Hansard, Friday, 18 February 2022

1 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in the last three years, how many cases have there been in divorce and child custody cases where allegations of child abuse by one spouse against the other spouse in attempting to prevent access to children have been proven to be false.

(for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministry is unable to provide the specific number of cases where one spouse falsely alleges during the divorce process that the other spouse has abused the child, in order to prevent the other spouse from obtaining custody care and control or access to the child, as the Family Justice Courts does not have such data available.

Nonetheless, furnishing false information to a public servant, which includes a judge or officer of a court of justice, whether or not as part of the divorce process, is an offence under the Penal Code. If convicted, the individual would be liable to a fine and/or a term of imprisonment. Over the last three years, from 2019 to 2021, an average of approximately 80 persons were convicted annually of such an offence of furnishing false information, but this is not limited to the context of child abuse allegations in divorce proceedings.

Ms Carrie Tan.

I thank the Minister of State for her answer. I just want to set the context for my supplementary question. It is not uncommon for us to come across cases where, post-divorce or during divorce, individuals try to find reasons to deny or prevent access or custody of the ex-spouse from the children. In the spirit of MSF's latest efforts to introduce restorative justice into divorce proceedings, whether MSF currently has or will include emphasis in the divorce counselling process to stress to parents that depriving children of access to their parents can actually have detrimental effects on their well-being and to stress the importance that collaborative co-parenting is necessary for the children's well-being.

I ask this because I have come across several attempts by residents to seek advice from me, knowing that I champion women's rights, to ask for advice on how they can prevent custody of their ex-husbands for their children. Personally, those can be stemming from vices or fears that the individual may have. So, I feel that MSF can do something to help citizens understand the importance of having both parents in a child's life despite divorce.

I thank the Member for her question. Indeed, at the recent Second Reading of the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill, I had shared about how we will be introducing a range of measures to enforce child access and that includes allowing the Court to order: (a) the care and control parent to grant the access parent additional access to the child to make up for the access denied; (b) the care and control parent to compensate the access parent for expenses incurred as a result of the breach of order; (c) both parties and the child or any of them to attend counselling, mediation, therapeutic or educational programmes or family support programmes; (d) the care and control parent to enter into a bond to ensure future compliance with the order; and (e) as a last resort, imprisonment or a fine for the care and control parent.

That said, I entirely agree with the Member that what is important is that we try to encourage co-parenting behaviours between the divorced spouses, because at the end of the day, there is a child at the centre of this and we do not want too acrimonious a relationship between the ex-spouses as it would be to the detriment of the child.

Specifically on this, we have set up five FAM@FSCs, and there would be a further five more FAM@FSCs which would be set up by the end of 2022. And these bring together existing marriage and divorce support programmes and support services. We have also introduced a new family counselling service which includes parenting support that helps to look at parent and child issues. The work at the FAM@FSCs is also complemented by the work of the DSSAs. The programmes of the DSSAs and FAM@FSCs are delivered by specialised counsellors and social workers, whose aim is to help divorcing parents understand the impact of the divorce on their children and also to work out their differences so that they can parent effectively.

What I mentioned earlier on the legal measures, we hope that those would be a last resort. At the end of the day, we want to restore the relationship, hopefully, between the divorced, ex-spouses so that they can co-parent effectively for the best interest of the child.

Ms Hany Soh.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I echo what Ms Carrie Tan has said in relation to restoring the family relationships despite the breakdown of the parents' marriage.

Currently, it has been made compulsory for parents, prior to the filing of the divorce, to undergo counselling sessions. My suggestion to MSF is to consider this, as children are often feeling torn apart and feeling it is very difficult to make decisions when it comes to choosing which parent to follow as a result of the breakdown of the parents' marriage, whether it may be helpful for a compulsory session to be made for the children to undergo a series of counselling sessions while the parents, at the same time, go for the counselling and mediation sessions?

I thank the Member for her follow-up question. I mentioned earlier that the Court can order the parties – the divorced spouses – and the child or any of them to attend counselling, mediation, therapeutic or educational programmes or family support programmes. So, the Court can order this.

But we have stop short of making it mandatory across, like the Marriage Parenting Programme (MPP) which I had talked about at the Second Reading of the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill. That is because we recognise that there can be different circumstances that affect families. We do not want a situation where, by making certain programmes compulsory, we actually add on to the stress that the child or the divorced spouses may already be experiencing. So, we have adopted a balanced approach, in that should there be persistent transgressions from one spouse in denying access to the other spouse, then, the Court can order such counselling and mediation programmes.

But we stop short of making it compulsory because we recognise that there may be different, unique circumstances facing each family.

2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for each year in the past three years, what is the income data of the long-term unemployed population with a breakdown by income groups; (b) what are the top five industries with the highest long-term unemployment rates; and (c) what are the plans to support long-term unemployed workers in these industries.

MOM adopts the same approach taken by other national statistical agencies and tracks long-term unemployment rates disaggregated by age, gender and education qualifications. These figures are released regularly through our labour market reports.

The industries with the highest long-term unemployment rates in June 2021 were Transportation and Storage, Administrative and Support Services, Arts, Entertainment and Recreation, Construction, Accommodation and Food Services, and Real Estate Services. These industries have been relatively more impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the long-term unemployment rates across industries also fluctuate from year to year, so it does not make sense to focus on the top industries. Instead, we have to help workers across the economy to continue to stay relevant and also for jobseekers wishing to switch careers, to help them switch into new jobs.

Our measures include efforts to pre-emptively tackle the issue of skills obsolescence and reduce the chances of workers falling into long-term unemployment. This is even more apt in this current world where there is so much disruption and transformation going on.

We publish Jobs Transformation Maps or JTMs, which are detailed sectoral manpower studies mapping out the impact of technology and digitalisation on individual jobs over the medium term, to identify opportunities for employers to transform their jobs as well as to upskill their workers to be ready for these transformed jobs.

Employers can tap on various Government programmes to do so. Under the Support for Job Redesign under Productivity Solutions Grant, there is funding support for employers undergoing business transformation to redesign jobs to be more productive and attractive to workers. Workforce Singapore, or WSG, has also rolled out Job Redesign Reskilling Programmes to support employers to upskill their employees to take on enhanced job roles. Employers who need support on their transformation journeys can partner with NTUC to establish a Company Training Committee, or CTC. NTUC has done so with over 800 companies. MOM will continue to support NTUC’s efforts.

So, the first part alludes to supporting the employers, the businesses. Now, the employee side. To directly support local jobseekers, the National Jobs Council has placed more than 174,000 jobseekers into jobs and skills opportunities as of end-December 2021. This is under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills, or SGUJS, Package. The Jobs Growth Incentive, or JGI, was also introduced to encourage employers to expand local hiring amidst economic uncertainty.

Jobseekers also have access to WSG’s career matching services and programmes. Several of our programmes provide enhanced support for the long-term unemployed. In particular, the Career Conversion Programmes, or CCPs, help jobseekers to reskill for in-demand growth jobs. Employers who hire long-term unemployed candidates will receive higher support of up to 90% of salary costs. We have also appointed Adecco as our first SGUnited Jobs and Skills Placement Partner to provide additional job matching avenues for more vulnerable jobseekers, including the long-term unemployed.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive answer. I just have two supplementary questions. One is, the Minister alluded to the fact that the long-term unemployment rate does fluctuate across industries and he highlighted the top few industries for long-term unemployment. I am just wondering whether the Ministry has given any thought to identifying those industries that may be most at-risk from long-term unemployment, based on technological changes and economic changes that we can foresee, and whether efforts are underway to proactively push out communications, maybe get ahead of the curve, to employers and employees to get them to reskill or upskill so that they will not be so much at risk of long-term unemployment from these technological changes.

The second question is, the Minister alluded to programme such as CCP and I think Professional Conversion Programme is maybe another subset of that. One bit of feedback that I do come across sometimes is that these reskilling programmes, the number of places is limited and people have to compete to get into these programmes. I am wondering if the Government is considering expanding the supply of such programmes to keep up with the demand.

I thank Mr Leon Perera for his question. Indeed, for the at-risk industries, we work very closely with the different economic agencies including the other Ministry that I am also overseeing with Minister Gan Kim Yong, working with EDB and ESG to identify which sectors or types of industries are at risk of disruption. We actually work with them to develop JTMs. I think there are about 15 Job Transformation Maps (JTMs) planned.

What we do is that we believe in not just making sure of identifying the at-risk employees, but we also want to identify the at-risk businesses, so that there is a proper matching. On top of that, we also – I think I have alluded some time ago – that we have a job task force with a clear target in terms of trying to go down to the granular details, to see where some of these potential mismatches could end up with.

As a result of that, we have been able to, in some of these at-risk areas, identified the number of jobs available. I think we are now on a fairly good trajectory of achieving those targets.

Moving forward, in terms of the CCPs, the CCPs are limited by the ability of the companies or the businesses that we are working with, for them to dedicate and allocate resources. WSG has a sustained effort to increase and maximise the number of CCP places working in collaboration with these companies and to develop more programmes for the employees, particularly those making mid-career switches, looking to upskill, to reskill or to pivot. The key thing is obviously bringing these companies on board, because some companies, particularly the smaller ones, find that they may not necessarily have the bandwidth nor the resources to join us in developing some of these CCPs.

As a result, we then work with the economic agencies to see whether we could help them tap on the Support for Job Redesign under Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG-JR) or some of the other types of bridging loans for them to be able to leverage on these resources to help train and to help them pivot to new, hopefully, greener pastures. I hope that answers the Member's question. There are quite a number of these programmes available.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I could just quickly follow up. I understand that Minister has mentioned that it is not generally suitable for us to pay too much attention to the specific industry categories. But I wonder if he could just characterise whether these tend to fall more within what we would typically call "higher-skilled, more trained educated jobs" or whether they tend to fall along the lower-skilled spectrum. And I ask because I think it is imperative for us to get a handle on this, because our policy response for addressing displacement of lower-skilled workers, could be quite different from higher-skilled ones.

I thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for his question. I think there are two aspects of it that we have been gleaning from the statistics and also the data that we have obtained. Generally, the older age group, particularly from those that are in their 50s and 60s, have a relatively higher difficulty in obtaining jobs. In terms of the educational level, typically, these are those who have not gotten Diplomas, I mean they have Secondary education.

I want to add that the long-term unemployment rate is not high to begin with – we are at about 0.9%. In a very good year, we are at about 0.7% or 0.8%. That 0.9% equates to about 22,000 residents. This is the group we are looking at. We have tried to see what are some of the skillsets that we could nudge them to upgrade to. Many of them, we would need them to work with us in terms pivoting, reskilling in the ICT sector and also in terms of improving the value-added and the productivity of the roles that they are performing in.

One of the challenges is also the fact that across the industry, it is the inward-facing ones, I think the same ones that we have been talking about the last couple of months. The inward-facing ones – retail, some of those in food services and hospitality – they continue to still be relatively slower compared to the outward-facing sectors in the recovery. So, these are the ones that we are trying our level best with, by identifying them, working closely with the industry to see how we can actually help them transform, we can actually help them to also repackage some of the services that they are able to offer. And as a result of that, have a whole series of programmes for this group of individuals, whether it is place-and-train or attach-and-train, so that we can take some of the economic burden off the companies, by Government subsidising or funding a large part of that training for us to collectively achieve the end goal of getting them gainfully employed.

So, we can go into a lot more granular detail, but I think that perhaps suffice to say if it answers directionally the Member's question and line of reasoning, I am happy to take it further in subsequent sessions to try and see how we can come to an even more focused and even more nuanced solution for this group of individuals.

3 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the resignation rate among Singaporean employees in the last two years as compared to before; (b) whether Singapore is seeing a wave of resignations like in other countries; (c) with the rise of remote work, whether the resignation trend will become more prevalent as employees have more choices and less workplace camaraderie to retain them; and (d) which industries are struggling with employee retention and how is the Government helping them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministry is aware of the trend of rising resignation rates in some other countries and we have been monitoring the local situation.

The resignation rate in Singapore has remained consistently low throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. It is down from 1.8% in the third quarter of 2019 to 1.6% in the third quarter of 2021. This figure is also below the pre-COVID-19 quarterly average of 1.8% in 2018 and 2019. This is yet another example of where the Singapore labour market has responded to COVID-19 differently from other economies. We have similarly seen that the employment rates for women and senior workers have not dropped but have held steady or continued to rise. Analysts, observers and commentators interested in labour market issues may want to consider that there are factors that do not allow for a like-for-like comparison with the situation in many other countries.

Nevertheless, as the economy recovers, we expect the resignation rate to go back up as more workers seek out better opportunities. This is to be expected in well-functioning labour markets. We have already observed higher resignation rates in growth sectors such as Financial Services, Professional Services, Information and Communications, and Health and Social Services, where recruitment rates have also increased in tandem.

To help both employers and employees adapt to remote working arrangements, we are working with tripartite partners and the Human Resource (HR) community to promote resources and tools, such as the Institute for Human Resource Professionals' or IHRP's Playbook on Hybrid Workplaces, which guides companies on implementing effective hybrid work arrangements and enhancing employee engagement.

In addition, the IHRP's COVID-19 Taskforce curated several resources to help employers and the HR community navigate the changes and challenges posed by the pandemic. In particular, the People Strategy HR toolkit offers a series of guides on talent attraction, development and retention. Companies and HR professionals are strongly encouraged to take reference from the recommended approaches and best practices to refresh their talent management strategies and reduce staff turnover.

4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the rise of hybrid working arrangements has adversely impacted CPF contributions; (b) how will differential benefits and compensation for traditional salaried employees and remote hybrid employees affect the computation of CPF obligations; and (c) what is being done to incentivise employees working remotely for overseas employers to make their share of employee’s CPF contributions for their retirement and healthcare needs.

CPF contributions have risen over the past few years, even during the COVID-19 pandemic when there was a rise in hybrid working arrangements.

The computation of CPF obligations does not differ from traditional salaried employees and remote hybrid employees. All employers are required to make mandatory CPF contributions, both the employer and the employee portion, based on the wages a Singaporean or a Singapore Permanent Resident earns while working in Singapore. This includes overseas employers who have local employees working for them remotely in Singapore.

We advise local employees of such firms to check that their employment contracts cover the rights and obligations for both themselves and their employers, including provisions of the contribution of CPF by their employers. Further information can be found in the guide on working for overseas-based employers which is published on MOM's website.

In addition, like other local employees, employees working remotely in Singapore for overseas employers can still make voluntary CPF contributions up to $37,740 per year, less any mandatory contributions received, to help them enjoy CPF interest rates of up to 6% per annum and accumulate more for their retirement and their healthcare needs.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. Will some companies use hybrid work to avoid paying the full CPF obligations? One possibility that I can think of is that some companies may have a physical presence but not declaring that the company is hiring workers who are working from home. What are the plans to periodically review and audit the CPF obligation by employers, especially, given the complexity brought upon by remote and hybrid workplaces?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member, Mr Yip, for his question. All employers hiring Singaporean employees based in Singapore, have a legal obligation to pay CPF contributions accurately and promptly for their employees. And these include those on hybrid working arrangements.

CPF Board has multiple channels to identify employers who do not pay their CPF contributions correctly and promptly. We have a detection system. Our detection system identifies employers who are late in their contributions. There is a reporting system. Reports can be lodged with the CPF Board. Employees and whistle-blowers can lodge reports to CPF Board about late payment, non-payment or under-payment of CPF contributions.

Moving into the third initiative, the CPF Board also proactively audits employers to check the accuracy of CPF contributions paid as well as wages declared.

Let me reiterate and reassure the Member: the CPF Board takes a very serious view on employers who fail to pay CPF contributions correctly and promptly. If employers fail to comply with their CPF obligations, the Board will not hesitate to take enforcement actions and impose penalties as appropriate.

5 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what has been the take-up rate of trust services for persons with disabilities from low- and middle-income families to ensure that they are financially taken care of after their primary caregivers are no longer able to support them; and (b) whether the financial support that the Ministry provides to the Special Needs Trust Company (SNTC) for the set-up of trust and related services for the benefit of persons with disabilities can be structured in a manner that will allow the SNTC to focus more on reaching out to families with persons with disabilities from low and middle income backgrounds.

Sir, the Special Needs Trust Company (SNTC), is a not-for-profit trust company incorporated in 2008 to enable families to set up affordable trusts for their loved ones with special needs.

As of 31 January this year, SNTC has a portfolio of 889 SNTC Trust accounts, of which 65% of the accounts are set up by families living in HDB flats.

MSF fully funds the operating costs of the SNTC, which helps to ensure that the trust is affordable and accessible to low- and middle-income families. The initial capital required to set up an SNTC trust account is only $5,000 compared to private trusts which usually requires at least $50,000.

Since 2011, SNTC has also proactively raised donations under its Financial Assistance Scheme to help eligible low-income elderly caregivers with the initial capital of $5,000 to set up a trust account. In October last year, SNTC also launched the Gift of a Lifetime Sponsorship Scheme, or GOAL in short. GOAL supports eligible low-income families with the initial $5,000 needed to set up an SNTC trust account and a further $5,000 matching grant to help the parents co-pay the premium of an affordable term policy, where the insurance proceeds will be paid into the child's SNTC trust account upon the demise of the insured parent. This better ensures that there will be sufficient funds in the trust account to support the long-term care needs of their child.

MSF will continue to explore ways to ensure that SNTC trust services remains affordable and accessible to low-income and middle-income families.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Parliamentary Secretary for his detailed answer. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the board members and the management staff of the SNTC, who have been doing good work since 2008 to help families with special needs members and to give the caregivers assurance that once they pass on, their children with special needs will continue to be taken care of, if they have entered into trust arrangements.

My supplementary question is in relation to quickening the pace of assistance to families from low- and middle-income backgrounds. May I ask whether the Ministry would be prepared to do a gaps analysis to see how much more demand there would be – recognising on one hand, we have SNTC since 2008, administering about 900 trusts; and on the other hand, the number of persons with disabilities in our resident population is about 650,000?

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. On the point about quickening the pace of our support that is given to low-income families with special needs individuals in the household, SNTC has moved quite a bit in that direction. Hence, the set-up of GOAL in October last year.

Since GOAL was set up, we have also seen a groundswell of donations coming in and we are very happy with what has been achieved through this scheme. The scheme, as I said, was set up in October last year and is still in its infancy stage. So, I would think we should give SNTC some time, to let this scheme grow and mature. Over time, at the appropriate juncture, we can then take stock and perform the gaps analysis that the Member has mentioned to see what else we can do for low- as well as middle-income families in this area.

6 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the Ministry’s assessment on the possible effects of the impending winding up of Dream Cruises and Genting Hong Kong Ltd on (i) the business of the Marina Bay Cruise Centre Singapore (MBCCS) and (ii) Singapore as a cruise hub; and (b) what measures will be taken to mitigate any negative impact on Singapore as a cruise hub.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Genting Hong Kong and Dream Cruises have appointed provisional liquidators to facilitate the restructuring of both companies. We are closely monitoring the impact of these developments on those who have booked upcoming sailings on Dream Cruises' ship, World Dream, as well as the impact on Marina Bay Cruise Centre Singapore (MBCCS) and also on Singapore's cruise industry.

While new bookings with Dream Cruises have been suspended from 21 January 2022, World Dream currently continues to sail from Singapore.

Singapore remains an attractive cruise hub for many cruise lines, given our year-round tropical climate and strong market potential here and in the region. Royal Caribbean has recently brought forward its deployment of Spectrum of the Seas from October 2022 to April 2022, which will provide business opportunities for MBCCS. The Singapore Tourism Board is also in discussions with other cruise lines on their interest to resume sailings from Singapore.

Pre-COVID-19, Singapore had the most cruise ship calls amongst ports in Asia. As Singapore transits towards living with endemic COVID-19, we will continue our efforts to anchor more cruise ships in Singapore and maintain Singapore's attractiveness as a cruise hub in the region.

7 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Law (a) whether proceedings can be brought under section 4 of the Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 for cases of smoking near balconies or windows in homes when the second-hand smoke interferes with a neighbour’s enjoyment of his property; and (b) if so, what kind of evidence will need to be presented in order to show such interference.

Mr Deputy Speaker, my Ministry has previously provided the Member with statistics relating to claims brought in the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) for unreasonable interference caused by excessive smoke, which includes second-hand smoke. The Member will therefore be aware that claims can be brought under section 4 of the Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 (CDRA) for cases of smoking near balconies or windows in homes when the second-hand smoke interferes with a neighbour's enjoyment of his or her property.

Section 4(1) of the CDRA states that a resident must not, by an act or omission, cause unreasonable interference with another neighbour's enjoyment or use of place of residence. Section 4(2)(a) states that the interference may include an act of causing excessive smell and smoke.

As a Court of Law, the CDRT requires a claimant to present sufficient evidence to show that the respondent caused excessive smoke and smell to such an extent that it causes unreasonable interference. That is the threshold and the test. Bare allegations are insufficient.

Any evidence that points towards the source of interference, the type of interference, or its intensity and surrounding circumstances, would therefore be relevant. Some examples include letters or contemporaneous messages which are exchanged between the neighbours which may point to or suggest the source of the second-hand smoke, written records that set out the specific dates and times of the acts in question and also show an established pattern of smoking, and if possible, photographs or video-recordings which capture the particular resident in the act of smoking.

In addition, the Member would also be familiar with the approach of the Community Dispute Management Framework (CDMF), which is to encourage neighbours involved in disputes to always first attempt direct, friendly discussions between neighbours, or mediation, and only file a claim with the CDRT as a measure of last resort. This approach emphasises communication and the building of relationships, in particular, between neighbours and recognises that a legalistic, litigious approach is not usually the best or most efficient way to resolve disputes in the community and it is certainly not the first port of call. This approach gives parties a better chance at reaching mutually acceptable solutions in a fast and amicable manner, without escalating the dispute through the process of evidence-gathering or trading allegations, as the case might be.

As separately conveyed to this House, an inter-agency committee led by MCCY is reviewing the CDMF and is studying a range of proposals. These include promoting neighbourliness as a way to reduce the likelihood of disputes arising in the first instance and also increasing the awareness and accessibility on the use of community mediation as the primary way to resolve disputes between neighbours.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir and I thank the Minister for the reply. In the last two months, over 2,400 people in Singapore have approached me for help with regard to them being affected by second-hand smoke in their homes. I think the massive number is not worrying, what is worrying is that only about 2% actually approached the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) or CDRT for help.

Could I ask Minister, what are we doing in terms of creating more awareness of CMC or CDRT option? Two, how can we make the whole process easier or more accessible to members of the public?

I think, the Member has in part, answered the question himself. CMC is something that is available, the threshold is low, and the cost, if I am not mistaken from memory, is $5 per claim. Sometimes, there are difficulties, of course, getting both sides to come to mediation. That is of course, understandable. And that is why the CDMF review committee is looking at measures, which I have explained in the prior written answer to this House. We are considering a range of options, including in some cases, mandating the mediation. So, that takes care of those cases where consensual mediation might not be possible.

In addition, if the matter escalates and, despite repeated attempts, there is no possibility of a consensual or a friendly or amicable resolution, then the Member is able to advise the resident to come to the CDRT. In that situation, obviously, the limitation is in part that there must be substantial evidence, at least substantial to the extend that you cross the relevant threshold in a manner which I have explained just now, because CDRT is an adjudicatory tribunal and it has to go on the basis of what is the appropriate remedy to impose, given the nature of the evidence.

And of course, the Act also sets out the circumstances which the tribunal will look at when considering the appropriateness of the remedy, bearing in mind that this is smoking within the confines of an individual's own home. Obviously, you have got to find a balance between what you do in your own home and the impact that you might have on another individual trying to have a quiet enjoyment of his or her own home.

So, these are the options available with the consequential challenges that might apply. But these options will be looked at and enlarged as we review the CDMF to look at more substantial and also more practical solutions to solve these problems.

8 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry will consider specifying a fixed radius around playgrounds where smoking is prohibited; (b) if so, whether the Ministry will consider a radius further than five metres, considering the harmful effects of second-hand tobacco smoke to children; and (c) if not, what are the reasons for not specifying a radius.

Under the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Regulations, smoking has been prohibited at all publicly accessible playgrounds since 2009. Smoking at amenities adjacent to playgrounds such as chairs, benches and sidewalks that are for users of the playground and their caregivers, is also prohibited. This serves as a buffer area to protect the playground users from second-hand tobacco smoke. My Ministry will review the smoking prohibition regulations from time to time.

Mr Edward Chia.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State this: while I understand that there are restrictions currently on the nearby amenities, but there are in certain cases, where there are other kinds of amenities that are not for parents to sit to watch their kids and there are times where there are smokers as well.

How does the Ministry ensure that the ground enforcement officers and the public are clear on the boundaries where smoking is permissible at such instances, as this could lead to disputes on the ground?

I thank the Member for his follow-up question. Let me say that the present practice, which is to include the adjacent amenities – the chairs, the benches, even spectator stands and sidewalks of playgrounds and exercise facilities – in the smoking prohibited areas is, to us, a practical and reasonable way to protect users from second-hand smoke. And by and large, this has largely sufficed.

The number of feedback or complaints on smoking related to such facilities is actually very low, less than 1%. And, in fact, the number related to buffer areas is even smaller. So, I think this is really like I said, a more realistic way, in terms of highly urbanised and dense Singapore.

What we do is, there will be some cases where there could be concerns, as the Member rightly pointed out, in terms of design and location of the facilities. And I think for such instances, localised solutions could be worked out, together with the community, the agencies, the stakeholders involved, in order to, say, put up more signs to ensure that people are aware of where this smoking prohibited area is.

In the case of Senja, I understand that there is a new playground, for instance, where the issue is of a dustbin, which is right next to the smoking prohibited area. And I think the Town Council is going to move this further away. There is a coffee shop and patrons utilise that area. So, I think there are localised solutions that we can actually develop.

9 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the number of requests received by the Ministry from the homeless and rough sleepers for temporary accommodation/shelters in 2021; (b) what is (i) their successful placement rates and (ii) the number of successful applicants placed on the waiting list and their estimated waiting time; and (c) what is the Ministry’s assessment, plans and alternative options for them to meet their existing and future housing needs.

Sir, social service agencies and community partners operate Safe Sound Sleeping Places (S3Ps) as well as MSF-funded Transitional Shelters (TSes). These facilities cater to rough sleeping individuals and families with different needs and preferences.

S3Ps are set up within community premises and are operated by members of the Partners Engaging and Empowering Rough Sleepers (PEERS) Network. The PEERS Network is a collaboration amongst community partners, social service agencies and public agencies, that join hands to support rough sleepers.

S3Ps provide rough sleepers a safe environment to rest for the night. There are currently 26 S3Ps across Singapore. In 2021, there were around 270 unique applicants to S3Ps, with 61% of them successfully admitted. 39% of them were not admitted because they had mental health, behavioural or addiction issues, or had care needs that require close supervision. MSF would refer these clients to appropriate facilities and services for further support.

There is no waitlist for S3Ps presently as there are sufficient spaces to support those in need of urgent shelter. S3Ps' schedule admissions based on S3Ps and clients’ availabilities. Most applicants are admitted within three working days. If there are no vacancies at any particular S3P at a one point of time, rough sleepers will be referred to alternative shelters or accommodation options.

On the other hand, there are currently six TSes funded by MSF, with a total capacity of around 500 spaces for individuals and around 180 spaces for families. TSes provide temporary shelter and onsite social work intervention, where social workers work with residents on their issues and support them in securing long-term stable housing.

There were around 860 unique applicants to TSes in 2021, either referred by MSF or other social service agencies: 62% were successfully admitted last year; 38% were not admitted for various reasons. Some had care needs that TSes were unable to support, such as frail seniors who required assistance with activities of daily living. Applicants assessed as unsuitable for TS are referred to other options, for example, to Senior Group Homes which provide assisted living in public rental flats for frail seniors. Others rejected the TS option as they did not want to co-share the space with others, follow shelter rules, or to work with the social worker. Others prefer yet to remain at familiar locations.

The time taken to admit the successful applicants depends on factors such as whether the social worker is able to contact the applicants and obtain necessary information to assess their applications. Once they are assessed to be eligible for TS, they will be offered a space. And for TS for individuals, there is currently no waiting list as there are sufficient spaces. Successful applicants can be admitted immediately after the TS offers them a space. In 2021, almost 80% of successful applicants to TS for individuals were admitted within a week.

For TS for families, there is currently no waiting list as of 12 February this year. MSF has recently set up a new TS in end-January this year, increasing the spaces for families from 130 to 180 to address demand for shelter from homeless families. If there are families that require urgent placement such as those with children and the elderly, MSF will work with the TS operators to prioritise their admissions.

For applicants who are not admitted to TS, they can stay at the S3Ps, where social service agencies and the PEERS Network will continue to engage them. For those who are not ready to seek shelter, befrienders from the PEERS Network continue to actively reach out to befriend and engage them to understand their unique circumstances and build trust with them. When they are willing to receive assistance, befrienders help to connect them to relevant social service and Government agencies for support.

MSF and our PEERS Network partners strive to provide timely and targeted support to rough sleepers and homeless persons, including inviting more partners to join the PEERS Network and encouraging everyone to contribute to efforts to support rough sleepers and homeless persons. If members of the public encounter any homeless individuals, they can call the ComCare hotline at 1800 222 0000, or refer them to the nearest Social Service Office or Family Service Centre for assistance.

Mr Edward Chia.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a follow-up question. Given the delays in HDB rental flat allocations due to manpower crunch in the construction industry, has MSF observed a rise in temporary shelter requests and has coordinated upstream with HDB rental on providing shelter to those awaiting allocation?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I think in the past one and a half to two years since I have joined MSF, I have been privileged to be on several night walks with our community partners and social service agencies on the ground. What happens on each of these night walks is that there would be MSF officers that would be tagging along the community partners, groups like those coming from the Homeless Hearts of Singapore, from the Catholic Welfare Services and together with the MSF officers is also a team of multi-agency officers as well. And one of the agencies that support the MSF officers on the ground would also be the HDB officers.

What these means is that actually, when we encounter a rough sleeper, be it someone who is known or new to us, we will be able to very quickly pull out whatever information we may already know about this person and then make quick arrangements for this particular individual rough sleeper that we are talking about.

What I am trying to illustrate is the fact that actually, the coordination between HDB, as well as MSF, community partners and many other agencies is right there, right from the start as we first come into contact with any rough sleeper. And that assistance that is provided by HDB, as well as by the Government agencies and community partners, goes through and we journey with them, with each of the rough sleeper along the way.

What probably could be better communicated to members of the public is also the fact that for rough sleepers, each of their situation is quite unique. In my past life as a lifesaver, when I was going through training, I was always told that no two emergency incidents are the same. I think the same logic applies for rough sleepers, no two rough sleepers face the same difficulties back at home or back at their household or their families. And sometimes, when we construe rough sleeping or homelessness as purely a single dimensional problem of housing, I think that is where we need the public mindset to slightly shift. I think we can do a little bit more in this respect.

But I assure the Member that HDB, as well as MSF and many other agencies and community partners work hand in glove to make sure that each of our rough sleepers get the customised and understanding assistance that they need.

Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just a short supplementary question for the Parliamentary Secretary. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could share with us if the Ministry knows the exact number of rough sleepers who actually do have housing options but for various reasons, prefer to still sleep around these areas as is.

I ask this because I am sure in all our respective wards, we sometimes get feedback from concerned residents, and rightly so – why do they see this person at this place for so many days? But we actually know them too. They do have housing options but they prefer to rough it out and stay there. If we all know this, I think this will allow the public to know that sometimes what they see is not a case of them having no options. So, if the Parliamentary Secretary could share with us.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member, Mr Seah, for his question. Again, drawing experience from the several night walks that I have been on in the past year and a half, I have noticed exactly the same phenomenon that the Member has raised. The fact that, sometimes alongside rough sleepers, there would be their friends who actually have homes to go back to. There would also be rough sleepers who actually have families to go back to, but for various reasons – it could be disputes, it could be the fact that they just want to be with their friends on the streets, it could well be that their families are living in a place that is further away and where they are rough sleeping is: number one, to be closer to their friends; and number two, perhaps closer to where they work at that particular point in time.

So, for these various reasons, I think that Member has rightly pointed out that there is a small group of them that have homes to go back to, but choose not to do so for various reasons, some of which that I have stated.

MSF does not actively track the macro number of such profiles that are out there in the community and I would want to stress that the macro numbers in this case might not be so useful in our work in extending assistance to each of them. Because the assistance that each of these rough sleepers require is bespoke. It needs to be customised to the rough sleeper's specific instance.

So, in this case, I would very much prefer to focus on the individual rough sleeper as opposed to be investing a lot of resources to find out the macro numbers.

But one macro number that we are quite interested to know is also a count of the rough sleeping population that we have in Singapore. I think the academia – NUS – has done a study in the past. They have a study that has recently been conducted, I think, end of last year. MSF is also exploring working with members of academia to assess the rough sleepers situation and takes stock en masse how the situation has been.

But anecdotally, as well as in terms of actual numbers that we have observed, both in terms of admission to S3Ps or TSes, we get the sense that in the course of the pandemic in the past two years, what has happened is that more of rough sleepers that were previously not amenable to working with Government agencies, social workers, community partners, to really try to come to some form of stable long-term housing, more of them have come on board to say that, "Look, I am willing to work with you to achieve stable long-term housing".

So, our assessment is that in the past two years, because of the pandemic, we have actually managed to match more rough sleepers to either short-term or longer-term housing.

10 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health with regard to hospital visits to severely ill patients in hospitals and care homes, whether the Ministry will consider (i) empowering healthcare professionals with some discretion as to visitation policies on compassionate grounds on a case-by-case basis if this is not already the case and (ii) requiring hospitals and care homes to make ART test kits available for sale to visitors.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in-person visits to hospital wards and residential care homes, or homes, are suspended from 24 January to 20 March 2022 to protect our healthcare capacity. Hospitals and homes have the discretion to allow visits for exceptional cases, for example, if the patient or resident is severely ill. MOH had made exceptions for severely ill patients in hospitals to have up to five pre-registered visitors. [Please refer to "Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Health", Official Report, 18 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 49, Clarification section.]

No supplementary questions? Next question.

11 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many companies in Singapore currently practise some form of a shorter work week; and (b) whether assistance and guidance can be provided for companies considering to implement shorter work weeks.

Compressed work week is one of several flexible work arrangements that employers may offer to their employees. A standard work week is condensed into fewer than five days; and employees complete their expected workload within a shorter work week, with the total number of hours worked remaining the same. In such arrangements, the employee does not need to contemplate reducing his income in exchange for greater flexibility in work days, since the actual workload and total hours worked in a week do not differ from that of a person on a standard work week.

In 2020, about one in 10 establishments offered compressed work week as a flexible work arrangement to their employees.

Companies can refer to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices’ (TAFEP) website for more information and resources on how to implement compressed work week arrangements, including policy templates and case studies of companies that have successfully done so.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government will continue to work with tripartite partners to promote flexible work arrangements. It is useful to remember that flexible work arrangements are not limited only to remote work or hybrid work. The concept of a compressed work week is a form of flexible work arrangement that is suitable for certain jobs and some employees, but not all. In promoting workplace flexibility, we encourage companies to implement the type of flexible work arrangement that best suits their business and their employees.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Can MOM further recognise HR best practices, such as shorter work weeks and flexible work arrangements?

Also, to what extent are HR practices a factor in tender specifications, for instance, either as a tie breaker or hygiene factor? Are there plans to ensure that good HR practices are further recognised in Government tenders and procurement processes?

I thank the hon Member for the supplementary question. It is in our interest to recognise companies with good workplace practices that are progressive. Indeed, one example is the Human Capital Partnership (HCP) which recognises such employers. Employers that are in HCP enjoy faster response and better service standards from a dedicated hotline that they can call and to get advice on schemes and grants from the Government to promote human capital development and also to support the companies in implementing flexible work arrangements. There are about 600 companies in the list right now and we do encourage more companies to be nominated to be part of this HCP.

On the Member's suggestion that for tender specifications and Government procurement, for us to include this as a consideration, I think we will have to recognise that for tender specifications, it is important that we try to keep it as objective, to make sure that the basic fundamentals of KPI, work performances, business requirements, all these which are basic, remain core. For recognition of progressive workplaces and progressive employers, we do have other ways to recognise them as well.

Dr Janil Puthucheary.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Perera had asked his Question No 10 in two parts, I had failed to answer the second part. If I may just finish off the reply.

Visitors who are allowed into hospital wards and Homes on an exceptional basis will need to produce a valid negative antigen rapid test (ART) result obtained within the last 24 hours of the visit, prior to their visit. Fully vaccinated visitors are allowed to show photographic proof of the result of a self-administered ART done at home prior to the visit. Such hospital visitors who have not done the test before the visit will be able to purchase ART kits from vending machines or the retail pharmacies at public hospitals. [Please refer to "Visitation Policies for Visits to Severely Ill Patients in Hospitals and Care Homes", Official Report, 18 February 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 49, Oral Answers to Question section.]

12 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past five years, how many incidents of deliberate laser pointer beam strikes at pedestrians and motor vehicle users have been reported; (b) of these, in how many cases are the perpetrators identified; (c) what are the enforcement actions or penalties arising; and (d) what recourse do pedestrians, drivers and riders have in the event of a laser pointer beam strike incident.

Mr Deputy Speaker, from 2017 to 2021, Police received four reports involving laser pointer beams being directed at pedestrians and motor vehicles.

Two cases were committed by the same perpetrator. He was sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment last year for committing an act so rashly as to endanger the personal safety of others. For the remaining two cases, Police had not been able to identify the perpetrators.

Persons found guilty of intentionally pointing laser beams at others may be liable for offences such as section 336 of the Penal Code 1871 for committing a rash act that endangers human life or the personal safety of others, which is punishable with a fine of up to S$2,500, or imprisonment of six months, or both, and section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 for intentional harassment, punishable with a fine of up to S$5,000, or imprisonment of six months, or both.

Victims of such incidents can lodge a Police report.

No supplementary questions? Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

13 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider designated centres or clinics for residents to follow up and check specifically if they are medically suitable for COVID-19 vaccinations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination (EC19V) has determined that most residents can be safely vaccinated. Only those who are allergic to COVID-19 vaccines are medically ineligible. Individuals with specific medical queries or requiring detailed medical consultation, can approach their own doctors for a more detailed discussion on their health conditions and their suitability of vaccination.

All vaccination centres are also equipped to screen for and advise on the medical suitability for the COVID-19 vaccines under the National Vaccination programme. The vaccination centres are staffed by trained medical personnel who are also guided by clinical guidelines developed in consultation with EC19V.

Dr Tan Wu Meng, next question.

14 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Education (a) how many Singaporean students and educational institution staff use a boarding school or educational institution as their registered NRIC address; and (b) what is being done to ensure such individuals continue to have access to Government schemes or services which may require a residential address for purposes of implementation.

MOE does not have data on the number of Singaporean students and educational institution staff using a boarding school or educational institution as their registered address as they do not need to inform the Ministry when they choose to do so.

Once an individual reports a change in residential address with Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), Government agencies who are part of the One-Stop Change of Address Reporting Service (OSCARS) initiative will use this registered address to correspond with the individual, including for the provision of Government schemes and services.

For entities that are not part of OSCARS, individuals would have to update their residential address with the entities directly. If educational institution staff or students have difficulty accessing schemes or services provided by such entities, they can directly approach the respective entities who would be best placed to advise on the matter.

For specific nation-wide schemes and services where it has been brought to MOE’s attention that individuals with registered residential address of a school hostel have been missed out, MOE will work with the school hostels to refer the matter to the appropriate entity for consideration.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Xie Yao Quan –

15 To ask the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there has been a rise in salary disputes between workers who self-isolate without medical certificates under COVID-19 Protocol 2 and their employers; (b) how many low-wage workers have been affected as such; and (c) what are the Ministry’s plans to assist affected workers.

Mr Xie Yao Quan, next question. Would a Member like to rise to ask it in his stead?

Question No 15.

Sir, thus far, MOM and our tripartite partners, the Singapore National Employers Federation and the National Trades Union Congress, have not come across disputes arising from employers not adhering to tripartite advisories on the health protocols for COVID-19.

Employees whose employers insist on MCs for sick leave for COVID-19 infection should refer their employers to covid.gov.sg or approach the Ministry for further guidance and assistance.

16 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what is the rationale for legislating and making high-rise littering an offence despite the inherent difficulty in enforcement.

Sir, littering in public places is an offence under section 17 of the Environmental Public Health Act 1987. This covers littering in a range of scenarios, including high-rise littering. There is no separate legislative provision for high-rise littering.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the short reply. I do know there is no separate legislation. But the question is really why are we enforcing so much on high-rise littering and, of course, why so little on second-hand smoke when it is very similar? And second-hand smoke is actually easier to detect than high-rise littering?

Well, this is a stealth question on second-hand smoke. With regard to the comment about why so many enforcement actions on high-rise littering, if I recall correctly, there are also many questions in the House regarding why there is not enough action taken against high-rise littering. So, the verdict is out there.

But having said that, this question about second-hand smoke, I think the Member has asked similar questions a number of times in this House and I have given replies as to the reason why there are technological limitations in enforcement against second-hand smoke in homes. I think enforcement of second-hand smoke in homes is really distinctively more challenging than high-rise littering. As I have said, I have answered this before. So, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me just briefly highlight some key points that I have actually shared in my previous replies.

Firstly, of course, technological limitations and also, privacy issues and concerns for second-hand smoke. It is not a question of just catching an image of the physical object but also capturing the heat signature as proof of the smoking act. So, you need not just require optical cameras but also thermal surveillance cameras and there is a limited surveillance range of such surveillance cameras. And you need to put them off the ground, which means, it would be highly intrusive because it does not only train into the suspected unit, but also other units.

So, we will need to continue to monitor technological developments and innovations in this area to see if it is feasible in future, along with also what is being practised overseas.

But having said that, we are not resting on our laurels. Let me assure the Member that we are as concerned about this issue as he is. We are looking at various ways to address this. We fully empathise with the person who is actually experiencing this issue.

In addition to monitoring technological developments, we are also intensifying our education and outreach efforts, working with the community, with HPB, with various stakeholders to really look at community solutions, in line with our aspiration to build an inclusive, gracious society. So, we need to raise awareness and appeal to smokers to be more civic-minded and socially gracious and appeal to all stakeholders to come together to resolve this amicably.

In addition, as Members have heard from the Second Minister for Law that there is an inter-agency, inter-Ministry Committee that is looking at revising or enhancing the community mediation framework to increase accessibility for such disputes to be resolved amicably as far as possible.

And then, last year, MND, together with Municiple Social office (MSO) and HDB, has issued a joint call for proposals on tackling second-hand smoke from neighbouring homes. Essentially, looking for solutions like sensors as well as solutions to reduce the second-hand smoke at source or to prevent the second-hand smoke from entering the neighbouring units.

I think the practice is not static. We continue to look at how we can better address this issue and we will continue to monitor and review our smoking regulations from time to time.

So, it is an answer to the high-rise littering question.

17 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Prime Minister whether MAS will regulate the imposition of credit card fees by banks such that all consumers are treated fairly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, fees charged by banks for their services and products are commercial decisions. MAS does not interfere in these decisions, but expects all banks to deal fairly with their customers.

In this regard, MAS requires banks to clearly and conspicuously disclose late payment fees and interest charges in credit card statements, including how such charges are computed. These are the most significant potential charges for credit card users. Where a customer has not paid the prior month’s credit card bill in full, the bank is required to provide in the current month’s statement a projection of the length of time and the total amount, including principal, interest, fees and charges, that the customer will take to fully pay off the entire outstanding balance.

The Association of Banks in Singapore’s Code of Consumer Banking Practice further specifies when and how banks can effectively communicate to customers, relevant information on a broader range of principal terms and conditions, including annual fees, repayment grace periods and interest rates. For example, this code sets out disclosure standards for specific customer engagement touch points, such as when marketing credit cards, when cards are dispatched to customers and in monthly statements.

With transparent credit card fees and charges, consumers can make an informed choice on the product that best suits their needs.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Sir, my point is that most adult workers will have at least one credit card or more and many of these credit card companies do charge several hundred dollars for their annual fees. My experience is that if a consumer writes in, the credit card company is prepared to waive the fee. This also means that if the consumer is not savvy enough, then they will have to pay for the credit card fees.

So, my question to the Minister of State is whether MAS can regulate the imposition of this annual fee by the credit card companies so that those who genuinely need a credit card do not have to pay the annual fee. Because, at the end of the day, the credit card companies do make money from the fees which they charge to the merchants, so it should not be that only consumers who know how to ask for a waiver gets a waiver and consumers who are less knowledgeable will have to pay the annual fee because they do not know how to ask for it.

Sir, I thank the hon Member for his supplementary question. Consumers may, indeed, approach banks to request for fee waivers, as the hon Member has mentioned earlier and there are many ways in which they can do so, like writing in. I think there are a few new initiatives where you can also call in and there is an automated service.

However, consumers also must be mindful that not all fee waivers will always be granted. The criteria for these kinds of waivers, of course, differ across credit card products as well as issuers. So, before taking up or signing up for a credit card, consumers should take note of the relevant terms and conditions, such as the expiry period of guaranteed fee waivers and the quantum of fees that are chargeable. And for customers and consumers who want to learn more, there are many more tips that can be found on the Association of Banks in Singapore's Consumer Guide on Credit Cards, that is available readily on its website.

18 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government is a user of Israeli company QuaDream’s spyware; and (b) whether the Government deploys this or other spyware technologies in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, one of the most critical responsibilities of the Government is to keep Singapore safe, secure and sovereign. We have to deal with serious national security threats to Singapore, ranging from terrorism to foreign subversion, espionage and interference. To this end, agencies charged with the mission of safeguarding national security necessarily have to rely on a range of intelligence capabilities, including harnessing technology.

For obvious reasons, the Government cannot and should not discuss specifics on any operational aspects or capabilities regarding our national security.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Minister of State for his answer. Just one supplementary question. If such technology is deployed – and this is just an assumption – is it subject to any kind of judicial oversight? Does a warrant need to be obtained, for example, before such technologies are deployed?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have already mentioned that for reasons in safeguarding our national security, the Government cannot and should not discuss specifics with regard to operational aspects or any capabilities relating to our national security.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Sir, not long ago, I received a threat warning from Apple, informing me that it could be that my iPhone is being the subject of hacking by state-sponsored attackers. They also said that it is likely to be so because of who I am individually or what I do.

So, based on what the Minister of State said just now that reliance on technologies is required for national security reasons, can I get his confirmation that I should have absolutely no concerns that the Singapore Government agencies are trying to hack into my phone?

I think there is a Point of Order to be raised. Leader.

I am just wondering. The Minister of State had earlier said that we have to deal with a range of things – espionage, for example. So, I was just wondering whether Ms Sylvia Lim was suggesting that she was engaged in espionage.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am asking this question with a totally open mind. I do not know the answer and I am not accusing the Government. It is a purely open-ended question. If Minister of State says he cannot answer it, so be it.

If Ms Sylvia Lim has any concerns with regard to what has happened to her iPhone, I suggest she make a Police report.

Ms He Ting Ru, next two questions.

19 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether he can provide an update on the Cyber Security Agency’s investigations into a local company, Computer Security Initiative Consultancy (COSEINC), that has been added to an entity list by the US Department of Commerce.

20 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Government or related agencies have procured any services or products from a local company, Computer Security Initiative Consultancy (COSEINC); and (b) if so, what is the nature of the contract awarded to COSEINC.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Ms He Ting Ru has asked two questions about COSEINC. May I take the two questions together, please?

Please do.

Sir, in November 2021, the US Department of Commerce placed several companies on the Bureau of Industry and Security’s Entity List, including a local company, Computer Security Initiative Consultancy, also known as COSEINC. The effect of being placed on this List means that US persons intending to export, re-export or transfer items that the US regulates to COSEINC must first obtain a licence to do so from the US Government.

Arising from this, the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) looked into COSEINC. The company’s offerings include cybersecurity training courses. We can share that, in this regard, it is one of many vendors to have provided training services to the Government and the contractual terms were standard.

CSA also found no evidence that COSEINC had breached cybersecurity laws in Singapore. Companies found to have contravened our laws and regulations will be dealt with in accordance with the law.

Order. End of Question Time. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.30 pm. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.00 pm until 3.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

Order. Minister K Shanmugam.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to clarify a question that Ms Sylvia Lim asked. She said that she had received a threat warning from Apple that her phone could be under threat of hacking by state-sponsored agencies and she asked for confirmation that her phone has not been hacked by Singapore state agencies. I think this happened a bit earlier.

Sir, I can tell Ms Lim that her phone has not been hacked by Singapore's state agencies in the time available between when she raised it in Parliament and now, in the last "x" number of minutes or so. I speak for agencies under MHA and I had quick check with Security and Intelligence Division (SID).

I think if one is serious about such threats, the proper way to do it – if you are serious about finding out whether your phone has been hacked and by whom – is to come to MHA. We will do a thorough investigation. If you raise it in Parliament, then, we must assume the intention is to publicise the fact, rather than actually get to the bottom of it. It is obvious then why it is made public.

We would like to see the precise notification from Apple. Is it a general notification that they send to a number of people? Or was it a specific notification? And if it is a specific notification to Ms Lim's phone, MHA will be very interested and particularly with a state-sponsored agency, because this is something that we are extremely concerned about.

She is a Member of Parliament. All Members of Parliament are potential targets. And we would like to know and we would like to get to the bottom of it as to who is trying to get into her phone.

Also, the normal practice that we take is that we do not confirm or deny. Because Members of Parliament have no immunity in this sense. Members of Parliament are high-value targets for foreign agencies as our own experience and the experience of other countries have shown, even as late as last year in Australia and so on. And it is the duty of our security agencies to be very aware of whether Members of Parliament or Ministers or senior civil servants or those around them or their families are being approached or suborned.

And it is in the interest of Singapore and the security of Singapore that state agencies are on top of the game.

So, I do not intend, in future, to confirm or deny. But I can say specific to the question asked by Ms Lim, I think in the context of the question having been asked, I decided that we will answer this question.

Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Notice of Motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023."

Sir, it has been more than two years since COVID-19 upended our lives.

During this period, we mounted multiple public health responses that pushed us to new limits. We faced a major economic challenge and fought to save lives and jobs. All of us adapted to different restrictions as the virus threat evolved. Some had to put plans on hold. Others were kept apart from loved ones.

Throughout these challenges, Singaporeans have rallied together and supported one another. I want to express my deep appreciation to our stout-hearted healthcare workers who have been unwavering on the frontlines; as well as many others who have kept Singapore going – our public officers, our transport workers and those in social services, our safe distancing ambassadors, our hawkers and F&B operators, as well as our migrant workers.

Most of all, I thank all Singaporeans for your strong cooperation and support – complying with our measures, coming forward to get vaccinated, trusting the Government and keeping faith with one another.

The last two years have shown us that there is nothing predictable about this virus. But as the global pandemic enters its third year, we will have to adjust to the new normal. We cannot let it change our hopes, our aspirations, our values.

We are much stronger now compared to when the virus first emerged. We have improved our public health defences and strengthened our collective resilience.

We have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. And we continue to invest in and secure access to a wider range of booster and treatment options.

So, as we navigate this Omicron wave and any future wave of infection, I am confident that we can overcome whatever lies ahead and make further progress in our journey to live with COVID-19.

We are starting the year on a positive note. Our economy has rebounded strongly from our worst recession since Independence.

We worked together to cushion the effects of COVID-19. We planned, we consulted, we took action. We committed close to $100 billion over the past two years to support Singaporeans and businesses through the uncertainties of COVID-19. The close tripartite partnership between the unions, employers and the Government enabled us to take decisive and timely actions to preserve jobs and create new ones even through the crisis.

Our measures have borne fruit.

The resident unemployment rate has come down to 3.2%, close to pre-COVID-19 levels. The median income of full-time employed residents grew by around 1% in real terms last year, after a decline of 0.4% in 2020.

We expect to see steady recovery this year.

Singapore will continue to benefit from the pick-up in the global economy. This will be supported by more widespread vaccination and booster efforts in the major economies like the US and Eurozone. The recovery of our key trading partners in the region will also support our growth.

But that said, 2022 is not free of risks.

The global economy is still vulnerable to pandemic-related risks and further supply chain disruptions. Geopolitical and security risks loom, including the rising tensions in Eastern Europe.

We may also see a slowdown in external demand as the major economies scale back their pandemic support and central banks tighten their accommodative monetary policies to deal with the threat of inflation.

We will continue to watch these potential threats. We stand ready to respond should the situation turn for the worse. Barring fresh disruptions, I expect the Singapore economy to continue to do well. Our economy should grow by 3% to 5% this year. Our investment pipeline is also strong. This will support our efforts to create more good jobs and secure the livelihoods of all Singaporeans at all levels of the workforce.

While the overall outlook is positive, I recognise that there are still segments of the economy that are still struggling.

I will therefore provide targeted help for our workers and businesses in these sectors, through a $500 million Jobs and Business Support Package. [Please refer to Annex A-1.]

As part of this Package, I will provide a Small Business Recovery Grant for SMEs that have been most affected by COVID-19 restrictions over the past year, like those in F&B, Retail, Tourism and the Hospitality sectors.

SMEs in the eligible sectors will receive a payout of $1,000 per local employee, up to a cap of $10,000 per firm. Local sole proprietors and partnerships in eligible sectors, as well as Singapore Food Agency (SFA) licensed hawkers, market and coffeeshop stallholders who do not hire local employees, will also receive a $1,000 payout.

In addition, workers who continue to face income loss due to COVID-19 can apply for the COVID-19 Recovery Grant, which we have extended to the end of this year.

And I will also extend the Jobs Growth Incentive by six months to September this year, with stepped-down support rates reflecting the improved labour market conditions. This extension will cover those who face greater difficulty finding jobs, like mature workers who have not been employed for six months or more, persons with disabilities and ex-offenders.

Aside from this Package, I will continue to extend targeted assistance for the aviation sector. This includes measures to ensure public health and safety at the airport, as well as to preserve core capabilities. We must preserve and enhance our status as an international aviation hub. The Minister for Transport will share more details at the Committee of Supply (COS).

As our economy reopens, the harder-hit sectors should progressively see improved prospects. Meanwhile, these support measures will provide temporary relief for our businesses and workers.

We are also closely monitoring the risk of rising inflation and cost of living. The rise in prices comes after an extended period of low inflation over the past decade. It has been driven mainly by the recovery in global demand amidst continuing supply chain dislocations and especially, by the rise in energy prices.

We are also seeing the effects of the expansionary macro-economic policies pursued by the US and other developed countries to revive their economies following the onset of the pandemic.

This is why the MAS had taken the pre-emptive step of raising the rate of appreciation of its exchange rate policy band in October last year and again, last month, to help dampen inflationary pressures.

I recognise the immediate concerns of businesses and households and will provide significant additional support in this Budget to help them tide over the current period of higher prices.

For businesses, the spike in the cost of materials and electricity has led to cashflow concerns. To support companies with their cashflow needs, I will extend the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme and the enhanced Trade Loan Scheme, with revised parameters, for another six months, from 1 April to 30 September this year. [Please refer to Annex C-1.]

I will also extend access to Project Loans for the domestic construction sector for another year, from 1 April this year to 31 March next year. This is on top of the Foreign Worker Levy rebates that construction firms are receiving currently. [Please refer to Annex C-1.]

For households, I will introduce a Household Support Package.

As part of the Package, I will double the GST Voucher – U-Save rebates for the rest of this year. Eligible HDB households will receive additional rebates of up to $285.

I will provide children below the age of 21 with a top-up of $200 each in their Child Development Account, Edusave Account or Post-Secondary Education Account. This will be on top of the annual Edusave top-ups they already receive.

I will also distribute another set of $100 CDC Vouchers this year to support all Singaporean households in their daily expenses. The vouchers can be used at participating heartland shops and hawkers.

All these amount to a significant package of $560 million to help Singaporeans with their utility bills, children’s education and daily essentials. [Please refer to Annex A-2.]

Details of the Jobs and Business Support Package, and the Household Support Package are in the Annex. [Please refer to Annex A-1 and Annex A-2.]

Beyond the immediate outlook, we must set our eyes on the future.

We have come this far as a nation, because we are always thinking about tomorrow: planning and taking actions not just for the present, but also with the longer-term interests of Singapore and Singaporeans at heart. So, we must position ourselves now for the challenges and also the opportunities of the decade ahead.

We are moving forward from a position of strength. Our responses to the pandemic have distinguished us from other countries. We have kept our air and sea ports open, and ensured an uninterrupted flow of critical supplies. We have enhanced our reputation as a trusted and reliable node.

This is why we are not only attracting more investments, but also securing more high quality, cutting-edge and innovative projects. Singapore continues to be a strategic launch pad for businesses around the world looking to expand into new markets in the region.

For example, BioNTech, the company that, together with Pfizer, developed the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, is establishing its regional headquarters for Southeast Asia in Singapore.

BioNTech also plans to build a fully integrated mRNA manufacturing facility here, which will be operational as early as next year. The new facility will boost BioNTech’s regional and global supply capacity for its growing pipeline of novel mRNA-based product candidates. [Please refer to Annex B-1.]

Together with other new investments and plans to build businesses and headquarter operations in Singapore, this will create many good jobs for Singaporeans.

Our ability to create jobs will depend on how quickly we restructure and transform the economy to take advantage of new opportunities. It will also depend on us getting our foreign worker policies right. So, even as we adjust these policies, we must remain open and welcoming to talent from around the world.

On the whole, we are making good progress. Our productivity is increasing, enabling continued income growth for our workers. We are advancing as a Smart City, with our world class infrastructure and digitally-enabled workforce as our key competitive strengths.

We also have a more vibrant startup and innovation ecosystem. Last year alone, 11 Singapore-based startups achieved unicorn status – no mean feat for a small city-state. These and other technology firms create many highly-skilled jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans.

Our economic prospects are good, but we will have to contend with new external challenges and adapt quickly to a new environment.

We have entered a new era of greater contestation for influence between countries and blocs, which may erode the rules-based multilateral system that has been so crucial to Singapore’s success. In particular, rivalry between the two great powers – US and China – has intensified and will impact the world for the rest of the decade and more.

The pandemic has also turbocharged the move to a digital future. Every time a task moves to the digital realm, it becomes easier to use software to automate and optimise it. Such new digital technologies will disrupt and reshape businesses and impact a wide range of jobs across all sectors of the economy.

Our local businesses, especially those that are digitally savvy, will be able to take advantage of the rich opportunities on offer and transcend our geographical limitations. But this cuts both ways, as it will also be possible for MNCs to “reshore” more functions to their home countries, as they seek to simplify and localise their supply chains.

In short, we are entering a future where conditions are more volatile, the global environment more unpredictable and change more fast-paced than ever. We can and must adjust and still excel in this new environment.

Our enterprises and workers will need to accelerate their transformation and develop new capabilities to stay ahead of the competition and look for opportunities beyond our shores and in new areas.

But there will be segments of our society who are displaced. The fast pace of change can also give rise to a greater sense of anxiety and insecurity about the future.

It is not the first time we have faced such concerns. When we emerged from the Global Financial Crisis of 2009 and began restructuring our economy in earnest, we were keenly aware of those who could be left behind. So, we stepped up efforts to reskill and upskill our workers, and to strengthen our social security system.

We enhanced Workfare and launched the Progressive Wage Model to uplift the incomes of lower-wage workers. We introduced Silver Support to supplement the retirement income of seniors who had low incomes in their working years. We implemented MediShield Life to provide universal and lifelong protections against large hospital bills. Today, these policies have become vital pillars of our social security system.

And these efforts have made our growth more inclusive. Real incomes of our local workers at the 20th percentile have risen by almost 40% between 2009 and 2019, faster than that of the median worker. Lower-income workers have also benefited from our highly progressive system of taxes and transfers. Inequality after taxes and transfers as measured by the Gini coefficient has steadily improved over the last decade.

But we cannot stop here in our efforts to strengthen our social compact. We must continue to do more in a post-pandemic future, where our workers and firms will be exposed to more competition and where there will be greater churn for our businesses and livelihoods.

In the coming years, we expect an increasing shift in market rewards towards those with the highest skills and those who are best able to take advantage of new technologies. This will make it harder to keep our growth inclusive and to hold our society tightly together.

Besides these growing economic and employment-related risks, there are other forces on the horizon that raise the stakes in our efforts to preserve social solidarity and will also have significant implications for our future generations.

We are now one of the fastest ageing countries. In 2010, 9% of our population were aged 65 and above. Last year, this became 16%. By 2030, we expect Singapore to become like Japan and some European countries today – where one in four or 25% of Singaporeans will be 65 and above.

Ageing will mean an inexorable rise in demand for healthcare and social care. At the same time, our means to provide for this will come under strain, as the ratio of our working population to aged dependents decreases. We must therefore plan ahead to ensure we will have the resources needed to look after more seniors.

We must also take decisive steps to join the global effort in tackling climate change. If the world is unable to cut emissions sufficiently in time and temperatures rise beyond a certain level, we risk extreme flooding and weather events. This could result in food and water stress for hundreds of millions of people around the world. Island nations like Singapore will be especially threatened.

Moving to net zero emissions will be a very costly affair for Singapore, a built-up city-state with very limited scope to tap on renewable energies. But it is a cost we cannot afford to skimp on, for it is existential. It affects our very survival and the Singapore that our children will live in. So, we must take actions now to progressively decarbonise our economy and change our way of life.

The changes brought about by the pandemic, rising geopolitical contestation, climate change, as well as domestic issues like our rapidly ageing society – these are the defining challenges of our time. They call for robust policy responses to reinforce our resilience and retool our capabilities for the future.

More importantly, to overcome these major tests and trials, we must continue to stand united as one. This is why it is more important than ever to renew and strengthen our social compact and to reaffirm our values and what we stand for as a nation.

Our existing social compact has been shaped by our history, beginning as a young and vulnerable nation thrust into independence. We start and maintain the basic premise that no one owes us a living and that we are responsible for our own defence and survival.

The pillars underpinning our social compact – the individual, community groups, businesses and the state – all play a role, complementing one another and contributing to a system of mutual support.

The individual works hard to be self-reliant and to provide for his or her family. Community groups, be it unions, charities or voluntary associations, come together to help different groups of people. Employers do their part to invest in workers, advance their well-being and improve the quality of jobs. The Government creates the conditions for a vibrant economy, invests heavily in our citizens and delivers essential public services.

The Government, working actively with the community and tripartite partners, also provides an extra hand to those who start with less, to keep social mobility a defining feature of our society, to mitigate life’s inevitable inequalities and to provide support for the elderly.

Even with the demands of building a nation and reinvesting continually in our future, we have been able to keep public expenditures in Singapore extremely lean. Government spending today, excluding COVID-19-related expenditure, stands at $88 billion, or about 18% of GDP. This is probably the lowest among the more developed economies, yet it has produced social and economic outcomes that have been better than most.

We generate sufficient revenues to fund this expenditure and to maintain a balanced Budget. We are supported by our Net Investment Returns Contribution, or NIRC, which is a continuing stream of income from the reserves we have accumulated over the years.

Over the past five years, NIRC provided on average a revenue stream of around $17 billion or about 3.5% of GDP. This means that for every dollar we spend on public services, about 80 cents is funded by tax. The remaining 20 cents is funded through the NIRC.

This fiscal approach has enabled us to keep our overall tax burden low. Currently, half of our workers do not have to pay personal income taxes. In particular, for the middle-income, we have deliberately ensured a low tax burden so that they can enjoy the rewards of their hard work.

Put another way, for the quality of public services we have in healthcare, education, housing, transport and many other areas, the amount of tax our citizens pay is much lower compared to many developed countries.

The continental European and Nordic countries have a different social compact, arising from their different histories. They have much higher levels of state-financed welfare provisions, designed to meet the needs of their citizens from cradle to grave. Their governments typically spend well above 30% of their GDP. To fund such a spending, they impose high income taxes, usually much higher than 30%, even for the middle-income group, as well as consumption taxes that range from 20% to 25%.

We do not intend to adopt the European model of comprehensive universal welfare and high taxes. But as we tackle the challenges of a changing world, and as our own society ages and faces new stresses, we will have to do more to preserve and strengthen the unity of our people and our social compact.

In fact, we have already been adjusting our approach over the years, with the Government progressively doing more to support the community and individuals. Our social spending in particular, has almost doubled from $17 billion to $31 billion over the last decade and now takes up close to half of our annual Budget.

The increase has gone to programmes that have made a difference in Singaporeans’ lives, like higher subsidies in our healthcare system and in tertiary education, as well as schemes like SkillsFuture, Workfare and Silver Support.

In the coming decade, we will invest even more in our people and social infrastructure. We will spare no effort to ensure that all Singaporeans continue to have access to world-class education and healthcare, affordable housing, good jobs and have peace of mind over their retirement needs as they grow old. We will strengthen our system of collective risk sharing, so as to give Singaporeans more assurance in managing life’s uncertainties.

We want every Singaporean to know and feel that he or she has a stake in our society – that everyone’s contributions matter and that they will not be left to fend for themselves when times are down. We want to uphold that sense of obligation to each other and strengthen the assurance that, whatever the challenges we face, we will always have each other’s back.

These plans require additional spending. They reflect the need to respond to lasting, structural shifts in our society, as well as our new social and environmental aspirations. The spending requirements will therefore be recurring in nature, not temporary.

Given this, it would not be right to dip into our reserves to meet these new needs. We must husband our reserves for use in major crises and emergencies, as was necessary during the Global Financial Crisis, and especially in the last two years. We must ensure that we continue to get a steady stream of income from the reserves to benefit both today’s generation of Singaporeans and our children and grandchildren.

Let me summarise our fiscal outlook over the coming decade.

On the expenditure side, our needs are significant and growing. By 2030, we expect Government expenditures to increase to more than 20% of GDP. Most of this increase in spending will go to healthcare.

On the revenue side, we will not have enough to cover the additional spending needs. The stream of income from NIRC should keep pace with economic growth over time, in spite of a more challenging global investment environment. But our sharply slowing labour force growth and hence, slower GDP growth compared to the last decade, will constrain our tax revenues.

This is why we will make significant enhancements to our tax system in this Budget. These tax adjustments will help to raise additional revenue and also contribute to a fairer revenue structure. That means everyone chips in and contributes to a vibrant economy and strengthened social compact, but those with greater means contribute a larger share.

At the same time, we are mindful of the impact of the tax increases on households and businesses and will have a very comprehensive set of measures to cushion the impact and help Singaporeans adjust.

This Budget therefore is about charting our new way forward together. It is a first step in renewing and strengthening our social compact for a post-pandemic world and in realising our vision of a fairer, more sustainable and more inclusive society. It is about giving Singaporeans the confidence to embrace the change that lies before us, so that we can grow into an ever stronger economy and nation, and an ever more secure society and home.

This Budget will set out the key changes we must make to:

invest in new capabilities;

advance our green transition;

renew and strengthen our social compact; and

develop a fairer and more resilient revenue structure.

Sir, to stay ahead in the race, we must redouble our efforts to invest in new capabilities.

Even before COVID-19, we had started to restructure our economy. Through the Industry Transformation Maps, or ITMs, we have been steadily building up the capabilities we need for the future.

We have also opened up new avenues of growth, by strengthening our network of Free Trade Agreements and enhancing cooperation with like-minded partners in the digital and green economy.

But much more work lies ahead. Crucially, we have a window of opportunity over the next few years to establish leading positions in key market segments. So, we will accelerate our investments in new capabilities to power our next stage of growth.

Our first priority is to strengthen our digital capabilities.

Today, we are one of the most connected cities in the world and amongst the first to roll-out a 5G standalone network. In parallel, we have built digital utilities, like SingPass, Myinfo and PayNow, that allow our people and businesses to access digital services and transact seamlessly and safely.

We will invest further to meet our future needs.

We will upgrade our broadband infrastructure to increase broadband access speeds by around 10 times over the next few years.

We will also invest in future technologies like 6G, to ride the next communications and connectivity wave.

The use cases for such high speeds are still nascent, but there are many new possibilities for augmented and virtual reality tools, limited only by our imagination.

Alongside infrastructure improvements, I will set aside an additional $200 million over the next few years to enhance schemes that build digital capabilities in our businesses and workers. More details can be found in the Annex. [Please refer to Annex C-1.]

The Minister for Communications and Information will also elaborate further at the COS.

Second, we will push for pervasive innovation across the economy.

Innovation is built on strong R&D foundations. That is why, over the years, we have steadily increased the Government’s investment in R&D, maintaining it at about 1% of GDP, comparable to other small advanced economies. I will continue to sustain our investments in R&D, with $25 billion set aside under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise, or RIE2025 strategy.

Public investments in R&D also serve as a catalyst for similar investments in the private sector. Unfortunately, our total business expenditure on R&D still lags other economies.

Presently, most of this R&D is driven by MNCs, which have greater scale and better resources. Local enterprises, which comprise about 80% of all firms, account for only about a quarter of total business R&D expenditure in Singapore.

I will therefore provide more support for our local firms to undertake R&D activities. We currently have a network of more than 80 centres across our Polytechnics and ITE engaging in technology, innovation and enterprise activities. These centres work closely with SMEs to undertake industry projects, many of which have led to new innovations.

For example, Nanyang Polytechnic’s Automation and Robotics Innovation Centre collaborated with Sanwa-Intec Asia, an SME that supplies the automotive industry, to design and implement robotics and automation solutions. [Please refer to Annex B-1.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I would like to show some slides on the screen.

Please do. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]

Thank you, Sir. One of the solutions is a robotic tool that emulates an operator’s handling of hot moulded products. Previously, you would need a human operator to do the work manually. Now, they get the job done using the robotics system. So, Sanwa-Intec has significantly raised production volume, while reducing its energy consumption. [Please refer to Annex B-1.]

Students from Nanyang Polytechnic also had the chance to work on these projects. One of them is Alysia Ong, who is now working at Sanwa-Intec after completing her internship there. [Please refer to Annex B-1.]

Such collaborations are a win-win – SMEs get to tap on the R&D capabilities in our Polytechnics and ITE, while students can contribute meaningfully to these projects and gain valuable hands-on industry experience.

To further support such collaborations, I will increase the capacity of the centres so that they can provide research and innovation support to more SMEs. Over the next five years, these centres will be able to undertake close to 2,000 innovation projects across five pilot sectors: Agri-Tech, Construction, Food Manufacturing, Precision Engineering and Retail. This amounts to an eight-fold increase in the number of innovation projects undertaken in these sectors. We look forward to many more success stories in the coming years.

Third, we will strengthen our local enterprise ecosystem.

For the broad base of SMEs, our priority is to raise their productivity. SMEs can make use of the Productivity Solutions Grant, or PSG, to implement digital and automation solutions.

I will set aside around $600 million to expand the range of available solutions under the PSG and push for greater take up of productivity solutions by SMEs. We estimate that this will support more than 100,000 productivity projects over the next four years. This is more than double the number of projects supported since the scheme began.

Larger local enterprises need more customised assistance to scale up and invest in overseas markets. I will support them with a new initiative called Singapore Global Enterprises. Under this initiative, we will provide bespoke assistance tailored to the needs of promising local enterprises, in areas like innovation, internationalisation and the fostering of partnerships with other firms.

Many of these enterprises also need more support in talent development. We will launch a new Singapore Global Executive Programme, to help them to attract and nurture their next generation of leaders through industry and overseas attachments, mentorships and peer support networks.

Besides grants and bespoke assistance, some companies also need help with their financing needs. We provide such help through the Enterprise Financing Scheme. I will enhance two components of the Scheme. [Please refer to Annex C-1.]

I will expand the M&A loan programme to include domestic M&A activities from 1 April this year to 31 March 2026. This will support companies to grow and expand through mergers and acquisitions.

I had earlier announced the extension of the enhanced Trade Loan till September this year. Beyond this six-month extension, I will maintain the enhanced 70% risk-share under the Trade Loan for enterprises venturing into more nascent markets like Bangladesh or Brazil. We hope this will encourage our enterprises to seek untapped opportunities in these markets.

The Minister for Trade and Industry will share more about our enterprise development strategy at the COS.

I will also make further refinements to our tax schemes, to support businesses and strengthen our competitiveness and resilience. More details are in the Annex. [Please refer to Annex C-2.]

Finally, and most importantly, we will continue to invest in our people.

We continue to invest significantly in education, to help every child achieve their full potential. Through SkillsFuture, we are also empowering and equipping Singaporeans for their lifelong journey of acquiring new skills and sharpening existing ones.

To support this, we are transforming our Institutes of Higher Learning, or IHLs, which include the Autonomous Universities, into institutes for continual learning. We will review the programming in our IHLs and enhance their provision of quality continuing education and training.

The Minister for Education will say more about this at the COS.

Our enterprises also play a critical role in fostering a culture of lifelong learning at the workplace. Employers are well placed to identify skills that are in demand and provide industry-relevant training.

We support employers to do so through the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit. Today, only employers that have had at least three local employees and contributed at least $750 of Skills Development Levy over a qualifying period, are eligible for this Credit – and these have tended to be larger enterprises.

To better support our smaller and micro enterprises, I will grant a waiver of the Skills Development Levy requirement for the qualifying period of 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021. This is estimated to double the number of eligible employers, from 40,000 today to 80,000. The deadline to claim the credit will also be extended by a year, to 30 June 2024, to give employers more time to use the credit. [Please refer to Annex C-1.]

To maximise the investments in our people, we must also ensure a good match between the skills demanded by the industry and those offered by the workforce.

This means bringing together the various parties involved – training providers, employment facilitation providers, employers and jobseekers themselves – to anticipate the areas where new skills are required and ensure that effective training is provided in a timely manner.

At the same time, employers need to redesign jobs to harness technology more effectively and make better use of the upgraded skills of their workers. Our tripartite partners, especially the unions, help to achieve this.

One approach that NTUC has championed and that has proved effective is the Company Training Committees, or CTCs. The CTC model brings together the unions and employers to develop concrete firm-level transformation plans, including the relevant training needed for their workers, so that they can enjoy better wages, welfare and prospects. These plans are then implemented with the support of relevant Government agencies.

To date, NTUC has formed more than 800 CTCs with companies of various sizes. One SME that has benefited from this partnership is Speco Singapore.

Speco started out in cleaning services and later shifted its operations to provide disinfection services through technology solutions. The Building Construction and Timber Industries Employees' Union, or BATU, worked with Speco management to form a CTC and to map out the training needed to reskill its workforce. [Please refer to Annex B-1.]

One beneficiary is Shamsul Nurhakim, who joined Speco on a Work-Study Programme. Shamsul will be completing a Diploma in Applied Science from Republic Polytechnic this year, under the sponsorship of Speco. Through the support of the CTC, he has acquired new skills and will be well positioned to excel in his career. [Please refer to Annex B-1.]

NTUC would like to do more. I will therefore set aside about $100 million to support NTUC in its efforts to scale up the CTCs. Part of this will go into a new grant which will be administered by NTUC, to support companies that have set up CTCs to implement their transformation plans.

Besides the CTCs, we will continue to extend our outreach, especially to smaller companies, through other platforms. This includes partnering with industry leaders or Queen Bee companies to provide training and advice to smaller companies and working closely with the trade associations and chambers as well as the Singapore Business Federation.

We will also pay special attention to our mid-career workers, especially those in their 40s and 50s. They are more vulnerable to churn and disruptions in the workplace. But they have valuable experience to contribute and, with some help, many are able to learn, adapt and do well in new jobs.

For example, Mr Manokaran was 58 years old when his job as an events manager was badly affected by the pandemic. He decided to move to a new area and took a leap of faith into digital marketing. Through the Career Conversion Programme for Digital Advertising Professionals, he joined an IT business solutions company and picked up new skills. Now, he is a Digital Marketing Manager, a job with good prospects in the digital economy. [Please refer to Annex B-1.]

Today, we have a range of support measures to help mid-career workers. For Mr Manokaran and his employer, what worked was a place-and-train arrangement where he was first hired and then given on-the-job training by the company.

In other cases, an attach-and-train modality may be more appropriate, for example, if a company is not yet ready to commit upfront to hiring more staff. Under the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme, we have provided company attachments for mid-career workers to undergo skills upgrading with a training allowance. We will make such company attachments for mature mid-career workers a permanent feature of our training and placement ecosystem. [Please refer to Annex C-3.]

Finally, there is the train-and-place route, where individuals first attend training in areas with good hiring opportunities, before searching for a new employer.

In recent years and especially during the pandemic, we have significantly expanded such training opportunities. We will continue to enhance our provision of high-quality, industry-oriented training courses through a new SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme. These courses will be highly subsidised and after the training, we will provide employment facilitation services to maximise the jobseekers’ prospects. [Please refer to Annex C-3.]

Even as we invest in Singaporeans, we must continue to stay open and bring in manpower and skills from around the world. By combining local and foreign professionals, we form the best teams in Singapore to create value together. This gives us that extra advantage to excel amidst intense global competition and to create many more good jobs and career choices for Singaporeans.

We have in place a comprehensive foreign worker policy framework to allow companies to access a diverse pool of manpower. We continually review and adjust the key policy parameters in the framework and will introduce several changes. [Please refer to Annex C-4.]

First, we will update the framework for Employment Pass or EP holders. EP holders should be professionals and senior executives who can contribute to our economy, sharpen the skills of those they work with, and strengthen our workforce. To ensure that EP holders are of the right calibre, we adjust the minimum qualifying salary from time to time – because how much the employer is prepared to pay is a practical indicator of the quality of the EP holder.

We will aim to ensure that incoming EP holders are comparable in quality to the top one-third of our local PMET workforce, those with professional, managerial, executive and technical jobs.

Therefore, from September this year, the minimum qualifying salary for new EP applicants will be raised from the current $4,500 to $5,000. For the financial services sector, which has higher salary norms, this will be raised from the current $5,000 to $5,500. The qualifying salaries for older EP applicants, which increase progressively with age, will also be raised in tandem. For renewal applications, these changes will apply from September next year to give businesses sufficient time to adjust.

Beyond the qualifying salary, we will refine how we assess EP applications, to improve the complementarity and diversity of our foreign workforce, and also to increase certainty and transparency for businesses.

Likewise, for S Pass holders, we have a minimum qualifying salary to ensure that those coming in are of the right quality.

We will aim for the S Pass holders to be comparable in quality to the top one-third of local Associate Professionals and Technicians. Similar to the EP framework, we will increase the qualifying salary for S Pass holders to achieve this and we will do so in phases.

In the first step, we will raise the minimum qualifying salary for new S Pass applicants from the current $2,500 to $3,000 in September this year. We will introduce a higher minimum qualifying salary of $3,500 for the financial services sector. And the qualifying salaries for older S Pass holders will be raised in tandem.

Thereafter, the minimum qualifying salary for new S Pass applicants will be raised in September next year and, again, in September 2025. The specific salary values will be announced closer to the implementation date, based on the prevailing local wages then. And similar to EP, the changes will apply to renewal applications one year later, to give businesses time to adjust.

In addition, we currently regulate the number of S Pass holders with sub-Dependency Ratio Ceilings and levies. To better manage the flow of S Pass holders, we will progressively raise the Tier 1 levy from the current $330 to $650 by 2025.

Finally, our work permit policies in the construction and process sectors will be adjusted, to spur greater productivity improvements and support more manpower-efficient solutions. This will help transform the sectors that have been more heavily dependent on foreign workers.

The Dependency Ratio Ceiling, or DRC, will be reduced from the current 1:7 to 1:5. The current Man-Year Entitlement, or MYE, framework will be replaced with a new levy framework that will encourage firms to support more offsite work and employ more higher-skilled work permit holders. And to give companies time to prepare for the moves, these changes will take effect from 1 January 2024.

The Minister for Manpower will elaborate further on the foreign worker policy changes at the COS.

Sir, let me emphasise that Singapore will continue to stay open and welcome talent from around the world. The adjustments in our foreign worker policies apply mainly to the broad middle of the workforce. This is where we have Singaporeans doing the jobs, but we need to continually adjust our rules to ensure better complementarity between our foreign and local workforce. At the higher end of the workforce, where there are acute skill shortages, we will continue to bring in professionals with the right abilities to be part of Team Singapore.

Ultimately, our investments to develop stronger capabilities across our businesses and workforce reflect our mindset of continuous improvement. We must always strive to do better and achieve more. This will put us in good stead to meet the challenges of the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now speak about our green transition.

Climate change is a global crisis that becomes more pressing with each passing year. At last year’s UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP26), countries were urged to get to net zero emissions by or around the middle of the century, to keep alive the ambition of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Twenty-fifty is still about 30 years away. But unless deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades, global warming will exceed 1.5 degrees, or even two degrees in this century. So, the world needs to take urgent action.

Singapore is fully committed to doing our part in the global movement to tackle climate change.

But, unlike many other countries, we are highly disadvantaged by a lack of natural renewable energy sources. We do not have huge rivers or hot springs to draw hydro or geothermal power. We do not have the land for wind or solar energy to be sufficient for our own needs.

But thankfully, green technologies have been improving by leaps and bounds. Alternative low-carbon solutions, like carbon capture, utilisation and storage, and hydrogen, are starting to look more plausible.

Carbon markets are also growing steadily. At COP26, Singapore helped to finalise a landmark decision on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which unlocks the door for carbon credits to be traded on a global basis.

Such developments give us greater confidence to review our long-term climate goals.

Two years ago, we made an international commitment to peak our emissions around 2030. And we also announced our Long-Term Low-Emissions Development Strategy, or LEDS, to halve our emissions from its peak by 2050 and to achieve net zero emissions as soon as viable in the second half of the century.

Singapore takes these commitments very seriously. We are on track to achieving our 2030 target. We have since reviewed our longer-term plans. With advances in technology and new opportunities for international collaboration in areas like carbon markets, we believe we can bring forward our net zero timeline.

We will therefore raise our ambition to achieve net zero emissions by or around mid-century. We will consult closely with industry and citizen stakeholder groups to firm up and finalise our plans before making a formal revision of our LEDS later this year.

To achieve this net zero ambition, we will need to set the right price of carbon, so that businesses and individuals will be able to internalise the costs of carbon and take actions to moderate their emissions.

When we introduced the carbon tax in 2019, we kept the initial tax low – at $5 per tonne of emissions – to give our businesses time to adjust. To move decisively to achieve our new net zero ambition, we will need a higher carbon tax.

I will therefore raise our carbon tax to $25 per tonne in 2024 and 2025 and $45 per tonne in 2026 and 2027, with a view to reaching $50 to $80 per tonne by 2030.

The current tax of $5 per tonne will remain unchanged until 2023, as previously stated. And we are pacing the increases to the carbon tax between now and 2030, and will announce subsequent increases ahead of time. This will provide certainty for businesses.

Besides this, we will not impose an additional carbon tax on the use of petrol, diesel and compressed natural gas. These already have excise duties that encourage users to moderate their fuel consumption and hence emissions. We will continue to review and adjust these fuel excise duties periodically.

I appreciate that some businesses and households may require support as they adjust to the carbon tax increase.

For example, we are mindful that firms in our emissions-intensive and trade-exposed sectors may face higher costs than those in countries with lower or no carbon tax. Some will need a little more time to make the necessary reduction in emissions or investment in cleaner technologies. So, to support such firms and manage the near-term impact on their competitiveness, we will put in place a transition framework.

Such transition frameworks are found in many countries with carbon taxes. They provide existing companies with allowances for a share of their emissions. For our framework, the allowances will be determined based on efficiency standards and decarbonisation targets. This will help mitigate the impact on business costs, while still encouraging decarbonisation. We will continue to engage affected companies on the design of the framework prior to its implementation in 2024.

From 2024, we will also allow businesses to use high-quality, international carbon credits to offset up to 5% of their taxable emissions, in lieu of paying carbon tax. This will moderate the impact for companies. It will also help create local demand for high-quality carbon credits and catalyse the development of well-functioning and regulated carbon markets.

We will also do more to support companies, especially SMEs, to invest in energy-efficient equipment and decarbonisation solutions.

For households, the higher carbon tax will be felt mainly through an increase in utility bills. At $25 per tonne, this would translate to an increase of about $4 per month in the utility bills for an average 4-room HDB household. We will provide support, such as additional U-Save rebates, to help cushion the impact during the transition.

More details will be announced next year, ahead of the carbon tax increase in 2024.

I should clarify that I do not expect to derive additional revenue from this increase in the carbon tax.

Some of the revenue will be used to cushion the impact on households and businesses.

A large part of the revenue will be used to support a decisive shift towards decarbonisation through investments in new low-carbon and more energy efficient solutions. These investments will help to lower our emissions and bring us closer towards our net zero goal.

The path towards net zero will entail significant economic restructuring and changes in how we live and work in the future. All of us – the public, businesses, the Government – will face difficult choices. Costly investments may be required, for example, to import or generate low-carbon energy.

But now is the time when we must move decisively towards the future of a net zero world. This will allow us to tap fully on the many exciting possibilities in this green transition. And that is why we launched the Singapore Green Plan 2030 last year, to bring everyone on board our sustainability movement.

Over the coming decade, we expect to see a “greening” of traditional sectors of our economy, like aviation, energy and tourism. At the same time, emerging green sectors like green finance and carbon services will grow in prominence. Millions of new green jobs will be created around the world and demand for talent with green skills will increase.

Moving quickly will position Singapore to build on our competitive advantages to capture these opportunities. We can become the go-to location in Asia for expertise in carbon services and the trusted regional marketplace for carbon credits. As a key node for international air and sea transport networks, we can become a frontrunner in the development of sustainable aviation and marine fuels.

In the financial services sector, for example, green finance is one of the fastest growing segments. Singapore now accounts for close to half of the ASEAN green bond and loan market. We aim to do more, so that banks and financial institutions will use Singapore as a base to develop their capabilities and to develop innovative green financial solutions to service their customers all over Asia and the world.

The public sector will do its part to develop a robust green finance market. We aim to issue up to $35 billion of green bonds by 2030 to fund public sector green infrastructure projects. This will include bonds issued by the Government, as well as Statutory Boards. The Government will also publish a Singapore Green Bond Framework and issue its inaugural green bond later this year.

Green finance is just one of many exciting new areas of green growth. As I mentioned just now, there are many more such opportunities across every sector of the economy. We aim to move Singapore into the forefront of green technologies – where new innovations are developed, trialled, scaled-up and eventually exported to the rest of the world. We will work hard to grab first-mover advantage and develop new engines of growth in the green economy.

Another important pillar of the Singapore Green Plan is to transform our living environment, make it a greener and more sustainable home, and a beautiful city in nature for all to enjoy.

And one aspect we have been focusing on is transport. We aim to be a car-lite city, supported by a comprehensive public transport network, which is the cleanest and most energy-efficient mode of transport. And this is why we are maintaining our policy of zero growth rate for private vehicles. We are perhaps the only city in the world which has taken this bold step.

For those who wish to drive, we want their vehicles to be cleaner. Hence, we had announced our intention to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles by 2040. For passenger vehicles, the most promising clean energy option is electric vehicles or EVs. We have provided significant incentives for EV adoption. In fact, within a year, the EV share of new car registrations has jumped from just 0.2% in 2020 to around 4% last year.

Given this momentum, we will further accelerate EV adoption by building more charging points closer to where we live. To do this, infrastructure upgrades will be necessary and the financing can come from green bonds.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore is fully committed to doing our part on the global climate change agenda. Various Ministers will elaborate more on our efforts under the Singapore Green Plan at the COS, because this is truly a whole-of-Government effort. In advancing our green transition, we will strive to be a bright green spark and to secure a more sustainable future for ourselves and for the world.

Sir, the priority of this Government has always been to build a fair and just society, where every citizen is able to develop to their fullest potential and share in the country’s progress. And we are continually evolving our policies, as circumstances change, to achieve these goals.

In our earlier decades, we had three pillars in our social security system:

subsidised public housing through HDB to make home ownership a reality for the vast majority of Singaporeans.

the CPF to help every working Singaporean save in order to own a home and build a nest-egg for retirement.

the 3Ms of MediSave, MediShield and MediFund, together with Government subsidies, to provide Singaporeans with affordable and quality healthcare.

Over the years, we have strengthened these pillars.

We enhanced the CPF so that members with lower balances can benefit from extra interest on their retirement savings.

In public housing, we are not just helping Singaporeans own a home, but also upgrading older flats and rejuvenating estates.

In healthcare, we have gone beyond the original 3Ms. We introduced MediShield Life to provide life-long universal insurance for hospital bills. And as elderly care needs grew, we introduced CareShield Life and ElderFund to support our seniors.

We also added new pillars of support.

First, we put in place ComCare to help people through temporary difficulties and get support while they are being trained for new jobs.

Second, we implemented Workfare to uplift our lower-wage workers. To complement Workfare, we introduced Silver Support to provide an additional plank of support for seniors with limited lifetime earnings.

Besides these five pillars of social support, we have invested more heavily in education as a social leveller and a source of opportunity for every Singaporean. In recent years, we have been investing more, not just in the formal years of schooling, but also through life – starting with KidSTART, preschool and extending through adulthood through SkillsFuture.

Over the past year, we have engaged around 6,000 participants in our Conversations on Singapore Women’s Development. Many good ideas have come up, from better support for caregivers, to stronger measures against workplace discrimination. When the plans are ready, the Government will commit resources and work with our partners to realise them.

So, we have been doing more to strengthen our social compact over the years and across many fronts. But as new stresses emerge and as we enter a more volatile and unpredictable environment, we will take further decisive steps to strengthen the architecture of social security and opportunity for all Singaporeans.

Our healthcare needs, in particular, will grow as our population ages. We will need to help revamp our healthcare ecosystem to cater to more geriatric needs across various care settings. Healthcare will therefore be the major driver of increased social spending in the coming decade.

In every area of spending, however, it is not just a matter of spending more, but also how we spend – to achieve the right outcomes and to preserve the values of individual responsibility and mutual support from the community, even as the Government steps in to do more.

These are complex issues. We are studying them systematically in an effort to renew and strengthen our social compact for a post-pandemic world. We will start with a few major moves in this Budget, which I will explain in turn.

First, we will do more to uplift lower-wage workers.

The Government has accepted and will implement the recommendations of the Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers.

So, over the next two years, we will extend the Progressive Wage Model to the retail, food services, and waste management sectors. We will also extend it to in-house cleaners, security officers, landscape workers, administrators and drivers across all sectors.

Companies employing foreign workers will be required to pay all their local employees at least the Local Qualifying Salary, which is currently set at $1,400 per month.

We will also launch a Progressive Wage Mark or PW Mark to accredit firms that pay Progressive Wages and the Local Qualifying Salary.

The Government will require all our eligible suppliers to be accredited with the PW Mark when they contract with us from March 2023.

All of us – businesses, consumers and taxpayers – will have to do our part and contribute to uplifting our lower-wage workers.

I recognise that some firms may need time to adjust to these changes. Some have locked in long-term contracts based on certain wage assumptions and now face higher manpower costs. Others may find it difficult to raise prices in the short term to support the wage increases.

I will therefore introduce the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme, or PWCS, to provide transitional support for businesses.

Under the PWCS, the Government will co-fund the wage increases of lower-wage workers between 2022 and 2026. For workers earning up to $2,500, the PWCS co-funding rate will be 50% in the first two years, 30% in the next two years, before tapering to 15% in 2026. We will also provide some support for workers earning above $2,500 and up to $3,000, at a lower co-funding ratio.

With this, the Government will be co-sharing with employers a significant portion of the cost increase. We will set up a PWCS fund for this purpose and start with a $2 billion injection this year. This will provide certainty of funding for the wage increases over the next five years. [Please refer to Annex E-1.]

To complement the moves on Progressive Wages, I will also significantly enhance the Workfare Income Supplement. This will give a further boost to our lower-wage workers.

From 1 January 2023, I will raise the qualifying income cap from the current $2,300 to $2,500 per month. This means more workers will get to benefit from Workfare.

I will introduce a minimum income criterion for Workfare at $500 per month to encourage part-timers and casual workers to take up regular, full-time work.

I will extend Workfare to younger workers aged 30 to 34 so that they can start saving for housing and retirement earlier in their careers. They will receive a maximum annual payout of $2,100.

I will also raise Workfare payouts.

Those aged 35 to 44 will receive a maximum annual payout of $3,000; those aged 45 to 59 will receive a maximum annual payout of $3,600.

Those aged 60 and above will receive the highest maximum payout tier of $4,200 annually.

And I will extend this same maximum payout tier to all persons with disabilities, regardless of their age.

The enhanced Workfare is expected to benefit more than half a million workers. [Please refer to Annex E-1.]

Our moves on Progressive Wages will cover around 94% of our full-time lower-wage workers. The enhanced Workfare will provide further support to all eligible Singaporean lower-wage workers.

So, through the combination of Progressive Wages and Workfare, we expect the incomes of our lower-wage workers to grow faster than the median wage growth over the coming decade. So, as our economy grows and society progresses, we will reduce income disparities in our workforce.

In aggregate, we will spend an average of $1.8 billion per year over the next five years, or $9 billion in total for the PWCS and the enhanced Workfare. It is a significant increase and it reflects our shared commitment to uplift our lower-wage workers in Singapore. [Applause.]

Next, we will enhance the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans, especially for senior workers who are preparing for retirement.

Following the recommendations of the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers, we will continue to increase the employer and employee CPF contribution rates for workers aged 55 to 70.

We implemented the first increase this year and have been providing employers with a one-year CPF Transition Offset equivalent to half of the increase in employer CPF contributions.

We will continue with the next step of the increase in 2023, and provide employers with a similar offset. This means that workers aged 55 to 70 will see a total increase of three- to four-percentage points in their CPF contribution rates over these two years. [Please refer to Annex E-2.]

Additionally, with rising standards of living, we will adjust the CPF Basic Retirement Sum, or BRS, to provide members with higher monthly CPF payouts in their retirement years. We will raise the BRS by 3.5% per year for the next five cohorts turning 55 from 2023 to 2027. [Please refer to Annex E-3.]

There is no requirement for members to top up their CPF if they are unable to set aside their BRS. Those who set aside the BRS when they turn 55 in 2027 will receive payouts of close to $1,000 per month when they are 65, and these payouts will continue for the rest of their lives. This will give them greater assurance for their basic retirement needs.

Just as we uplift our vulnerable groups, we will also continue to enhance social mobility.

The Government is committed to ensuring that all Singaporeans have the opportunities to do well for themselves, no matter their background or starting points.

This is why we continue to invest heavily in our children to give every Singaporean child the best possible start in life. We are now doing more upstream – starting with preschool years to provide additional support for children from low-income families. Yet, we know that some vulnerable children fall out of or behind in our education system because of difficult conditions at home. Early intervention in their formative years can make a big difference in their lives.

One important intervention is to provide these children with a more conducive living environment to grow up in. For second-timer low-income families, we have the Fresh Start Housing Scheme to help them purchase a home of their own. We will enhance the scheme to better support families in their journey towards home ownership.

And the Minister for National Development will share more at the COS.

Another effective intervention is the KidSTART programme, which taps on a network of community partners to provide upstream support for eligible families with young children. Under KidSTART, parents and caregivers are guided to support their child’s development at home, in the community and in preschools.

KidSTART is on track to support 5,000 children by 2023. Thereafter, we will scale up nationwide progressively to support even more eligible families.

To complement KidSTART, we started an UPLIFT Community Pilot to strengthen support for school-going children in disadvantaged families. This includes connecting them with social service agencies and befrienders who check in with them regularly and provide mentorship.

The pilot has yielded positive outcomes, with school attendance improving for most of the students placed on the programme. So, we will expand the pilot into a nationwide UPLIFT Community Network to benefit more students, starting with eight additional towns this year and more in the coming years.

As our agencies develop more schemes to help different segments, there is a need for closer coordination and integration across these different services.

The challenges faced by lower-income families are often multi-faceted and inter-connected. For example, a child could be absent from school because of employment or health issues faced by his or her parents. In such cases, it is not enough to provide financial assistance. We also need to address the underlying issues faced by the family and support them in taking steps to achieve sustainable change.

We will therefore integrate the delivery of our social services to more effectively uplift lower-income families. We will do so as we scale up Community Link, or ComLink, which provides targeted support for families with children living in rental housing. This involves taking a family-centred approach to address each family’s challenges so that they can keep their family situations stable, become self-reliant and eventually achieve social mobility.

We will partner each ComLink family to develop an action plan that is customised to address their specific needs and aspirations. Each family will have dedicated and trained befrienders to support them towards achieving their action plans. These befrienders will be the bridge with other community partners and Government agencies so that families can receive timely and holistic support.

The Minister for Social and Family Development will share more about this at the COS.

Let me now return to healthcare, which is a critical priority for Singapore’s future. We have made heavy investments in healthcare over the years. For example, we have added five new polyclinics and doubled the number of beds in community hospitals in the last decade. To encourage ageing in place, we have injected a significant supply of aged care services, especially in home and community care.

We have improved the quality of care while keeping our healthcare affordable and accessible for all. We have achieved better overall healthcare outcomes, with Singaporeans living longer and healthier lives.

But there are challenges ahead. As one of the fastest-ageing nations in the world, our healthcare costs will increase significantly. Government healthcare expenditure has already tripled from $3.7 billion in 2010 to $11.3 billion in 2019. If our current healthcare expenditure, excluding COVID-19-related expenditure, continues to increase at a similar rate over the coming decade, we will spend about $27 billion or around 3.5% of GDP by 2030.

The Government can and must spend more on healthcare for Singaporeans. But the current trajectory of increase is not sustainable. We therefore need to fundamentally rethink the way we deliver healthcare.

An important aspect of this is to bring care closer and make it more accessible to the community. A strong primary care sector will serve as the bedrock of our healthcare system and allow us to go upstream for preventive care and better manage chronic conditions. This can improve our quality of life and reduce the risk of costly downstream complications. It will also enable our hospitals to focus on complex conditions and emergency cases.

Our healthcare ecosystem must therefore be restructured over the longer term to centre the healthcare system around the patient. It must be designed to keep patients healthy and provide care in the most appropriate setting. For example, patients with diabetes will require dietary and lifestyle changes to manage the condition well. These are best coordinated by a trusted primary care doctor.

So, to do all these, we will need to build closer partnerships between our healthcare clusters and community partners, especially with the GPs. We will also need to integrate our healthcare IT systems so that information can flow beyond hospitals to community healthcare providers, to enable quality care and maximise convenience to patients.

We are thinking through this “Healthier SG” strategy carefully. It will entail a review of our resourcing approach and healthcare financing schemes, as well as the need for more upstream investments in preventive healthcare.

This will be a challenging long-term effort involving many components and stakeholders. But if we succeed, we will be able to use our resources more effectively while providing quality care and enabling Singaporeans to stay healthy.

Another aspect of healthcare that has been brought to the fore during the pandemic is mental health. The pandemic has been a stressful period for Singaporeans. But the issues of mental health that we face are not caused only by COVID-19. We want to make sure that the lessons learnt are embedded into our healthcare and social support system, in a sustainable and permanent manner. Therefore, we have established an Interagency Taskforce on Mental Health and Well-being to coordinate efforts across public agencies and other stakeholders, and to enhance and integrate mental health and social services in the community.

Sir, we have a full agenda for healthcare and the Minister for Health will elaborate on the plans and strategies at the COS.

Beyond healthcare, we have, over the last decade, made progress in ensuring that Persons with Disabilities, or PwDs, lead dignified lives and are empowered to fulfil their potential across different life stages.

We supported them through their early and schooling years with Early Intervention programmes and Special Education schools. We built inclusive playgrounds across the island so that children with special needs can play with their peers. Through SG Enable, the employment of PwDs has increased and workplaces have been made more inclusive to cater for the needs of PwDs.

We will continue to do more for this group. Later this year, we will launch the Enabling Masterplan 2030 to further strengthen support in areas like employment, lifelong learning and respite care.

The community plays a critical role in building a caring and inclusive home. Through the course of the pandemic, we have seen an outpouring of generosity, kindness and support from Singaporeans. Donations received at Giving.sg, an online donation portal, last year increased by nearly threefold to around $100 million.

I will build on this momentum to strengthen the culture of giving in our society.

To provide more support for the charity sector and to encourage giving, I will provide a top-up of $100 million to extend the Government’s support for Tote Board’s Enhanced Fund-Raising Programme for three years until end-FY2024. Charities can apply to receive dollar-for-dollar matching for eligible donations, up to a cap of $250,000 per charity every year. [Please refer to Annex E-4.]

Earlier we had established the Community Capability Trust, to strengthen the capabilities of Social Service Agencies. I will provide similar support for charities. I will therefore provide a top-up of $26 million to the Charities Capability Fund for five years. This will help to nurture a more productive and innovative charity sector and enable them to do more for the community. [Please refer to Annex E-4.]

I will also continue to support our Arts and Sports sectors. Arts and sports provide meaningful outlets for self-expression and discovery. They help to strengthen our shared culture and our sense of identity, and they unite us as one people.

Last year, all of us cheered our Olympians and Paralympians as they flew the Singapore flag high in Tokyo. To strengthen our High Performance Sports ecosystem, I will extend the One Team Singapore Fund for another five years. This will provide dollar-for-dollar matching for donations to rally support for our Team Singapore athletes.

To further encourage cultural philanthropy, I will provide a top-up of $150 million to the Cultural Matching Fund for three years, which provides dollar-for-dollar matching for donations made to Arts and Heritage charities.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have outlined some of the key moves that the Government will make to strengthen our social compact. We will continually review every aspect of our social policies to see what needs to be further adjusted and improved. This is a major multi-year agenda, to strengthen our solidarity with one another, as we prepare Singapore for the next bound.

Sir, to bring all the plans I have just laid out to fruition, we will need more revenues. I will therefore make major enhancements to strengthen our tax structure.

Our corporate tax system will need to be updated due to global tax developments relating to the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting initiative, or BEPS 2.0.

There are two pillars in BEPS 2.0.

Pillar 1 re-allocates the profit of the largest and most profitable Multinational Enterprises, or MNEs, from where activities are conducted to where consumers are located. There are ongoing international discussions on how to determine the jurisdictions which will surrender profits for re-allocation to the markets under Pillar 1 and how much each will have to surrender. Given our small domestic market and the extent of activities conducted here by MNEs, Singapore will lose tax revenue under Pillar 1.

Pillar 2 introduces, amongst other things, a global minimum effective tax rate of 15% for MNE groups with annual global revenues of 750 million euros or more, under its Global Anti-Base Erosion or GloBE Model Rules. What this means is that if such an MNE were to have an effective tax rate of less than 15% in Singapore at the group level, other jurisdictions such as its home jurisdiction can collect the difference up to 15%.

We will adjust our tax system in response to Pillar 2 GloBE rules. We are exploring a top-up tax called the Minimum Effective Tax Rate, or “METR”. The METR will top up the MNE group’s effective tax rate in Singapore to 15%. IRAS will study this further and consult the industry on the design of METR. We will also continue to closely monitor international developments before making any decisions on the METR.

At this stage, it is premature and difficult to determine the eventual fiscal impact of both pillars. As I mentioned just now, there will be a negative revenue impact under Pillar 1. METR might yield some additional tax revenue in the short term, but the eventual impact of Pillar 2 on our revenue will depend on how governments and companies respond. The net impact of both Pillars depends on the rules and details, which are still being developed by the Inclusive Framework on BEPS.

While BEPS 2.0 may have reduced the scope for tax competition, it has not reduced global competition for investments. In fact, competition is likely to intensify as governments worldwide seek to restore and rebuild their economies after the effects of the pandemic. So, there may be less tax competition but there will be other forms of competition. We will have to take this into consideration and ensure that Singapore remains one of the best places in the world for business.

We will, therefore, need more time to study these issues thoroughly and will announce changes in the corporate tax system when we are ready.

Where personal income tax is concerned, there is room for greater progressivity, so that those who earn more, contribute more.

I will therefore increase the top marginal personal income tax, or PIT rate with effect from the Year of Assessment 2024. The portion of chargeable income in excess of $500,000 up to $1 million will be taxed at 23%, while that in excess of $1 million will be taxed at 24%; both up from 22% today. [Please refer to Annex C-2.]

This increase is expected to affect the top 1.2% of personal income taxpayers and will raise $170 million of additional tax revenue per year.

Next, wealth taxes. This is an important part of the tax system. Apart from generating revenue, they also help to recirculate a portion of the wealth stock into our economy and in so doing, mitigate social inequalities. Wealth taxes are therefore needed to build a fairer society where everyone can aspire to succeed regardless of their backgrounds.

Currently, we tax wealth in several ways – through property tax, stamp duties and the Additional Registration Fee or ARF for motor vehicles. So, the higher value the residential property or motor vehicle, the higher the tax rate.

Ideally, we would want to tax the net wealth of individuals. But such a tax is not easy to implement effectively. Estimating wealth accurately and fairly is a more complex exercise than estimating incomes. Further, many forms of wealth are mobile and as long as there are differences in wealth taxes across jurisdictions, such wealth can and will move.

Singapore is not alone in facing such challenges. Countries like Germany, France and Denmark have stopped levying taxes on individuals’ net wealth. The number of OECD countries that levy net wealth taxes has dropped from 12 in 1990 to only three in 2020. And this is partly because of the difficulties in effectively implementing net wealth taxes.

We will continue to study the experiences of other countries and explore options to tax wealth effectively. In the meantime, we will strengthen our current system of taxes.

In particular, I will make several adjustments to property tax, which is currently our principal means of taxing wealth.

I will increase the property tax rates for non-owner-occupied residential properties, which includes investment properties. For such properties, I will increase the property tax rates from 10% to 20% which is the current range, to 12% to 36%. All non-owner-occupied residential properties will face higher property taxes and the increase will be more significant for properties at the high end. With these changes, a large non-owner-occupied detached house in the central area with Annual Value of $150,000 will see an annual property tax bill of about $43,000 per year. [Please refer to Annex C-2.]

For owner-occupied residential properties, I will increase the property tax rates for the portion of Annual Value in excess of $30,000, from today’s 4% to 16%, to 6% to 32%. This increase will impact the top 7% of owner-occupied residential properties. The increase will be higher for properties at the top end. To illustrate with the same landed property with Annual Value of $150,000, if this is owner-occupied, the new property tax bill will be about $28,000 a year. [Please refer to Annex C-2.]

The increases in property tax rates will be implemented in two steps, starting with the tax payable in 2023. When fully implemented, they will raise our property tax revenue by about $380 million per year.

I will also tax luxury cars at a higher rate to make our vehicle tax system more progressive. I will introduce an additional ARF tier for cars at a rate of 220% for the portion of Open Market Value in excess of $80,000.

The new rates will apply to all cars registered with COEs obtained from the second COE bidding round this month. The additional ARF is expected to generate an additional $50 million in revenue per year. [Please refer to Annex C-2.]

Finally, the GST. The revenue from the increase in GST will go towards supporting our healthcare expenditure and to take care of our seniors. In fact, the GST revenue by itself will not be sufficient to cover our additional healthcare spending. Further, as I shared earlier, other areas of social spending are rising too. And this is why we need not only the GST increase but also the changes to personal income tax, property tax and vehicle tax which I have just announced.

Where the timing of GST is concerned, I have carefully considered the overall situation – the ongoing pandemic, the state of our economy and the outlook for inflation. Our revenue needs are pressing. But I also understand the concerns that Singaporeans have about the GST increase taking place at the same time as rising prices.

I have therefore decided to delay the GST increase to 2023 and stagger the increase over two steps. The first increase will take place on 1 January 2023 from 7% to 8%, and the second increase on 1 January 2024 from 8% to 9%.

I want to assure all Singaporeans that we will continue to implement the GST in our unique Singaporean way, with features and schemes that support the less well-off.

I will continue to absorb GST on publicly subsidised healthcare and education.

I will provide Town Councils with an additional $15 million per year to absorb the additional GST payable on Service and Conservancy Charges.

I will not increase Government fees and charges for one year from 1 January 2023. This will apply to license fees, as well as fees charged by Government agencies for the provision of services. This includes school fees, ITE and Polytechnic fees, and charges in public carparks. [Please refer to Annex F-1.]

To address concerns that businesses could use GST as a cover to raise prices, the Government will stand up a Committee Against Profiteering. The Committee will be chaired by Minister of State for Trade and Industry Ms Low Yen Ling.

We had earlier announced a $6 billion Assurance Package to cushion the impact of the GST increase for all Singaporeans. I will provide an additional top-up of $640 million to the Assurance Package.

The enhanced Assurance Package will provide significant payouts to Singaporeans over the next five years.

Every adult Singaporean will receive cash payouts totalling $700 to $1,600.

Eligible seniors will receive a special GSTV – Cash (Seniors’ Bonus) totalling $600 to $900.

Eligible HDB households will receive additional U-Save rebates totalling $330 to $570 depending on flat type.

All Singaporean children and seniors will receive MediSave top-ups totalling $450.

All Singaporean households will receive two tranches of CDC vouchers worth $200 each in 2023 and 2024. The vouchers can be used at all participating heartland merchants and hawkers, as well as major supermarkets. Details are in the Annex. [Please refer to Annex F-2.]

For the majority of Singaporean households, the offsets from the Assurance Package will cover at least five years of additional GST expenses. For lower-income households, they will receive more – with offsets covering about 10 years’ worth of additional GST expenses.

For example, take a middle-income family of four in a 4-room flat, with two school-going children and a household income of about $8,000 a month. They will receive a total of around $4,000 in benefits, around five times the additional GST they are expected to incur a year.

If I were to choose a lower-income family, the benefits they receive will be larger and the offsets will cover more years of additional GST expenses. Seniors will also get more benefits. Take the example of a retired couple in a 3-room flat. They will receive even more support from the Assurance Package, at around $6,800. This far exceeds 10 times the additional GST they are expected to incur a year. [Please refer to Annex F-3.]

Even with these offsets, some vulnerable households may require more support. These households with urgent needs can approach their Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCC) for assistance. To further support vulnerable households, I will top up the CCC ComCare Fund by $5 million over five years. I will also provide a total of $12 million over four years to our Self-Help Groups.

In addition, businesses may need to adjust to the GST increase. So, I will set aside close to $40 million under the Productivity Solutions Grant for businesses to apply for subsidised accounting and point of sale solutions.

Over and above the transitional support provided by the Assurance Package, I will enhance the GST Voucher or GSTV scheme which is a permanent feature of our system.

The permanent GSTV scheme currently has three components – a cash payout, MediSave top-up and utilities rebates. I will enhance it in three ways.

First, the Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) Rebate will be made a permanent component of the GSTV scheme.

Second, the Assessable Income threshold for GSTV – Cash will increase from $28,000 to $34,000. This will cover more Singaporeans.

Third, I will increase the quantum of the GSTV – Cash payout to $500 for those residing in homes with Annual Values of $13,000 and below; and to $250, for those residing in homes with Annual Values of between $13,000 and $21,000. Details are provided in the Annex. [Please refer to Annex F-4.]

The enhanced permanent GSTV scheme will provide continuing offsets for the GST expenses of lower-to middle-income households, and most retiree households, beyond the transitional period covered by the Assurance Package.

The enhanced GSTV will fully offset the total GST that retiree households living in 1- to 4-room HDB flats have to pay. Many retiree households in bigger flats will also have their GST offset by a significant amount.

For low-income households who do not have elderly members, the GSTV will offset about half their total GST expenses every year.

Both the Assurance Package and the enhanced permanent GSTV scheme will be implemented together, before the GST rate increase, so that Singaporeans can benefit from both schemes at the same time. [Please refer to Annex F-3.]