benefits of the Silver Housing Bonus. Many of the elderly have also indicated that they are unwilling to relocate as they have lived in their homes most of their lives. They have forged friendships, developed roots and a sense of belonging. Thus, a more flexible Silver Housing Bonus scheme or an enhanced Lease Buy-Back Scheme should be put in place to convert their existing asset to cash without having to move them.

On MediShield, I am heartened to see the coverage extended to 90 years of age. The twilight years of a person's life are the period when they utilise the most healthcare. A person living long beyond the age of 80 would probably have stopped working for at least 15 years. Thus, it may be the case that they would have used up most of their savings accumulated in their working life. Their children may also have progressed to become senior citizens themselves. Hence, the burden of caring for them may cascade down to their grandchildren.

Sir, we have done much to stretch the MediShield coverage to 90 years. As a gesture of honour for our very senior citizens for their contribution and sacrifices made to the country, would it not make good sense to go that little extra distance and complete the MediShield coverage till the end of life? I am certain this gesture will be well appreciated. This will give our honourable seniors the added peace of mind as they live to their ripe old age knowing that they can be less of a financial burden to their children or grandchildren.

Sir, in closing, I am heartened that instead of a broad brush approach, Budget 2012 has reached out to the vulnerable segment of our society to ensure their pressing needs are addressed. It has also set the tone of the shape of things to come for our people and Singapore.

Ensuring the overall well-being of our society is as much as achieving economic growth and helping businesses grow. It is important that our older workers, those with disabilities and lower income families who require special assistance as the economy restructures are not kept wanting.

Against a rising tide of ageing population and the challenges it will bring, employers, workers and society at large need to work hand in glove with the Government today to realise the tangible benefits of planning ahead. We must embrace a mindset change towards ageing and the elderly, learn how to leverage on our "silver" talents and provide them with quality healthcare so that our seniors can lead an active, enriching and fulfilling life. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me an opportunity to join the debate. Please allow me to start in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 1551 for Vernacular Speeches.] A while ago, Mr Low Thia Khiang said that he sees this Budget as a change in the mindset and psyche of the Government – that the Government had previously focused on the economy and is now focusing on social development. Mr Speaker, I think this is too one-sided. As a little red dot with no natural resources, Singapore has no choice but to constantly develop the economy. I had worked in the Economic Development Board of Singapore for 10 years, so I realise the importance of this. A country needs to have effective economic policies, only then will the country be able to generate wealth for the society, enjoy surplus and do more for the people with the surplus.

(In English): Please allow me to continue in English. I welcome this year's Budget for it is significant in the way that the Government has shown its heart for the people. The lower income, elderly and those with disabilities are being supported by this caring and compassionate Budget. Most of all, the Government has shown confidence and courage to build an inclusive society and a stronger Singapore for the future.

Looking ahead, how can we further future-proof our people? If you go to Singapore Art Museum today, there is an exhibition called "The Singapore Show: Future Proof". Showcasing more than 35 works by 26 local artists and collectives, it is one of the biggest exhibitions of home-grown art in recent years. It captures how these promising young artists view Singapore and how they wish to change the viewers' perspectives of home. Ms Donna Ong's "Crystal City" is a beautiful installation of bottles that reflects the skyline of a glass city. In her work, she mirrors the fragility of dreams and aspirations. I can identify with that.

Today, the dreams and aspirations of some anxious parents and children are given new hope. During his Budget speech, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman announced the Development Support Programme (DSP) that will look into meeting the needs of children with mild speech, language and learning delays. Some 2,000 children will benefit from this new Programme when it is fully rolled out. This is, indeed, heartening news.

However, we are also keenly aware that according to the MOH, there is presently an estimated 22,000 children under 18 years old with learning difficulties. We have about 230 psychologists and therapists in Government-related learning assistance programmes as well as in SPED and mainstream schools. This suggests that one psychologist or therapist could be looking after about 95 children. According to Professor Ho Lai Yun, Senior Consultant at the Department of Child Development in KK Hospital and Director of MOH's Child Development Programme, about 5% to 6% in every cohort of pre-schoolers have developmental needs that could affect their learning. This works out to about 2,000 children a year. The shortage of psychologists and therapists could seriously circumvent the outreach to these children. Even with the impending launch of DSP, we may still be under-serving this community.

Each child is precious and none should fall through the crack due to lack of resources. We need to make the learning environment more inclusive and more supportive for these children at the formative age. The outcomes for these children can be improved with early detection and the necessary therapy. By narrowing the gap before they enter Primary 1 in mainstream school, they can have a better chance of coping and succeeding within mainstream schools.

To this end, I would like to ask the Government to strongly consider adopting a whole-of-Government approach in ramping up the manpower capacity and building the necessary capabilities in these areas. May I propose an inter-Ministry steering committee be set up with the mandate to drive a manpower capacity and capability development plan that meets the needs of children with learning difficulties? An inter-Ministry taskforce is much needed, for this challenge requires a holistic and child-centric approach that cuts across education, health and training, not just MCYS. This could be led, however, by MCYS, as it spearheads an Enabling Masterplan. This inter-Ministry committee can prioritise the types of therapists needed, whether it is speech and language, occupational therapy, behavioural or even child psychologists. An inter-Ministry team will allow us to draw upon the complementary strengths of various Ministries to pull their respective levers and resources to address the issue.

For instance, we can take a two-pronged approach: firstly, to boost the number of trained child therapists and psychologists through education and training; and secondly, to develop ways to tap the latent pool of manpower. These efforts could involve Ministries like the MOE, MOH, MOM and agencies like the WDA or even the NCSS and CDCs. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 1552 for Vernacular Speeches.] Prior to this, I talked about a two-pronged approach. Firstly, the Ministry of Education can review the future direction of our tertiary institutions to attract and train more talent in this field. Currently, four tertiary institutions offer courses on therapy and special education. We need more talent interested in this field. According to a survey by the National Research Institute at the University of Chicago, last year, physiotherapist and special needs educators ranked third and fifth respectively, among the happiest jobs in the US. Recently, MCYS launched a new campaign to attract people to become social workers. Should we also start a campaign to attract people to become physiotherapists? Secondly, MCYS can also help to look for talent pool that has not been explored, for example, retired teachers with teaching experience. The Workforce Development Agency can also encourage PMETs who are looking for a mid-career change to become therapists. Housewives or women looking to re-join the workforce can also become therapy assistants.

(In English): In addition to these suggestions, may I, at this juncture, ask the Government to consider PCF's example of how they tackled the shortage of therapists. Through innovative job design, PCF created a new position, five years ago, the role of a Learning Support Coach for its organisation nationwide. The main role of a Learning Support Coach, LSC in short, is to train and work with PCF teachers to support children with learning difficulties across all PCF centres in Singapore. Its first LSC is 31-year-old Ms Fiona Woo. She has trained 200 PCF teachers and 80 principals in one-to-one sessions over the past five years. A former pre-school teacher, Ms Woo was qualified in special needs education and was a Speech and Language Therapy Aide.

What does an LSC do? Ms Woo provides short-term direct early intervention support to PCF pre-schoolers with learning difficulties in mainstream pre-school environment. She arms teachers with practical strategies and tips on how to manage and include these children in their class. In addition, Ms Woo teaches parents, caregivers, teachers and principals the ways to help these children adapt to a mainstream pre-school environment without putting the spotlight on these children. She also coordinates the specialist support for the children's special learning needs. As part of her work, Ms Woo conducts screening tests for dyslexia in PCF. She shared with me her passion. I quote: "The best reward for me is to see the child with learning difficulties being able to socialise and learn well in mainstream school environment. That means I was able to make a difference in the child's life at his formative stage."

I hope the Government will look at this model of training and support used by PCF for the impending DSP. PCF now has a nine-member Special Education Needs team that includes two Learning Support Coaches, four Learning Support Educators and three social workers in the HQ. The team has built a holistic network of support, knowledge and skills transfer linking the teachers, principals, specialists, therapists, parents and caregivers. Each group has a different role and competence level that feeds into an "ecosystem" of skills to support the children with learning difficulties.

Now, in the same way, let us look at how we can future-proof our workforce by nurturing the development of skills ecosystems.

Like many advanced economies, Singapore faces the twin challenges of an ageing and shrinking workforce. The global playing field is being redrawn at a faster pace. The economic cycles of boom-and-bust are becoming shorter and recurring more quickly. Globalisation can grow and also disrupt industries like we see in Kodak.

Technological advancement can make today's job obsolete tomorrow. The recent Budget measure to further reduce the Dependency Ratio Ceilings (DRCs) amid a tight labour market means that many businesses could be affected by the shortage of workers. As our economy restructures, it will have to explore different ways to increase productivity and to maximise their human capital. While the PIC and the SEC given by this year's Budget can help bring some relief, the Government can certainly do more to help our businesses increase their manpower capacity, at the same time, future-proof our workforce for the long-term.

In his Budget speech, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman suggested that to attract local workers, jobs could be better designed or redesigned with the worker in mind, that is, a worker-centric approach. Can we explore the idea of nurturing a healthy skills eco-system with job redesign for better skills deployment? There is, indeed, a chance, and this is an opportune time for us to develop a skills ecosystem, especially in our services sector where skills are more easily portable and transferable across industries and companies. For example, as part of Australia's Skills Ecosystem National Project, Queensland Community Services and Health Industry Training Council partnered two large not-for-profit healthcare service providers in a job redesign project to tackle labour and service quality in aged care. As a result of their collaboration, the jobs for allied health aides were redesigned to improve both their autonomy at work and career development opportunities.

The skills ecosystems approach helps create an environment where more accurate information on skills demand and supply can be easily communicated between the various stakeholders, and that facilitates a better matching of skill supply and skill demand. This way, we can better address the availability or development of skills as well as its application. For this to succeed, we need to harness the full capacity of Government, the industry and the community to open up new possibilities for skills, innovation and productivity. In her most recent Harvard Business Review article, "Enriching the Ecosystems", Rosabeth Moss Kanter suggested that enhanced linkages and collaborations between innovation, enterprises and jobs can bridge the gaps between business, academia and policy leaders. The resulting ecosystems will generate more ideas, start-ups, company growth, globally-competitive companies and, certainly, prosperity. A healthy skills ecosystem approach needs to be catalysed and nurtured by the Government no less, and not be left to market forces. There are strong reasons for the Government to play an active role in this. Potential benefits could be: (1) better alignment with economic restructuring; (2) support for both the workers as well as employers; (3) more efficient distribution of manpower resources; (4) ability to support job redesign through policies and interventions where needed; and (5) closer alignment with institutes of higher learning.

In addition, we need the Government's long-term view and objectives to be met in order to successfully future-proof our workforce. Due to the pressures of the bottom line, businesses are certainly prone towards meeting short-term aims versus the long-term investments needed in job redesign. Job redesign is certainly here to stay. Today's jobs are being challenged by tomorrow's demands, all too quickly. If we can maximise our manpower capacity and capabilities through clever work organisation and job redesign, we have a chance to re-create value, increase productivity, provide long-term employability and future-proof our workers for the better.

At first glance, these challenges may appear difficult, but if I can liken it to another exhibit in the Singapore Show by Ms Genevieve Chua, entitled "After the Flood", these mono-chromatic images of forests with hand-painted lush are actually photographs of Singapore's secondary tropical rainforests in Orchard Road. This is in Orchard Road. According to Ms Chua, her work explores the fear of the unknown and the fear of new narratives. It is very natural to be averse to uncertainty and changes, but beneath the new narratives or developments, is the strength of the forests and the foundation that we have built as a nation.

To future-proof our people, we need to develop new narratives – for the children with learning difficulties and our nation's workforce. The thriving rainforests that you have seen are here in our midst. If we can see and draw from the creative and regenerative strength, we can meet the challenges come what may - the people of Singapore, one nation, resilient, strong and tall. On this note, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Finance Minister for a Budget for the future. It is a Budget that makes real the dream that was unveiled by the Prime Minister two years ago when he spoke of an "inclusive" Budget. Spending public monies is not just to ensure economic growth, but growing together, and also growing in a qualitatively different way from what we had in the past. That was a Budget which stressed togetherness, the need for good, valuable work, for a dignified and fulfilling life, and also for substantial investment in our young.

This year's Budget continues in the same vein but very generously, as complimented by many Members in this House yesterday and this afternoon. It is so generous that it makes us feel as if we are living in one of those socialist welfare states, rather than in Singapore. Sir, many people said that this year's Budget is a Budget for the future but, I think, in many ways, it is also a Budget for the here and now. Here and now, we face the problems of the elderly, at the national as well as community level. Here and now, we face limitations of capacities, including transport and housing. Here and now, we have a new political landscape, where more want exceptions to be made, rules to be rubbery if not bent altogether, and we also want a collective decision. And we also want our own personal individual interest.

The first two problems appear to be a quite different sort from the last, which may be thought of as almost a purely political one. We all know that the Singapore Government has been fairly good at tackling policy, engineering type of problems. Give us a technical problem, with clear KPIs and a good team of professionals and we can turn out world beaters, for example, ERP for congestion, flats by the thousands, best airport, best seaport, etc. The political problem, however, appears to be the "one that is not like the others". Or is it?

For me, politics lies at the heart of all we do, and this Budget, to be truly a Budget for the future, must speak to the transformation of the political vision and climate of our country as well. When we speak of the future, we need to speak of change. And if we adopt a dialectic view, we would see that social conflict is the key driving force of social change. A society without conflict will be a society of fossils and die for the lack of change. For German philosopher Karl Marx, the capitalist society is one in which those who have capital exploit the working class. In 1848, Karl Marx points out that it is in the interest of those who exploit that society does not change.

I know I may be making some people uncomfortable by talking about this because conflict is not a nice word. And when we say "Marx" and "1848", the word "revolution" comes not far behind. These words are not those that give you a warm fuzzy feeling. They are not like "harmonious society" or "consensus building" or "collective interest" with "collegiate processes". Yet dialectic is what drives us forward. If we all agree, if we all have no new ideas, if we were all a homogeneous lump, then we will not have progress.

Before we go further, I thought I ought to make two clarifications. The first is that not all conflict is useful or productive. For example, opposition based on false ideas and scurrilous attacks is not only unproductive, but also counter-productive. The second is about the need for a new climate. The new climate needs to be one that tolerates robust views and debate, but it also needs to be one in which the marketplace of ideas quickly decides which ideas are valuable and which worthless and need to be discarded.

In this respect, I would like to cite a survey by American academics at the University of California at Berkeley. Over the years, these academics have seen an increase in self-admiration among young people, including feelings that they are "special" and better than other people. Dr Jean M Twenge and Mr W Keith Campbell wrote a book on this phenomenon and they called the book The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement. The book describes a movement that started with the best of intentions, an attempt to boost self-esteem, and ended with extreme self-admiration. It is partly the result of two or three generations of prosperity and well-meaning parents who want the best for their kids, telling them, "You are the best, you are special, you deserve the best, you will get all the support that you need to excel!" All these words sound familiar, do they not? And I believe many of us have heard doting parents saying these to their children.

But too much of this sort of parenting leads to what some call an "indigo generation" – a generation who has a higher sense of their own importance and also their place in the world. Dan Kindlon, the child psychologist writes, "Indigo children come into the world with a feeling of royalty, have difficulty with absolute authority, they simply will not do certain things. For example, waiting in line is difficult for them." These are Kindlon's words to describe the emerging phenomenon in America. More seriously, and more directly relevant to Singapore, this epidemic creates a sense of entitlement and encourages incivility.

Sir, Singapore is not America, but I would like us to be able to share the ability to look at ourselves as critically, honestly as they have done. I do not know if we, too, have a Narcissism epidemic here. But I do know that we feel entitled to many things. And quite rightly so. Peace and quiet in our homes, enjoyment of urban spaces, best schools for our children, prompt and helpful replies to our emails.

Sir, I agree, and that is the difficult thing. I agree that people are entitled to quiet homes and urban spaces and the best schools and prompt replies. I agree. But as a collective nation, how do we do this if, at the same time, we need to dig to build tunnels for new MRT lines, if we need space for eldercare homes, if we need to limit school places so that teachers will give their best attention, and if we reach the biological limits of human attention span?

More importantly, are there right answers anymore? If it comes to collective good and individual loss, what do we do? From an external point of view, a cool-headed and cold-blooded rationalist would say "the collective wins". That may have worked in the past, for the reasons of the past. But today, it may not work in the current and new atmosphere. And I again, agree. I agree that the collective should no longer ride roughshod over the individual, that we need to take more care, and that various assorted interests must be balanced sensitively and carefully. But how do we do all this?

First, let us continue to keep the discourse. Increasingly, in our public interactions, we see more anger and verbal aggressions. My colleagues who work at the frontline in the Civil Service, in schools and hospitals, tell me that they, too, are beginning to experience this. Second, I think with the future becoming more complex, and more demands being made on the collective resources we all own, such as land, air and space, we need increasing participation in the process of decision making.

Not just a crude adding up of numbers, or petitions, or referendums. What we need for the future is a group of leaders who share a view about the political process – and I hope this includes the current paradigm – that is of politics as a civil, informed and fair, righteous and honest way of making decisions.

In the words of French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre "an intellectual exists in order to draw attention to the principles of revolution". Member Dr Lam Pin Min talked to me yesterday about the word "revolution". So I told him I am going to talk about revolution today in my speech. Sir, revolution is not always about blood and tears; if the next empires are empires of the mind, then the sorts of revolutions that we have need to be mental as well. We need a change in how people, especially young people, think.

Sir, for too many young people, politics may be an alien territory. To many people, it is only during times of crises that politics becomes a noble calling. In times of peace, many among us would apply our energies to business, arts, our professions and our families. With the need for a new generation of politicians in mind, I believe it is time for us to consider a platform, either under Parliament or any other such suitable agency, to gather the minds of our youth. I have recently met my counterpart from Malaysia and he told me that his Ministry is looking into a Youth Parliament to engage young people, invite them to contribute ideas, involve them in policy deliberation process. I think this is something that warrants consideration. I know some of our educational institutions have organised mock Parliament for students to play the role of parliamentarians and, through the process, cultivate constructive political discourse and sensitise them towards the reality of life. But these efforts are ad hoc and not structured. More can be done by the Government in this area so that our youth, the future leaders, are not only academically well-tuned, but are also socially and politically in tune.

Sir, in my last Budget speech I began my speech with the "Dream Riders", about a group of seniors in their 60s and 70s who wanted to relive their youthful glories in their sunset years, on their motorbikes. This year, I want to end my speech with the "Dream Makers" – they are our Singapore young people. Our system is such that we create a world-class education to nurture our young. But we have not made a conscious effort to expose students to how our country is run, how the civil service functions, how policies are made. More importantly, how politics is played out in our system and in other countries. We simply leave all these to them thinking that with good education, they will figure out all these one day, and decide for themselves at the age of 21 at the ballot box. We simply leave all these to chance. But our youths are so vital to the country. Social and political reality tests are subjects in the world classroom. They ought to be given adequate exposure early.

Our youths are like the "Dream Makers" in their own right. They are the "Dream Makers" for Singapore and Singaporeans in the next 20 to 30 years when they are in charge of Singapore. Looking at the past, we see the old as the "Dream Riders" who still have much to live for. Looking to the future, we see the young chasing their dreams and creating some for us along the way. They are the future of Singapore. They are the purpose of this Budget! Hence, I urge the Government to give some more thoughts to our future "Dream Makers" while continuing to take care of yester-year's "Dream Riders". Mr Speaker, Sir, now allow me to continue my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 1553-1554 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2012 is a Budget for the future, just as Deputy Prime Minister Tharman emphasised, the Government's immediate task is to uplift and restructure the economy through improving our skills, creativity and productivity, so as to raise Singaporean's wages. Recently, the Budget is hotly discussed among all quarters and I have gathered a lot of feedback. Today, I want to focus on crisis mentality and "wealth does not last for three generations" in my Budget discussion.

Crisis mentality is about being forward-looking and having a sense of purpose, an awareness of adversity and accountability. It heightens our awareness towards adversities, and motivates us to overcome difficulties and take on challenges.

Forbes magazine recently published its ranking of the world's richest nations and Singapore ranked third, after Qatar and Luxembourg. Both Qatar and Luxembourg have an estimated per capita gross domestic product of over US$80,000 while Singapore's GDP per capita is US$56,694. This shows that Singapore has achieved great economic success within just over 40 years.

However, it is too early to celebrate. There is a Chinese saying that goes "wealth does not last for three generations". The complete phrase says if we pass on good values to our children, it will last 10 generations, and the next most enduring qualities are diligence and education, followed by literary knowledge and culture; however, if we only pass on wealth to our children, it will not last more than three generations.

This is quite common in real life too. The first generation are the builders – they are thrifty, hardworking and motivated to strive for success; the second generation are the keepers – they witnessed the hardship of their fathers and are deeply influenced to work hard and look for opportunities to expand. But the third and fourth generations are different. They grew up in very good conditions and seldom go through hardship. They are like flowers in a greenhouse and are inferior to their forefathers in terms of foresight, vision, ability to withstand stress and adversity quotient. It is not uncommon to see such examples in many family businesses.

As it is so in the business world, it is likewise among countries. Looking around the world today, it is not hard to find such examples. Greece, for one, is a good example. Other countries, like Japan or America, are going on a downward trend in the hands of their third and fourth generations after experiencing 40 to 50 years of prosperity. However, even a broken ship will contain some valuable materials, Japan and the US have strong foundations, as long as they are willing to endure hardships now, they would be able to make a comeback in a matter of years. Singapore, on the contrary, must be careful as any misstep would drive us into the deep end.

Since Independence, Singapore has entered the era of the second generation. My parents' generation had been working hard in this land since the 1940s. Their generation had created a miracle and brought Singapore from the third-world to the first-world in a matter of 30 years after our independence. I am considered a second generation Singaporean and, like others in my age group, we have worked hard to build the nation in the past 20 to 30 years. I am now in my 50s. In another 10 years' time, the third generation has to take over the baton to continue the race in this marathon that has no ending point. The third generation has to face more challenges and shoulder more responsibilities, thus they have more stress.

To break the curse of "wealth does not last for three generations", besides nurturing the spirit of progress, innovation and overcoming oneself in our youths, they need a crisis mentality and not take what we have today for granted. To have a sense of preparedness even in good times as people tend to let down their guard when things go well and dangers often lures when one is unprepared.

Since last year's General Election, all quarters focused on bread-and-butter issues and the Government has also put in efforts on all fronts and adjusted policies to fulfil the people's wishes. However, I want to stress that a Government needs to draw a balance between short-term and long-term interests. If it only focuses on immediate interests at the expense of long-term interests, there will come a time where it can no longer turn the situation around. Just as it is said in the Analects, he who is not farsighted is bound to encounter problems in the near future.

For the better of Singapore's future, I think there is a need to pass an effective mechanism to ensure that our younger generation can express their views on national issues and give suggestions for its long-term development. They need to broaden their perspective and be far-sighted to look beyond immediate needs. I suggest setting up a youth parliament to create a platform for young people to air their views – besides economic development, it should also pay attention to ideologies and social culture. While it fulfils young people's desire of participating in social management through vibrant discussions, it should also strengthen social cohesion and sense of commitment.

Fan Zhongyan, a prime minister in the Song Dynasty, once said that the interest of one's nation and people should be put before oneself. Indeed, the noblemen in ancient China had such heart for their country, I believe there are also such noblemen among our young people. Therefore, we should give them the opportunity to express their passion, talent and creativity in national matters and this would be beneficial to our country.

In conclusion, I want to borrow a quote from Mao Zedong to express my hopes for the third generation who are running the next lap of the race: for truly great men, look at this generation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to clarify my speech because I made an error in the figure that I have used.

Yes, please.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, I mentioned an S-Pass figure, instead of the employment figure on the second part of the comparison. I want to correct it now but it does not affect the point I made in my speech. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 1555 for Vernacular Speeches.] Sir, earlier in my speech, I said that in 2011, we had approved 176,000 Employment Pass applications, and compared to the 113,000 Employment Pass applications approved in 2010, that is a 63,000 increase in the number of Employment Passes approved. The figure in the second half of the sentence is wrong. It refers to the S-Pass numbers. I am sorry that I have misread. The correct figure should be: in 2011, the Government approved 176,000 Employment Pass applications as compared to 142,000 Employment Pass applications approved in 2010. That is an increase of 34,000 in the number of Employment Passes approved.

Mr Speaker, like many of my Parliamentary colleagues who spoke before me, I am glad that Budget 2012 continues and expands upon this Government's policies that address the needs of the vulnerable in society – the elderly, especially older workers; the disabled and the poor. This reflects the values that are central to a compassionate society and a fair and inclusive Government. Longer term challenges in society, such as the ageing population, education, healthcare and reducing the income gap for low-income families, are also addressed. I believe these measures will serve us well for building an inclusive and stronger Singapore.

There has been a lot of thought and discussion about whether this Budget represents a fundamental shift in the philosophy and ideology of government. The question as to whether this signifies a "shift to the left" has been brought up. Our Government has generally considered itself as taking a centrist approach, reaching out to all citizens, but the external perception of both the party and the majority of our society has been that we are moderately conservative and pragmatic. People assume we swing to the right because of our macro-economic policies. However, in truth, we have adopted a mixed stance depending on the needs of our nation. There are many examples where our social policies have been developed from leftist ideas that were appropriate for our society, especially in helping the most vulnerable.

One of the new policies, it is now argued that demonstrates a shift to the left, is the announcement that the Government will be spending $1.1 billion on buses. This sum needs to cover more than just the cost of buying the buses, and will need to take into account the manpower and operating costs associated with the expanded fleet.

Sir, does the Finance Minister see this as representing a shift towards the left, where transport companies are being further subsidised by the Government? The overall approach of our public transport system has been to incentivise private companies to make a profit within a tightly regulated market. As private entities, should it not be the responsibility of the companies to manage their operating and manpower costs? Why is there a need for the Government to fund publicly-listed companies, such as SMRT and SBS Transit, which, at the end of the day, are accountable to their shareholders? Can the public be assured that the funds will go to benefit the citizens and not the shareholders? How will the Government measure the return on this investment in terms of buses and support of operating costs?

How far will we go in providing Government and public support to private transport operators? If the taxi industry suffers, will the Government provide funding for it as well? What will happen in the future as our MRT network expands in rail length and cross-connectivity? There had previously been a push to rationalise some bus services, especially closer towards a hub and spoke model, so as to move ridership to the MRTs. If the bus companies are already struggling now, what will happen with the increased competition from the MRT and further manpower shortages in five or 10 years from now? Will the Government then 'bail out' the public transport operators? If the ridership of the bus companies falls over 15 years, might the projected planned investment in this year's Budget in buses possibly be used to defray some of the costs of replacing the existing fleet rather than lead to a genuine expansion? Is this just the start of a creeping nationalisation? If so, why not just nationalise properly and reap the full benefits, instead of suffering the worst of both worlds?

Sir, some of the factors in support of the nationalisation of public transport are that it can potentially bring about lower fares and better performances in terms of availability. Factors that argue strongly against it include a greater inefficiency, a dependent mindset amongst transport operators, and that it is very, very expensive both in the first instance and in terms of ongoing expenditure. However, Sir, if we consider this to be a public good, might we not accept some degree of inefficiency as a fair price to pay for the continued provision of an essential service? If there is always going to be a bus service available for the citizens, sometimes a particular bus will operate at sub-optimal efficiency. This occurs anyway, currently, as a result of the constraints on service imposed upon the public transport operators.

Absent of any real competition, with no real consumer choice, can we be sure that the current model is in reality driving maximal efficiency? In considering the argument against complete nationalisation, we should not forget to factor in the ongoing cost of operating LTA as a surrogate for the effect of market forces in controlling our public transport operators.

Despite the significant increase in cost, there are successful models of nationalised public transport systems, such as Taipei. If one were to broaden the definition of successful, and accept a significant degree of ongoing expenditure, one could include an example, such as London, where all public transport, including cycling and walking, has been brought under the aegis of a single body, Transport for London. This has enabled a transitional approach to transport strategy, where citizens are not seen as being either drivers, or cyclists, rail commuters or pedestrians, and being potential consumers that the different modalities and the providers need to compete for. But, rather, recognising that any given individual can be all those at different times, and the correct public transport infrastructure strategy can encourage a driver to become a passenger, a passenger to become a cyclist or a pedestrian. And in this model, instead of worrying about competition between and within a transport modality, this body has allowed a broader approach to be applied. This offloads the public transport systems where possible and results in a whole host of other external benefits. Can we take a lesson from London?

If, on the other hand, nationalisation is too expensive and too inefficient, then why not just privatise properly? Sir, if we look at our transport operators, can we even think of them as being privatised? Yes, they are responsible to shareholders and yes they can make significant profits, but both SMRT and SBS Transit have posted operating losses mostly due to increases in staff and fuel costs. Last year, both companies submitted applications to the Public Transport Council (PTC) for total bus and rail fares to be raised by 2.8%. But instead, the PTC only approved an increase of 1%. If they were both truly private entities, they would both be able to respond based on market demand. If a service was undersubscribed or unprofitable, they can cease to offer it, thus releasing resources and assets for use where they were needed. So while our public transport operators are private entities, they operate under significant constraints and burdens that reduce their flexibility and their ability to optimise operations in response to market forces. There are examples of privatised transport systems where the public transport operators are encouraged and allowed to generate significant revenue from other sources, such as retail outlets and advertising, and thus cross subsidise fares. For this to work at maximal efficiency, a significant deregulation of our market would be needed, allowing true competition and true consumer choice.

We are neither properly privatised nor adequately nationalised. In the past, this hybridised model has been held up as an exemplar of what was possible with good governance. Sir, it may represent the best of both worlds, but has recently been interpreted as the worst of both models. Can the House and the public be assured that this hybridisation continues to be the best way forward for Singapore?

Sir, despite my comments and criticisms, I remain a fan of our public transport system. I took my boys to school on a public bus this morning. I then took another to KK Hospital and I came to Parliament on the bus Number 166. All three services arrived on time. The duration of journey was as predicted on my iPhone. Most of the time, there are seats available on these services, and usually I get to read quite a few of my emails. At the end of today's sitting, I will walk over to Clarke Quay Station, and take the North-East Line, and 25 minutes later I will be in my constituency in Punggol. Our system does its job and does it well. It is safe, clean, and reliable. I agree that it has its faults and its problems, and any enterprise can always be improved. One area that I feel needs further consideration and development is that of "last mile" connectivity. Rather than just assuming that when the network is eventually dense enough, people will be happy to cycle or walk to the nearest MRT station. We need to work proactively at changing and encouraging this mindset. We need to examine footpaths, cycling facilities, lighting, access ramps and the location of amenities, with as much attention to detail as we can, as it is often these factors that alter the choice of the individual, where a choice is possible. I believe our current public transport system is one of the most efficient, reliable and pleasant in the world, and I benefit from it on a daily basis. I look forward to its continued growth and development. Nevertheless, we have to consider deeply where we want to go from here. What is the impact of the decision to invest $1.1 billion in the bus companies? Is it a significant shift and does it reflect the start of a fundamental change?

Sir, in moving to the Budget as a whole, I would like to consider how our values as a society are reflected within it. No doubt, the primacy of honouring and respecting our elders is reflected in many aspects that support seniors, assist in their healthcare and help them to maintain their homes, independence and their dignity for as long as possible. Along the political spectrum, is this an idea from the right or the left? I would suggest that in our cultural context, in our story of our nation, it transcends political ideology and is very much part of our cultural DNA. On the other hand, the subsidies and transfers that go towards assisting and funding the education of the lower income families surely derive from the language of the left. In our philosophy and in our policies, we articulate clearly that the education and opportunity presented to our children cannot be left to unchecked market forces, for fear that equality of opportunity and social mobility will be rapidly eroded. This drive to ensure social mobility and equal education speaks to a social desire for a more egalitarian society, something which has long been at the heart of many Government policies.

Yet, the other end of the political spectrum is not without representation in our Budget. The importance placed on self-reliance and one's own family as the first line of support borrows heavily from the language of the right. The primacy of employment and the link between the provision of financial assistance and continuing to remain employed, exemplified by the Workfare policies, speaks to our belief that incentives should drive us to work hard and benefit from our own hard work. Coupled with our low taxation, this has made us a dynamic and responsive economy.

Sir, over the next few days, my parliamentary colleagues and I will speak repeatedly on what are euphemistically known as "cuts". Very few, if any, of us will be asking for a cut in expenditure, more likely the opposite. In a time of global economic uncertainty, where parliamentarians in other nations, First World or otherwise, are arguing over which austerity measures to effect, which reductions in spending to push through and which increases in revenue to risk, we are instead going to debate how best to increase our expenditure. How fortunate a position to be in? How remarkable that we have the luxury to ask and ask and ask for more? But one question I would like to ask is: what is at the heart of our values? What in the Budget do we feel about so strongly that it defines us and the ideology of our society? What are the choices we make that can help illustrate our beliefs? There are indeed many things we need to spend on. But there are also things that we choose to spend on, and sometimes we do not even see it as a choice, but simply as a given, part of the backdrop, because we believe them to be non-negotiable, when, in truth, they are. If we examine these choices, we can begin to better define ourselves.

Sir, I would like to suggest four candidates for these choices. First, we must continue to support the elderly and vulnerable within our society. To do so speaks neither to the left nor the right, but to our humanity and our culture. Secondly, we should protect the subsidies and transfers that allow children from low-income families to pursue their education and their dreams. For if we choose to remove that, that would be to deny the dream of social mobility and progress that is at the heart of our nation's narrative. This is an idea from the left, and it is a good one. Third, we should keep central the idea that keeping people in work and allowing them to enjoy the benefits of their hard work drives our progress and prosperity. This is a philosophy from the right that results in low taxation and a link between work and assistance. It has worked well for us and we should continue to choose to implement.

Sir, I have suggested one idea from the left, one from the right, and one that transcends political ideology as being at the core of the values that we should choose to see reflected in our Budget. The fourth and last idea is that of a balanced Budget. Many nations, First World or otherwise, are unable to achieve; some do not even feel they should try. Nevertheless, for us, it is a cornerstone of our Budget. A remarkable feat that has been quietly repeated year on year on year, but receives very little commentary – quite understandably because the headline, "Finance Minister delivers yet another Balanced Budget" is not going to sell many newspapers. But it is a remarkable feat for any nation. Where along the political spectrum does this lie? It is an idea supported both by the Government and clearly by the Opposition. There are nations of varying ideologies that fail to manage this, and, those that do, represent a wide spectrum of philosophies.

To my mind, it is almost more fundamental than a political ideology. It is more like the advice you get from your mother, "spend within your means". Fiscal prudence – good advice for an individual, good advice for a household, good advice for a nation. This fundamental part of our policy approach should be given more prominence. Its importance in getting us to this point in our nation's story cannot be over-emphasised. We spend within our means.

Fiscal prudence – choosing it as a fundamental principle imposes a certain discipline, discipline on thought, discipline on our communications, and discipline on our actions. Fiscal prudence ensures that we do not act only in our own narrow interests and trap our children in debt. Fiscal prudence means when we ask for something it makes us confront the question: "Are we prepared to pay for this?" We spend within our means. We believe firmly in fiscal prudence.

Sir, taken as a whole, I do not believe that this Budget reflects a fundamental shift in our philosophy or ideology. It reflects our willingness to take the best ideas from the right and the left, and add some that are uniquely Singaporean. Sir, despite significant insightful generosity and many areas with increased expenditure, this is a balanced Budget. A Budget for our future, a Budget for Singapore, a Budget for all of us. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, the initiatives in Budget 2012 demonstrate a shift in the Government's mindset in providing much needed support for our low-income workers, senior citizens and people with disabilities. I commend the Government on this shift in the right direction. While we need to grow our economy, we also need to ensure a fairer distribution of our nation's prosperity.

Sir, it has been said that "SMEs are the lubricant of Singapore's economy, without which, Singapore's economy may not survive". There are about 150,000 SMEs in Singapore, making up 99% of all enterprises. They contribute to about half of Singapore's GDP and employ about 60% of the workforce. Clearly, the SME sector is critical in our drive towards higher productivity and real wage growth. We must do all we can to uplift the SMEs as we restructure our economy. This Budget provides some support for SMEs, and I believe more can be done.

One area often cited as a major challenge facing SMEs is that of manpower, especially skilled manpower. The growth of successful SMEs is often constrained by their ability to attract more capable and talented Singaporeans to work for them. Many successful SMEs pay competitive salaries and offer exciting career prospects, yet they often get overlooked as graduates make a beeline to jobs in MNCs and the Civil Service.

Our Government scholarship system has been successful in bringing in and retaining many bright, young Singaporeans in the public sector. I would like to propose the introduction of an SME scholarship programme to help bring more talent into SMEs. The Government could work in collaboration with business federations and SME associations to create and administer this programme, which should be done on a cost-sharing basis. Promising SMEs could then be given funding to award scholarships to top JC and Polytechnic students who, upon graduation, will return to work for them for a minimum number of years, and hopefully stay longer to grow the business further.

I am glad that this Budget has made it easier for companies to claim Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) benefits on their in-house training costs, by removing the requirement to have these training programmes certified by WDA or ITE. I would urge the Government to take a step further and provide more funding for On-the-Job Training (OJT). OJT is recognised as one of the most effective forms of training, especially for those in vocational work. There should be greater government funding for companies to provide structured OJT programmes for their workers and new hires. This could include payroll subsidies and more funding for OJT supervisor training. Boosting OJT subsidies could help companies overcome their resistance to hiring Singaporean workers who may lack the necessary skills and experience. In addition, workers do not need to miss work in order to attend training.

Sir, I would like to now share some thoughts on the social development initiatives in the Budget. The Government has always warned that we must avoid the path of excessive social spending, which could result in crippling public debts. While I share the Government's concern about uncontrolled spending or unsustainable social entitlements, this should not be a convenient excuse to hold back much needed social investments. Income inequality in Singapore is already among the highest in the developed world. There is much research that has pointed to the detrimental effects that income inequality could have on a society, including reduced social mobility, higher crime rates and increased social tension.

There is a pressing need to reform our social compact to not just contain, but reduce income inequality. We also have a moral obligation to provide more help to our elderly citizens, who built this nation to what we enjoy now. I affirm the Budget's focus towards countering the adverse implications of our growing income gap. The Silver Housing Bonus is a good attempt to help increase the retirement incomes of the elderly. However, I believe the Bonus would be more attractive if the elderly received a greater portion of the proceeds from the sale of their previous flats in cash, rather than having most of it returned to their CPF accounts.

In the example that the Finance Minister gave in his speech, the elderly couple receives only $23,000 in cash, or about 9% of their net proceeds from the sale of their flat, even after the Silver Housing Bonus. This is because, to benefit from the Silver Housing Bonus, flat owners must use the cash proceeds from the sale of their previous flat to top up their CPF Retirement Accounts to the Minimum Sum. I propose that they be allowed to pledge the value of their new studio apartment towards meeting up to half of the Minimum Sum. This will allow them to get more cash after the sale of their previous flat.

Since they will still be meeting their Minimum Sum, there is no need to apportion $5,000 from the Silver Housing Bonus to their CPF Retirement Accounts. The full $20,000 Silver Housing Bonus could be given to them in cash. While a larger Retirement Account may get them more per month in CPF LIFE annuity pay-outs, many senior citizens may have more immediate needs for cash, for example, to pay their medical bills. Why not give them this option to have more cash on hand? If they want higher annuity pay-outs, they can always voluntarily top up their CPF Retirement Accounts. In any case, most elderly folks prefer to remain in their current homes, rather than get displaced to unfamiliar surroundings in their old age.

To give the elderly more choices, the Lease Buyback Scheme should be extended to owners of 4-room or larger flats, just like the Silver Housing Bonus. Currently, only owners of 3-room or smaller flats are eligible. This could be a reason for the low take-up rate. An enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme will enable more of our elderly to age in place, and to live their golden years in familiar surroundings, without having to worry too much about finances.

Sir, moving on to eldercare, I think many families will welcome the additional grant for hiring foreign maids to help them care for infirm elderly parents. This grant adds to the existing concession for households with elderly persons. But instead of all these grants and concessions, I suggest completely doing away with the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy for these families, so as to provide further relief for them and simplify administration.

Extending the maximum MediShield coverage age from 85 to 90 years old is a move in the right direction. However, would the Government consider removing the age limit completely? There are only about 9,000 Singaporeans aged above 90. Many of them would have outlived their own spouses, siblings or children, and may have no immediate relatives to care for them. We should do all we can to help this small group of seniors who have worked tirelessly to build up Singapore to what it is today, instead of pulling the rug from under their feet when they need it the most. There are several other MediShield enhancements that I believe should be made, while still keeping the insurance scheme solvent. I will share these during the Committee of Supply (COS) debate.

I agree with the Finance Minister that the GST is a regressive tax. The GST Voucher Scheme moderates this impact, although the policy falls short of supporting many more in need. The Voucher offsets the GST payments of only half of retiree households. Younger, low-income families also do not get their full GST payments back. To achieve its aim, GST Vouchers should cover all HDB households whose incomes are within the bottom 20%. The GST Voucher values must also rise over time to keep pace with inflation.

The Budget announced the increase in CPF contribution rates for older workers. But increasing the employee contribution rates in fact reduces workers' take-home pay. Since the Government is providing an 8% Special Employment Credit (SEC) to companies for employing older workers, the increase in CPF contributions should come entirely from employers, not employees.

Mr Speaker, this Budget has provided more childcare support to lower income families, which is something I welcome. However, many young, middle income families still struggle to pay well over $1,000 each month for childcare, even after subsidies. Those of us with young children would agree that childcare costs are one of the most significant expenses for families. I urge the Government to provide more childcare subsidies for middle-income earners, as this would not only lighten their burden, but may make them consider having more children.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to share some thoughts on the poignant video that the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister screened at the end of his Budget speech. Tears welled up in my eyes when the little girl from a low-income family shared her dream of buying a house for her parents when she grew up. While I admire her love for her parents, it pains me to think that given our widening income gap, increasing high inflation, and slowing social mobility, many little children like her will find it hard to afford an HDB flat of their own, much less a house for their parents.

We have a responsibility, as Members of this House, to do all we can to speak up for these young ones, to enable them to fulfil their dreams and build a better life for themselves, their children and their parents. This is what the Budget of the Future should be all about. We can do more. We must do more. Mr Speaker, I support the motion.

Yes, Mr Ang Hin Kee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to clarify some comments made by the hon Mr Gerald Giam. Is there any particular SME sector which he is alluding to concerning their manpower plight, and whether has he engaged the specific associations or the SME clusters that gave him the particular insight that OJT is the preferred solution over other options?

Mr Speaker, I did not say that OJT is the preferred solution. I said that OJT is a solution that will benefit SMEs significantly and we should give more funding and support for OJT so that they can have the option to be able to use OJT in order to train their manpower, train their workers, who may not be skilled at the time that they take on the job. Sir, I believe that this will help to hire Singaporean workers who are able to join the company even though they may not have the full skills-set. So, while they are doing OJT, they can pick up the skills and this will make Singaporean workers a bit more employable.

Well, I suppose, therefore, then what he alluded to is his opinion, and my question was really did this insight come from his reading, his views or his interactions with industry associations or with clusters of SMEs?

Mr Speaker, my insights came from various sources, including research on my own.

Dr Janil Puthucheary.

Mr Speaker, I have a question for the hon Mr Gerald Giam. He suggested that my children will find it harder to support me and buy me a home should I need it. I would like to know if this is on the basis of data that he is aware of or is it a speculation on his part.

I think the evidence out there is self-evident in many ways that there are many families who find it hard to keep up with the pace of life, keep up with the cost of living in Singapore, and it is not a stretch of imagination to say that many children would find it difficult to afford houses for their parents.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Gerald Giam for his concern for our workers, but may I suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that he should also look at some of the programmes for our workers, particularly the Place-to-Train programme where the jobs are first found and then, we train the workers and place them. That has been very successful.

Mr Speaker, perhaps I was not so clear. I was asking if it was evidence or speculation. And Mr Giam, in his reply to my request for clarification suggested that it was both – that he has some evidence and that he was imagining from that evidence, a situation he painted in his speech. I would just like to ask if there is evidence – which he feels is self-evident but it is not evident to me – could he share that evidence with us?

Mr Speaker, there is a body of research that is being conducted on the concept of slowing social mobility in Singapore. Even the Ministry of Finance, as one of the Members earlier said, has mentioned that this generation would find it a bit more difficult than the previous generation to move up.

Dr Lily Neo.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the motion raised by the Minister for Finance, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam. Sir, this year's Budget is one that is well thought out, timely, prudent and yet responsive to many pressing social needs. I concur with the hon Member, Dr Janil Puthucheary who said earlier that this is a balanced Budget and we can be sure that the Singapore Government will not spend beyond its means. I consider this Budget to be one that responded best to the pet concerns of my 15-year tenure. I like the caring component of this Budget that addresses the plight of our vulnerable groups in our society.

The title of this year's Budget is "An Inclusive Society and a Stronger Singapore". Today, I would like to start my speech on an inclusive society in relation to policy making. All these years, our policies have displayed strengths in operational excellence and effective outcome, the success of which had been the envy of many countries, especially those policies that steered Singapore out of storms, the global financial crises, SARS, the Asian Financial Crisis and so on. We have been very successful in anticipating problems and solving them. My question is whether we could have done better in the implementation of population policy recently; in relation to anticipating the impending stress on the locals, and on all the infrastructure demand resulting from such policies. My next question is whether it is worthwhile and timely to modify our policy-making model. Policy making that not only emphasises the technical, on what is feasible or unfeasible, but also on political constraint.

I feel that we need to make adjustment on our policy making that caters to the sophistication of today's populace. The rational model of policy making may be more suitable than the incremental model. The rational model explores all alternatives and looks at the consequences of each alternative strategy and calculation of the probability of these occurrences. The incremental model gives analysis to a few somewhat familiar policy alternatives differing only marginally from the status quo; it gives greater analytical preoccupation with side effects to be remedied later, featuring sequence of trial, oversights and revised trials.

We all know that public policy must be multi-disciplinary. This means that policies produced should be inter-crossed among fields, such as MOF, MOH, MCYS, MOT and so on. Often, policies made by one Ministry can be synergised with other Ministries to minimise duplication of efforts and for a better outcome. Sir, is this practice being exercised in earnest in our Ministries, are avenues in place to strengthen this approach in policy making among our Ministries, from formulation stage to implementation stage?

Better skills on interpersonal nuances that help connect better with the end users are an important tool. It will bridge the feedback stage to get better inputs during the formulation stage, and it gets acceptance from the communities during the implementation stage, the latter is especially so, if the policy has bitter after-taste that requires tolerance from those affected. This approach begets the question whether our present feedback system is robust enough, and whether our service-centric culture is efficient. As we grapple with increasingly complex issues, compelling various differing sections of society and higher expectations of the masses, there is a need for more options on the importance of being in touch on the ground in policy making. Most times, even the most "bitter pill" can be made more palatable with better communication and explanation.

My second topic is on a fair and inclusive society. I applaud Finance Minister's important move on stepping up social policy. One of the key challenges in this area is inequality. I concur with the Finance Minister when he said that the widening income gap would not go away soon. Singapore's open nature economy and globalisation have played a key part in creating income disparity here. In recent years, strong adaptations to the tax structure and Government's manpower policies towards attracting foreign talent have further intensified the problem.

My main concern for the lowest income group is that they are not earning enough to cope with rising costs. They are stuck in poverty and struggling and, thus, if left on their own, they will deteriorate further. It is reassuring to hear from the Finance Minister that "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".

The new permanent GST Voucher Scheme to offset 7% GST will lessen the difficulty of the lower income Singaporeans. But I am surprised that, this time, the cash component is not tied to work, unlike the Government's usual past practices of promoting self-reliance.

Singapore households were better off last year in household income. But according to the Singapore Workforce 2010 report, some 400,000 workers or 20% of the resident workforce earn $1,200 or less in a month. In the past decade, the bottom 20% of households by income have had to increase their spending. In 2007 to 2008, this bottom 20% consisted of 218,280 households. In 1997 and 1998, the Average Monthly Household Expenditure (AMHE) of this lowest 20% of households was $1,693. This figure increased to $1,760 in 2007 and 2008. This group had to spend more, the income of these households could not cover all their expenditure and they were thus in financial hardship.

I did a survey with 111 residents staying in HDB rental flats in my constituency. The average income per household for these families is $783 per month, but the average expenditure per household on basics is $903 per month. Those with children need to spend an average of $66 per month for each child. This survey showed per capita deficit of $81 per month for these households. The average household that I surveyed has four members but in Singapore the average household has 3.5 members.

Workforce Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme plays a significant role in lowering income inequity; kudos must go to our Government for launching WIS in 2008. Therefore, WIS should be adopted as a permanent scheme. More importantly, WIS should be reviewed yearly to ensure that pay-outs could be meaningful enough to prevent the lowest income households falling into poverty. About 300,000 low-wage workers received about $300,000 in WIS each year. This works out to an average of about $1,000 per year or about $83 per month. I suggest yearly review based on average Monthly Household Expenditure (AMHE) of this lowest 20% of households. May I beseech the Finance Minister to tweak WIS to make it truly meaningful assistance for low-wage workers? From my own calculations, those who earn about $1,200 per month will need at least twice the average presently given WIS allocation despite GST vouchers.

On social mobility, I am so glad to receive reassurance from the Finance Minister when he said, "We have to do everything we can to keep up social mobility in each generation, and prevent a permanent underclass from forming in our society". I support the two main solutions: high quality education for the children and upgrading of the skills for parents. Parents of young children of low-income and disadvantaged families need special intervention to improve their predicament and to give this group an early start with more resources, such as those mentioned in the Budget statement: pre-school subsidies, MOE financial assistance scheme, student care assistance.

May I suggest setting up a permanent system approach for a comprehensive community social mobility strategy; a system to facilitate identifying these families, tailoring the assistance to individual family's needs, monitoring progress and following up on a long-term basis for their children? This set-up is for the purpose of good take-up rate and to improve the long-term outcome of such families through hands-on intervention and follow-up. This will help these parents plan a better life for themselves and for their children and to increase their children's educational attainment. Social workers can be assigned to each family to look into the varying needs, such as pre-school education, after-school care, financial issues, parenting support, nurturing home environment, student care, secondary school education and so on. Early identification of such families with young children, similar to identifying children who missed going to schools, should be adopted. Work-related participation requirements might be part of a broader goal to improve long-term outcomes for entire families, such as job training and skill upgrading for both parents.

Lastly, Sir, I am very passionate about helping the growing numbers of older Singaporeans to live comfortably. I am impressed by the slew of measures aimed at achieving this goal and I totally agree with these strategies. More subsidies for firms to hire older Singaporeans will tap an available valuable resource, especially in a tight market, to join the workforce, benefiting businesses and the economy. More importantly, occupation is a good way to keep older Singaporeans physically and mentally fit and healthy. This aptly applies to the common saying "use it or lose it".

Many older Singaporeans are deficient in funds for retirement. This worries many older Singaporeans, especially those who do not have other means of support. The Silver Housing Bonus and the Enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme will give peace of mind to this group, having the assurance that they can now use their assets for revenues to see them through retirement. May I ask the Minister for Finance whether he can consider lowering the CPF lock-up for older residents, especially those aged 65 years and above, in order to make more funds available for them for their daily living?

More affordable long-term care for patients is a necessary step in our ageing population with an increasing dependency ratio. Such assistance in step-down care makes good economic sense, as it will lessen the reliance on expensive institutions, such as hospitals. With $8 billion spending over the next five years, hopefully, home care, another type of step-down care, which is non-existent presently, to enable the sick elderly to be cared for at home, will be prioritised by the Ministry of Health to become a reality.

Elderly-friendly features, schemes for home safety features and maid grant are good measures to prevent fall, injury and admission to hospitals. These schemes enable the elderly to stay independently for as long as possible in their own homes and are indeed ideal for the people as well as the State. On that note, Sir, I support the Budget.

Sir, may I have your permission to distribute a diagram?

Yes, please.

Thank you. [Copies of diagram distributed to hon Members.]

Sir, what is Singapore Inc? No, it does not refer to Singapore Incorporated. With Budget 2012, our terms of reference have changed. Singapore Inc 2.0 stands for Singapore INClusive. In Singapore Inc 2.0, the economy remains our basic building block. But real progress is in building an inclusive society, a stronger Singapore. So, three cheers to the Minister for Finance and the Civil Service for a conscientious Budget.

In this speech, I would like to give some Budget feedback, suggest a new Singapore Inc balance sheet framework for us to think about things, and also offer three critical innovation strategies.

On Budget feedback – first, social. Sir, Budget feedback has been largely positive. Many praised the efforts to address retirement adequacy, healthcare, education, demographic concerns and rising social deficits. Singaporeans warmly welcomed steps to bridge income gaps, reinstate older workers' CPF rates, make permanent GST vouchers, higher wages for social and healthcare workers, and also welcomed specific steps to upgrade and employ the seniors, the disabled and needy Singaporeans. But the Budget is not all a bed of roses. The business sector felt thorned by the measures to tighten foreign workers. We want to reduce our reliance on foreign workers, but SMEs struggle with cost concerns. Many employers I spoke to acknowledged that there are too many foreigners. But when asked whether they would employ Singaporeans, they said, "Unlikely, because it costs more and Singaporeans do not want to do the job!" Further, many SMEs feel choked by rising rentals, especially those who are in the REITs property. This has been spoken about by many of the Members here. And it makes me wonder: have we not learnt from the global financial meltdown? Real businesses should be better prioritised against rent-maximising financial instruments. There are 160,000 SMEs that contribute about half of our GDP and employ more than half of our workforce. With negative headwinds in sight, businesses face triple whammies. SMEs do need some more help to get fitter. So I see the foreign-worker tightening measure as a form of an overdue business diet plan. We want fitter, not fatter companies. We want lean and mean productivity, not borrowed cheap labour. Health brings wealth. But how to fast and eat less overnight and with no pain? It is not possible. Old habits do die hard.

But the good news is that the Minister for Finance is allowing time and also giving out vitamins and supplements to give companies the energy boost while achieving their fitness goals. Carrots, like SME grants, the Special Employment Credit, PIC, all of these, far outweigh the stick of tighter foreign-worker measure. The public purse is being used to help employers "do the right things", and I think businesses should take heed.

Sir, Budget 2012 has many messages that are worth spreading, and there are many real deliverables that we can cheer about. But we need to be able to communicate these to the ground and also to the businesses alike. We need to do much more to spread these messages.

Sir, on shifting paradigms, at the IPS' Singapore Perspective 2012 Conference, the Minister for Finance, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, remarked, "As we take further steps to build an inclusive society, we must be able to sustain what we do financially and not store up problems for the future." Indeed, we are custodians of our future. It is easy to call for more cash upfront, more handouts, more, more, more. But we also have to remember that if we are careless and populist in our approach, then what do we tell our children? The eyes of the future look back at us, hoping we see them now. For this reason, I wish the Budget can go further in advocating bold transformational systemic change to address looming socio-economic challenges.

Let me offer a framework to think about this. As Singapore Inc transforms, our national balance sheet may look something like this − if I could refer Members to the handout that has just been given out. Note that this is a simplified version for discussion purposes, but it offers a sufficient peek into Singapore's position amidst changing times. On the left hand side, you will see that those are our assets. Assets are, of course, our revenue generators and they comprise human capital, economic capital, natural capital and infrastructural capital. On the right hand side, normally called "liabilities" that requires paying up, we have social obligations or social deficits which this Budget seeks to address quite a lot of them, and they include things like social inclusion of an ageing population, the poor, the disadvantaged; social cohesion, that of our social fabric; social disconnect of a transactional urban city environment; and social justice, especially in the midst of globalisation and the spread of Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street movements. Last but not least, we have equity, which are existing financial and social resources that help us to weather rainy days. And we saw this financial equity prowess during the recent financial crisis. It gives us the resources to keep business running, invest in training and keep life as normal as possible. It gives us great comfort and confidence. Then, there is also this layer on social equity which, in fact, if you remember, saved our nation from tearing apart during the SARS scare and 911. Without them, Singapore could be a very different place today.

Currently, our balance sheet looks good. We are in a healthy equity position, with robust assets that ranked top in the world, and social deficits that are somewhat bearable. However, it is not time to party. Not just yet. If we project this sheet into the year 2030, with ageing demography and low fertility, what would it look like? We call ourselves "a city in a garden". Indeed, our present condition looks like a flower, smells like a flower, blooms like a flower, but will also wither like a flower, if we do not provide a counterweight to market failures and externalities associated with growth. It is well documented that, ironically, wealthier urban tribes suffer from higher social deficits. Corollary, the complexity and demand for public goods also increase. The problem is that the market system has no incentive to supply such public goods. So, how can we meet the demand for such rising obligations? Sir, I think the answer lies in system thinking; the answer lies in us. In Chinese, we say: “万事皆人为”.

First, we need all hands on deck, from the top to the bottom of society, to form a new alliance of responsibility, a new high-trust, high-touch social compact. In a fast-moving urban city, no one can be a free rider. We need a hand-up paradigm to build national resilience, not handouts to build dependency. This is conscious compassion.

Second, the people sector has to increase productivity levels and aggressively expand to meet the rising social deficits.

Third, the private sector must take care of the needs of stakeholders, not just shareholders. It must create sufficient economic profits and social dividends for the common good.

Fourth, the public sector is, in fact, the systems thinker who sets the direction, the rules of the game, an incentive framework to form an inclusive, sustainable and stronger Singapore. Perhaps the question then is: how do we get started? Here, I boldly suggest three game-changing innovation strategies to the Government. They are: (1) public policy innovation; (2) service innovation; and (3) social innovation.

On public policy innovation, remember that the Government provides the incentive framework that shapes business behaviour. So, instead of working in silos, that means having one set of policies that is completely pro-business, another set to collect revenue and yet another set to fund public goods, why not have a holistic approach of crafting policies that reward good business behaviour and scale socially responsible enterprises? Go further: why not design the financial system to invest in a fairer and more sustainable economy that produces real goods and real jobs for the masses rather than maximising short-term financial gains for the few? Go even further: why not craft procurement policies that generate demand for socially responsible businesses and social enterprises? This will result in billions of dollars worth of new business to spur the growth of good corporate citizens. Such policy innovation will generate new jobs and real jobs, reduce the externalities or clean-up cost for the Government and add to our national equity.

Next, on service innovation. It is ironic that while services make up 70% of our GDP, there is insufficient understanding on how productivity carrots may be applied to the service end. The concept of service innovation should be taken on a value-chain approach – from service production to service consumption. Let me cite an example – the little acts of service innovation that are taking place in our restructured hospitals.

Recently, I visited a PAP Community Foundation (PCF) teacher who suffered a stroke and was warded at Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH). I was told to pre-register my visit a day earlier to avoid long queues at the counter. Upon arrival, a SMS alert informed me that the visitor quota was currently full, so I had to wait my turn. While I sipped coffee, another SMS alert came and told me that I could now visit my teacher. Swiping my IC through the gantry was hassle-free. While at the ward, we chatted and she was, thankfully, recovering well. Then a nurse came in, entered the patient's vital statistics and signs electronically, and medicine was dispensed with the help of IT to ensure accuracy. Apparently, patients can also enter their food choices through the PDAs. Just then, I received another SMS alert telling me that new visitors had arrived and were waiting to visit. Obviously, I did the necessary.

This is human technology and efficient service at work: "human" because technology adapted to the behaviour and expectations of the visitors, patients and healthcare staff; "efficient" because accurate real-time information is seamlessly communicated to users and integrated into the mainframe for better decisions. In a labour-hungry economy, we need such service innovation to help each person produce better and more, and earn more. Cross-pollination of ideas and collaboration is crucial for this to succeed.

The 3Ps – from policy makers to management gurus to process engineers and design-thinking experts and users – should pull together to start a new "service innovation" industry. Will the Minister support service capital as one of our new asset class?

Next, on my favourite subject of social innovation. Again, I declare my interest. Wikipedia defines "social innovation", and I quote, as "new strategies, concepts, ideas and organisations that meet social needs of all kinds – from working conditions and education to community development and health – and that extend and strengthen civil society". In short, social innovation reduces social deficits and builds social capital that is crucial to our new social compact. In this new social compact, building an inclusive society is not just about redistributing resources to help the poor. It is about empowering our people, building mutual trust, self-reliance and resilience.

Ms Judy Ho, a hearing impaired social entrepreneur, wrote a song about society's perception of the disabled. And she said, I quote, "My abilities are only limited by your imagination." This is most insightful. By our own norms and expectations, we limit the potential contributions of those who are different from us! This 3% of our Singaporeans can be our assets too, if we could shift our paradigm. The elderly alike can be and are an asset to Singapore. See not disability. See special abilities. Like savants.

I thought maybe we could try a very quick brain gym exercise. You think problem, and then you think social innovation. So problem put in security – why not design vertical city farms? Land scarcity and transport woes – why not embrace Hiriko foldable green cars or even reintroduce car pooling via "show-nearby apps"? Insufficient social workers – why not foster local community caregivers' support networks. Tuition fees too high – why not embrace free online tuition and peer-to-peer sharing? Barrier-free access – why not employ wheelchair bound and elderly to be our infrastructure experts and auditors? In wine connoisseur, perfume and scent-related jobs – why not employ the visually-impaired with well developed sense of taste and smell?

I think you get the drift. The big question is: how are we helping each person to find their best fit to reap premiums in a job? Square peg, square holes; round pegs, round holes. Or do we continue to do more of the same of ill-fitting them into subsidised wage jobs that leave them vulnerable when the subsidies are withdrawn?

Sir, social inclusion and well-being are at the heart of Singapore. Everyone deserves a dignified life. When we have demonstrated that effectively to our citizens, there will be greater social equity. Singaporeans will develop a depth of generosity and graciousness, from a position of security and well-being to welcome diversity, people who are different and people from everywhere. So I want to repeat my call to the Government. Make social innovation a cornerstone in our nation's development, not afterthoughts or ad hoc efforts. To do this, the Government can start with a mapping or auditing exercise of the social innovation landscape and players in Singapore. Consequently, establish a value chain approach from seeding ideas to fruition. Involve the schools, involve the elderly, involve the community, involve everyone on board. Leveraging on exisitng players, fund it, scale it, multiply it through collaborative innovation. This requires a whole of Government, and not just MCYS alone. I will be happy to explore and help with any Ministry or agency on social innovation projects.

Last but not least, Sir, in our quest to be a city in the garden, we need to let a thousand flowers bloom. We invest hundreds of millions of dollars into making Singapore liveable and beautiful. But true beauty is in growing strong roots, and cultivating resilience of a thriving garden, through interdependency of the bio-diversity in an ecosystem. Our Government is the gardener who cares a lot. But amidst the urgency of the changing climate, we need to shift paradigms and innovate boldly, leverage on our assets and equity to reduce our liabilities. Singapore needs to come together as one Team Singapore – to build a more inclusive, sustainable and better city in the garden. This is a cause that concerns us all. This is the cause worth fighting for. I believe in this Government, and I support this Budget.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.20 pm until 3.40 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, economic cycles have shortened in the last two decades. We have weathered the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, the aftermath of 9/11 in 2001, SARS in 2004, the 2007 global financial meltdown, the slowdown in 2010 and now in 2012, we are bracing for the impact of the European debt crisis. It is important that the Government continues to show the same level of commitment to its people – that whatever form the crisis takes, it has a framework in place and to safeguard those who find themselves out of work.

We not only have to find ways to boost employability and mobility of all our workers and ensure our economy remains resilient, but also look at securing a social safety net for the lower income groups. I applaud this Budget for its moves to help the elderly, the low income and the less privileged. And I would like to appeal to the Ministry of Finance to review its tax relief policies again and see if more can be done to increase personal tax reliefs and reliefs for spouses and dependants.

Sir, health, after all, is an important asset. As an elderly gentleman once told me, if the chickens are not healthy and strong, we cannot be assured of an egg every morning. The health of our nation is dependent on the health of our people. I am happy to see the increase in the public healthcare budget. But I hope the Government could also look at how it can continue to ensure sufficient medical insurance coverage for all. Yesterday, the media reported that hundreds of Singaporeans did not pay their hospital bills. The total arrears owed by these patients in a restructured hospital amounted to about $110 million. The top-ups and GST Vouchers for Medisave are good moves, but by no means sufficient. I believe MOH should continue to restructure MediShield coverage so as to protect more and ensure it does indeed help shield Singaporeans in times of crisis and illness. We should also look into how we could help the 8% who do not even have Medisave.

At the workplace, I hope the Minister for Finance could consider more incentives to encourage companies to adopt portable medical benefits (PMBS). Since 2004, employers implementing PMBS enjoy a higher tax deduction cap for medical expenses of up to 2% of their employees' remuneration, compared to 1% for those who are not. However, to qualify for the tax incentive, the companies must either contribute at least 1% of the employees' monthly salary into their Medisave Account or fully subsidise the employees' Shield premium. From our experience, companies who qualify by making 1% Medisave contribution have not been effective in ensuring that all employees purchase any form of insurance, including the Shield plan, and many continue with the Group Hospitalisation and Surgical (GHS) Insurance Scheme, which is a duplication and not portable. To require that only full subsidy can qualify for tax incentive has been prohibitive as the cost of full subsidy is higher than the cost of GHS coverage. As a result, many companies found it costly and no incentive to switch to the PMBS scheme. I would like to suggest that MOF review the tax incentive criteria to allow companies who fund at least half of the Shield premium to also qualify for the tax incentive.

Sir, I am happy to see that the enhancements to our Workfare scheme to benefit SPED graduates and those with disabilities. Workfare has been very successful in topping up the wages of the low-income families. Seeing as wages and the cost of living are going up, I would like to propose that the Workfare eligibility criteria be reviewed more frequently to ensure it remains fair and truly encourages the economic mobility of those who benefit from it. Can the Ministry also review the cash and Medisave component proportion as well? Some lower income workers told me that they wish the cash component could be more.

On the issue of encouraging employment among low-income earners, as a labour Member of Parliament, I would like to highlight the important role played by the public sector. One area that should be looked into is the social responsibility of Government service buyers. I would urge all Government agencies to set a good example as service buyers and support the Best Sourcing Initiatives advocated by the Labour Movement. When outsourcing their work, they should adhere to best sourcing practices. Commonly, when tendering for a contract, to get ahead of the competition, vendors are likely to offer a lower price – at the expense of their workers. The lowest quote often suppresses the wages of the contract workers, unfortunately. For example, at MOE's schools, many of the cleaners' salaries remain around $700, unchanged for many years. This is not fair to the workers. Public agencies should walk the talk and take the lead. I am pleased to learn that the PAP Town Councils are taking the lead and, now, thanks to the skills upgrading and an overhaul of the tender system, their cleaners have been enjoying a 30% pay increase since year 2008.

Sir, even as we boost our social and financial support systems, we must remember to maintain our economic fundamentals. Economic growth is important and we must continue to drive it. In the social media, some talked about lowering our economic growth – this is a worrying mindset. We have done well to grow our economy by 3.6% on-year in 2011, despite the various challenges brought on by the slowdown in the United States and the Japan tsunami. But to deliberately slow down economic growth is a short-sighted and unsustainable model. It is a dangerous slippery slope to go down. We can see from other developed countries how unemployment shoots up when the economy slows down. The best way for all of us is to continue building our economy and enlarge the economic pie, as the best "welfare" we can offer as a nation is full employment with a strong economy. Nothing better than a tight labour market! A job-creating economic growth is more than compassionate.

Sir, as we move forward, I am happy that the Prime Minister has highlighted the need to support Singaporean families. I would like to highlight the need to support less traditional families. With divorce rates going up, we are seeing more single-parent families. This is an unfortunate trend that is made all the more challenging due to the difficulties caused by high rents and difficulties applying for a new flat. Single mothers with young children especially are struggling.

Rental rates are going up. A check of the median rental rate shows that the average rate for a 3-room flat in the fourth quarter of 2010 was $1,888, up 33% from the same period in 2009 ($1,419). It is definitely much higher now. This makes renting a flat quite prohibitive but, at the same time, these families find it difficult to apply for a new flat as a second-time applicant. I think HDB should review its policies concerning single-parent families and consider these mitigating circumstances. Can HDB consider giving them the same priority as the first-timer homeowners or priority above the second-timer homeowners? Their situation is desperate especially when there are children involved.

Sir, we are seeing a more vibrant society that is keen to share its views and participate in discussions. This is encouraging. But we also see a small group who abuse these platforms by derailing discussions with baseless comments and hide behind anonymous identities. As the Government and Singaporeans evolve to become more open with its communication with each other, we must remember that freedom of speech is a responsibility and must be taken in good faith. For anyone who wants to participate, we should encourage all to do so, but would also hope that all be above board and honest about individual identity. Sir, I will continue my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 1556-1557 for Vernacular Speeches. ] As we roll out this inclusive Budget, we should allow Singaporeans to have more channels to express their views and participate in nation building. However, after considering different kind of views, we need to craft out feasible and effective policies according to the actual conditions and implement them in a practical manner. Political leaders should seek common ground while embracing differences and make a concerted effort to serve the people. They should also encourage Singaporeans to become active but rational citizens who are willing to speak up and take actions, so that together we can write a new chapter in the Singapore Story.

I would like to share a story by Nan Huaijin, a master of Chinese Culture. During the Ming dynasty, a man fervently prayed everyday in the middle of the night for several years. One day, a deity was moved by his devotion and appeared to him. The deity said, "You are a very devoted believer as you pray to the heavens every day. Tell me, what your wishes are so that I can fulfil them for you." The man thought for a while and answered, "I do not wish for anything. I just want to lack nothing, travel round the world and be of good health and finally die peacefully." After listening to the man, the deity smiled, "What you are asking for is the good fortune that can only be enjoyed by deities. If you have asked for earthly things, I can easily grant your wish. But to live like a god, I'm sorry, is something I can't give."

This story reminds us that we are after all human beings. We can have dreams and aspirations but not fantasies. Instead of fantasising about becoming deities, we should feel proud about being Singaporeans. We cannot listen to some of the unrealistic pictures or mirage painted by some politicians and think that they are real. Because what Singapore achieves today is the result of national stability, our people's hard work and the ability to stay united in difficulties. Currently, our world is intensely competitive, just as the recently deceased superstar Feng Feifei sang, "The world changes faster than the weather." During this period while many countries are facing rising unemployment, it is commendable that we have full employment. Real wages in many countries are stagnant but we have achieved real wage growth for our workers. The purpose of this Budget is to sustain Singapore's pragmatic and inclusive growth. We want to encourage the tripartite partners to continue working together. We want to encourage everyone to participate in our growth and gather ideas from everyone.

Firstly, tripartite partnership. The service industry has provided 75% of the total job opportunities. After this Budget, tripartite partners must weed out deficiencies and come up with specific measures to cut down our dependency on foreign workers. Local companies need to learn from a recent Straits Times report and turn "bad" jobs in service sector into "good" jobs. The report stated that some American companies are upgrading jobs to attract more local workers. Singaporean businesses should follow suit, of course. I am aware of some local businesses, such as Wing Tai, which have been doing a good job in this aspect. I hope the tripartite partners will continue to work together to encourage all our service industry players to upgrade jobs so that Singaporeans can have better jobs and better wages.

Secondly, we need to gather ideas from everyone. The new media is an important platform. But I hope that political supporters and the general public will hold an open mind and be responsible when they participate in discussions online. Besides hoping that the various Ministers can better explain their policies online, many grassroots representatives expressed their concern about the many misleading viewpoints discussed online. They hope that netizens will be real people with real identities and not hide behind anonymities. We hope all discussions can be conducted in a frank and open manner, knowing the people's real identities, sharing views and ideas in a civilised manner. We want to encourage people to discuss issues with an open mind, confine ourselves to the issues and not make personal attacks or spread rumours.

There was a story in the Analects about Zengzi's mother. Zengzi was a student of Confucius and he was a man of noble character. One day, someone told Zengzi's mother that her son had killed someone. Initially, she did not believe the story as she knew Zengzi was a good man, so she continued weaving her cloth, ignoring the person. But one after another, several people came and said Zengzi had killed someone. Thus, she became uneasy and decided to put down her work and look for her son to find out the truth. This story from the Analects tells us that even the trust between mother and son can be breached, what more other types of relationships. A mistruth, after being repeated many times, will begin to sound like the truth. If we keep calling a deer a horse, after some time people will believe that the deer is indeed a horse. Singapore cannot handle the possible social and racial segregation caused by such over-politicalisation. We need to stay united and not be led astray by specious views.

For example, when someone has a housing need and came to seek our help. We should help him voice out his need and guide him to the right avenues, in this case, see if HDB has any assistance schemes that can help him. We should not just tell him that, based on our own understanding, there is no way out for him and he is on his own. This is a question of responsibility.

Riding on the same boat does not mean letting others work while I stand and watch. Political mandate are not words of sweet nothings. We need political leaders who are pragmatic and keep to their promises. Confucius said in the Analects that some people sounded very clear and logical when they speak and people tend to assume that they are noble people who can be entrusted with responsibilities. But that is wrong! Because words well-spoken are merely words. Confucius reminded us that it is not enough to hear if someone speaks well but we need to find out if they put their words into action. There is an ancient saying, "You hear the footsteps but see no one come down the steps." Therefore, we need to be clear that when a lizard severs its tail, it is not the same as when a warrior severs his arm. Using a hammer as an analogy, if it only makes noise but cannot craft anything, then it is not a good tool, or not even a tool!

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a Budget for the future. What we want is a pragmatic and sustainable growth and not just a quick one. As a union leader, I believe, without soil, flowers cannot grow. Therefore, without sustainable development in the economy, there will not be enough jobs for everyone to ensure that we all have a stable income and a better life. Quoting from the master of Tzu Chi Foundation in Taiwan, "In great times, one needs to understand great truths." Mr Speaker, Sir, everything we have today is just as described in Li Maoshan's song "Things don't come easy". Indeed, everything did not come easy. This is our Budget for the future. Let us continue in our pragmatic nature, stay rooted and work hard to building our nation. Singapore does not belong to any individual but to all of us. Let us all be passionate and take actions in building our future together. Let all Singaporeans enjoy the fruit of our progress and prosperity. Just like our National Anthem Majulah Singapura, Singapore will always be our endearing home. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this Budget debate.

The Budget has been praised as one of the most inclusive and caring one. Although many young people I spoke to lamented that they do not receive additional benefits directly from this Budget, they still welcome the focus on helping the needy, elderly and disabled.

What we are seeing here is a shift in priorities. There is a little less emphasis on short-term growth to catch the wind of opportunities or what critics have termed as "growth at all costs" which is not quite a fair statement by itself. There is more emphasis now on how to transform our economy for long-term sustainable growth. Equally important is that the Budget also pays more attention to how the disadvantaged, weaker and older members are faring on our journey together. Indeed, it is an appropriate time to take stock and recalibrate before the next lap of our marathon to make Singapore a home for all of us.

On behalf of the disabled and special needs community, I would like to thank the Government for the additional measures to support Singaporeans with disabilities right from pre-school children to adults.

In particular, the extension of Workfare Income Supplement to work-capable Persons With Disabilities (PWDs) and the extension of Special Employment Credit (SEC) to employers who hire PWDs are over and above what the Enabling Master Plan 2012 to 2016 Report has recommended. While I am eager to hear the other recommendations in the Report whether the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports would endorse, I would like to urge the Ministry of Manpower to do a little bit more for the special needs community in the near future.

Certainly, the SEC for PWDs at 16% of the employee's monthly income is an encouraging start. Besides social enterprises, companies that have high potential to hire PWDs are likely to be companies that are heavily relying on foreign workers and they are seeing a reduction in the Dependency Ratio Ceilings. To help them tilt the balance further, I hope MOM could consider each employee with disabilities as two Singaporean headcounts for the purpose of calculating foreign workers quota. Such a measure will help and will further enhance the employment opportunities for the PWDs. I also hope that the $120 grant per month for hiring foreign domestic helper meant for taking care of the infirm elderly could also be extended to families with disabled person.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few months, I have the opportunities to meet different groups of SMEs to hear their business concerns particularly on the reliance of foreign workers. The most recent meeting was last Thursday, a few days after the Budget announcement. Initially, many CEOs of SMEs expressed very strong views on the need for continuous reliance on foreign workers. They are of the view that their expansion paths would be curtailed and Singapore competitiveness will be affected if we do not rely on foreign workers. Eventually, most CEOs understand the need to restructure the economy so that we are less reliant on foreign workers for future growth. However, they need more help in a few areas. The SME CEOs ask for more time as we have heard from different Members of Parliament here to adapt to the new situation. While they accept that it would be difficult to hire additional foreign workers, they hope that MOM will be able to be more lenient with the renewal of work permits, especially for workers with good track records.

And some SMEs need more hand holding to improve productivity. For example, Mr Sok Hang Chaw, Managing Director of Kingsland Pte Ltd, in the construction industry has expressed the desire to improve productivity. However, unlike bigger companies, Mr Sok does not have the economy of scale to engage consultancy firm to help them restructure the company and would like Government agencies to provide better assistance. To date, he has not been able to tap on the grants managed by SPRING and IE Singapore for capability development to upgrade productivity. Perhaps, more efforts could be made by the two agencies to help this kind of SMEs who have the desire to improve but need help to tap on the grants that the Government has already put in place.

The rapid globalisation in the past decades has resulted in massive job outflows from developed to developing countries. In the 1980s/1990s, the US lost many manufacturing jobs to Singapore and other newly industrialised countries. In the last two decades, Singapore in turn has also lost a lot of manufacturing jobs to China and a few South East Asia countries. In a recent New York Times article which was reproduced in The Straits Times, US President Obama asked the late Mr Steve Jobs what it would take to manufacture iPhones in the US instead of China. Mr Jobs was quoted replying, "These jobs aren't coming back."

We are facing the same problems. As long as employers can take advantage of much lower labour costs in other countries, there is no compelling reason for them to bring these jobs back. According to Jeff Faux, economist and founding president of the Economic Policy Institute, "This global supply of workers can be trained to do everything from design to production, maintenance to marketing". More and more revenue will accrue to executives, board members and shareholders who can leverage on this massive supply of productive, hungry and skilled workers anywhere in the world but not in the home country. This trend leads to the suppression of wages earned by the manual workers in the related industries and is one of the main causes of rising income disparity between the rich and the poor in the developed economies. So, how could we help the low-wage workers?

The common perception of low-wage workers is that they lack the skills and need training to move into better-paying positions. What are the better paying positions? Doctors, lawyers, bankers, accountants? Even as we have more graduates in Singapore, we will not have enough such high paying jobs for them. For every doctor, we need more nurses, allied health professionals, technicians, customer service officers and even cleaners. These are the service jobs that cannot be moved outside of Singapore. It is the same for other industries such as retail, transport, F&B, etc. This is in sharp contrast with the manufacturing jobs that can be easily relocated out of Singapore, as mentioned earlier.

In the past, we had foreign workers to fill a big proportion of these service jobs. It is not sustainable and many Singaporeans do not want that. What is the alternative? We need to encourage more Singaporeans to do the service jobs. I agree with the editorial published in the Lianhe Zaobao yesterday that doctors and nurses are equally respectable professions. Similarly, construction workers are also holding respectable jobs. But construction workers in Singapore are earning less than 10% of the doctors' pay as reported in The Straits Times last month. Doctors in Hong Kong and Singapore earn about the same pay but a construction worker in Hong Kong earns about 25% of a doctor's pay. And this explains why most of the healthcare and construction workers in Singapore are foreigners. The same can be said for cleaners and others holding low paying service jobs.

If we want to reduce reliance on foreign workers for growth, how then can we encourage more Singaporeans to take up these service jobs? As mentioned by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang earlier, there was also a newspaper report on how do we turn "bad jobs" in the service sector into "good jobs". This was pointed out by the visiting Assistant Prof Zeynep Ton from MIT Sloan School of Management and was reported in The Straits Times last week. Prof Ton argued that these service jobs are not bad in nature. If you invest enough on the service worker and improve the hygiene factors, these service jobs can be attractive.

Singaporeans are practical. We have to increase the pay substantially to attract Singaporeans, amongst other measures. If the pay increase is equivalent to the increase in productivity, technically, we do not have to pay more for the services. But life is not so simple.

Last year, many of my residents in one precinct complained that their void decks were very dirty and often not cleaned for days. I visited the areas a few times alone and unannounced. I took photographs of the state of the area and sent it to the Jurong Town Council. The cleaning contractor did not improve despite repeated warnings, citing difficulties in getting workers; Singaporeans do not want to work for them, and all the other excuses. As a result, the Jurong Town Council called for a new tender and awarded the job to a new contractor who subsequently performed very well. The performance of the new contractor was so good that the previously dirty precinct was awarded the "A litter-free Environment" and the award was given out by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources on 15 January this year. However, the change in the contractor came with a price. The new contract was about 30% higher than the last contract, despite the new contract being one of the cheapest quotes submitted. The new contractor cited reasons such as higher foreign worker levy, the need to pay more to hire Singaporeans and that they deploy better equipment, etc, to justify the higher price. For this case, the Jurong Town Council has absorbed the increase in cost and did not pass it on to the residents. If all the cleaning contractors increase their price upon renewal, the situation can be tricky. Are Singaporeans prepared to pay more as we hire more Singaporeans to work in the service sector?

In this respect, the Government agencies, as the largest consumer of services, could take a lead to pay the increase in costs for the outsourced services such as cleaning, security, construction, etc, provided that the increases are due to the higher cost of paying Singaporean workers. 羊毛出在羊身上. While I am tempted to suggest more spending, I am quite mindful of how to fund them. The Government cannot keep increasing expenditure and run into deficit. At some point in time, Singaporeans have to share the costs. Perhaps, those who are in the higher income brackets may have to pay more, as suggested by Mr Hri Kumar and Ms Denise Phua yesterday, so that we can move towards a more inclusive society. We do not want to end up like other countries whereby their social spending exceeds the Government's ability to pay and hence we have to burden the next generation.

Sir, in conclusion, we are thankful that this Budget provides timely assistance to the special needs community though we hope MOM could do more to induce companies to hire PWDs. As for the SMEs, they need appropriate guidance to utilise the various Government grants to increase productivity as we reduce reliance on foreign workers. Lastly, Singaporeans must be prepared to pay more for the services so that we can have more Singaporeans to do the service jobs when we turn "bad jobs" into "good jobs". With this, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, I am honoured to speak in support of this Budget. When I initially came here, I only had two main points I wanted to make but after listening to a very intriguing speech by Mr Chen Show Mao, there are a couple of ideas that can be detailed and, hopefully, we can come up with some very good suggestions for this Budget indeed.

Let me start with what I most welcome about this Budget. What is truly heart-warming about this Budget is the emphasis on helping the needy and the vulnerable. For many of us who have been helping on the ground, we have seen the real issues that the vulnerable groups suffer. The added measures in this Budget will help those groups in a great many ways. I filed more than 10 cuts for the COS, which I will go into the details of how these things may work out in different Ministries, and I would not repeat that here.

The second aspect that is very important is the emphasis on balancing the Budget. Now, this has been brought up by many speakers and I am happy that speakers on both sides of the House agree with this. Because this is, in many other places, not automatically something that people would agree with. In fact, one of the things that has been of greatest concern to me is that in many of the developed and what you might term "First World democracies", there is a tremendous pressure for parties on both sides to spend more, to basically say "Let's do more". Because what is the benefit of saying "Let's do more"? It means that you can spend money on a particular group and get the support of that group. Now, where does that money come from? Invariably, from the Government. It is always "Let's do more", and Government pays more.

Now, the impact of doing that, of course, is that someone ultimately has to pay the price. That price can be paid in two ways. One, you go on a deficit. If you go on a deficit, everything may look fine for the moment but, you know, sometime in the future, the future generations will have to pay the price which is what is happening in many developed countries now. The second way we can pay the price is with higher taxes. Now, in most developed countries, the taxes are substantially more than Singapore. Median income earners will easily pay more than 30% to 40% tax, something which is almost unheard of here. And this has happened over the years in a sort of creeping fashion because governments always say, "Let's do more, let's spend more." And, of course, they never talk of where this money is going to come from. So, eventually, the money comes from the people because, ultimately, government is from the people and the people have to pay the price at some point.

One of the greatest gifts that we have received from our previous generations of leaders is that they have actually strived to balance the Budget so we do not have to carry the burden of the deficits of a previous generation. And I think one of the most important gifts that we can give to the next generation is not to pass on the burden of our deficits. So, in this regard, I know that many speakers here have highlighted areas where they think more can be done, and I think many of these come from noble motivations and many of these are in areas that all of us feel for and understand. But the reality is that if you agree that balancing the Budget is an important objective, then the real question is what trade-offs do you make when you want to do more, and I think this is the real challenge we face.

This is why Mr Chen's speech was particularly intriguing. Now, I am wearing a shirt here that is blue-and-white striped. I do not really mind whether the idea comes from the blue party or the white party. As long as it is a good idea, I think it is something we can all run with. Initially, I must say that some parts of Mr Chen's speech were a little bit hurtful. I will just flag this just out of openness. The part that I found hurtful was when he started off by saying the Government has heeded the call for inclusive growth. That is our long-held belief. Now, the insinuation from this is that the Government previously did not care about inclusive growth but it is something that he had personally believed in all the time.

And then he goes on to highlight many different areas where he thinks more can be done, particularly in relation to the needy groups and vulnerable groups, and he says, "Let's do more, let's do more, let's do more." But "Let's do more" is a wonderful rallying cry because it does two things. First of all, by highlighting the vulnerable groups, he shows that he understands their plight; second, by saying "Let's do more", he is suggesting that the Government is not doing enough. In that sense, it is a wonderful way to score political points which is a fair game. But I found it a bit hurtful because it suggested we were not doing enough and we did not care.

The message that we did not care came out even more strongly in his third point when he says the burden of the vulnerable group "should not be seen as a challenge or a problem", thereby attributing to the Government and the PAP, I guess by insinuation, that we had somewhat categorised them as a challenge or problem, and he came up with a new word. He said, "They should be seen as investments", thereby putting a positive spin to it.

The message he wanted to convey here again is that we did not care, but, of course, he did and he was going to invest in it. This was hurtful because I think many of us here had been working year in, year out, helping the vulnerable groups and it is pretty hurtful to come from Mr Chen because he might have held this belief for a long time but he only came back quite recently to help in this. I certainly hope that he will not make further insinuations against the character or the heart of our party because we certainly share the same belief that this vulnerable group should be helped and it is in this spirit that I look at the remaining points.

I think the genius of Mr Chen's idea was the idea of an investment that pays for itself. I am not as smart as Mr Chen; I am certainly not the Wei Zheng of this House, so I must press him for a few more details to understand how this self-funding investment works. I know he used the word "investment" to put a positive spin to it but, unfortunately for me, the term "investment" – maybe because I was scarred in my younger days – does not have quite so positive a connotation.

One of the very early experiences that I had with a good investment was an email I received while I was a student, and it came from a person who claimed to be the second son of the President of Nigeria. And in this email, he claimed that if I were to give him $10,000 by tomorrow, in order that he could take delivery of a multi-million dollar shipment of oil, he would be able to pay me back a million dollars the next week. I was a student, I did not have $10,000 at that time, so I never took part in that investment. But I subsequently learnt that this was a scam. Imagine my hurt.

So, the term "investment" does not always have the same positive connotation to it that Mr Chen does. But it might well be that, in Mr Chen's case, these investments are genuine and pay for themselves. We do not know based on the level of detail he gave us. Let me just press for some details.

The first point he made was about investing in social capital. He was saying that we need to invest in social capital – in the elderly, the disabled and the poor, and I agree. In fact, from what I have seen, that is one of the most fulfilling things that we can do as a Member of Parliament. We look for the vulnerable groups, we help them out in the meantime and we try and empower them in the long term. But we are not as smart as him because our investments certainly incur costs; they are certainly not self-funding. What I was really impressed by was when Mr Chen loudly shouted, "Let's do more"; he also said that since these are investments, we do not have to make provisions for them in the Budget, we do not have to raise any revenues at all.

I was astounded by that. I thought maybe we have to put an outlay first. Even the Nigerian scheme required you to put $10,000 upfront. But Mr Chen€˜s scheme does not even require a short-term provision. It is not even a deficit for one year. No, no, no. It will pay for itself because it is an investment. So, I would like him to explain how he expects these schemes to pay for themselves because, if they do, I will wholeheartedly support it.

He also mentioned that we need to set up agencies to think about this, for example, agencies like EDB, A*STAR and SPRING. As far as I know, these agencies employ hundreds of people and there is a cost in doing it. Not only that, but there are already agencies like CDCs, e2i and SCORE that do look out for help for these vulnerable groups. So, what I am really curious about is why he intends to set up additional agencies and, more importantly, how these additional agencies will pay for themselves? Because if that is indeed the case, then I have no qualms at all setting it up. But I myself still struggle to think about how the underlying principle that you can have an investment that requires no revenue provisions and which will yield wonderful returns. And, mind you, the wonderful returns are really good because it is not just economic returns, it is also social capital and cultural returns. It is even better than the Nigerian scheme because you do not have to put in any money at all and you get more than money in return. I would wholeheartedly endorse it but I need the details, the nuts and bolts, on how this would work.

And it is not just the elderly, the disabled and the poor that he is interested in. He also said that these same ideas can go into education and schools training our workers for jobs and empowering our workers. Again, all wonderful things, and all things which there are already many agencies and institutions set up to deal with. So, again, what I would like to hear from Mr Chen is how exactly we can do this "Let's do more" without any requirement to raise the revenues or costs to meet these demands.

One other area, foreign worker dependency, which was quite interesting, actually has, I would say, two sides to it. Mr Chen recommended in his speech that we should reduce the dependency. He recognised that we are reducing the dependency ratio, and then he asked the rhetorical question, "How effective will the proposed measures be in reducing our dependence on foreign workers?" The insinuation and, of course, he then repeated his favourite phrase, "Let's do more". So, when we put these two statements together, the inference we draw is that the current measures are not enough to stem the inflow of foreign workers. I must say there is some irony in that this is coming from a man who spent more than half his life abroad and came back to Singapore shortly before the elections now complaining we are having too many foreign workers. But be that as it may, I do agree that there is an issue with us having too many foreign workers and we are doing our best to keep it down. The flip side of that is this – this is a claim that many other Members of this House have struggled with – when we tighten foreign worker numbers, there is a trade-off. It is not trade-off free. The people who suffer at the moment are the SMEs. Many different people in this House have raised the plight faced by SMEs. So, if Mr Chen has any suggestions on how we can reduce our dependency on foreign workers without hurting the SMEs too much, then I am all ears because we did not hear how these trade-offs would work.

To be fair to him, he did mention something. He did mention that we should have a Government agency looking into different ways of categorising the sectors and, quite interestingly, he said that we should not set up another agency or more bureaucracy to deal with this. What he said is that the Government should consult industry more. Again, if we think about it, how does the Government consult? The Government can consult in two ways. One, it can employ more people to consult which, by the way, means additional costs. Or, two, it can add to the workload of existing civil servants, which basically means they work a lot harder for the same pay, if you do not want to pay them more. So, either way, you are putting additional strain in demanding this consultation. Having said that, from what I understand, a lot of consultation already takes place in the Government with industry leaders. As a Member of Parliament, I can also tell you that certainly in the Trade and Industry Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC), led by Ms Jessica Tan, we also consult industry leaders and SMEs to find out what are their demands for labour, and so on. Not just the Government, but the Members themselves also consult. There is a lot of consultation that takes place already. When Mr Chen said that more consultation is needed, "Let's do more", I would like to know what exactly are the nuts and bolts of this "more" and how it would pay for itself.

As I said, in principle, I agree entirely that if we have investments that pay for themselves and can achieve the benefits he has promised, it should be done and all Members of this House will stand behind it. I just hope that we can have the details to do that.

One last point that I would make, call me a very boring old-fashioned person but given that we believe in balanced budgets, I also think it is very important to be accurate with facts when we come forward and make demands for budgets. I would just like to highlight a couple of points, and these came up mostly in Mr Giam's speech earlier. When Mr Giam was asked by various Members of this House the basis of various propositions he was making – by Mr Ang Hin Kee and Dr Janil Puthucheary – he did not give a straight answer on exactly what his source was for the various representations. In Dr Janil's case, I think he made an allusion to a report by the MFA on income inequality between generations. Is that right? I guess we can address that later. But from what I understand, from the executive summary of this report, the report actually finds that based on the current cohort that is being studied, income mobility in Singapore is moderately high and higher than the US. It also says that it makes no finding in relation to future generations, precisely because the future generations have not yet matured. So, it does not have the data to make that finding. But, based on existing facts, income mobility inter-generational is actually moderately high.

The second point I will make is that I think Mr Giam also mentioned that we should have scholarships to get bright people to the SMEs. Again, this is something that is good but it is something that is already being done. In fact, SPRING Singapore has scholarships specifically for the SME sector. So, once again, before you shout, "Let's do more", it is important to know what is being done and then explain what more you want to do and, more importantly, how you would finance it if you agree that a balanced budget is a good thing. By and large, I think the points I have highlighted today are largely points to emphasise that I agree with my friends on both sides of the House that there is more we can do. But if we believe a balanced budget is important, then I think my friends are also obliged to explain the trade-offs involved before we go into this "Let's do more" and how exactly it will be financed.

Mr Chen, do you want to say something?

Sir, I would like to thank the Member for such a close reading of my speech. I have no clarifications to seek from him on his speech because most of it was about my speech, on which I have no questions. But I do wish to make a point, and that is, as a general rule in this country, we do not earmark Government revenues for particular spending. Therefore, the discussions of how particular spending programmes would be funded would of necessity entail a discussion of our total Government revenues and our spending. My point was that when we talk about spending – especially those in policy areas of social policy, meaning social security, public housing, education, healthcare, infrastructure and the environment – we should bear in mind that we are not just talking about, in most cases, spending to be incurred in this one term but instead it should take into account the benefits that will accrue and these, in addition to economic benefits, could include social and cultural benefits of the sort I mentioned in my speech.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support many of the initiatives proposed by the Government, particularly measures directed at the social well-being of Singaporeans, especially the elderly and the disabled. I am going to speak on two issues covered in the Minister's speech.

Firstly, the measures introduced to unlock the wealth older Singaporeans hold in their HDB flats. I note the Finance Minister's concern about the older generation of Singaporeans who have very limited cash savings and low CPF balances because wages were much lower 20-30 years ago, and because of the lower Minimum Sum then. I would, however, caution that low CPF balances ought to remain a permanent concern of the Government as future wage increases look likely to be moderated by inflation and the cost of living.

More importantly, the high cost of public housing relative to wage growth is likely to result in mortgages that are marked by a longer pay-back period, inevitably compromising the ability of Singaporeans to grow their nest-egg. Nonetheless, I commend the Government for raising CPF contribution rates. While I empathise with SMEs who already face short- and medium-term difficulties with regard to labour-related overheads, the national interest dictates that the post-retirement well-being of all Singaporeans, including those very employees that keep SMEs competitive, must remain a primary social objective of any Singapore government.

I am encouraged by the Silver Housing Bonus of $20,000 which will be extended to older Singaporeans who wish to sell their existing flats and downgrade to other flats. I do ask that the Government consider extending the policy to all HDB households, so as to give retiring Singaporeans more options. Equally, it is also noteworthy that the Government has sought to make the Lease Buyback Scheme more attractive by doubling the incentive from $10,000 to $20,000.

I see the enactment of policies that allow older Singaporeans to monetise their flats as a central pillar in ensuring Singaporeans live out their retirement years with reasonable dignity, as they stand to receive a larger CPF LIFE payout.

Like many Singaporeans, I am disturbed when I see older Singaporeans having no choice but to work because they cannot afford to retire. Their health may not allow them to stay on their feet for hours on end, but they have no choice, as they need the money to survive. While I admire the drive, determination and self-respect of such Singaporeans, I feel the Government need to introduce more policies that ensure as many of our elderly live out their retirement with a sense of accomplishment, with full-time post-retirement employment – a choice and not a necessity. For that reason, I think the Government has done well with the Silver Housing Bonus and the Enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme.

However, I am not certain how these two schemes will work out in practice. In fact, I note that the initial response to the HDB Lease Buyback Scheme was not encouraging. Introduced in March 2009, the take-up rate has been low. In fact, according to HDB statistics, it stands at 2% of all total eligible households, or 446 households. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government may want to keep an extra close watch on both the Silver Housing Bonus and the Enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme and consider publicising a yearly report card on the take-up rate of both initiatives. The public character of such a report card, apart from signalling a robust attitude to accountability, would also reinforce and institutionalise the importance of the Government's elderly policy in the public consciousness.

Greater awareness of the Government's elderly policy is also likely to have positive effects on nation building and our national identity. If the take-up rate is poor, it would be clear that the Government would need to do more, and I for one would support the Government wholeheartedly in this endeavour. If the take-up rate is good, it would simply reflect positively on the Government's 2012 Budget. I sincerely hope both the Silver Housing Bonus and the Enhanced Lease Buyback Scheme are closely tracked as their success potentially portends how Singaporeans can expect to live in their retirement years, especially in terms of financial security, in a Singapore that is already one of the most expensive cities in the world.

Moving on to the second issue, Mr Speaker, I would like to register my concern for the Bus Services Enhancement Fund, as announced by the Minister. No one I have met since the Minister's Budget Speech really disputes the benefits of additional buses on the road, particularly if, in the Minister's words, it will serve to reduce crowding and waiting time. But there, nevertheless, remain some very serious questions about this $1.1 billion "one-time" commitment to help fund the purchase of 550 buses.

Mr Speaker, many Singaporeans are asking why the shareholders of our publicly listed bus operators are being extended this unusual generosity by the Government. According to both their 2010 Annual Reports – both of which are available online – SBS Transit has a market share of 75% and around 3,000 buses on the road, while SMRT has slightly less than 1,000 buses. In the case of SBS Transit, the top five shareholders of the company hold 83% of all shares of that company. The largest shareholder of SBS Transit is ComfortDelgro which owns 75.11% of the company, while the four next largest shareholders of SBS Transit are BNP Paribas Securities Singapore, DBS Nominees Private Limited, United Overseas Bank Nominees Private Limited and Citibank Nominees Singapore Private Limited.

The public unhappiness over the Bus Services Enhancement Fund since Minister Tharman's speech has been very apparent. Part of the reason for this, I hazard, is because this Government has traditionally been quick to urge Singaporeans to choose the path of self-sufficiency, reminding ordinary Singaporeans that there are no free lunches and no one owes us a living. It would be useful for this House to remember that both SBS Transit and SMRT pay their top management market-rate salaries, pay their shareholders regular dividends, while operating in near-monopolistic conditions. By any stretch of the imagination, these are not broken-back companies.

In particular, the SBS Transit 2010 Annual Report also stated the company's intention to purchase new buses in addition to funding additional capital expenditure. For that purpose, it launched a note programme in May 2010, issuing a $100 million fixed rate note, which is due in 2015. So not only is the company not a broken-back entity, it clearly knows how to raise money too. And in FY 2010, SBS Transit paid it shareholders dividends amounting to $27 million, while SMRT paid out $102 million to its shareholders. SMRT, as I mentioned earlier, 75% of its operations comes from rail operations so that dividend figure probably needs to be put in perspective.

Unsurprisingly, discerning and sensible Singaporeans have been quick to eschew the Government's $1.1 billion windfall for SBS Transit and SMRT Corporation. While I appreciate the Government's intentions to put buses on the road quickly, I would urge it to claw back the $1.1 billion of taxpayer money expended on these bus operators over a fixed period of time, but after consultation with SBS Transit and SMRT. There ought to be nothing unusual about clawing back taxpayer money as the Government already extends many direct and indirect financial subsidies to both these profit-generating private operators. For example, they are exempted from bidding for Certificates of Entitlement and they are also exempted from the Additional Registration Fee, the main vehicle tax and the duty on diesel. In addition, both these operators are allowed to keep their buses on the road for 20 years, twice as long as almost all other vehicles. They are also charged a nominal rent for space their interchanges take up, while reaping the profits their advertising revenue generates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am reminded of a resident who runs an SME, who spoke to me at one of the Aljunied Constituency Committee's Lunar New Year Dinner celebrations earlier this month. He implored me to petition the Government in Parliament to reduce or subsidise the COE of goods vehicles for SMEs. As Members would know, the COE for goods vehicles and buses are classified under Category C COEs. While our two profit earning operators do not pay a cent for their COEs, this small time businessman will pay in excess of $50,000 for his COE based on today's market rate. While this is not an apple for apple comparison, I would say, it does say something about the perception the man on the street has about this Government's apparent lack of desire to communicate why our bus operators are being extended this $1.1 billion gift. I understand the Transport Ministry will address this issue in the upcoming COS debates and I certainly hope it fully addresses the genuine misgivings many Singaporeans have over the Bus Services Enhancement Fund.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a second query about the figure of $1.1 billion for the Bus Services Enhancement Fund. I had to learn from the media that the figure includes the total operating cost for the vehicles for 10 years, and it also includes the salaries of bus drivers. According to the 2010 SBS Transit financial report again, in that Financial Year, SBS Transit placed an order for 600 buses, more than what the Government has committed to, comprising 300 award-winning Euro-5 compliant Mercedes Benz low-floor single deck buses and another 300 Volvo double-deckers, all for the price of $268 million. Taking into account inflation over the two last years, I hope this Government gives the public a detailed breakdown of the operating costs and the salary component that was set aside for the Bus Services Enhancement Fund, in addition to all other components that may not have been publicly revealed so far. Too much of this dispensation of taxpayer dollar to these two profit generating quasi-monopolies is currently unknown to the public beyond the big figure, and some transparency would be very helpful.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a third concern I note that dominated the online media, in particular, concerns the unspoken implications of 800 additional buses on the road. The routine questions are – is the Government planning for another spike in immigrant arrivals, if so, how many are being planned for? And what sort of planning parameters is the Government working with? Is this $1.1 billion a harbinger of things to come, in terms of an even larger population size? It would be apposite for the Government to answer these queries because there is already a sense of an over-crowded Singapore where public space is at a premium.

Other questions also dominate the public realm about this $1.1 billion. What will this cash injection do for bus fares going forward? Are both operators going to use the profits generated and invest them overseas? Should Singaporeans anticipate similar ostensibly one-time gifts to other publicly-listed entities or companies of national consequence such as companies in which Temasek Holdings or GIC own a stake? And can the taxpayers now demand greater transparency from all companies like SMRT and SBS Transit which receive taxpayer injections? Beyond just educating the public on how their taxpayer dollar is spent, I believe such accountability would generate greater trust between citizens and the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, $1.1 billion is a whopping sum by any stretch of the imagination. This Government should clearly set out how the figure was arrived at and what this policy move of extending cash injections to publicly-listed entities that perform a public function implies for policy-making going forward. Mr Speaker, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me express my gratitude at being allowed to take part in this debate. Unlike some of the hon Members, yesterday I received no special request, so my speech would be entirely in English.

This year's Budget is a significant one, as it includes a number of adjustments to long-held policies and also includes a host of measures that signal an evolving vision of what we want our society to become. We are currently facing a challenging global environment, with uncertainty surrounding the European economies as well as that of the United States, and potential instability amongst our Asian neighbours. It is not clear if China will face a hard landing following its meteoric rise to the ranks of the world's superpowers. And India's internal political and security challenges are holding up its progress to challenge or overtake China as an Asian economic powerhouse. The global threat of terrorism has become a reality for all nations, and simmering tensions in the Middle East as well as a nuclear Iran and possibly North Korea are other security concerns affecting the whole world.

Looking inwards, Singapore is experiencing change of its own. Following the much-watched General and Presidential Elections in 2011, it is clear that the electorate are more vocal when expressing what they want through a range of channels and media. Among the things that they have said they want: a home that feels less like a hotel during peak season, filled with foreign visitors who crowd them out and a country which takes care of them in times of hardship or when they get old.

Sir, with this as a backdrop, Budget 2012 has laid out two targets in its broad mission: to build an inclusive society and a stronger Singapore. As other hon Members have already pointed out, the measures introduced in the Budget aim to achieve both these targets while creating a place that Singaporeans are proud to call home, where they feel they have a say, a stake and a sense of belonging.

I would like to applaud the Government for rolling out a ream of measures that address a truly broad spectrum of sectors in our society. A Budget that, as Dr Amy Khor mentioned earlier, puts its money where its mouth is but also where its heart is.

Budget 2012 has measures aimed at restructuring our economy, lessening our dependence on foreign labour, boosting productivity of Singapore firms and assisting companies as they make the necessary transition. It also has schemes to help our seniors, Singaporeans with disabilities and lower-income households. It takes into consideration the views and desires expressed in recent years by the public, and attempts to focus its impact by moving away from a broad-based, "something for everyone" approach commonly seen in the past.

The increase in social spending marks the continuation of a gradual shift in recent years to extend more state support to the elderly and low-income workers. This departure from the previous emphasis on individual responsibility, a lean social security and growth over distribution is no doubt due in part to the evolving social compact. The former approach towards policymaking is best suited for countries with a young population, full employment, rising wages and rapid economic growth.

We have made progress through globalisation, sound policies and leveraging on technological advancements. This also means that the environment we live in has definitely changed. Gone are the days of double, or even high single-digit growth. Rising socio-economic tensions have led to political pressures and the movement towards a "new normal", and a different social compact. The new Budget addresses this in large measure.

Sir, the harder technical aspects and mechanisms of the Budget will no doubt be debated and addressed in the Committee of Supply debates in the days to follow. For now, please allow me to raise three broader considerations in relation to this year's Budget: the first is communication; the second is competition; and the third is passion.

Firstly, the concept of communication, I believe, is key to the success of any plan of action. If the best-laid plans are not effectively communicated and explained to the stakeholders involved, it will amount to little when it comes time for execution. If there is no buy-in by society, we will be like a spanking new car which has wheels that rotate in different directions. Some will seek to drive the car forward while the others go in reverse. In this case, no matter how powerful the engine, the car will either remain at a standstill, go around in circles, or, worse, move backwards.

This Budget has taken into account the views and wishes of Singaporeans, and has sought to address some of the main dissatisfactions that have been expressed in recent months. The move to curb foreign labour is a good example. Despite the positive impact such workers have had to many of our industries, there is concern that their increasing numbers will test the limits of our space and infrastructure, and could even affect the Singaporean nature of our society.

The Government has acted to address this, and also the fundamental issue that increasing dependence on foreign workers is not sustainable in the long run. The cutting of the Dependency Ratio Ceilings with effect from this July will go some way towards ushering companies to adjust to the new reality of a tight labour market. But Singaporeans must be aware of what other likely effects this will have. Yes, our MRT trains and buses may become less crowded, our social spaces may become less congested with foreigners and the pressure on our housing infrastructure may ease. At the same time, our industries will face a shortage of labour given what is almost already full employment here in Singapore and the plan to tap sources of workers such as homemakers and early retirees is a good one, as it seeks to optimise our local workforce.

But will Singaporeans want to take up the jobs vacated by foreigners? And if they do, they will likely ask for comparatively higher salaries. And while the Government is extending help to companies in the form of, for example, the Special Employment Credits to help the hiring of older workers, there is no guarantee that this will be enough to stop rising costs from being passed on to the consumers in the form of higher prices. Companies which are unable to find enough workers, or cannot cope with the higher costs, may go under. This is part of harsh economic reality and Singaporeans must be made aware of these implications.

Addressing the needs and wants of society is a major priority for the Government. I believe this Budget is a result of listening to what Singaporeans want and aims to help us achieve that. At the same time, communicating the full range of implications of the various measures is essential to ensure that people are educated and informed about what their wishes mean if they come true.

Sir, the Finance Minister has highlighted and explained clearly the measures detailed in this year's Budget. I am sure that all the details of the various schemes and measures will continue to be spelt out by the Government and reported to Singaporeans via the various forms of media that we have. But communication is not a one-way street. The onus also lies on people to ensure that they are fully informed, to ask and clarify if they are unsure, and to understand what their choices mean, and what impact their voice will have, should they choose to exercise it.

This brings me to my second point of competition. I am referring here to Singapore's competitiveness as a small but strong economy in a sea of big fish. Our historical success has largely been based on sound policy, especially in the realm of economic planning, and also on a strong and transparent Government that has created a stable and healthy environment both for living and for business. As part of my work, I have the opportunity to interact with partners and affiliates from around the world. A common refrain I hear from them is praise and admiration for Singapore and what we have achieved in the almost five decades since Independence.

Recently, many of them have asked for my thoughts on what they perceive as a shift in our political environment, with a more active and vocal Opposition, partisan politics and an electorate that is more savvy and articulate than in years gone by. They wonder if this will unsettle the stable working environment they have long admired and enjoyed. At the same time, local observers say this is part of a natural evolution, and that we are becoming more "normal", like other countries around the world. Maybe our new normal really is "normal".

But is this what is best for Singapore? A democratic system where the views of all are represented in a fair and transparent way cannot be a bad thing, and it appeals intrinsically to a sense of fair play and inclusiveness, where the interests of all are heard and valued. At the same time, if we consider other global democracies where sound policies are sacrificed in the face of partisanship, where governments govern with one eye on upcoming elections instead of long-lasting policies that are truly for the benefit of the nation, I do not think that is necessarily a better alternative. In such cases, we often see administrations which are hamstrung in what they can actually do due to the need to appeal to the populist vote in order to stay in power.

There are many examples of countries which are stuck in such cycles, but still manage to survive, thanks to the safety net of natural resources or other competitive advantages which enable them to keep moving forward. Singapore does not have such luxuries. What we do have is a stable business-friendly environment, a reputation for a clean and capable Government, and a hardworking and dedicated workforce. If we lose this, we lose our competitive edge when we go up against our regional rivals, who are hungry and eager to take our place as an attractive destination for work and play. Already, we are seeing rising costs of things like housing beginning to affect our reputation as a global liveable city.

Make no mistake. It is a dog-eat-dog world out there and we cannot afford to allow domestic squabbles to tarnish our international reputation, even as we move towards a new social contract that is acceptable to every Singaporean. What then will be able to draw all of us together, to work and live as a united people for our sustained success and prosperity? Sir, it is my firm belief that we need to discover the passion that drives us all as Singaporeans in order to answer that question. Now, I am referring to a passion for the good of our country, a passionate desire to see that we as a people continue growing in a positive way towards success.

There are many components to this idea of passion. Among them is a sense of home, of belonging to a place that gives us warmth and comfort. It is a place that we can be proud of, with a shared history from which we can derive confidence in who we are, that enables us to stand tall. It is a place which we love and would fight to defend. To have passion, we also need to have a sense of purpose, a clear direction set by leaders at all levels who we can look up to and who inspire us to achieve more than we thought we could. Passion can be intangible. It is hard to cultivate and once found, it can be easily lost. It can be developed through pursuits such as sports, and as my fellow NMP, the hon Janice Koh said so eloquently this morning, arts and culture which can give us a sense of common identity and connectedness. Shared passion can bind us together as a people and a nation in the face of divisive forces that arise in every society. And it can be a source of grit and resilience in the face of challenging times or hardship.

This concept of passion will become more important if we continue to experience some of the challenges we have seen in the past few months, such as severe weather brought on by climatic changes, economic difficulties caused by global instability, and even the incidents of human frailty and weakness demonstrated by some leaders in our society. If we are passionate about who we are and what we stand for, and about our home and our fellow countrymen, we will be able meet these and other challenges with fortitude, and will be best-placed to overcome them. If all we have is apathy and cynicism, then the challenges will be multiplied.

Sir, as many of the hon Members have said earlier, this Budget is one with a heart, and represents our priorities as a nation, not just dollars and cents. I would say that, for us to achieve the aims spelt out in Budget 2012, we as a people have to develop a passion and a soul as well, in order to build a truly inclusive society and a stronger Singapore. In conclusion, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister and his team for putting together a Budget that will hopefully make Singaporeans sit up and think about the society we want to have, and to consider how we can do more to help those around us, in order to become stronger as a nation. Sir, on that note, I support the motion.

(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Pg 1558 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, Sir, this year's Budget has a great impact on the economic development of Singapore and the interests of workers. So, this afternoon, I would like to represent the Labour Movement to air my views.

Mr Speaker, the Singapore of today has its strength and advantages. Our economy is growing healthily, we have full employment and our standard of living is constantly improving. To achieve all this is not easy and it is worth cherishing. However, we do not live in a perfect world, of course, and there will be imperfections in Singapore. Hence, we must constantly keep up with the times and improve.

There are now 3 million workers in Singapore. If we allow the number of workers to increase 3% annually, 10 years later, these 3 million workers will increase to 4 million. Foreign workers may make up 40% of the workforce. If we continue this way, we will face even more and bigger challenges. For example, the pace of economic restructuring in Singapore will slow down, so will the pace of productivity growth. If we allow this situation to continue, will the Singapore economy still be able to move upwards in the next 10 to 20 years? Our country will be more and more crowded. Can Singaporeans still live harmoniously with the increasing number of foreign workers?

In this world, those who do not change will become poorer for it. I believe if we want to prevent the Singapore economy and society from getting into a difficult situation, we must constantly look for new ways of thinking and make new inroads. Hence, the Labour Movement understands and supports the 2012 Budget and policy directions announced by the Finance Minister. The question is whether we can translate these ideas into action. If we are unable to quicken the pace of economic restructuring and there is no continuity; if we lose our economic competitiveness, we may lose our existing investment projects and cannot attract more and better investment projects, what problems will the Singapore economy face? If Singapore companies, especially SMEs, cannot adjust to the process of economic transformation, how will they survive?

If Singapore workers, especially older workers and low-skilled workers, cannot improve the level of their skills and their productivity, will they still have a place in the future Singapore economy? In other words, what I am most concerned about is, if our plan to transform the economy is not successful, in this world where one is racing against the tide, our economy will go into decline. Worse, our unemployment rate will go up and our real wages will continue to decrease. In other words, I am very sure that if we do not change, we will end up poorer for it. That is why I support this year's Budget. However, it is not certain that if one makes changes, one will definitely find a way out. We cannot assume that if we have this new policy, which is also a good policy, the transformation of the Singapore economy will happen naturally. Hence, I hope that our entire nation will try our best to ensure success, because the price to pay, if we fail, is too great.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important, it is crucial that we restructure the Singapore economy towards one that is more sustainable, driven by productivity, driven by innovation. There is no guarantee that we will succeed because there are many countries out there, many economies out there taking the same path. But many of them either did not succeed or succeeded to a different extent. In the case of Singapore, speaking for the Labour Movement, we embrace this policy because we believe this is good for the future of the Singapore economy but, more importantly, this is good for the Singapore workers of today and tomorrow.

We believe that as we restructure the Singapore economy towards one that is driven by productivity and innovation, we ought to make sure that three important outcomes are achieved. Firstly, the restructuring must include enterprises of all sizes – small, medium, large. The strength of the Singapore economy is not in any particular enterprise, not in any particular cluster, but in many enterprises and in many clusters. The reason why we have full employment today is because we have many companies – small, medium, large and in many clusters – doing well. Therefore it is very important, very important that with a restructured economy, we pay attention to enterprises of all sizes.

The SMEs deserve special attention because they are the largest employer group. At the same time, the strength of any cluster in Singapore is defined by the weakest link. And the SMEs form a very important link of the Singapore economic clusters. In that respect, the Labour Movement is glad that the Government is extending special support to the SMEs. Take, for example, in the area of manpower development. The Government agencies have always extended special support to the SMEs in terms of training grants.

Just a few days ago, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman announced that the training grants for SMEs will go up further. Earlier, Member Mr Gerald Giam suggested that we ought to introduce scholarship to support the SMEs. I am happy to share with Mr Giam that actually the scholarship for SME is already in place. SPRING Singapore administers a scholarship whereby 70% of the scholarship is funded by the Government, and the SMEs need to fund only 30%. Many industrial associations are also encouraged to set up their scholarship scheme with the funding support of 70:30 by the Government. Furthermore, SPRING Singapore managed a scheme, known as Management Associate, to help the SMEs to recruit fresh graduates to join them. For 18 months, for these fresh graduates with employment with the SMEs, SPRING Singapore provides training and development grants to send them for training, not just locally but overseas as well.

I am also very happy to say that the Government is supporting innovation in the SMEs because the SMEs cannot compete just on low cost but with better product and services. So, innovation is very important. In that regard, again, we are very happy that Deputy Prime Minister Tharman announced the increase of the Innovation Grant from 50% to 70% this year. I am told that SPRING Singapore also gives Innovation Vouchers of $5,000. And all the SMEs need to do is to submit a two-page online application, and thousands of them are today recipients of this Innovation Grant.

We are even happier that the Government agencies are doing more to help the SMEs to build up their business capabilities, for example, from service innovation through customer-centric initiatives (CCI) to branding, to intellectual property management, and so on. On the whole, we believe that a lot is being done to support the SMEs and, of course, we hope that more can be done, and we believe more need to be done. So, for the SMEs out there, yes, we know that life is tough for them, especially the pace of rapid restructuring. However, we want to assure them – I think it is important for the tripartite partners to assure them – that we will not neglect them. In fact, in this economic restructuring, we, as a tripartite partner from the Labour Movement to the Government, to the industrial associations, are going to go the extra mile to support them and to reach out to them. Why? Because their interest is also the interest of the Labour Movement, as they are the largest employer group in Singapore.

If you look at countries by size – small countries, medium-sized countries, large countries or SML countries – Singapore is not even a small medium-sized nation. We are one of the smallest, a tiny nation; yet, because we are able to adapt, we turn our small size into our advantage and we respond quickly. As a result, the Singapore economy is today one of the most dynamic and most competitive. I think the same can be said of the SMEs – turn your small size into your advantage and adapt to situations. In fact, many of them, we believe, can ride this wave of economic restructuring as well.

Sir, the second important outcome for the Labour Movement is to ensure that this economic restructuring will include workers of all ages at all skill levels. Some of the older workers and the low-skilled workers, as reflected by some of the labour Members, are concerned whether they will be left out in this particular restructuring exercise. It is important for us to recognise that, in fact, the tripartite partners – the Labour Movement, the Government and the employer – have never neglected the low-wage workers and the older workers. If you were to look at recent years, the Government introduced the Workfare Income Supplement – not a low-budget programme – started from $400 million, and went up to $440 million. I think it will be probably much higher than that this year. So, it is a big commitment by the Government to support the low-wage workers.

Housing Grants – MND introduced special housing grants for the low-wage workers. ComCare – MCYS championed for ComCare with all the grassroots organisations. Just last year, we introduced the Inclusive Growth Programme (IGP) funded by the Government, championed by the Labour Movement. Today, more than 20,000 to 30,000 low-wage workers are under this programme where they are going through job redesign and skill redevelopment.

Re-employment of the older workers – we started that programme five years ago, even though the law has come into effect only this year. We implemented it five years ago. And just this year, we hear the good news of the restoration of the employer's contribution for the older workers.

On the whole, we are encouraged that a lot has been done for the low-wage workers and for the elderly, matured workers. But, of course, we recognise that a lot more needs to be done, a lot more can be done and a lot more must be done. In this regard, as a Labour Movement, we hope that we make this focus on low-wage workers, older workers, a national effort. Every one of us can play our part to help the low-wage workers. When I was the Environment Minister, I visited our hawker centres. I noted that our hawker centre cleaners not only received low wages. In fact, they did not even have proper uniforms, proper working shoes and proper cleaning equipment. So, we changed all that. We redesigned their uniforms, we redesigned their jobs, retrained them to upgrade their skills, and today we are going to take a further step to upgrade them.

Another example is despatch riders. At the Meet-the-People Session one night, one despatch rider in Bedok, a resident, came to see me. He received a fine for illegal parking. I asked him, "What caused you to park your motorbike illegally?" He said, "Mr Lim, I am a despatch rider. My job is to run from building to building to do despatches. I do not have much time. Many of these buildings do not allow us to go into their car parks. So, I have no choice but to park by the roadside in front of the building or next to the building. And many of these buildings are in CBD, so they have these double yellow lines, and that is the reason why I received a fine on that day." And I asked, "Is your company going to pay for you?" He said, "No, all $70 must come from my pocket." So, of course, I appealed for him. But that got me thinking: why is it that nobody paid attention to the interests of the despatch riders? I came back to NTUC located in SLF building, and asked my building management, "Every day we have despatch riders coming to our building. Do we have parking lots for them?" They said, "No, we don't have, because nobody has anyway." I said, "Then make sure that One Marina Boulevard building will be the first one in Shenton Way to have parking lots for the despatch riders." And we implemented the programme a few months ago. My point here is this: yes, we can talk about low-wage workers, the plight of low-wage workers, the plight of matured workers but, at the end of the day, talk is not good enough, we need action. And action does not have to come from the Ministers, the Ministries, the Members, and so on. I believe that everyone of us, in our daily lives, if we pay enough attention to them, can do our part to help them.

Sir, the third outcome, which I think is a very important outcome, is that as we restructure the economy, we must also make sure that we include both the local manpower and the global manpower. I feel that this is an important point to emphasise because there is this sentiment that under this new policy framework, we are now turning off the tap for foreign manpower. Sir, it cannot be the case. If we turn off the tap for foreign manpower suddenly, if we try to reduce the number of foreign workers in Singapore to zero, I think the Singaporean workers and the Singapore economy will have a lot of suffering to face.

The idea – as a tripartite partner, the Labour Movement supports it – is that we have to manage the growth of the foreign manpower, not to reduce the number of foreign manpower. For the Labour Movement, "Singaporean First" does not equal to "Singaporean Only". I think it is very important for us to recognise that we are doing this for the interests of our Singaporean workers.

For a long time to come, if we are successful in our foreign worker policy and economic restructuring, we should expect foreign manpower to continue to make up about one-third of our workforce. In other words, for every two Singaporean workers, we should expect to have one of them around because we need to have them to supplement and complement our workforce. But what we want to make sure is that Singaporeans will form the core of the Singapore workforce and that one-third of them will still be here to complement and supplement us, and not the other way round. In that regard, we believe that all employers ought to make better use of every worker, both local worker and foreign worker. For the foreign workers, please do not use them just because they are cheap. Rather, we should use them for their strength. In other words, in the recruitment and hiring of foreign workers, we hope that all employers will, likewise, pay closer attention to their skills and capabilities, and train their workers – whether they are local workers or foreign workers – so that everyone can be productive and add to the strength of the Singapore economy.

Sir, in conclusion, will we succeed? Today, we have a good policy, we have a good debate in this Parliament. The question is: will we have good implementation after all this debate is over? I believe that as we go through this process of change, there will be pain. Some workers will feel the pain because they have to go for re-training. Some SMEs will feel the pain because they have to go for re-positioning. Some clusters will feel the pain because they have to re-group themselves. So, Sir, there certainly will be pain with change, but we must always remember that there will be bigger and longer pain without change. Therefore, as we go through this process, let us not try to hope for a "painless" process – it will not happen. Let us, as Singapore United, go through the pain together; let us go through the change together, so that at the end of the day, there is a gain for us to share together.

Sir, Singapore may be limited by our small space and small population, but I think we should be unlimited in our strife for a better Singapore forever.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 1559 for Vernacular Speeches.] The Singapore of the past will not end because of the 2011 elections, because Singapore of the past has not been a failure. The future chapter of Singapore will also not begin because of the 2011 elections, because the political interest is not the major focus of the Singapore Government. The process of nation-building is long and full of opportunities and challenges. The strategy used in the process of nation-building must thus change with the times. However, the people-centred, nation-first approach cannot be changed and will not change. Thus, I urge all Members of Parliament to take a non-partisan approach, to fight for a more perfect Singapore in this imperfect world.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2012 calls for efforts to build an inclusive society and a stronger Singapore. Having heard many of the speeches by fellow Members of the House yesterday and today, most are in general agreement that we have before us a caring Budget, one that serves to fill the gaps that previous budgets did not address.

Let me begin with a story. One day, a mouse saw the farmer and his wife come home with a mousetrap. Worried, he retreated to the farmyard and shouted, "There is a mousetrap in the house!" The chicken clucked and said, "Mr Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you, but I cannot be bothered by it." The pig sympathised with him and said, "I am so very sorry, Mr Mouse, but there is nothing I can do about it but pray." The cow said "Wow, Mr Mouse. I am sorry for you, but it is nothing to do with me." So, the mouse returned to the house dejected, to face the farmer's mousetrap alone. That very night the mousetrap snapped shut. The farmer's wife rushed to see what was caught but was bitten by a poisonous snake whose tail the trap had caught. The farmer rushed her to the hospital and she returned home with a fever. Everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup. But his wife's sickness continued, so friends and neighbours came to keep vigil. To feed them, the farmer roasted the pig. The farmer's wife, unfortunately, did not get well and she passed away. So, many people came for her funeral and the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them. The mouse looked upon all of these from his crack in the wall with great sadness.

What the story tells us is that there is no problem too small or insignificant that it does not affect all of us eventually. We are all at risk even if we do not seem to be directly affected. Therefore, amidst the tremendous rate of growth that we have experienced as a nation for the past few decades, we must ensure that those who lag behind for various reasons are not left behind.

The Budget seeks to address this at many levels. Yet, just as there is no Budget that can address all groups, this Budget is not a magic cure for everything.

Yesterday, the hon Member for Holland-Bukit Timah, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, spoke passionately for small businesses struggling against the tide of competition and rising costs.

While from an economics point of view, unproductive business should be shown the door, let us pause and remember the story of the mousetrap. It is easy for us to lose sight of the reality that many of these small shops, small factories, family-run, community-supported form the very backbone of our economy. They work hard to earn a living and to support their families. The few foreign workers that they may have, supplement what is often a dwindling workforce for crafts that cannot solely rely on mechanisation to replace.

As such, the reduction of the Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) is a major sledgehammer to their businesses. Many lament that they are, as the oft-repeated phrase, working just to pay the rent. One real life example is one Mr Chua Lian Thye, a carpenter and a family man at heart. I met Mr Chua recently during my regular house visits. Supporting a family of five, including three lovely children aged between six and 15, he and his three blood brothers have been running a small carpentry and woodwork factory for close to a decade. His eldest brother who heads up the operations has been in the business for almost 20 years.

As the years progressed, what was perhaps a viable way of really using their hands to make a living has proven to be getting from challenging to nearly insurmountable odds. Not only has their rental increased exponentially in just a few short years, they are now facing intense competition from across the Causeway in Malaysia where the costs of materials and manpower are much cheaper. In addition, very few, if any, young Singaporeans are willing to take up an apprenticeship to do woodwork – hard work, dusty environment, tough conditions. Many of their own staff that they have currently are already in their 60s. They are getting on in their years and looking forward to perhaps less strenuous work.

The revisions to the DRC for the Chua family could not have come at a less welcomed time. This is not for the want of trying that they do not have enough locals wanting to enter the industry. For a small outfit like theirs with low capital outlays, investments in technology and machinery do not make a whole lot of sense to them. Many like Mr Chua and his brothers are simply doing what they do best using their hands to make an honest living.

It may seem callous that we must keep up with the times and get onto the productivity bandwagon. From a Labour Movement perspective, I applaud the billions that we have invested to increase productivity to benefit especially our low-wage workers. At the same time, I cannot but feel that ordinary Singaporeans like Mr Chua and his siblings, though business owners themselves, are workers too.

Therefore, I urge the Ministry of Manpower to handle with a delicate touch some of our SMEs who are truly feeling the heat from all sides; perhaps a review of the mousetrap of DRC categories to broaden the categorisations and therefore allow for higher ratios for some deserving firms. It will not be easy, it is not clear-cut, but in one way or form, these companies do deserve an equal shot at playing their part in our economy, no matter how mouse-like and small a player they may be. There are many existing programmes to help SMEs. But for varying reasons, some SMEs have not come on board at all. Perhaps, more information should be issued to encourage them to do so.

I mentioned low-wage workers earlier as well. I would like to turn my attention to a group that would have much to benefit from a proverbial "cash-cow" of a Budget. These are older Singaporeans, especially older workers. One particular area, of course, is the reinstatement of CPF rates for older workers. This is something that the Labour Movement has pushed forth for many years and I am definitely certain that our older workers welcome this as well.

Yet, comprehensive though this Budget may be in attempting to address the concerns of older Singaporeans and older workers, the test of the pudding is in its implementation. Last evening, after the end of Parliament, I went with my wife to a hawker centre in the Chinatown area to have dinner. Finishing the meal, out of our usual habit, we cleared our bowls and carried the tray over to an elderly cleaning lady who was clearing the tables. The elderly lady gestured to the table that she was cleaning and asked that I place the tray on it. I did so, smiled, and the elderly lady said in Hokkien and I translate, "Next time, just leave the table, we will clean it. If anyone or TV crew takes a photo or video of us, then dai-ji-liao-liao (we will have lots of problems)."

I was kind of taken aback but said good night and shrugged to myself as we walked away. But somehow it nagged at me no end. I then found out that she was worried about two things. One, she was worried about being told that she was not doing her work well enough to the point that diners like myself had to clear our own tables. Secondly, she was concerned as well that if more customers cleared their own tables, she would be out of a job. For someone like her, bent of back, with halting steps, it somewhat pained me that this could not possibly be the face of the re-employment of older workers.

Again, though the Special Employment Credit will be welcomed by employers and I welcome the prospect of older Singaporeans who want to continue working being able to do so, I also urge that the Government ensure that we do not create a scenario of phantom workers or older workers made to go through unsuitable work simply because they are now "subsidised workers". Let us not have the cash-cow of SECs become the mousetrap for older workers.

For young workers, many whom I had the privilege of interacting with since the Budget announcement, they see it from two extremes. On the one hand, they see it as a caring Budget, the compassionate community moving forward together. In the same breath, they are concerned about their own prospects. Young couples wanting to start off in life continue to see some bleakness in the housing market; the rising costs of living standing partially in the way of starting a family. It is hoped that some of the measures may become clearer during the COS and I look forward, as they do, to hearing from the respective Ministries.

Sir, we have a good opportunity to set the groundwork for the coming years with this Budget. Yet, what is being called a "Budget of the Future" cannot but raise questions in my mind that, as a younger Singaporean, the future cost of this Budget is not immediately clear. GST Vouchers, SECs, productivity push, new buses, all this is certainly not a one-off capital cost. Some call this a social budget; some refer to it in hushed tones as creeping welfarism. But whatever it is, we must be sure that we are spending responsibly and within our means, and not just be populist for populism's sake. Are the reserves that previous governments have worked hard to build being eroded? What does the future hold for young Singaporeans? More importantly, is this "Budget for the Future" also getting its budget from the future?

These are major social investments that we are introducing and they will have their costs. I, therefore, hope that Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman would be able to help Singaporeans understand how these will be paid for and, more importantly, clarify if higher taxes are to be expected or even dreaded in the near future. Just like the mousetrap, everything may seem to be going great at the moment, but how will our economy look like 10-20 years from now.

As Secretary-General of NTUC Mr Lim Swee Say said earlier, the price of failure for our efforts will be too serious to ignore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in closing, as we progress, let us progress together. As we strengthen our own capabilities, let us also strengthen this nation we call our home. Just as in the story of the mousetrap, we are all part of each other's tapestry of life, all on the same journey. We should keep an eye out for each other and make an effort to encourage each other along the way. With that, Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate.

Sir, after the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance read the Budget Statement on 17 February, my immediate thoughts were that this Budget is a People Budget, one that shows our Government's care towards our people more explicitly and more directly than before. It is also one that takes a long-term view. Having enjoyed considerable economic growth over several decades, I believe we have the capital and the responsibility to make strategic long-term social investments now.

At the same time, I also saw this Budget as building and reinforcing an integral aspect of Singapore – the quality of resilience – resilience economically, socially and individually. Let me explain.

First, on Economic Resilience. The need for economic resilience is clear. We are facing unfavourable global conditions. The developed economies are not doing as well as before, and Singapore faces stiffer competition from emerging economies, especially in Asia, snapping at our heels. In the face of these challenges, the Finance Minister has rightly pushed us to focus on: (1) developing our human capital; (2) driving innovation and increasing productivity; and (3) encouraging companies to tap on latent workforces in Singapore. Only so can our economy continue to do well, and Singaporeans can look forward to good jobs and opportunities in advancement.

But we must not underestimate the pains and the costs of pushing our businesses through this transformation. The bigger firms are probably better equipped to change than the SMEs, and SMEs will certainly face a tough time. Many Members in this House have talked about the problems faced by SMEs. Some of my grassroots leaders and residents who run SMEs also tell me about how worried they are about cutting back on foreign manpower. Some have also made useful suggestions which I would like to share with the House today.

For example, one resident suggested that local businesses which meet the quota be given assurance that they will get to keep foreign workers whom they have painstakingly trained and who have gained so much experience within their firms. It is already painful enough for businesses to have to adapt their operations and for some to downsize their businesses. I think we can make it less painful by preserving the skills and experiences already built within these firms. Another suggestion to help make the transition a smoother one is to give more flexibility to firms in sub-sectors that are highly unpopular with locals, or that require specialised skills that Singaporeans do not yet have, or where labour requirements simply cannot be reduced by improved productivity. I hope the Finance Minister will consider these suggestions favourably.

Let me now next turn to Social Resilience. Social resilience comes from Singaporeans having a shared destiny. We cannot have social resilience if our society is split between the "haves" and "have-nots". Instead, we must build within our people a deep sense of community, a deep sense of participation, ownership and sharing. This means that we need to give a leg up to those who are disadvantaged and help them to achieve their full potential. I am therefore glad that the Minister for Finance has chosen to focus help on the elderly, low-income families and those with disabilities. In particular, I applaud the bold moves to introduce the Special Employment Credit (SEC), expand and enhance the affordability of the Intermediate and Long Term Care healthcare and to make the GST Vouchers a permanent feature.

During the debate on the President's Address, I had spoken at length in this House about the need to do more for the elderly who had done so much in building our nation and I am most glad that the Government has come up with an extensive package of measures to help this group. But the Government cannot act alone; the private and people sectors need to play a part too. For example, I hope that the businesses will take advantage of the SEC to hire more older workers. Employers should not take it that because of the restraints on foreign manpower that they are left with "no choice" but to hire older workers. Instead, I hope they will invest in their older workers, and if need be, tap on Government's schemes such as Advantage Fund to redesign jobs for them, and hence enable them to become valuable resources in their companies. This will also enable older workers to improve their lives, and continue to make meaningful contributions to Singapore.

While I understand that it is not possible to cater to everything and everyone in one single Budget, I hope the Finance Minister will not forget other groups who are equally deserving of our attention. In particular, I would like to speak for Singaporeans requiring mental healthcare. They are neither disabled nor elderly, but they too face particular challenges. For example, in school or at work, their tension and energies are often sapped by their constant battle with their emotional and mental struggles. At home, family members may not fully understand or know how to live with them. For those with more serious conditions such as psychosis, they will face great difficulty eventually when their caregivers, often their parents, pass away or become unable to care for them any further.

The World Health Organization estimates that, globally, one in four people will suffer from mental illness at some point in their life. This is a significant statistic and the story in Singapore is not that different. Yet, despite the prevalence of mental illness around the world, this category of illness continues to be plagued by stigma that discourages social acceptance and prevents those who need help from stepping forth to seek the treatment that they need. Therefore, I hope more can be done to: (1) de-stigmatise mental illness further; (2) promote greater social acceptance; (3) enhance accessibility and affordability to professional mental healthcare; and (4) strengthen the community care and support framework. With timely and proper interventions, mental illness can be managed effectively and those with mental conditions can be employable, take care of themselves, rely on themselves and enjoy a better quality of life. In essence, a truly inclusive society has no place for stigma and so we must also combat stigma and help and care for everyone.

Finally, let me also touch on individual resilience. While I support sharing more with Singaporeans in the Budget, the Budget should not be simply about giving hong baos. We know that the Government does not create free money to give out; the revenues in the Budget has to come from somewhere and ultimately will come from our people through taxes. So, yes, we should share the progress of the nation with all Singaporeans, but we must also guard against the seeping in of a sense of over-dependency and entitlement. We are not there yet but we should guard against it.

Singapore has been able to grow and progress to where we are today because of the capabilities and efforts of our people. Our forefathers possessed enormous resilience; they toiled and saved, and built up our nation, so that we are able to increase our social spending and help more groups of Singaporeans, but let us never lose this resilience and tenacity of our forefathers. Apart from upgrading ourselves continuously, it is important that we remain grounded in core values, retain a strong sense of personal responsibility and self confidence, and make sure that we do not cultivate a sense of self-handicap and learned helplessness. Otherwise, very soon, we will lose our edge and drive, and end up living off our inheritance.

This is also why I am glad that this year's Budget will include an injection of funds into the Edusave Endowment Fund. This enables our students to have continued access to enrichment programmes and additional resources that can supplement learning. I hope that more of these resources will also be used to emphasise character building from young, on top of equipping our students with textbook skills and knowledge. We must help Singaporeans from young, to learn that when we fall, we have to muster our strength, pick ourselves up, deal with the pain and move on.

Ultimately, the way that Singapore can respond to a difficult global environment is more fundamental than nurturing lean, productive, outward-oriented and forward-looking companies, in other words, more fundamental than building economic resilience. The most basic factor to ensure that Singapore can continue to thrive is by ensuring that Singaporeans retain the individual resilience to stand firm in the face of adversities, and the unity and social resilience to surmount challenges as one people.

Since the Budget speech, I have asked various people, ordinary citizens, for their feedback on the Budget. So far, the feedback that I have received has been positive. While some commended the initiatives for our elderly, others lauded the efforts and steps taken to care for the disabled or those with special needs. However, yet others thought more could have been done to promote green efforts, affordable tertiary education and raising of families. Nevertheless, all shared that this Budget has a stronger than usual "people" element.

Among the people that I asked, I was particularly intrigued by the comments made by some young Singaporeans I met. They did not lament the lack of hong baos or goodies. All of them were happy that the Government was focusing its help to the less privileged and the more vulnerable amongst us. Allow me to share a quote by a group of NTU students I met:

"Although it is slightly disappointing at first look that there is no ang pow this time round, looking at the long term, it is actually more constructive to put money into schemes where only people who need it will get it, as opposed to giving money to everyone regardless of needs.

We are happy that the Government is taking bigger steps to help the financially challenged and the elderly. This really gives us greater confidence, knowing our parents and we will be well taken care of when we grow old and if we need financial assistance."

I think this response bodes well for our society and nation. It shows that Singaporeans, including young Singaporeans, understand that the Budget cannot be solely about personal interests, but must be about uplifting those who are less capable, and enabling all to move ahead together. Allow me to now make a very short remark in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 1560 for Vernacular Speeches. ] Mr Deputy Speaker, this year's Budget is a Budget of compassion. The Government is making substantial investment to help the elderly, the low income and people with disabilities, so they can also catch the economic express train.

Many of my Parliament colleagues have expressed that we can obviously do more for these people and other vulnerable groups. But without a doubt, this year's Budget is a big step towards a more inclusive and stronger Singapore. The Budget also embodies three key moral values:

First, looking after the elderly is filial piety aided by the Government;

Second, looking after the low-income families who are still making contribution to Singapore, shows that the Government is compassionate and just; and

Third, looking after people with disabilities shows that the Government is benevolent.

In conclusion, although there are still areas that we can improve, I am deeply pleased with this Budget of filial piety, justice and benevolence.

(In English): With this, I support the Budget.

Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. I would like to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in this Budget not only for the items that have been given but really for his fine ossicular balance. The ossicles are those items in the year which help you retain your sense of balance when everything else is sort of going up and down. This Budget is remarkable because of the way it balances things.

The first item which I think has not been sufficiently highlighted is that there have been so many calls, that there have been rising costs, and how are we going to manage that. What is sufficiently appreciated about this Budget is that it is actually a10-year plan. It is a continuation of the Budget of the previous year, which was that we anticipate that in the next 10 years, cost of living is going to rise. Now, if your wages remain the same and your cost of living rises, then you have a gap and Singaporeans are going to be disadvantaged. The strategy that has been worked into this Budget – it started last year but it has been continued this year – is that you get your wages to go up as well as to follow the costs that are going up and you keep the differential between wages and costs, so that at the end of 10 years, we have 30% growth and we are able to keep up with rising costs. That kind of strategic vision is not something which you find in many other budgets in other countries in the world and I thought that that sense of balance – balancing costs and the wages – was something which defined the ethos of this Budget, which is preparing us for the future.

There was another aspect of the Budget in respect of which I thought it showed neat or fine calibration and delicate balance which was achieved and that is with respect to foreign workers. There have been many calls in the past few speeches about, maybe, not reducing the quota of foreign workers by this much. In this Budget, there were three features about reducing dependence on foreign workers. The first, raising the eligibility criteria for Employment Passes or S Passes; second, calibrated reductions in the DRCs in manufacturing and services sectors; third, we may have to consider an increase in the foreign worker levy beyond July 2013. I listened to the calls for we should not reduce the DRCs, we must have more foreign workers and then I wondered has anybody recalled the cry at the last General Election where people said, "We have too many foreigners in Singapore. Our transport is overcrowded. Our hawker centres are overcrowded. There are too many foreigners here."

Where does it square? Because on the one hand we are saying there are too many foreigners here, the Government responds and listens and to be fair to the Government, the reason why it is reducing the DRCs is because we recognise that we cannot be continually dependent on foreign labour and you cannot also be forever increasing the numbers but the answer is to cut down and that is the response. It is also a response to the sense of Singaporeans that perhaps there are too many foreigners here and then the next response is, "Oh, but we must have more foreigners." That just illustrates the dilemma that any good government faces, that sense of balance – how do you balance this? And I think the balance in this case has been achieved correctly by calibrating the reductions in the DRCs but also recognising that once you cut back on the number of foreign workers, you still got to find another way to achieve growth and how do you do that. You have to look at productivity.

I notice that in the position taken by the Workers' Party what they had suggested was perhaps to have different industry clusters for dependency ratio ceilings. I noted with some interest that they suggested that one cluster should perhaps be finance, aerospace, biomedical and professional services which I would loosely term as the high-end services and they suggested that for those you can cut back on the number of foreign workers. Then they suggested another cluster – social services, public healthcare and construction for public infrastructure – which I would classify as sort of middle to low-end – and suggested that for those, we may need less stringent foreign manpower policy to keep the costs low. In other words, for the lower end, have more foreign labour.

But that runs contrary to the call at the General Election which came from the Workers' Party, amongst other Opposition parties, that we must have fewer foreigners here. It also runs counter to what we are trying to achieve for low-income workers in Singapore. We want them to be fully employed. We want them to have more jobs. If you relax the requirements and you have less stringent manpower policy for those sectors, then what happens to Singaporeans in those sectors, and they are the ones who need the jobs more than those at the higher end. So this sense of balancing and trade-off is a very difficult thing to do. But I think that this Budget tries very hard to achieve that and as we move forward, we are going to have to calibrate it again.

This trade-off about the need to increase productivity is also, I think, important. I applaud the Productivity and Innovation Credit which is largely aimed at the private sector.

Sir, before I move on to the next point, there was something else which Mr Chen Show Mao had said with respect to the quotas of foreign workers. I think he had asked the Government to work more closely with different stakeholders in different industries to get their input, rally their support and render assistance. I thought that this sounded reasonable. Then I asked myself, what does it actually mean because is this something that we are already doing? As I understand it, we have quotas for the different industries. Those quotas and the standards have been arrived at in discussion with people from those industries, with input and with said support as well.

The common term that faces the Government with respect to setting quotas is this: to what extent or degree or detail that you delve into it? You can do as the Government is doing now, broad quotas for various industries and you let the industries self-regulate. At the other end of the spectrum, and I am not sure this is what Mr Chen was suggesting, perhaps not, but I just want to examine it. You cannot, as a Government, say "X company, I give you five passes; Y company, I give you 10 passes; and Z company, I give you 20 passes." Because as a Government, you have no idea how much they need. What you do is you take your foreign worker levy, which is the cost, and then you look at the company, look at that cost and decide for themselves, depending on their profitability, depending on their productivity, how many foreign workers they feel that they can support. And then you let the companies decide for themselves because the Government should not be micromanaging the quotas.

So, between those two ends of the spectrum, I am sure you can arrive at something in between. But to the point that the Government should work more closely with different industries to get their input, as far as I can see, this is already being done. To what extent you calibrate it and you try to micromanage it, I do not think that you should try to micromanage it too much, because companies must have the flexibility to decide how they want to run their businesses and they would know what is most efficient for them.

This brings me back to the productivity point which is that if we are going to cut back the number of people, then something has got to give and you have got to be more productive. On this point, I would like to say something about productivity in Government services. I think that, definitely, there is a need to improve productivity in the private sector. But, equally, I would think that there is also a need to improve productivity in Government services and I think this is especially so at the frontline as well as in the middle.

Let me give Members some examples of what I mean. I think there is a need for greater productivity, in terms of quality and in terms of initiative. This is a simple example – the ramps in Tiong Bahru market. Tiong Bahru market is an old market and there are steps there. When I did my walkabout, owners asked me for ramps for the elderly. I thought, "Okay, great idea." So I asked NEA, "Can you put in the ramp?" NEA said, "Yes, we would put in the ramp." Then a few months later, I came back, there were the ramps. But they were like alpine ski slope at 45 degrees angle and the senior citizens were slipping down. I said, "Any reason why this incline is so steep." He said because our land ends there. I said, "Why don't you extend it there?" He said, "No, that is LTA land." I said, "Go a bit further." He said, "No, that is NParks land." It so happened the NParks and LTA officials were next to me. So, I looked at the NParks guy and said, "Have you any objection?" He said, "No." I said to the LTA person, "Do you have any objection?" He said, "No." I looked at the NEA guy and said, "So you extend it a little bit." And they did, a few weeks later, and sent us the ramp. So, I had a 30 to 35-degree incline ramp, instead of a 45-degree one.