Hansard, Thursday, 15 October 2020

1 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider normalising work-from-home arrangements in the post-pandemic period and advocate among companies for more flexibility in work arrangements beyond the current crisis.

Work-from-home, or WFH, has become the norm during the COVID-19 period, with many employers implementing WFH arrangements, for the safety of their employees.

We are heartened by the speed at which companies and employees have adapted to the WFH arrangements during this period. Even as more are allowed to return to the workplace, some employers continue to allow their employees to WFH and return to the office only when needed. It is an encouraging sign that more people recognise the benefits of working from home and that it is becoming part of the “new normal”.

At the same time, we recognise that WFH may not be feasible under certain conditions. These include situations where workers have to be physically present at the workplace to operate machinery, or where there are challenges in working from home due to not so conducive home environments.

MOM will continue to advocate for the implementation of flexible work arrangements, or FWAs. In 2019, about 85% of employers offered some form of formal or ad hoc FWAs in the workplace. More than 7,000 companies have also adopted the Tripartite Standard on FWAs. MOM welcomes suggestions to implement FWAs and will continue to share good practices with employers.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. My question is, while working at home, many employees are subjected to really long hours. Will MOM come up with some law to protect employees? We have seen people who have back-to-back meetings on Zoom and the meetings run past their lunch and dinner times.

Our sessions run through lunch too.

I thank the hon Dr Wan Rizal for the comment. Indeed, while there are clear benefits of WFH and of continuing with it, it also has a set of new challenges that we are learning about. We are in the process of consultation with employers and employees to look at how we can moderate and also put in place recommendations to make WFH more sustainable in the steady state.

Could I ask the Minister of State, out of the 85% of the companies that are offering FWAs, how many percent are actually offering WFH arrangements? Second, can I also ask what was the Ministry's consideration when we so drastically reduced our WFH policy from 100% to 50%? Why do we not just have a set of conditions or criteria where, if an employee is required to go back to work, then, they go back to work; rather than halve it quite immediately?

For 2019, I do not have the data off-hand on what percentage of the 85% of the employers offered WFH arrangements as well. But we do know that prior to COVID-19, before the circuit breaker, there were fewer companies that were implementing WFH arrangements. During the circuit breaker, because of safety reasons, many companies, employers, have adapted very fast. We see that there is feedback from more employers telling us that they are prepared to continue to implement WFH post-COVID-19. So, this is an encouraging sign.

As to whether 50% is the correct level or not, I think we have to have proper conversations and discussions, hopefully with the tripartite partners to understand better the challenges that come along with WFH – both for the employers as well as for the employees, just as Dr Wan Rizal had mentioned earlier on. I think it is not so much pegging a certain level in the steady state, but rather, trying to find optimal conditions for us to be able to implement WFH in a sustainable manner.

Mr Sharael Taha.

I would like to thank the Minister of State for the clarification. I would also like to enquire, has MOM considered the downstream impact of WFH? With companies intending to downsize their office spaces to benefit from WFH, can we also take a look at how it impacts the downstream workers – those who are supporting office operations, such as the cleaners in the office, the food providers around the office space. Has MOM also considered those impacts?

I thank the hon Member for that comment. Indeed, implementing WFH affects not just the employers and the employees, but also the eco-system – the businesses and the individuals supporting WFH as well as work from office, work from workplace arrangements. So, these have to be studied carefully. As I have said earlier on, we are looking at having deeper discussions at the tripartite level to make sure that we understand the considerations fully and more holistically before we make further recommendations on implementing WFH further.

2 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the existing immigration policy to keep the existing racial proportions remains unchanged.

Mr Speaker, we are keenly aware of the need to maintain the racial balance in Singapore’s population in order to preserve social stability and harmony. I would like to assure the Member that the pace and profile of our immigration intake have been, and will continue to be, calibrated to preserve this racial balance.

Mr Gan.

I thank the Minister of State for the reply. May I know what are the current racial proportions in our country? Also, over all these years, were there any changes to these proportions?

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. If you look back, the ethnic proportion of our citizen population has actually remained stable. In the last 10 years, the proportion of citizens of Chinese ethnicity has remained at 76%, Malay ethnicity at 15%, Indian ethnicity at 7.5%, and Others at 1.5%.

3 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of the current contraction of the global and Singapore's economies leading to an expected fall in Government revenue (a) whether there will be any delay or cancellation of the local major infrastructural investments that the Government has committed to date and, if so, what are the details; and (b) whether the Government anticipates increased borrowings or issuance of bonds to fund the infrastructural investments on projects that it is committed to complete.

Mr Speaker, may we have your permission to provide the answer to this in Deputy Prime Minister's round-up speech because he will be addressing the content and substance of this Parliamentary Question in his round-up?

Proceed.

4 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how many Singaporeans have been trained in cybersecurity to protect our security network; and (b) what is the plan to have adequate Singaporean cybersecurity specialists to meet the challenges.

Mr Speaker, cybersecurity is an important growth sector and a key enabler for Singapore’s economy and digital future. It is vital to nurture and grow our cybersecurity workforce to ensure our networks are well protected.

The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore, or CSA, works closely with our industry partners and other Government agencies in order to do so. Based on the Infocomm Media Development Authority's survey, the number of cybersecurity professionals in Singapore in 2019 more than doubled to almost 6,000 compared to 2014.

To meet near-term demand for cybersecurity professionals, we facilitate the training of fresh and mid-career non-cybersecurity professionals for cybersecurity jobs. Since 2016, almost 5,000 Singaporeans have undergone cybersecurity training as part of the Tech Skills Accelerator programme.

Working with industry partners, we have increased opportunities for Singaporeans to take on cybersecurity roles. Companies such as Ensign InfoSecurity, Singtel and DBS offer traineeships under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills package to help fresh graduates gain cybersecurity industry experience. The Government will also hire more cybersecurity professionals. CSA has earmarked 120 places over the next two years for cybersecurity roles in Government agencies.

CSA has also worked with associations, industry and academic partners to introduce programmes under the national SG Cyber Talent initiative to reach out to the young. The SG Cyber Youth and SG Cyber Women programmes have engaged over 7,000 participants to date, to encourage them to pursue a career in cybersecurity. Our Institutes of Higher Learning also offer dedicated courses for students to build up foundational cybersecurity expertise.

These efforts will nurture and strengthen our cybersecurity workforce to meet Singapore’s needs.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. May I know in terms of national security, will the Ministry consider that we need a core Singapore team to protect our national security in terms of cybersecurity? What measures will the Ministry consider?

Indeed, Mr Gan Thiam Poh is correct that we do need to ensure that we have the appropriate security protocols in terms of the hiring practices. While the nationality is taken into consideration, the key thing that we have to achieve is the breadth and depth of talent across our cybersecurity landscape in order to benefit both the public sector as well as the private sector here in Singapore.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Just a brief question with regard to attracting Singaporeans to some of these jobs at CSA and more broadly the wider subset of the IT industry in Singapore. We have heard in the debate yesterday about ensuring that Singapore remains cosmopolitan. And so, in brief, the question is, has it been difficult for the Government to attract Singaporeans to some of the jobs that are being offered by CSA in the past and what are the prospects going forward?

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his question. There are two ways to look at this, which is, what are the jobs unfilled and the gaps that are growing or r what is the attractiveness of the job to Singaporeans and local graduates? To answer the question Mr Pritam Singh is asking, this set of cybersecurity jobs, especially those within the public sector and agencies, such as the Home Team, DSTA, Cyber Security Agency, GovTech and various others, are attractive to our local cybersecurity graduates. The competition to get into these jobs is significant and the awareness of the opportunities afforded by these jobs amongst our local graduates is very high. There are a number of surveys, studies and publications both in the private sector as well as coming out of the public sector that validate this.

Nevertheless, globally, there is a dearth of talent for these types of jobs and there is a global competition for the kind of skillsets that we need to deploy in cybersecurity. That applies in Singapore, as it does around the globe.

5 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health in view of the proposed increases in premiums and coverage of MediShield Life (MSHL), whether MediSave withdrawal limits for MSHL premium payments will be raised so that MediSave can be used to fully pay for premiums for MediShield Life Basic, Integrated Shield Plans for Class B2/C wards and the Standard Integrated Shield Plan (for public hospital Class B1 coverage), for all age groups.

MediShield Life premiums are fully payable by MediSave. There are no withdrawal limits. Family members can also utilise their MediSave also to help pay the premiums for their loved ones.

The additional private insurance component of the Integrated Plans (or IP) is also payable by MediSave, up to the Additional Withdrawal Limits (AWLs) which range from $300 to $900 per year, with higher limits for older policyholders as their premiums are higher.

The AWLs strike a balance between helping Singaporeans pay for their IP premiums using MediSave and ensuring that they have enough MediSave for basic healthcare needs, especially after their retirement. As MediShield Life already provides universal and basic insurance coverage for all Singaporeans, policyholders will need to consider whether they need the additional IP insurance and the affordability of the IP premiums when choosing these plans.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I have two supplementary questions.

First, with the proposed increased coverage of MediShield Life, does this reduce the burden on the lower tier Integrated Shield Plans and, hence, translate to lower premiums for the IPs?

Second, according a comparison of standard IPs for Class B1 coverage on the MOH website, the benefits of standard IPs are identical across all IP insurers. This being the case, has the Government considered having CPF take over the running of standard IPs for Class B1 coverage so that the costs and premiums can be kept lower? By having CPF take over the standard IP, risks can be further pooled rather than split across different insurers and the premiums can be possibly lowered.

Sir, I do not quite understand the Member's first question. So, I will ask the Member to clarify again later. But for the second question on the standard B1 coverage, we must understand that, at this moment, the Basic MediShield Life coverage already covers for nine out of 10 subsidised healthcare bills. So, the additional B1 coverage is really that little bit of icing on the cake and I think it would not be useful for CPF Board to take over all coverage, including up to B1, because there is still a role for the market to play. But by standardising the level of coverage and ensuring that the premium is uniform, it gives Singaporeans the option to choose something beyond the coverage of nine in 10 that are already covered by the current Basic MediShield plans.

Sir, to clarify my first question, what I meant is that, currently, MediShield Life covers a certain amount. Now, the proposal is to increase the coverage or MediShield Life. Would that eat into some of the Integrated Shield Plan coverage such that the premiums of Integrated Shield Plans can be lowered?

With regard to the second question which the Senior Minister of State answered, he mentioned that B1 plans are the icing on the cake. But I understand that the B1 plans are actually quite popular among Singaporeans, to the extent that the Government has gone to the extent of standardising the benefits of all the B1 plans so that there is not so much need for comparison for premium holders. So, the question is: can that, therefore, be brought under the CPF fold so that we can possibly benefit from risk-pooling and, possibly, lower premiums for premium holders?

Sir, we will take the suggestion by the Member on the B1 plans into consideration. This is an on-going process of reviewing the utilisation over time and we may evolve some of this coverage over time as well. But at this moment, we will focus, because MediShield Life is still a very new plan that we had started in the last five years or so. So, we want to let it stabilise and see how the utilisation of the Basic plan, which covers nine in 10 subsidised bills, goes before deciding whether we should broaden the inclusion of B1 into our fold as well. The private insurance market is also evolving. So, this thing will take some time to settle. Nonetheless. we will take the suggestion into consideration

The increased coverage for MediShield Life, the expansion of increased coverage up to about 120,000 claims per year, actually, that refers to total bill size. That does not necessarily mean, therefore, that the need for private plan is negated by the increased coverage, because there is still healthcare inflation and choosing private coverage is actually a matter of personal choice. Some people prefer to go to the private sector where they can have, perhaps, a more personalised type of higher value service. But those who are looking for good value care will still come back to the institution in our restructured hospitals. So, I do not think those two are mutually inclusive and increasing coverage for one would necessarily eat into the other.

6 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the current practice of cordoning off most entrances and exits of buildings to facilitate SafeEntry and temperature screenings at a single entrance point presents a fire safety risk.

Mr Speaker, the requirements in respect of the cordoning of entrances and exits of buildings as part of the COVID-19 safe management measures aim to also not increase the fire safety risk. Building owners must continue to comply with fire safety requirements and ensure that the exits and entrances that are cordoned off must be readily accessible during emergencies. For example, the physical barriers that are used as cordons must be easily removable to allow evacuation in an emergency. Clear notices or signage must also be prominently placed to inform the public.

The Singapore Civil Defence Force has communicated the fire safety requirements to all building owners and will continue to conduct regular enforcement checks to ensure compliance.

I appreciate the answer. I am sure the Minister would appreciate that, during an emergency, time is of the essence and there is often a great deal of panic and confusion. So, while it may be that the emergency exits remain open, the fact that they are out of bounds in normal circumstances might condition people to rush to the one exit that they know remains open and that could become a choke point. So, has SCDF considered this risk and how does it intend to mitigate that, beyond what the Minister of State mentioned just now about having signage to ensure that people are aware that the exit can actually be opened.

Sir, I thank the Member for the Supplementary Question. We recognise that it is important for us to let the public know and be socialised about how the exits and entrances work during an emergency. As such, it is important that we work very closely with the malls and building owners. SCDF has been doing that and has been encouraging malls and building owners to inform their customers and those who go to the buildings about some of the safety aspects and, at the same time, place clear signage. In fact, we are heartened that Singaporeans are also very concerned about fire safety. If you follow the media, quite a number have written to the media to share their concerns. As such, we have also been engaging building owners regularly. I would like to urge members of the public, that if they have concerns about fire hazards, they can call us at 1800-280-0000 use SCDF's "myResponder" app or email us. This is something that we believe in and want to work with the public on, and while we will continue to manage and enhance our system, as well as engage the public and building owners.

We are very heartened that Singaporeans have come on board and are making sure that Singapore, regardless of the situation that we are in, with the various Safe Management Measures (SMMs) in place, will continue to look at and ensure fire safety.

7 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current number of Singaporeans who have been provided with childcare/preschool and after-school care subsidies respectively, broken down by (i) income group (ii) amount of subsidy and (iii) the after-subsidy fee they are paying; (b) whether the Ministry will extend the subsidies to non-working mothers who look after other elder children in the family; and (c) whether the Ministry will review the subsidies given by ECDA centres in providing childcare/preschool and after-school care and also consider eliminating means testing so that all parents pay a uniform fee.

Mr Speaker, all families with Singaporean children enrolled in childcare programmes receive a universal Basic Subsidy. In addition, working mothers with a monthly household income of $12,000 or below are eligible for a means-tested Additional Subsidy, with lower income families receiving higher subsidies.

Families with Singaporean children enrolled in kindergartens run by Anchor Operators and MOE and whose monthly household income is $12,000 or below are eligible for a means-tested subsidy under the Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme or KiFAS. Larger families can choose to have their household income assessed on a per capita basis, which may enable them to qualify for a higher tier of the Additional Subsidy or KiFAS.

Today, 103,400 Singaporean children are enrolled in full-day childcare. Of these, all receive a Basic Subsidy each month. Sixty-one thousand five hundred children, or six in 10, receive an Additional Subsidy each month, as their families have monthly household income of $12,000 or below. For this group, the median total subsidy is $560 and the median nett fee after subsidy is $210. Nine thousand nine hundred children, or one in 10, receive the highest tier of the Additional Subsidy, as they are from families with monthly household income of $3,000 and below. For this group, the median total subsidy is $767 and the median nett fee is $3.

For kindergarten, 18,800 Singaporean children are enrolled in Anchor Operator- and MOE-run kindergartens. Of these, 12,000 children, or over six in 10, receive KiFAS each month, as their families have monthly household income of $12,000 or below. For this group, the median subsidy is $156 and the median nett fee after subsidy is $15. Four thousand three hundred children, or two in 10, receive the highest tier of the KiFAS subsidy, as their families have monthly household income of $3,000 or below. For this group, the median subsidy is $170 and the nett fee is $1.

The Member asked if we could extend subsidies to non-working mothers taking care of older children in the family.

Non-working mothers who need childcare due to certain circumstances, such as those who are looking for employment or are caring for a younger child aged 24 months and below, a special needs child or a sick family member, can apply for the same subsidies as working mothers under Special Approval. From August 2020, families under HDB's Public Rental Scheme and MSF’s ComCare schemes automatically qualify for maximum pre-school subsidies, regardless of the mother’s working status.

Non-working mothers may also consider enrolling their children in half-day kindergarten programmes, which are often more affordable than full-day childcare programmes. KiFAS is available at kindergartens run by Anchor Operators and MOE, and does not depend on the mother's working status.

As for student care, student care centres provide care and supervision to school-going children from seven to 14 years old. To ensure that student care remains affordable, MSF provides children from lower income families with monthly subsidies for student care fees under the Student Care Fee Assistance or SCFA scheme. These subsidies are available for all eligible families with monthly household income of $4,500 or below or per capita income of $1,125 or below, including those with non-working parents who are looking for work, on medical leave, or with certified full-time care-giver duties for a dependant and so on.

Around 36,000 children are enrolled in MSF-registered student care centres today, of which 6,600 Singaporean children are SCFA beneficiaries. Of the 6,600 children, the median SCFA subsidy is $243, and the median net fee after subsidy is $30. One thousand and eight hundred children, or three in 10, receive the highest tier of the SCFA subsidy, as their families have monthly household income of $1,500 and below. The median SCFA subsidy is $275 and the median net fee after subsidy is $5. Thirty five percent of these 1,800 children have zero household income.

The Member also asked if we could eliminate means-testing so that families can pay a uniform fee for pre-school and student care. Means-testing allows the Government to use fiscal resources more effectively and to extend more support to families with greater needs. In January 2020, we raised the household income ceiling for the Childcare Additional Subsidy and KiFAS to $12,000 per month, up from $7,500 and $6,000 respectively, to support more families with pre-school expenses. We also increased the subsidy amounts for each eligible tier, by up to $240 per month for the Additional Subsidy.

Similarly, for student care, we recently enhanced the SCFA scheme to strengthen support for lower income families. In July 2020, the monthly household income ceiling was raised from $4,000 to $4,500. The per capita income ceiling was raised from $1,000 to $1,125, allowing more families to qualify for subsidies. The quanta for means-tested SCFA subsidies have also been increased, such that eligible families can receive up to $60 more in subsidies per month.

We will monitor the impact of the enhancements, because these are very recent, and review these schemes when necessary to ensure the affordability of pre-school and student care, especially for lower income families. For pre-school, we aim to lower fee caps for full-day childcare at Government-supported pre-schools over the medium term to make pre-school even more affordable for all families, starting with Partner Operator pre-schools in January 2021.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): I thank Minister for the comprehensive reply. In fact, I appreciate all the effort that is given by the Government to the families.

My question is: will the Government also consider incentivising families who have more children? This means, based on the number of children they have, they have more subsidy, higher quantum given to them. This is also to ease the burden, especially faced by the sandwiched class and encouraging them to have more babies.

Encouraging more babies is one reason why we did it, but not the reason to do it. For childcare, for example, we want to make sure that children get access to affordable and quality pre-school education. That is very important, especially during the growing years. For students above seven years old who need care because of the circumstances in their families, they have access to higher subsidies given the special circumstances the families may need.

So if Members know of families who do not qualify because of this income criteria, they can always come forward and appeal for higher subsidies. And we will look at it carefully.

8 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what steps have been taken to ensure continual access of natural parents and children-in-care during the period whereby social distancing between households are enforced.

Mr Speaker, during the circuit breaker period, MSF continued to facilitate interaction between children-in-care and their natural parents. This is important to maintain the family ties between the children and their families and to facilitate the children's eventual reunification with their families.

In line with the safe management measures implemented during the circuit breaker period, case workers and foster families continued to facilitate access virtually through video conferencing or phone calls for the children to maintain regular contact with their natural families. Case workers also had more frequent virtual check-ins with the children to ensure their well-being.

In the post-circuit breaker period, children in foster care are granted home leave to visit their natural families in their homes. The natural parents must declare the health situation of the family before any visit. For instance, there must not be any household member feeling unwell, or under a Home Quarantine Order, Leave of Absence, or Stay-Home Notice. Case workers will also request for periodic updates on the natural family's health.

9 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the percentage of hawker centres and coffeeshops which currently do not adhere to the ratio of female and male toilet facilities of 5:3 as required by the NEA; (b) what steps can be taken to encourage the relevant owners and operators to make the requisite changes to comply with the ratio requirement; and (c) whether incentives can be provided under NEA's Toilet Improvement Programme launched on 2 October 2020 to effect the desired changes.

The Code of Practice on Environmental Health or COPEH, specifies the minimum number of female and male toilet facilities for different categories of premises, according to their Gross Floor Area or capacity. For small food establishments, such as coffeeshops that are no more than 250 sqm in area, the minimum requirement is to provide one toilet and one wash hand basin. For larger hawker centres and coffeeshops, the required ratio of female to male toilet facilities will vary according to size. The 5:3 ratio of female to male toilet facilities applies to premises such as shopping malls, conference halls and cinemas.

NEA regularly updates the requirements in the COPEH, including those pertaining to the number of female and male toilet facilities. These will apply to premises, including hawker centres and coffeeshops, when they undergo rebuilding or major renovation.

NEA will encourage owners and operators of hawker centres and coffeeshops to provide toilet facilities that meet the latest COPEH through the Toilet Improvement Programme or TIP. The TIP provides co-funding support of up to 90%, capped at $45,000, to incorporate better designs and technologies for more productive and effective cleaning of toilets.

I urge Town Councils and coffeeshop owners to apply for the TIP to upgrade their toilets.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Senior Minister of State for her comprehensive answer. I have a supplementary question. May I please ask if her Ministry could consider extending the NEA's Toilet Improvement Programme to also include, apart from hawker centres and coffeeshops, standalone wet markets – there is one such wet market in Bukit Batok which is owned by a private owner – which would benefit from the incentives to improve the toilets and also incentivise the owners to conduct deep cleaning and daily cleaning of the toilets?

I thank the Member for the supplementary question on wet markets. At the moment for the Toilet Improvement Programme, we have budgeted about $8 million and we are looking at co-funding the programme for up to 40 hawker centres whose common areas and toilets are managed by the Town Councils, and up to 114 coffeeshops. So, this is as a start.

With regard to the request, let us look at it. As I have said, our priority and as a start for this Toilet Improvement Programme, it is really for coffeeshops and hawker centres where there is high traffic and we are looking at improving standards of hygiene and cleanliness, particularly with respect to the spread of infectious diseases and so on. We are looking at toilets that have not been upgraded, for instance, for coffeeshops, for the last three years, with ageing infrastructure and maintenance issues. But these are areas that we could look at.

10 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider increasing the maximum fine for employers who illegally deploy a foreign domestic worker.

Mr Speaker, employers who illegally deploy their foreign domestic workers face financial penalty of up to $10,000. They could also be debarred from hiring foreign domestic workers.

While the current administrative financial penalty is capped at $10,000, the eventual penalty takes into consideration the severity of the infringement and number of counts of the infringement that is committed. Between 2017 and 2019, 16 employers were issued with financial penalties each year, ranging from $3,300 to $24,000.

The number of cases of illegal deployment of foreign domestic workers has remained relatively stable over the past few years. We do not plan to review the maximum penalty at the moment. However, we are reviewing the guidelines to see if the cases currently resolved with a warning, should in future be subject to a financial penalty. This is so that employers will take their responsibility towards their foreign domestic workers seriously.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister of State for saying that the Ministry will be doing a review. Could I ask how long this review will take? And second, whether the NGOs will be consulted during this review process?

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Mr Louis Ng for that question. The review is on-going and we are also in the process of consulting various parties and if Mr Louis Ng has strong views or is in touch with organisations that have views on this, we welcome their input as well.

11 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has conducted any studies on the effect stacked ranking has on teachers collaborating with each other; (b) if so, what do the results of these studies show; and (c) whether the Ministry will conduct such studies if it has not done so.

12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has explored alternative performance appraisal models instead of the current stack ranking model for teachers; and (b) if so, what appraisal models has the Ministry considered.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 11 and 12 together.

Yes, please.

Mr Speaker, MOE takes guidance from the Civil Service ranking and promotion framework for our staff performance appraisal and ranking processes. So, we adopt a system where a teacher’s performance is not just assessed by his own supervisor, but also cross-ranked with his peers by a ranking panel comprising direct and indirect supervisors. The system allows us to consistently identify and recognise stronger performing officers, while at the same time provide development opportunities to those who need more support to help them improve their performance. In addition, the system also helps to moderate differences in supervisors’ assessments and establish common standards of performance assessment.

We adopt a holistic approach in assessing our teachers. They are expected to be able to deliver effective teaching and pastoral care, support students in their character development, interact well with students and contribute to the learning of fellow teachers. Our teachers are also assessed on their ability to work and collaborate with others.

Apart from feedback from our School Leaders, MOE monitors key staff-related indicators like staff collaboration through our internal staff engagement surveys, and we do not find any particular concerns raised about our teachers not being able to collaborate with one another.

Singapore Secondary school teachers who participated in OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey 2018 said that beyond performance ratings, they receive feedback that has a positive impact on their teaching practices. In fact, they reported that the teaching fraternity here has a strong collaborative and collegial culture, driven by a shared belief in collective improvement of practice. About eight in 10 Singapore teachers reported that their schools have a collaborative school culture characterised by mutual support, shared responsibility, common beliefs about student learning and well-being, and an emphasis on innovation. 92% of our teachers also said that they can rely on one another, which is higher than the OECD average of 89%.

On balance, we find that a system of relative ranking of performance still serves its purpose today. While there are ranking guidelines to adhere to, there is also flexibility for deviations, taking into consideration the performance of individual officers and specific circumstances.

Nevertheless, MOE works with the Public Service Division, or PSD, to review our appraisal system periodically and has made refinements to the system over the years as our operating landscape changes.

We will also continue to work with PSD to study alternative systems of performance management so that we can ensure our system remains relevant and effective. Beyond the ranking guidelines or even the system of performance management that is in place, what is important is for our school leaders to continue motivating and inspiring our teachers to stay true to their calling as educators and help our students reach their full potential.

I thank the Minister for the reply and giving some of the survey results as well. But I want to make two points. One is that we actually have done away with class ranking because we said that learning is not a competition. Why then do we make teaching a competition? Does the Minister agree with me that by ranking teachers against each other, it might make them compete against each other and collaborate less as well. I know there are some survey results that show that a percentage feels that they can collaborate but I am just wondering whether ranking does help to move the needle towards making them compete against each other.

Two, can I ask whether MOE has studied this issue in terms of whether it benefits the students? So, does ranking the teachers actually benefit the students?

Mr Speaker, let me start by saying that we appreciate the work that our teachers do. Teaching is a very demanding job; it is a special calling. I know this from first-hand experience because my mother was a teacher for more than 40 years. So, let us make no pretence of it. It is demanding, and I would say it is probably more demanding now than it used to be.

But it is also vitally important in bringing out the best in every child and nurturing the next generation. That is why we spare no effort in building a first-rate teaching force, high quality and dedicated. We also do our very best to support them in their work.

I say this because we have to look at appraisal systems in this context. An appraisal system is meant to enhance teaching quality. Evidence around the world shows that having a good appraisal system can help in enhancing teaching quality. An OECD study said, for example, that "teacher appraisal can be a key lever for increasing the focus on teaching quality".

So, that is what we have been trying to do. It is not about competition amongst the teachers, but it is putting in place an appraisal system where there is focus on quality and where the school leadership teams can continually assess their teachers, and identify the excellent teachers amongst them who can be the next generation of school leaders and master teachers. I think that is important for maintaining that quality of our teaching force and also important in being able to nurture our next generation well.

We have been doing this for many years. We have an appraisal system that works reasonably well and we have, as a result of it, a strong high-quality teaching force. We will continue to review and improve the system, as I have said, based on feedback from all stakeholders and looking at experiences in other countries as well as best practices in other jurisdictions. Our fundamental objective is really to ensure a high quality teaching force and do the best for every child in our schools.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for an impassioned defence for the importance of appraisal which I think nobody disputes. Perhaps, the way to square this circle is to understand that maybe the concern is about ranking which potentially by its nature pits one teacher versus another.

I wonder if there could be a move toward more of a measurement system that does not rely on ranking per se but focuses more on teachers actually just having reached absolute standards. This does not penalise those who are very good teachers but may end up being ranked lower just by virtue of their peers being even better teachers.

Mr Speaker, as I had mentioned just now, our objective is to have a sound appraisal system that enhances teaching quality. How to go about designing this appraisal system? I think we have a system that works reasonably well, but I would be the first to acknowledge that it is not perfect. I do not think there are perfect solutions anywhere in the world. We constantly have to review and improve.

Even in the system of ranking that we have today, it has evolved over the years. We, for example, do not rigidly apply performance grade quotas anymore today; we allow flexibility and deviations, so we look at different circumstances. Ultimately, when we look at a performance system, the key objective is still, as I said earlier, for the school leadership teams to be able to identify excellent teachers amongst those who are under their charge. So, there is, in that selection, some form of ranking inevitably but the purpose is to be able to identify the high performing ones so that you can nurture them and put them up for advancement, and then they can in turn be the next generation of school leaders and master teachers.

We remain open with regard to new ideas and inputs on how this appraisal system can continue to be enhanced. But our objective, I think all of us here in this House share that same objective, is to have an appraisal system that is fair, enhances teaching quality and helps us to advance the next generation of school leadership so that we can continue to do the best for our students.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. I just want to reaffirm that I do agree that we should have an appraisal system as well. But could I ask the Minister, he mentioned earlier that MOE is studying alternative appraisal models. So, could the Minister share what some of these models are that MOE is currently studying?

It is an on-going process, Mr Speaker, because we continue to review this. It is not a specific review that we are doing now. Constantly, we exchange notes with jurisdictions elsewhere. We look at what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had suggested too, on what is the balance between ranking versus having more absolute measures of performance. And then we also see some of the negative experiences in other jurisdictions where sometimes if you put too much weight on one indicator, then the teachers teach to that or perform to that indicator only, and then you end up with inadvertent consequences.

Like I said, there is no perfect appraisal system anywhere in the world. In the end, you have to keep on improving, reviewing, updating and being mindful of the potential downsides. So, the concerns raised by Members, that ranking and the appraisal systems that have elements of ranking can lead to the ill effects of competition, is something we are very mindful of. That is why in the way we appraise, we also look at how teachers collaborate with one another, in order to encourage that sort of behaviour.

13 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what is being done to mitigate against the various chemical odours/fumes (besides cocoa) emanating from the factories in Pioneer constituency that adversely impact the households located within their close proximity.

NEA continuously monitors the ambient air levels of key pollutants as well as Volatile Organic Compounds or VOCs, which are organic vapours of common industrial emissions and precursors of ozone. The ambient VOC levels in the western region are in the parts per billion and parts per trillion range, well within safe levels which are mostly in the parts per million range. The ambient air quality in the western region was also in the normal range from January to September 2020, with the Pollutant Standards Index ranging from 14 to 66 in the Good to Moderate bands. This PSI is comparable to the rest of Singapore during the same period which ranges from 14 to 76.

NEA has in place a suite of measures to manage emissions from industrial premises, including factories in Pioneer Constituency. Emissions of key industrial pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, dioxins and furans are regulated under the Environmental Protection and Management Act. Factories are required to install pollution control equipment to ensure that their emissions are properly treated before discharge. Industries with processes that emit higher levels of air pollutants are required to engage accredited surveyors to conduct source emission testing and submit the test reports to NEA regularly.

NEA also conducts regular factory inspections to verify that their pollution control equipment is well maintained and operating effectively. About 150 inspections are conducted every year at factories in the Jurong area.

Some factories in the Jurong Industrial Estate, such as those specialising in the manufacturing of food flavourings and fragrances, generate certain smells during their operations. Such smells are generally not harmful to human health. NEA has advised these factories on additional mitigation measures, such as the installation of odour control systems and dispersion fans to reduce odours from their premises.

NEA will continue to ensure that industries meet air emission standards and will enforce against companies found to be non-compliant. My Ministry also regularly reviews the industrial emission standards to ensure they are on par with those in other jurisdictions.

Mr Patrick Tay.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply and also for her assurance and guaranteeing the air quality and standards are within healthy range and not hazardous and noxious.

Just wanted to share because, just last night, in fact, two residents buzzed me through private message to share about chemical smells and odours coming from the nearby factory areas, mainly, Soon Lee as well as further down, near Boon Lay Way.

Essentially, the smells come partly exacerbated by the fact of strong winds and wind directions, so I just wanted to give a few suggestions to Senior Minister of State.

Firstly, beside regular checks, particularly from the HDB blocks that are facing the precincts to do checks in those areas rather than within the industrial area itself.

Second, whether we can do environmental audits in a more regular fashion for those industries which particularly have emissions of smoke, fumes as well as other odours.

Thirdly, whether NEA can work more closely with the community to be a bit more proactive, as and when we detect some of these cases to engage those companies and businesses in the area.

First, let me thank the Member for his suggestions. Let me say that NEA will continue to monitor the ambient air quality in the area with respect to pollutant indicators as well as VOCs and so on. Indeed, we have continuous, real-time air monitoring sensors, a network of these sensors that will measure Pollutant Standards Index as well as VOCs, to ensure that the ambient air quality is within the range of good to moderate and that the VOC levels are within the safe levels. But I must caveat that we cannot guarantee; we will do our best. Some of these things are not within our control.

But, with regards to the three suggestions, I would say yes, we will take all this on board. Also, allow me to clarify that every time when a smell incident is reported, if it is distinctive and we can trace it to a specific factory, we will engage the factory and advise them to implement smell mitigation measures. Over the years, quite a number of these factories have been implementing or have implemented smell mitigation measures. For instance, scrubbers, odour control systems, dispersion fans and to the extent that some of them will also moderate their operations, in order to mitigate the smells.

And as the Member has rightly pointed out, particularly during the months from April to November, due to the Southwest monsoon as well as the inter-monsoon period, sometimes the wind will carry over these smells or the smells could linger because of lack of variability in the wind speed and so on. But, as I have said, for the smell incidents that have been reported thus far, we have not found elevated levels of ambient air pollutant indicators, which means that they are within safe levels. We will continue to proactively respond to such reports of smell incidents.

With regards to audits of the factories, we do regular checks for factories. So, for the higher risk factories and particularly for the large emitters, we need them to submit accredited reports on an annual basis and we actually check these high-risk factories twice a year. For the lower risk factories, it is once a year. So, there are actually measures that we put in place to mitigate this. And we will continue to see what we can do.

14 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there has been an increased uptake of online SkillsFuture courses in the pandemic period from the start of the year to date current, compared to previous years; and (b) what outreach efforts have been undertaken by the Ministry in encouraging Singaporeans to upskill or re-skill themselves during a crisis.

Mr Speaker, in the first half of 2020, there were approximately 100,000 training places for SkillsFuture Singapore, or SSG-funded courses conducted in e-learning mode, compared to 600 in 2019. The number of courses approved to run in e-learning mode has also grown from about 60 in December 2019, to more than 2,800 as at September this year. These include over 2,000 courses that were converted from in-person or blended learning mode to e-learning mode this year.

SSG has significantly stepped up outreach efforts in this extraordinary period. SSG partners agencies such as Workforce Singapore or WSG, NTUC Employment and Employability Institute or e2i, and self-help groups to publicise upskilling and reskilling opportunities in career events and at the SGUnited Jobs and Skills centres. As at end of August this year, about 1,700 individuals have enrolled in the SGUnited Skills and SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways (Company Training) programmes.

SSG has also introduced a new Skills and Training Advisory service in this period. Recognising the need for more personalised support to individuals, this provides one-on-one consultation on skills and training needs, as well as suitable courses to support individuals' career transition and progression need. From January to September this year, over 2,100 individuals have tapped on the Skills and Training Advisory service.

SSG also continues to partner the People's Association and the Community Development Councils or CDCs to run SkillsFuture Advice workshops and webinars. These have been stepped up this year, in particular with the SkillsFuture@CDC initiative. Thus far, we have delivered more than 700 physical and virtual workshops to over 14,000 participants. And I have personally participated in a few myself.

We will continue to enhance outreach efforts to ensure that Singaporeans are aware of the reskilling and upskilling opportunities and support available.

15 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the reason for the delay in the roll-out of distance-based charging in the next-generation ERP system (ERP2) despite this being a key feature and cost component; (b) what is the timeline for the implementation of distance-based charging; and (c) how much of the $556 million ERP2 contract was spent on this feature.

The key reason for switching to the next-generation ERP, or nexgen ERP, is that the current system, which has been in place since 1998, is reaching the end of its operational life.

After studying several options, LTA concluded that the Global Navigation Satellite System, or GNSS, was the most suitable technology to use for nexgen ERP. It will remove the need to maintain the current bulky gantries and generate accurate real time traffic data to support transport policy, planning and traffic management.

It can also potentially be used for distance-based charging. There is no specific contract cost attributable to this feature, as it is part of the system design in the contract.

The Member asked about the timeline for implementing distance-based charging. Let me clarify that this distance-based charging is a different approach for congestion charging. The current approach is point-based or cordon pricing – vehicles are charged when they cross a specific point or a cordon. As announced earlier, such distance-based pricing is several years away. Give the nexgen ERP system some time to settle down first. In the meantime, we will study different approaches and options.

Mr Giam.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answers. I have some supplementary questions. First, will the distance-based charging – when it is rolled out eventually – be revenue neutral for the Government, compared to the current ERP system? And if so, will we expect a reduction in road tax once the distance-based charging is rolled out?

I am also concerned about how distance-based charging may impact individuals who drive or ride to work like taxi drivers or private hire drivers or delivery riders. So, will there be concessionary distance charging rates for these groups?

And lastly, will coupon-less charging for roadside parking, be rolled out in the first phase of this new system?

Let me thank the Member for his supplementary questions. As I have said, the reason why we have rolled out nexgen ERP is because there is a need to replace the current system, which is nearing the end of its operational life. And when we evaluated various technologies, it was found that GNSS was the most appropriate technology given that we will then be able to do away with bulky gantries, which occupy road space and also be able to avoid, for instance, the need for manpower intensive maintenance of these gantries. In addition, this technology based on GNSS will be able to give us accurate, real-time traffic data, which will help us to do even better in terms of transport policy, planning and traffic management.

As I have noted, the system also has the capabilities for, and potentially we can implement, distance-based charging. But, I think our current focus really is on ensuring that the installation process for the million or so motorists in Singapore, will take place as smoothly as possible. As I have said, we are going to roll this out around second half of 2021 and it will take about 18 months. We need to give the nexgen ERP time to settle and also to give us time to collect information on traffic patterns, travel patterns, distance travelled impact on the different types of motoristsand so on. Then, we can study the different options and approaches, and come to a decision.

So, with regard to his questions, about whether it will be revenue neutral and what about the other taxes and so on. I think it is premature, we will have to study all these different approaches first in order to come to a decision. As I have said and I think we have consistently said – any form of distance-based charging is several years away.

With regards to coupon-less car park charging, Parking.SG is already able to do this. And in fact, it is already rolled out to many car parks. This system also has the capability to do that, but it is not a key feature nor a key criterion for us adopting this technology.

Order. End of Question Time. Leader.

Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move the Motion that the debate on Deputy Prime Minister’s Ministerial Statement be taken now.

This will allow the House to resume its debate on the Ministerial Statement on Government's strategy to emerge stronger from the COVID-19 Pandemic given on 5 October and conclude on its consideration, before the House proceeds to vote on the sums contained in the Third Supplementary Estimates for FY 20/21 and the Third Supplementary Supply and Budget Adjustments (FY 2020) Bill.

I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of Members present to so move?

[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]

[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolved, that, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the proceedings on item 3 on the Order Paper for today be taken now. – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]

Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [5 October 2020], (proc text)]

[(proc text) “That the Ministerial Statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance on the Overview of Government’s Strategy to Emerge Stronger from the COVID-19 Pandemic be considered by Parliament.” – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance] (proc text)].

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic has wrought havoc on the economy of the world and Singapore and as the virus mutates and countries react, we must realise that our efforts may resemble the labours of mythological Sisyphus – who kept rolling a boulder up a hill, only to see it roll down again and again – at least until an effective vaccine is widely available and may be even lasting beyond that. However, we do need to look beyond COVID and to do that, we have to look before COVID. There were many deep economic trends already gathering pace before COVID, including rising geo-political tensions, nativism and economic nationalism.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in my speech today I shall focus only one of these trends – industry disruption.

The rise of Industry 4.0 or disruptive industries more broadly has been much talked about around the world, among economists, experts, business persons, unions, activists and politicians. Industry 4.0 refers to the Fourth Industrial Revolution where data from the Internet of Things and other sources revolutionises economic activity.

Industry disruption more broadly refers to the recent wave of new technologies and business models that threaten or, should I say, promise to disrupt existing industries. Simply put, these refer to new industries like drones which may displace conventional last-mile delivery, including food service delivery, artificial intelligence or AI which may displace clerical jobs or functions like para-legal work or even radiology, autonomous vehicles which may displace jobs like taxi and private hire car driving and quantum computing which is possibly the mother of all disruptions and may drive machine learning, pattern recognition and other activities traditionally associated with AI beyond the bounds of what is conventionally recognised as AI today, in turn potentially displacing many skilled white-collar jobs.

What does the advent of all these disruptive industries mean for Singapore?

A Cisco Oxford Economic Study in 2018 projected the following: 85,000 existing roles will disappear from the labour market, pushing workers into other industries and occupations. Singapore is said, according to this report, to confront a gap in average skill levels of 14.3 on a scale of 0 to 100 – higher than Vietnam at 13.4, Malaysia at 12.7 and Thailand at 8.5.

According to this report, the three sectors in line for most displacement in Singapore are: firstly, wholesale and retail with 80,000 jobs displaced; secondly, manufacturing with 55,000 jobs displaced; and thirdly, transport with 50,000 jobs displaced.

Also, the 2017 Global Future of Works Survey by Willis Towers Watson found that companies in Singapore expect automation will account for an average of 29% of all work done the next three years, a big increase in 14% of work being done using automation in 2018 and just 7% in 2015.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these forecasts were made before COVID. Some may argue that these are alarmist projections. But it is possible that COVID-19 has, in fact, delayed the advance of these disruptive industries by delaying timelines for R&D and new business investment. As COVID recedes, the threat and opportunity from these disruptive trends may return to the old trajectory, which means that many jobs in Singapore will be jeopardised not from COVID but from long-term industry disruption.

Sir, I enjoyed reading former US presidential candidate and entrepreneur Andrew Yang's compelling book about industry disruption, aptly entitled "The War on Ordinary People". It argues that the threat of industry disruption hollowing out middle market, skilled jobs as chillingly imminent. Among the examples he cited was that of a person who was exchanging emails with another person whom he thought was the secretary of a business associate. He later discovered that the person he was emailing with whom he had exchanged pleasantries and had a fruitful conversation over email was, in fact, an AI-driven bot.

Lest anyone misunderstand my reference to Andrew Yang, let me make clear that I am not arguing for universal basic income or UBI here, as I think the jury is still out on the topic and addressing UBI now would be premature – though it is something we should keep an open mind about.

Sir, the Government has been cognisant of the risk to the jobs from industry disruption. Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat in his COVID-19 Statement in Parliament last week spoke about providing holistic support for vulnerable workers and for ensuring that workers have the skills to stay relevant. He also spoke of the even greater urgency for middle aged and middle income workers to gain new skills and transition into jobs with good long-term prospects.

Schemes such as the PCP, CSP, SGUnited Traineeship, Mid-Career Traineeship and others have been put in place, some for a long time, some recently to address the systemic risk to jobs in certain industries as well as the risk to employability among certain segments such as older PMETs. There are various CETs and SkillsFuture programmes for training. The newly formed National Jobs Council has said that it will work with the Future Economy Council on the overall upgrading of the economy, including addressing the issue of future proofing jobs.

However, there are limitations to these schemes. Firstly, these schemes have not yet made a huge impact on the job market. The tsunami of industry disruption that is likely to emerge in future argues for more scalable schemes which induce more workers to join the industries of the future, including industries that are not big employers right now.

In 2019, close to 4,500 individuals were placed through PCPs which is comparable to the placement achievement in 2018. However, this is a very, very small percentage of the labour force.

Under the Adapt and Grow initiative, including PCP and CSP, more than 31,000 local jobseekers were placed in jobs in 2019, similar to the 2018 number. However, not all of these placements would be in emergent disruptive industries.

Secondly, these schemes address certain types of at-risk segments such as older PMETs or those who are retrenched. There is perhaps insufficient attention at the policy level to industries that are doing okay now, like delivery or driving jobs or certain types of clerical and service jobs which are at risk from industry disruption a few years down the road but for whom there is no urgency on the part of employers and employees to prepare for a more uncertain future right now.

To raise the example of jobs like driving taxis and private hire cars which are I and others have spoken about in the past, many of these jobs could be wiped out by autonomous vehicles in the years to come. Many younger entrants to these industries may find themselves on the wrong side of industry disruption when they hit their late 30s, 40s or 50s, at which time reskilling and transitioning to a new industry will be hard. Should we not give some thought to these challenges and encourage these workers to plan for the same?

Sir, let us now look at the same issue from the perspective not of workers but of the economy as a whole. We do want to attract and root disruptive industries in Singapore so that they can become engines of our economic growth. Why? Because if we anchor the technical skills, employee qualifications, business know-how and entrepreneurial talent behind these industries of the future in Singapore, that will enable us to export these skills to the region and the world, thus facilitating high-quality, inclusive economic growth.

If there is an insufficient supply of workers for these new industries, workers whether through traditional industries including sunset industries, that means these new industry investments may not come to Singapore. Rather, they may go to Hong Kong or Bangkok or Jakarta or Shanghai or Hyderabad. Or it could mean that if and when these new industries land in Singapore there would be too few Singaporeans with the will and skills to take jobs there so workers will have to be imported on Employment Passes and special passes. This may mean that it would hard to establish a strong Singapore Core in such industries going forward. It may also mean that these investments may be less firmly anchored in Singapore in the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one response to all of this is to say, "We don't want disruptive industries, let's legislate to ban them". But I do not think any serious commentator or stakeholder will really argue this nowadays. Such a move would doom us to economic irrelevance. So, I would not spend any more time addressing that straw man argument.

How then can we attract and anchor disruptive next generation industries in Singapore and, at the same time, and in tandem urge our workers to transition from sunset at-risk industries to these new industries, thus creating a virtual cycle of enhancing employability and protecting jobs on the one hand and attracting and rooting these industries in Singapore, on the other?

There are a few chicken and egg conundrums here. The first conundrum is how do we attract employees to join or to train for riskier, less mature disruptive industries like AVs, AI and so on when they may not feel assured that there will be a job there at the end of their training or that the job will be sustainable.

The second conundrum is how do we nurture the growth of such industries in Singapore when there are few workers with the relevant skills in the short term, without relying on an unsustainable importation of skilled foreign workers?

Sir, to address these questions, I shall conclude my speech with a few suggestions.

Firstly, Sir, I would suggest that our economic agencies study a new model for attracting and supporting investments in next generation industries. Many of these industries rely on highly specialised skills that may not be taught in courses available in Singapore or courses that are widely subscribed to. The lead time to create a critical mass of Singaporeans trained in these skills could be years and the challenge faces the chicken and egg problem discussed above. As in many Singaporeans may not want to invest in such training out of uncertainty about whether it would be worth. However, workers with such skills may be available at short notice in other cities in the world to be recruited for work in Singapore. Silicon Valley, for example, London or Israel or China.

In order to attract and support such investment projects that create jobs, either from foreign investors or from domestic investors and entrepreneurs, can our economic agencies offer limited term foreign work passes for individuals with such specialised skills? The term could be five years, for example.

To attract big investment projects in a competitive investment climate, a mix of fixed term and non-fixed term Employment Passes could be offered. For the fixed term passes, the idea would be that the employer would be expected to hire a Singaporean to fill that position when the term of the pass ends. That fixed term, say, five years could then be used to set up training for Singaporeans to acquire those skills. That could be formal academic training or employer-led training, using one of the many existing schemes that we have. When the term ends, there would be enough Singaporeans with the relevant skills to fill that position; and if they are not and that is proven, the pass can be extended a little longer.

The presence of the employer in Singapore with fixed term foreign work passes will provide some assurance to prospective Singaporean employees that their efforts to train for a role in this new industry would be likely to lead to a good job.

By adopting an approach like fixed term work passes, we can bring in foreigners with rare but future-ready skillsets while buying time for Singaporeans to be trained in those very same skillsets, in a way that gives some assurance to those Singaporeans that the training would have a decent chance of landing him or her a good job in a future-ready industry.

Sir, fixed term work passes will also be attractive to foreign professionals because they would have several years of working experience here. They may also be able to find another employer, perhaps in a different industry before the end of that term. Otherwise, they could be posted to another city by their employer.

Sir, before I leave this point, I would like to make the observation that as the pace of disruption picks up, Singapore would benefit from a redundancy insurance scheme but one in which additional income support can be tied to training and reskilling for growth sectors.

Some economists have argued that the Scandinavian economies succeeded in shifting big sections of their workforce – for example, in Sweden's obsolete shipyards – to more productive skilled occupations, thereby facilitating the upgrading of the Swedish economy at a much faster and more durable pace. In contrast, some states and cities in the US saw de-industrialisation because they did not have concerted state-sponsored retraining and income support policies. This led, in some cases, to entire communities and regions becoming impoverished and facing social decay, in turn fueling populist politics.

Journalist Thomas Gross, in a 2018 article wrote and I quote, "Most Swedish workers who are replaced by machines fairly quickly land another job as good as their old one, thanks to a network of job security councils jointly run by industries and unions, that retrained laid-off workers in skills that are still in demand and out of reach of robots. Moreover, while unemployed and learning new skills, workers are buoyed by a safety net that includes generous jobless benefits."

Sir, going forward, Singapore will need to seriously up its game in both skills upgrading and interim structural income support with the latter tied to the former.

Secondly, I would suggest that the Government look into working with employees and other stakeholders in industries at risk from disruption to get them to anticipate the risks and start planning for what to do if and when their industry gets disrupted and they lose their job.

This is not an idea without precedent.

Denmark's national skills anticipation system, for example, seeks to compile accessible and detailed information on labour market trends and skills demand for 850 occupations in order to: firstly, support the work of job centres in helping individuals find better job opportunities; and secondly, to informed education, employment and skills policies.

Denmark's main skills anticipation activities include: skills forecasting, for example, statistical forecasting of education status and the demand and supply of labour; skills assessments, for example, quantitative sectoral assessments on imbalances in the labour market; skills foresight, for example, sectoral assessments on future needs in the labour market and employer surveys.

Sir, in the past, I have also spoken in this House about the Korean jobs dictionary which aims to compile and disseminate information about the nature and outlook for most types of jobs in Korea. The aims and approach, while not similar to the Denmark example I cited, have some points of commonality.

At this point, let me declare my interest as a CEO of an international research consultancy that undertakes research on such issues among other things.

And lastly, we currently have various mechanisms and platforms for workers of the receiving end of industry disruption to receive help in respect of job matching and career coaching. I have referred some of my constituents in Serangoon onto such services and they are not without value. However, it is less clear if the providers of such services practise an approach where one career coach sticks with a prospective employee from end-to-end, seeing him or her through to a successful placement.

The KPIs for such agencies and data on success versus failure are also not clear. What is the ratio of success? How does it vary, based on industry vocation, gender, age, race, PwD status or other variables?

It would be good for such data to be made public so that success can be measured and debated publicly. In doing so would not mean accepting that the employee has no responsibility for her or his success in finding a new job. It would just mean that some transparency and a proper account management approach may be more effective in enabling us to refine our strategies for finding jobs for displaced workers.

In the UK, for example, around 13,500 work coaches and job centres hired by the department for work and pensions aim to move jobseekers on benefits or income support into employment. A single work coach will follow a claimant throughout their time on benefit, helping to match claimants to jobs that suit their skills and help to fill skill gaps by offering training to claimants who require it. Work coaches are trained to play a complex role, almost like a social worker – in listening, encouraging, advising and ensuring jobseekers have access to support. Work coaches seek to understand the barriers faced by each jobseeker and deliver a personalised approach to support them, sometimes coaching them to develop the requisite skills and confidence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, the coming wave of industry disruption and job displacement will affect jobs in a way that is hard to underestimate. And thus has it always been when cars replaced horses, when electric power replaced gas lighting and so on and so forth. It behoves us to prepare for that coming wave by considering ideas, like fixed term foreign work passes, jobs anticipation programmes and end-to-end KPI-driven jobs coaching.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Mr Speaker, like many expecting parents, the news of the one-off Baby Support Grant is a welcome one for our family as it will go towards defraying the costs of having a new child amidst the global uncertainty brought on by the coronavirus pandemic. It is also good to hear the Government reiterate its commitment towards supporting Singaporeans who aspire to get married and have children.

However, the policy start date of 1 October this year has meant that parents with newborns today do not benefit from the grant. Can we consider extending this grant to parents with children born since the onset of the pandemic?

It is noteworthy that the Baby Bonus Scheme was introduced on 1 April 2001, almost 20 years ago, and has gone through numerous rounds of enhancements, the latest being in 2012. Parenthood tax rebates and other types of tax incentives are also given in an attempt to boost the birth rate. The Marriage and Parenthood Package is also stated to cost the Government approximately $4 billion a year. Yet, in 2019, our Total Fertility Rate was 1.19, and appears to be on course to stubbornly remain far below the replacement rate of 2.1 and still ranks amongst the lowest in the world. To make matters worse, we are now anticipating that couples will put off their parenthood plans, which will in turn have knock-on effects on our population's fertility rate.

Singapore is not alone in trying to boost our birth rate, as fertility rates around the world have also been falling. However, we should ask ourselves, are there any blind spots in the way we have tackled this issue? Have we focused too much on the financial aspects of child-rearing, and forgotten to tackle other significant barriers to having children?

The matter needs to be dealt with in a holistic way. It is notable that studies have shown that in developed economies, greater gender equity is correlated with higher birth rates. That is, better support given to women boosts fertility rates.

To address this, one important area would be the role that fathers play in child-rearing. Just last weekend, while visiting friends for lunch, our two-year-old announced that he needed to go to the toilet. My husband stood up to take him, and was immediately met with a chorus of amazement and praise for being such a hands-on father. Would the same have occurred if a mother had brought her child to the toilet? Should we not also think hard about what it says about the roles of mothers and fathers that we are expected to sing high praises for fathers who change nappies or who bring their children out to "give their wives a break"?

To be sure, we should not knock positive changes in fathers becoming more involved in bringing up their children in recent years. Yet, at the same time, it strikes me that we should be making better and more conscious efforts to view parenting as something that both parents have equal stake in, and that domestic and child-rearing work should not be the purview of mothers only.

Looking at this from the other side, I would like my sons to grow up in a world where they have the freedom to decide for what works for their families. If they would like to have children, they should feel completely at ease to choose to stay at home be stay-at-home fathers, and not be seen as a "failure" or "not manly" enough for choosing this path. Every family should have a right to decide what works best for them and their children's care needs. And our policies must support their choices.

As a first step, the Workers' Party has called for enhanced shared parental leave of a total of 24 weeks that would allow couples to decide how best to split the care of their newborn child, with a minimum of 12 weeks to be given to the mother. Our current policy of a new father being able to share only up to four weeks from the mother's leave only encourages the sense that it is primarily a mother's job to care for her newborn.

However, leave policies are only the tip of the iceberg.

As children grow, they require an incredible amount of care and attention. The emotional, physical and time demands on carers have been made worse by the pandemic. And I am not the first to point out that studies from all over the world have shown that parents, particularly mothers of young children, have found lockdowns especially challenging and have seen their share of caring responsibilities multiplied.

Given that the end of the pandemic and its social and economic effects are probably nowhere in sight, we should pay special attention to the needs of young families to ensure that they are not burning out while trying to cope with what is after all a unique situation. We must encourage employers to support greater flexibility and career options and ensure this recalibration of work is accessible to both mother and father. This will allow families to make childcare arrangements that work for their particular circumstances.

This move away from traditional work structures must not be seen as a cost borne by employers. Instead, it is the key to fully unlocking the human capital in their employees. With a bit of trust on both sides, businesses would benefit from better motivated employees with a resultant increase in productivity. Businesses should seize on recent disruptions caused by the pandemic and turn it into an opportunity to rethink about how we work and understand why it is important that we allow more flexible working arrangements in our businesses.

For parents and family members who chose to stay at home to care for the next generation, I reiterate the call I made last month for better support and recognition for informal carers. We often hear jokes about maternity leave being a four-month long holiday, and stay-at-home mothers are idle "tai-tais". But anyone who has had to spend any amount of time being responsible for a young child would quickly debunk these ideas.

However, there have been scant studies and time-use surveys done on parents in Singapore and there is also little research on parental burnout. Now would be a good time to conduct these to enable us to better understand the strains and pressures that these parents face. It is only when we have better identified these problems that we can start looking at the solutions as a whole, and change the narrative to better support and recognise the invaluable work of these unpaid carers.

To add to the mix, our unforgiving and high stakes education system has created significant anxiety around raising children and is cited as a reason why families hold off on having kids or have fewer kids. I hear of parents having to volunteer for many hours to get their child a chance at a top Primary school, of the multitude of tuition or enrichment classes that parents send children to, and the stress that parents undergo whenever a key examination looms.

We must relieve the pressure on parents and build a more forgiving education regime, where children are given fairer opportunities to succeed from kindergarten and up, and where kids and their families are not made to feel like the next examination will determine their life trajectory.

Reducing class sizes, increasing the support and training for teachers to focus on a more inclusive and nurturing system would be a good first step as we start to tackle the stresses caused by our demanding education system.

Having said all of this, one can only imagine how much more difficult this year has been for single parents who often have less access to alternative resources and support structures.

It is only natural that single parents end up more stressed and burnt out than their married counterparts. Regardless of whether we believe such family structures should be encouraged, their children are innocent and better support for their parents only benefit these children. Therefore, I would like to ask for a clarification from the Minister if single parents too will be eligible for the Newborn Support Grant, and if not, whether they can be included.

To close, the $3,000 of additional payment for families is a welcome. However, the effectiveness of this policy is limited by the extent to which the Government is willing to lean in to encourage and foster greater gender equity in the home and drive more flexibility in the workplace.

This one-time payment must not obscure the importance of doing the hard work of changing the culture around care-giving and what we define as work in the context of family, even if these measures do not have an instantaneous effect like a transfer into a bank account. The importance of getting this right cannot be understated.

Fertility is inextricably linked with sustainability and of increasing concerns about the Earth's finite resources. Even as we work to boost our birth rate, we must take action now to soften the impact and address the concerns of a world where an inverted age pyramid will become the norm with all the economic implications that come with it.

We must no longer operate within the parameters or assumptions that we can keep our economic strategies along traditional population and economic growth models and ensure that we are not at the same time tackling increase costs of our ageing population, while maintaining inter-generational fairness.

Our CPF, care systems and even physical spaces must now begin in another shift towards a society where older people will form part of majority. We must also combat ageism, embrace innovation, productivity and entrepreneurship, for a golden age, and the time to do so is now.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Mr Speaker, before I begin, I would like to declare my interest as an educator in an Institute of Higher Learning.

Mr Speaker, I would like to commend Deputy Prime Minister Heng for his Ministerial Statement last week and express my support.

The Deputy Prime Minister’s Statement was an extensive one. I am heartened by the strong people focus in the Statement, placing front and centre, the interests of our people as the Government pushes forth with its plans for the economy.

Not only were the strategies outlined broad in nature, it is also clear that the Government is paying special attention towards inclusive growth to ensure that vulnerable groups also keep pace, survive and thrive coming out of this crisis.

Three areas resonated strongly with me.

Firstly, the prioritisation of skills. One critical message in Deputy Prime Minister’s speech was a strong focus on jobs and in building our human capital through prioritising skills.

I believe that skills prioritisation must begin early – even before commencement of jobs. Here, I am referring here to the Institutes of Higher Learning. Relevant courses must be identified and prioritised at the Pre-employment Training stage, whereas courses that are more specialised should be pushed towards the Continuing Education Training stage.

In that way, all our graduates are assured of a solid yet flexible foundation that can be applied in other disciplines.

For example, an aviation engineering student may be provided with a strong engineering foundation coupled with modules relevant to Industry 4.

0. Similarly, a student doing tourism may be provided with a strong business foundation. This will provide them with the much-needed agility in an ever-changing job landscape.

Second is in linking skills and practice. It is important for us to close the skills and practice gap so that Singaporeans can quickly apply and put into practice what they have learnt. This matching of skills to actual practice also creates a synergy between companies and requires skilled manpower and our workers who are equipped with these skills.

The SGUnited Traineeships programme and SGUnited Jobs and Skills package are good examples of the close relationship between in skilling our workforce to meet the actual needs of the industry. Our graduates pick up relevant skills to a job which then leads to a transitioning to more long-term employment. A number of my students are in this programme and so far, their experience has been very positive.

This gives me confidence to request further that we create more apprenticeship programmes so that this notion of work and relevance becomes a mainstay in our overall education to employment pathway.

Additionally, I hope we also give allowance to our workers and grant them flexibility in pursuing new skills. This can be in the form self-development, to break the monotony of work, or a form of further upskilling to increase their value in the profession. We could, for instance, mandate a protected time of half a day during the work week so that our workers can take on courses and enhance their skill sets.

Finally, digitalisation and digital literacy. Looking to the future, leading the digitalisation bandwagon allows us to unlock the growth that comes with it.

We have experienced how technology has been critical in navigating us through this crisis. It has allowed many of us to work, study and remain connected. But in that aspect, I hope that the Government pull all stops to ensure that all Singaporeans, including the elderly and our children, have access to devices and are digitally literate. To be digitally literate means that our people not only know how to use technology meaningfully, but we have laid foundations for them to explore in this area more confidently.

There have been stories of our children being given laptops by their schools, or community agencies, but not knowing how to effectively use these gadgets towards learning. Our elderly too may need more support in adapting to a digital economy. They may own the right smart-phones, but may still struggle to log in to and out of simple apps.

Therefore, as we move into the digital economy, we must ensure that all people are digitally literate. In the schools and the Institutes of Higher Learning, I hope that our curriculums will continue to emphasise digital and data analytics skills so that our future generations are effective at using technology as a tool to solve complex problems. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In his Ministerial Statement last week, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat gave a comprehensive overview of Singapore’s position in dealing with the Covid-19 crisis so far.

The Government is working hard to secure the economy with a focus on manpower skills and further strengthening Singapore's workforce through technology.

I hope that education in Singapore will emphasise the importance of skills, especially those related to the current industries, as the foundation for all courses in Polytechnics and Universities.

In that way, all graduates are assured of a solid yet flexible foundation that will give them the opportunity to try other disciplines.

This will ensure that our children are ready to address the current challenges in the industries and provide them with the much-needed agility in an ever-changing job landscape.

As for technology, it is an enabling tool and can unlock opportunities. For example, companies using digital payment platforms can develop their businesses in cyberspace.

Embracing technology will enable us to continue progressing with the increasingly vibrant wave of digitalisation and I urge that we reap its benefits.

(In English): Being an educator for the past 15 years, having taught from the Primary school to University levels, I have seen how our education system has progressed and evolved over the years.

Our education system is not perfect, but it also has considerable strengths which we should recognise.

Coming from the Normal stream, I am heartened that our education system has shifted to the subject-based banding, concurrently slaying one sacred cow.

However, the elephant in the room remains, and that is your PSLE. Like how different perspectives may see this elephant, we have to be mindful of the many trade-offs that may come with it. If we do do away with PSLE, what is the alternative? It may become a pure through-train system and this may worsen the pressure in Primary 1 registration, as you all have known by now. Regardless, I do believe that this is one area that we should continue to explore.

Being a physical education or PE teacher myself, I am heartened to see the shift of focus from the more academic subjects to PE, to the Arts and even Music. Contrary to what some Members of this House may perceive, I believe that this is one clear indication of how our education system has become much more holistic.

I am confident that having laid such solid foundations in our education system, it has prepared us sufficiently for the future.

This COVID-19 situation has exposed the strengths of our teachers. Their dedication and their ability to adapt is amazing. Our teachers work hard to ensure that we meet the diverse needs of our diverse students. I believe that there should always be a balance between drills and free exploration, formative and summative assessments, group work as well as individual work, and of course, the mingling and teaching, based on the different and diverse abilities of our students.

Our teachers have been amazing in ensuring that. And I hope as we move forward, we continue to provide them with the best support and work-life balance as it is possible. Mr Speaker, I support the Statement.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Mr Speaker, the Supplementary Budget continues to lend support to hard-hit businesses and workers even as the state of the economy remains precarious. It also begins the important process of repositioning the Budget away from crisis support to crisis recovery.

That said, I have a few additional thoughts. I will share about how I believe the process of de-globalisation is both on-going and persistent, and about how we need to do more to pivot away from our historical focus on being an entrepot for the rest of the world towards fostering internally driven growth focused on raising the productivity of our domestic firms, especially small and medium enterprises or SMEs.

Before I proceed, allow me to declare that I am an educator at a business school and that I have occasionally provided economic and strategic views for an investment advisory firm.

Minister Heng stressed the importance of enhancing connectivity to ensure that our economy is ready for when the pandemic is behind us. He reiterated our commitment to reviving our air hub and transshipment capabilities. As a student of the international system for the past few decades, nothing would make me happier than to see a revival of such a globalised world. That said, I believe that it is imperative for us to have a Plan B if this does not occur.

Mr Speaker, the pandemic is often viewed not so much as a harbinger of new trends, but an accelerant of existing trends Minister Heng himself alluded to this – the possibility of structural shifts.

In this vein, it is worth pointing out that the breakdown in global integration significantly predates COVID-19.

The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 marked the beginning of a dramatic turnaround in global financial flows. Several years ago, the McKinsey Global Institute observed that cross-border capital fell from 12% of global output for the decade until 2010 to a little more than 7% since then. Global banks, especially those in advanced economies, have divested at least $2 trillion in assets. Even in financially open Singapore, capital flows have steadily eroded as a share of our national product and we experienced a surge in outflows in the most recent quarter.

The financial crisis did not just usher in a decline in financial flows. The aftermath saw a massive collapse in international trade and despite fitful starts and stops, global merchandise exchange has pulled back from peaks of more than half of global GDP to about 44% last year. The global trading regime is fraying with the World Trade Organization operating a dysfunctional dispute resolution system and repeated violations of open trading principles by major economic powers, most notably in the Sino-American trade war of 2018 and 2019.

And closer to home, our historical entrepôt model is challenged as never before. Our trade in goods as a share of income, fell by more than 40% over the past decade and these trends are hardly positive, with the growth of non-oil exports dipping into negative territory through most of 2019, way before the pandemic visited our shores.

And now COVID-19 has completely devastated the global movement of people, with the international tourism virtually vanishing overnight, and even typically more resilient work-related migratory flows are under threat, as corporations rethink their need for business and conference travel, and upend historical cross-border relationships in favour of reshoring previously outsourced business operation and shortening international supply chains. The fear, then, is even after a vaccine is discovered and the world is able to return to normal, that new normal and encompasses permanent structural changes in a manner by which the world conducts business and pleasure.

Mr Speaker, these trends are worrying from the perspective of our banking on a return to connectivity as a key source of our economic growth. If anything, major economies are turning inward, with China's stressing "internal circulation" – a euphemism for a domestic turn – Europe is preoccupied with ensuring the integrity of its own union, and the United States – once the bastion of globalism – eschewing the multilateral system that it once used to champion.

If this fracturing into a multipolar world persists, our traditional approach of positioning ourselves as a global intermediary could face unprecedented stress.

Thankfully, it is possible for us to prepare more deliberately for a Plan B. Minister Heng also spoke about the importance of Technology, Innovation and Enterprise – a theme that he has mentioned in speeches at least since 2016. Clearly, the Government is aware of this alternative model.

What I am suggesting is a willingness to commit to this shift in a more decisive fashion.

Although many forms of international exchange are in retreat, there is one channel that has been further advanced by the pandemic – the even greater importance of global information and knowledge flows. As borders shut down worldwide and work-from-home arrangements become the norm, the information has become the lifeblood of many organisations and countries trying to stay afloat.

Service-based businesses digitised their back ends and sought to bring their front end operations online. And goods oriented firms were forced to resort to online strategies to keep demand afloat. Many of these digitally transform functions and automation disintermediated jobs will never return to their pre-pandemic states.

It is therefore time for our small and medium enterprises to make the bold transition as well. The Government has rolled out a host of grants such as the Enterprise Development Grant and Productivity Solutions Grant, aimed at this very purpose. This is important because such firms account for 99% of our local companies, but only contribute to half of our national income. However, we have precious little information as to whether these funds have succeeded in raising the productivity and enabling the digital transformation of these firms, as the Government has not released systematic studies of either the coverage nor the efficacy of these programmes. To know whether we are on track, we have to know how far we have come and how far we have to go.

And as much as financial assistance, especially in the recessionary environment, can help our SMEs eke by, financial support will only go part of the way toward helping our companies realise their full potential. Beyond relieving financial constraints, SMEs need to build stronger fundamental business skills and capabilities. Such skills in marketing to a diverse regional market, adopting best practices in bookkeeping and budgeting and inventory management are not sexy skills, but essential ones. Programmes of this nature such as Startup SG Founder, Enterprise Leadership for Transformation and various business tool kits can be made more proactive in identifying and approaching qualifying individuals and firms, especially in industries that have lagged in terms of adoption.

Similarly, we have to ensure that those who have undergone SGUnited jobs and Skills Future re-skilling programmes, continue to closely meet business needs. This can help avoid mismatches that can lead to disappointment and discouragement and experience that one of my residents, Danny, shared regarding the continued difficulty faced by his colleagues in securing work despite having undergone retraining.

More generally, what is the return proposition of such training and how is it evaluated? How much are we expanding per a trainee, and what is the placement rate for programme graduates? It strikes me that a dedicated unit within Enterprise SG, tasked with identifying, supporting, disseminating and evaluating skills development can be an important complement to our primarily financed focus efforts. My colleague, the hon Leon Perera has also offered a host of additional considerations.

Similarly, many public-private venture funds such as Startup SG tends to privilege technologically oriented firms. While such investments are appealing in that they can lead to the next Carousell or Grab, we cannot leave the vast majority of old economy firms behind. Moreover, raising productivity levels in such firms is not limited to deploying the latest technology or adapting AI solutions. They are often derived from much more modest sources such as focusing on improving core management practices. Such practices in performance evaluation, conflict management, team motivation are skills that could be lacking in smaller family run businesses, inhibiting their ability to grow. Our iTalent and iSkills programmes are one such way forward, but the current participation rate, involving a few dozen firms, remain a drop in the ocean.

Moreover, our funding and support policies should look beyond just the infotech or biotech space. Growth can arise from what many may dismiss as pedestrian businesses, such as coffee roasting and brewing, automotive repair or elderly care. What is required is a willingness to disrupt the existing market regime, but rather than promoting winning firms or championing winning sectors, we should strive to create an environment where every firm, especially SMEs, can potentially succeed.

At the aggregate level, what this means is that our regulations could be prepared to be more flexible to ease the wrenching shifts that will accompany structural transformations in our economy. Some sectors may, despite our best efforts, may be destined to shrink and we should ease the teething pains for those poised for expansion. SMEs that have traditionally focused on trade in goods must evolve to add value higher up the ladder. And those who provide services must learn to deliver these across borders.

This may also mean greater regulatory forbearance on the part of Government. For example, finance start-ups often find themselves held to reporting requirements comparable to those of establishing comments, while there have been occasional initiatives toward easing pilot regulatory sandboxes as well as easier ACRA reporting requirements during COVID-19, executives from a number of fintech start-ups I have spoken to, reveal that they still find these standards that regulators hold them to, impossibly stringent.

We should also be more aware of the unintended consequences of our policies, even when enacted in good faith, especially in terms of how they affect small businesses. One owner of a hawker stall in Lucky Plaza, for example, shared with me about how recent policy to only allow either odd or even numbered IC numbers into the mall resulted in the complete decimation of foot traffic, rather than just a halving.

On a positive front – the number of permissible businesses allowed under existing programmes such as the Home-Based Small Scale Business Scheme can be re-examined and expanded if possible. And if the world does eventually carve itself out into multiple regional markets, our firms must be ready to compete within our economic sphere – which is southeast Asia. This means recognising that a Singapore firm is essentially an ASEAN firm.

The Government has understood this for a long time, but we have to make sure that our workforce and our people fully embrace this identity. Doing so has become even more imperative in what is promising to become an increasingly balkanised world. Our workers should be prepared to spend time in our ASEAN neighbours, learning specificities and idiosyncrasies of our neighbouring markets and returning to Singapore to disseminate the knowledge they have gained and their experiences, either with their sending firms or by starting new companies of their own.

Government can play an even greater role in fostering this expansionist mindset, beyond internationalisation grants. It can do so with a wider recognition of ASEAN languages in the schooling system, incorporating exchanges and internships in Southeast Asia as a required component of Secondary and post-Secondary programmes, further enhancing the exposure of local firms in exhibitions at regional trade shows and co-financing early career stints for PMETs in other regional capitals.

After the Allied bombing of Japan in World War II, many major cities there were destroyed. In principle, the architects of post-war Japan could have chosen many other locations to site their new economic hubs. But ultimately rebuilding occurred in those very same cities that experience some of the greatest destruction, a testimony to the incredible resilience of cities.

Our forefathers have already made Singapore into a globally competitive city and we will rise again after the crisis is over. To inherit this destiny, we have to be willing to be even more economically nimble, to recognise the limits of further leveraging our trade and transportation infrastructure alone. The strength of any modern city is his ability to be a gathering place for innovators to exchange debate and improve their ideas. We must ensure that our SMEs fully participate in this knowledge based future economy.

Mr Speaker, please allow me to recap. In the globalising world, we need a Plan B to cater to the possibility that the post-COVID-19 world will be more fractured and insular. We must transition our economy urgently and decisively by increasing the contribution of SMEs to our growth engine. Government can help in this process with more than just financing, which is still our major focus. It can do so with moves to improve the productivity of these businesses via enhance business skills and management training, exercising greater regulatory flexibility to foster a stronger risk-taking mindset and pushing additional educational and experiential initiatives that strengthen our regionalist worldview. Undeniably, the germs of many such programmes already exist. My contention is that we need to accelerate and scale up these efforts.

Notwithstanding these additional suggestions. I support the Motion.

Ms Hany Soh.

Mr Speaker, "ensuring that the last, the lost and the least are being adequately taken care of" is my impression of what our Government and the community have endeavoured to do in a decisive and united manner for the past several months when tackling with this COVID-19 Pandemic.

I speak in support of the Supplementary Bill and will be emphasising my speech today on the following two points: one, the efforts to better support our seniors in their transition towards i-banking services as our country steps up on its Smart Nation initiatives digital connectivity; two, the suggestions with regard to building environmental sustainability within our community to fight climate change.

In relation to the first point, pertaining to digital banking for seniors, Mr Speaker, please allow me to speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In the face of COVID-19, many senior citizens, especially those living alone, feel helpless and are at a loss. Before the outbreak, they often went out with like-minded friends. They will participate in community activities, they will go to a coffee shop or hawker centre and sometimes, they will order a cup of coffee and spend the whole day chatting with old friends.

However, when the circuit breaker came into effect, all of a sudden, they seemed to be at a loss: "I don't know how to use a smartphone. How can I get online and have a video conversation with my grandson?”, “I am alone at home facing the four walls. I am so bored. When can I go back to the CC with my friends and do our health dance?”, “The queues at the wet market are too long, I am too weak to stand for such a long time.”, “When I go to the supermarket, I am too slow to compete with others. Is there a way to improve the situation?"

These are the complaints I often hear from them.

Fortunately, the Government has worked together with businesses, community organisations and Singaporeans to overcome these challenges. For example, our digital ambassadors have helped the elderly to take the first step towards digitalisation and help them acquire digital skills at three levels, so that they can keep in touch with their friends and relatives via video link, make e-payments at hawker centres and markets, and use SafeEntry in the SingPass mobile's visitors registration system to log in and out of wet markets.

Our local enterprises such as NTUC FairPrice have also set aside a special time for senior citizens and persons with mobility issues to purchase daily necessities in supermarkets with peace of mind. In addition, their neighbours and Residents' Committees have also demonstrated the kampung spirit by helping them to buy food and essentials items and deliver them to their doorstep.

Yet, one thing that cannot and should not be done by someone else on behalf of the elderly is bank transactions involving money.

In recent years, all the banks have undergone transformation by introducing more artificial intelligence, encouraging customers to use online transactions and making banking more invisible. These moves have reduced banks' operating costs by a lot, for example, in rentals and manpower. This is also in response to the Government's call for technology transformation and further strengthening Singapore's position as a global Asia node of technology, Innovation and enterprise.

But my concern is: have our seniors kept up with this technology advancement?

Recently, in Woodgrove, two local bank branches around Fuchun area were closed; one in mid-August and the other is undergoing renovation. Residents who need counter services have to walk about 30 minutes to go to the branches in the shopping mall. This is very tiresome for the elderly and those who have difficulty moving around.

Many elderly living in the seniors' Studio Apartments told me that they live off their CPF retirement money and government subsidies every month. Because of this, they will personally go to the bank at least once a month to use the counter services to withdraw money. Some of them are illiterate and some have poor eyesight. Hence, they are less inclined to use ATM cards to withdraw money. Most of them do not know how to use Internet banking either; they are fearful that they may transfer their lifetime savings to others if they click wrongly.

Another advantage of counter services for senior citizens is that they form a line of defence against fraud. Frontline bank staff are specially trained to sense suspicious transactions and would verify with the customers repeatedly, so that they do not fall victim to fraud syndicates.

If Singaporeans, especially our senior citizens, are to keep pace with technological changes and accept and use online banking services, the banks should fulfil their social responsibilities by using their resources to work more closely with the Government and the community.

Banks can work with IMDA to set up e-banking training kiosks at bank branches in the neighbourhood centres and digital transformation offices at CCs, to help seniors apply for online banking tokens, and teach them how to use online banking services with peace of mind.

I am confident that with the guidance and help of dedicated people, our seniors will gradually accept and move towards a more diverse digital life.

(In English): Like many First World countries, Singapore has begun taking steps to address the issue of climate change and environmental sustainability. While this is a good first step, it is important to ensure that this movement continues to gain momentum amongst our Singaporeans.

J F Kennedy once said, and I quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country."

Apart from the Government's efforts in transforming our industries to build a sustainable economy and providing opportunities for the green section to be a growth industry in its own right, every individual in Singapore should also play our part to ensure the preservation of the environment we live in.

Semakau Landfill is our only offshore landfill in Singapore. For the past few decades, we have relied on it for our waste disposal while being fortunate enough to be unaffected by any harmful toxins, awful smell and appearance. However, Semakau Landfill has been filling up faster than expected, with our projections for reaching capacity changing for the worse.

This is attributed by several different factors.

One, being a general increase in consumption by residents without sufficient implementation of the 3Rs. To rectify this, we will need to encourage responsible consumption of resources, such as food, water and energy, while advocating for environmentally-friendly means of disposal for non-perishable items such as electrical appliances.

The second being that many recyclables are being disposed as general refuse, which in turn wastes landfill space and energy to incinerate. A renewed focus on recycling will go a long way towards slowing down the landfill’s rate of usage.

The other being that residents are largely reluctant to repair broken items which typically cause many faulty electrical and electronic appliances to be thrown away as rubbish instead of repairing it and extending its lifespan.

With these factors at present, how should we step up our 3Rs efforts nationally in order to achieve measurable outcomes and a positive impact for our environment?

Mr Speaker, in Woodgrove, we have a G.E.L mission. "G" pertains to Green Living initiatives. Through the feedback which I have gathered from our Woodgrove residents and various community partners, I wish to suggest a few ideas for consideration.

Firstly, Education. I believe that education can go a long way towards inculcating values that favour the 3Rs. We should therefore endeavour to educate every student and resident on good 3Rs practices through experiential learning. MOE can also consider incorporating Responsible Resource Consumption Saving Tips as part of the school curriculum.

Over the years, various schools in Woodgrove have participated in North West CDC’s Reduce@Northwest, where students would conduct door-to-door house visits to encourage families to reduce energy and water consumption and food wastage in their homes, while also imparting knowledge on fighting climate change.

The schools also adopted another North West CDC’s initiative called WeCare We Recycle @ Northwest, where students are educated on proper recycling practices to counteract the high contamination rate of existing blue recycling bins. As part of this initiative, active recycling points are set up within the participating schools, enabling our students to put the knowledge that they have learnt into good use by taking the lead in active recycling.

It is important to continue to engage schools as partners and educate our children on these recycling and energy saving tips, so that they will in turn educate their parents and influence the people around them to conserve resources and adopt eco-friendly practices at home and in the community.

Secondly, we can measure and reward the amount of savings on electricity and water by each household.

I believe that we should measure the reduction of resources consumed through the use of monitoring systems powered by digital applications. It can be difficult to understand one’s contribution towards the greater whole while adhering to the 3Rs; if we can show them that tangible change is occurring through their actions, I believe residents will be further encouraged to continue these good habits.

Meanwhile, we can also introduce new initiatives to encourage the use of energy or water saving devices and appliances in every household. If coupled with the aforementioned monitoring systems, we may see increased adoption islandwide.

To jumpstart these schemes, we can first work with grassroots volunteers and schools to engage residents via a pilot project that "adopts" a pioneer batch of select blocks, which students will visit and share energy saving tips with every household.

These blocks can thereafter be monitored and their outcomes measured to evaluate the results of these measures. To further incentivise adoption of the energy saving measures, we can grant the block showing the highest drop in energy and water usage with rewards such as grocery shopping vouchers or ActiveSG credits.

Lastly, ground-up initiatives. I believe that the People's Association or PA, as the foundation of the community, can eb a valuable ally in our mission to encourage ground-up initiatives by the community for adopting of the 3Rs wihtin our community.

For a start, our Community Clubs, CCs, especially those that are to be built or scheduled for renovation, should endeavour to achieve the BCA Green Mark "Platinum" certification. The BCA Green Mark is the national green building rating system which evaluates a building for its environmental impact and performance. Not only will this raise awareness of the importance of green living, it also ensures that the CCs islandwide will attempt to reduce their own emissions as a result.

Next, the PA can also help to provide platforms for residents to exercise green living, for example with organising events that encourage residents to pick up the 3Rs. Some CCs and RCs in Singapore have already begun doing so, through collaborations with the Northwest CDC, Tzu Chi Foundation and NEA with a monthly "recycling day" where residents can bring out their recyclable waste for sorting and processing, fostering good habits and also presenting an opportunity to bond as part of a community.

Another option that we can consider to do is to hold regular flea markets for the exchanging or trading of pre-loved items between residents in the halls of our CCs. On such flea market days, we can take the opportunity to also welcome community partners or residents to share tips on adhering to the 3Rs.

One of my residents in Woodgrove Zone 5, Christy, she shared with me her hobby of "Turning Trash to Treasure" – she would often go around the neighbourhood, sometimes to pick up and collect abandoned broken furniture. What she will do is, she will clean it up, she will refurbish it with a new coat of painting and transform it into fashionable new furniture as gifts for the community.

I believe that introducing such concepts can raise awareness and encourage more residents to conserve resources by sharing and reusing pre-loved items to minimise waste generation.

Just like the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change is a very challenging global issue that cannot be resolved overnight. That said, I am confident that together, we will overcome these challenges and emerge stronger as a nation.

Mr Speaker, I announced the Baby Support Grant or BSG last Friday, a one-time cash payment for all Singaporean children born from 1 October 2020 onwards for two years. Parents of babies born in October and expectant parents are happy and we are happy for them.

At the same time, however, since the announcement, we have received feedback and appeals asking why 1 October 2020, and whether the commencement date can be brought forward to cover children born prior to 1 October 2020. Members, too, have asked about it in this debate. Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Saktiandi, yesterday and Ms He Ting Ru, today. Ms Tin Pei Ling1 and Miss Cheng Li Hui2 have also filed Parliamentary Questions.

I fully understand that parents who are not eligible to receive the Baby Support Grant are disappointed, especially since this has been a challenging year for everybody. The questions asked are fair ones and it is only right that I should address them and explain our considerations when designing the scheme and also our approach to the appeals that have come in.

In a NPTD and MSF Survey in June, three in 10 Singaporean couples said that they were planning to delay having a child due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They expressed worries about the global COVID-19 health situation, as well as job and income insecurity. This is understandable as having a child is a major decision and a long-term commitment.

We know couples consider many factors when deciding on when to have a child – whether care-giving support is available, the impact on their career plans, and most fundamentally, whether they are prepared mentally and financially. The pandemic has affected our lives and livelihoods in a major way. Employment and financial stability have therefore become even bigger considerations for many couples and made them rethink if they should have a child in the next one to two years.

So, the fact that couples are considering delaying having children is a cause for concern. We are also concerned because we recognise that fertility declines with age and chances of conception are much higher when couples start earlier. Hence, we developed the idea of the Baby Support Grant to augment the existing Baby Bonus Cash Gift to provide extra support for parents who wish to have a child, so that they will not postpone their parenthood plans.

When designing this scheme, we explored several options for the start date. Given the policy intent to encourage more couples to proceed with their parenthood plans, we could have taken a very strict approach and if you take a strict approach, it would mean that the start date should be nine months after the date of announcement, which would actually be July 2021. Indeed, one of the residents wrote in to say that "if the grant was meant to encourage couples to have children, then children born in October 2020 should not qualify, as the child is already conceived prior to the grant announcement". But this would mean that all babies born between now and July 2021 will be left out.

We then considered providing this additional support only next year, with effect from 1 January 2021, and then drawing on next year's Budget. However, we felt it was important to get the support out as quickly as we can, to help more Singaporeans with their parenthood aspirations. Announcing the plans next year could mean that couples may delay attempts to have a child in the meantime. So, we tried hard to see how we could do this earlier.

While the Government's fiscal situation is tight, due to the support given to Singaporeans and businesses throughout the year, we were able to set aside some Budget this year, to provide additional support to more Singaporean parents starting as soon as we could. Hence, we decided to make it effective from the month of announcement, that is, 1 October 2020.

I know parents of babies who are not eligible to receive the Baby Support Grant are disappointed and I can fully understand why. They would have experienced inconveniences and challenges in caring for newborns this year, especially during the circuit breaker. From coping with new visitation guidelines and restrictions at healthcare facilities, to making quick adaptations when they could not get sufficient help to care for newborns, to juggling care-giving duties while working from home when infant and childcare centres were closed.

However, we would like to seek the public's understanding that specific start dates are required for any new measure or enhancement. Regardless of the effective start date, there will always be some babies who are born before it. The appeals we have received to change the start date of the Baby Support Grant have come with a wide range of suggestions for the start date.

To give you a sense of this, just let me run through some of them. Some have suggested that the Baby Support Grant should cover babies born in September on the basis that it is so close to October. But this would mean that all of those in August upwards would not get it. Others suggested April 2020 as that was the start of the circuit breaker – and obviously, that was when all the hardships really kicked it, but that would mean all those before April do not get it.

Miss Cheng Li Hui, in her Parliamentary Question has suggested 7 February because that was when DORSCON Orange was declared. So, if we go with those, then all those in January will be left out.

Many have suggested that it should be with effect from 1 January 2020 as that was when the pandemic started and indeed there is a petition supporting this date. But, on the other hand, there is another petition asking for the grant to cover all children who are one year and below on 1 October of this year. In other words, that the effective date should be 1 October 2019. We have also received an appeal that the grant should be given to children under the age of seven years.

So, you can see, it is not straightforward. Each group has reasons for the dates proposed and looking at it from their perspective, these reasons are all valid, but we can only choose one date and whichever date we choose, there will be groups who are not covered.

We chose October as the commencement date for the reasons mentioned earlier and we seek your understanding, that is why we are maintaining this date. But we will, however, accede to appeals for the Baby Support Grant from a specific group of parents – those whose babies were born before 1 October 2020, but whose certified Estimated Delivery Date, or EDD, was on or after 1 October 2020. In other words, born prematurely although the EDD was 1 October 2020 onwards. The National Population and Talent Division will provide more information to parents on how they can do so.

That said, it is important to understand where the parents who have asked for an earlier date are coming from. They, too, would appreciate support. So, I would like to reassure them and Members, that even without the Baby Support Grant, there is still substantial Government support for these parents. Some of these new measures commenced in 2019/2020, which young children born since 2014, including the babies born from January 2020, would benefit from.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerk to distribute handouts with information on the Marriage and Parenthood Package available to parents?

Please do. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

While the extra Baby Support Grant is for babies born from 1 October 2020, parents whose babies were born before 1 October 2020 will receive, and in some cases, have already received cash and cash-like benefits, which were last enhanced in 2015 and 2016. They would have received, for example: (a) between $8,000 and $10,000 in the Baby Bonus Cash Gift; (b) $3,000 First Step Grant, deposited into the Child Development Account or the CDA, without parents having to first save into the CDA; (c) between $3,000 and $15,000 in Government co-savings for the CDA; and (d) a $4,000 grant which is deposited into the Medisave account that is open for every newborn, that is the Medisave Grant for Newborns.

So, the total cash and cash-like support that parents can receive ranges from $18,000 for their first child to $32,000 for their fifth and subsequent children, even without the Baby Support Grant. This is over and above the other support in the Marriage & Parenthood Package, some of which we also enhanced this year. Let me highlight some of these.

First, more subsidies for infant and childcare. There have been suggestions from the public that more help with affordable childcare will go further than a one-off cash grant. Since 1 January 2020, the household income ceiling for the Additional Subsidy has been raised from $7,500 per month to $12,000 per month. This means that many more households can receive this support. The amount of subsidies provided have also been increased. Today, after the enhanced subsidies, families can receive up to $1,310 each month in infant care subsidies or up to $767 each month in childcare subsidies. A working couple who earns a combined income of $8,000 a month, pays $524 per month per child for full-day infant care at an Anchor Operator pre-school. This is about one third less than what they would have paid previously. When their child turns 18 months, the amount that the couple needs to pay for childcare at an Anchor Operator will further reduce to $280 per month.

Next, free National Childhood Immunisation Schedule or NCIS vaccinations and developmental screenings. From 1 November 2020, that means next month, all Singaporean children – and this applies to all Singaporean children today regardless of when they were born – can also receive free childhood vaccinations on the national schedule and developmental screenings, at all Polyclinics and Community Health Assist Scheme General Practitioners or CHAS GPs. This extension of fully subsidised services at our CHAS GPs will improve affordability and accessibility for parents, who can now enjoy these services islandwide.

Next, support for households, jobs and salary amidst COVID-19. The other source of concern on the part of many parents, like other Singaporeans, are the employment-related challenges and anxieties at this time. Raising children during the COVID-19 pandemic can be more challenging, especially if a member of the family has lost his or her job. We recognised this earlier in the year and provided more support for households, as well as jobs and salary support.

To provide more assurance and support to Singaporeans with their household expenses during this period of economic uncertainty, the Government provided the Solidarity Payment and Care and Support – Cash payout in April and June, to every Singaporean aged 21 years and above. This amounted to $600 to $1,200 per Singaporean, depending on income.

On top of this, we gave each parent with at least one citizen child aged 20 years and below as of 31 December 2020, an additional Care and Support – Cash payout of $300, that is an additional $600 per couple.

Hence, a Singaporean couple with a child, including those with babies born before 1 October, could already receive up to $3,000 in additional cash support this year.

In addition to these, all households with at least one Singaporean citizen member would have received the Solidarity Utilities Credit of $100. Eligible HDB households can also receive up to 2.5 times their regular GST Voucher – U-Save and up to 3.5 months of Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) Rebate. Such a household living in a 4-room flat with five or more can receive $800 in U-Save and 2.5 months of S&CC Rebate this financial year.

On the support for jobs and salary, the Government has also provided significant support to ease concerns about employment. This includes employment and salary support through the SG United Jobs and Skills Package and the Jobs Support Scheme.

I have listed the financial support, but we all do know, of course, that it is not just about the money or the finances because there are other things that are factored in when couples are deciding to have a child. In this regard, we have taken many steps to make sure that we provide additional support, from increasing the number of pre-school spaces to also working on flexible work arrangements.

Ms He Ting Ru earlier spoke about a holistic approach and I am so glad that she agrees with us because these were exactly the recommendations of the Citizens' Panel on Work-Life Harmony. Those included recommendations to further encourage and enable companies to provide flexible work arrangements, such as through recognition schemes as well as the nomination of Work-Life Ambassadors. The Panel also called for the shift of societal norms over time, to one where family time and other life priorities are placed above work and workplace practices become more progressive and family-friendly. So, we can see that the idea here is that it is not just about money but how to make Singapore a place that is conducive for families as a whole.

Ms He had a specific question on singles and whether the Baby Support Grant, or BSG, would be applicable or whether they are eligible for it. The answer is that they would not be eligible for it. The BSG is a one-off grant to help reassure couples and minimise delays in their marriage and parenthood plans. The BSG is an add-on to the Baby Bonus Cash Gift which, in itself, was designed to encourage marriage and parenthood. So, it is not quite consistent to extend it to singles in this context. However, I would like to assure all that Government benefits that support the growth and development of children are given to all Singaporean children, regardless of the marital status of their parents. So, benefits that are available to all parents to support them in their care-giving responsibilities would include childcare and infant care subsidies, the MediSave Grant for newborns, MediShield Life coverage from birth, infant care and childcare leave, the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy concession and, in addition to the above, every Singaporean child will benefit from education and healthcare subsidies and has access to social assistance, regardless of their parents' marital status.

In 2016 and 2017, we further extended support to unwed parents, including the Government-Paid Maternity Leave and the Child Development Account which includes the CDA First Step, that is, the $3,000 I mentioned earlier, and the matched co-savings from the Government. These benefits aim to support the child's developmental and care-giving needs, as well as the parents' efforts to provide for the child. As society continues to evolve, our policies will be updated to keep pace with societal realities.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has made this a difficult year for everyone. Many groups of fellow Singaporeans need our support. Parents who have children, or are planning to have children, are one such group. Hence, I am heartened by the efforts of many corporates and community partners which have joined the Government’s efforts in further supporting Singaporeans on their parenthood journey. I hope that many more will come on board.

We do understand the difficulties that families, especially those with babies and young children, face during this period, and have implemented measures like the one I described earlier. We will continue to support families during these extraordinary times and I seek Members’ and fellow Singaporeans’ understanding about the start date for the Baby Support Grant, which is one additional measure among many. This Government remains committed to supporting the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans and we will continue to review and enhance the strong suite of measures already in place to help Singaporeans form and grow families.

Leader of the Opposition.

Thank you, Speaker. To Minister Indranee Rajah, thank you so much for that response to some of the questions the Workers' Party Members of Parliament had on the Baby Support Grant. I fully recognise the trouble and the issue about settling on a start date for a grant like this which was unexpected by many members of the public. Having said that, would the Government consider extending the Baby Support Grant to Singaporeans who have received some of these COVID-19-related subsidies, such as SIRS and the COVID-19 Support Grant, because they have already exhibited particular difficulty arising out of their circumstances once COVID-19 started? So, they are already pre-qualified in that sense to be in need and, hence, they have received Government subsidies. These are mainly Singaporeans at the lower to lower middle income group. So, the extension is not really about a date that will reach back for all Singaporean parents, but specifically for lower to middle income Singaporeans. Would that be something the Government could consider? Thank you.

I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his question. I think the approach that we would take is this. This particular scheme has a very specific policy intent, which is to encourage those who are delaying to proceed with their parenthood plans. So, for those who are already low income, proceeding with parenthood plans would add to some of the responsibilities that they have. If they are low income and they have children from 1 October onwards, they will get the Baby Support Grant. No issue.

I think Mr Singh's question is: can we extend the Baby Support Grant to those born before 1 October who are low income. For those, what we will do is we will utilise the existing schemes that we have for the low-income to make sure that they are taken care of and their needs are taken care of, because we do actually have a very strong social support system. The SSOs were set up for this purpose, ComCare was put in place for this purpose and there are many different schemes which are aimed at that. So, the assurance that we can give is that if you are low income and you have had your child before 1 October and you have financial difficulties, we will help you. It does not necessarily have to be in the form of the Baby Support Grant, but we will still help you.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Minister for the reply. I would just want to make further points for the single unwed parents. I think this Government has said that single unwed parents are no less a mother or a father just because the child is born outside of marriage. So, I really hope the Government could reconsider not providing the Baby Support Grant to the single unwed parents. We also have to bear in mind that the median salary of a single unwed parent under 35 years old is about $600 a month. So, the $3,000 is actually about five months of their salary and it could really provide a lifeline for them during this pandemic.

Mr Speaker, I had addressed the considerations that we had in mind with respect to single unwed parents.What I would reiterate – because I think the learned Member's concern is whether or not they would have adequate support. So, irrespective of whether they have the Baby Support Grant, if they are, indeed, struggling and if they are in need, please do approach the SSO. There are other schemes available and in place and we will look to see how we can support them.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for the very assuring and heartwarming confirmation of all those measures that have so far been implemented by the Government. I believe Singaporeans actually appreciate it.

Speaker, Sir, I support the plans of action, as detailed in the Ministerial Statement. I am confident that this suite of measures will facilitate our progress and ensure that we emerge from this crisis stronger. We will be a competitive yet inclusive economy, a dynamic yet sustainable one.

In order to stay relevant and be an active participant on the world stage, we have to remain open to the world. We need to attract more quality investments and accept investors, entrepreneurs, specialists and professionals who can work with us in order to prosper as an economy and society.

Bringing in investments and attracting organisational set-ups here will create jobs and other opportunities for Singaporeans. We need these regional and international collaborations to stay ahead of the competition, increase our value and usefulness to the world, thereby ensuring our survival and prosperity.

The better approach is not to stay away and shield us from competition in this rapid technologically advancing world. We should rather face the competition and equip Singaporeans with leading skills and tools to make us stay ahead of competition.

Even as we welcome foreigners to share their knowledge and skills with Singaporeans, we need to be mindful of the risk of being over-reliant on a particular country, source or nationality. We should also take note of social costs and other implications that might outweigh the benefits in the longer run. Hence, we should be open but selective, monitor the employment market closely and take proactive steps to maintain the right balance.

I would like to suggest that the Government reconsider imposing a foreign worker levy instead of minimum qualifying salary to regulate the hiring of foreigner workers, such as Employment Pass or EP holders. A levy proportional to the salary of the EP holder is fair and can be justified. It provides another revenue source for the country as the Government continues to invest in Singapore holistically.

While cost is one of the major concerns for investors, Singapore has many other attractive advantages which more than make up for the higher costs. These include a conducive business environment, security, stability, excellent infrastructure and telecommunications, updated facilities and amenities, transparency and efficiency. These are all prime determining factors for businesses and workers too.

While other countries are grappling with COVID-19, we must continue to invest in both our infrastructure and human capital and provide incentives to pull in companies and individuals to place their investments in Singapore. The good cycle of investments, jobs and opportunities will bring many benefits to our island and our people. Hence, we need to continue with our major infrastructure investments that will support our economic growth for the benefit of Singaporeans in the face of the slowdown.

I would like to appeal for further incentives for companies to employ locals, in additional to the Job Growth Incentive or JGI, especially to support those who are middle-aged and above who have been retrenched and finding it difficult to get jobs. This is a group of Singaporeans whom I am especially concerned about. May I suggest that up to half of the 50% or 25% support to be paid to employees as Workfare Income Supplement or WIS to narrow the job and income expectations mismatch?

It would be good to balance these measures with quotas for foreign PMETs to encourage and incentivise companies to employ Singaporeans.

Could the JGI be a long-term policy coupled with support for employers to provide permanent upgrading and upskilling of Singaporean workers?

May we extend the COVID-19 Support Grant or CSG to those who were not eligible for the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme or SIRS?

Can we also enhance the WIS payout for lowest 25% income group with more payment for the lowest tier, with up to 50% more grants to supplement their income?

In addition, would MOM look into a hybrid of WIS, CSG and SIRS to form a new scheme to incentivise employment, reduce the pain from income reduction and narrow the job/income mismatch?

Notwithstanding, I do agree that all these have to be done with proportionally increase in productivity through job redesign, use of technology, automation so on and so forth, so that our workers are better skilled, productive and equipped, as compared with peers in other countries for the same job with better output. This would help mitigate avoidance of cost inflationary. We need to expedite the industry transformation, for example, more use of machinery in town cleaning jobs and higher productive method in construction industry to reduce reliance of foreign workers and higher income for our Singapore workers.

We all need to be very clear that we cannot afford to be complacent in an environment which is advancing rapidly technologically. What is the norm today can easily be disrupted.

To ensure that Singaporeans can remain in a leading position in the fast-changing and competitive world, we must continue to invest and equip all Singaporeans with the best skills, knowledge and tools. Singaporeans must be the assets which attract investors. We can further incentivise the investors and businesses to equip and train Singaporeans with leading and competitive skills.

The Government should continue with the overseas training and study internship initiative for our citizens so that they will gain wider exposure and market knowledge and deepen their problem solving skills. With that, I would like to conclude with my support again.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, this COVID pandemic has badly affected our economy, many lives and livelihoods. But if there is something positive, it has reminded us about the important things in our life, the things that we may have taken for granted.

Sir, I learnt a very painful but important lesson over the circuit breaker. I realised that I missed out on so much of my children's childhood over the last couple of years. While working from home, I was able to spend so much time with my little ones. Together – Ella, Katie, Poppy and I cooked, ate, played, enjoyed bedtime stories and even managed to set up a tent in our living room.

Before this pandemic, I was never able to spend so much time with them. I was often out on the ground at work, like most of us, and by the time I got home at night, the kids would be fast asleep. The reality is that work from home is something that us, as Members of Parliament will not be able to completely do as our work is often on the ground. But many fellow Singaporeans can benefit from it. In a survey of 9,000 respondents across night 90 companies conducted this May, 90% of respondents said they wanted to continue working from home. Singaporeans do want such an arrangement.

Sir, we should respond positively and legislate the right to work from home for all employees and require employers who reject the request to provide specific business-related reasons.

Working from home will benefit all employees, whether you're married or single. Employees will have better work-life balance, more freedom, spend less time commuting and it promotes employee well-being. Beyond this, there are four other main reasons why we should give people the right to work from home.

The first reason that it will be better for fathers. A survey conducted by Focus on the Family Singapore this year found that out of nearly 2,500 fathers, 70% became more involved with their families during the circuit breaker. Of this group, more than 80% said they connected better with their kids.

This pandemic has hurt many Singaporean families but it has also provided opportunities for parents, especially fathers to bond with their children like never before. A recent media article spotlighted the stories of several fathers during the circuit breaker and how COVID-19 has given fathers a chance to bond with their kids.

Marketing manager Imran talk about how his wife and him are so glad that he has now more time to play and eat together with his two toddler children. Imran talked lovingly about how his kids now miss him even when he stepped out of the house briefly.

Shahid Nizami, a managing director, spoke about how he had to strike a balance between working from home and supervising his son, Kain's home-based learning and how he jammed with his son for a virtual talent competition, with his son on drums and the dad on a guitar. He said, "This has been really special for both of us."

It is clear that many fathers now want to reconsider their work-life arrangement and we should not waste this opportunity. The right to work from home will give fathers more flexibility and more time to spend with their loved ones.

Second, the reason this working from home would help benefit mothers. One mother, Sheena, wrote to me, expressing her joy at seeing more fathers picking up their kids from schools these days as a result from our work from home policy which she says used to be a rare sight previously. Fathers picking up their children from school is part of a bigger solution.

A study conducted this year by the US National Bureau of Economics found that a pandemic would likely cause fathers to become more interested and experienced in childcare, reducing the childcare responsibilities on mothers and increasing gender equality at the workplace.

This rings true for Singapore too. An IPS study found that fathers who had more time to be with their children at home were able to better develop effective childcare skills. When fathers become more adept with handling childcare responsibilities, their families rely less on the mothers for childcare. This not only improves delegation of home responsibilities more equally between fathers and mothers but allow working mothers to focus better at work. In short, when fathers buck up at home, mothers get to lean in at work. Gender equality happens when everyone chips in.

The third reason is that it would be good for businesses. It does so by increasing productivity.

A 2011 guide by the tripartite committee on work-life strategy says that working from home enhances business performance and competitiveness for employers as employers can optimise manpower and resources deployment. International examples back up this point. A study again by the US National Bureau of Economic Research found that employees of China's largest travel agency, Ctrip, were 13% more productive while working from home.

Having employees work from home also help companies reduce fixed costs, such as office rental and workstation set-up costs and staff turnover related costs. As early as 2001, MOM stated that work from home allows workers to better combine their work and personal responsibilities which helps to reduce absenteeism and attrition. Ctrip, the Chinese travel agency I mentioned previously, halved their attrition rate of their employees, with a work from home policy.

Businesses that allow their employees to work from home do grow stronger. Let us help our businesses recover from this COVID economy in a way that emphasises efficiency and reduce costs. And through the Productivity Solutions Grant, the Government is also helping to make a work from home policy possible for businesses.

The fourth and final reason for legislating the right to work from home is that it will be good for our economy.

I cited research showing that a work from home policy reduces employee attrition. What I have not mentioned is that so often, this attrition employees are women. When you add up the effects on the national level, we see shocking trends. Let us talk about female labour force participation rate. On that, Singapore scored 61.1% in 2019, far below other countries in Southeast Asia, such as Vietnam at 72.5%; Cambodia at 75.2% and Lao PDR at 76.8%.

It is often said that Singapore's only natural resource is our people. Yet, we are not even employing half of our people, our women efficiently. Why is our female labour force participation rate so low? According to the McKinsey Global Institute, the culprit is care-giving and childcare responsibilities. The study estimates that if we close this gap, more than $26 billion could be added to the Singapore's GDP by 2025. We need every dollar of that and we need to close that gap.

The solution is to empower our mothers to work from home. Teresa, a working mother wrote to me, saying that working from home has meant that she did not have to worry about childcare arrangements and could pick up her children from childcare, bring them to appointments and take care of them when they did not have school. The right to work from home will provide parents like Teresa and many other employees with legal grounds to request to work from home when they need to without being penalised. It will enable those who have been discouraged and forced out of the workforce to rejoin their fellow Singaporeans. In these hard times, Singapore's economy needs every leg up we can get. The right to work from home will help.

Finally, let me address potential downsides and how we can solve them.

MOM has previously stated that this legislation can have unintended consequences for the very group it is meant to benefit and protect. For example, it may discourage employers from hiring groups seen as likely to take up the benefits. I am equally concerned about such outcomes. So, I studied the issue.

The UK has done what I am calling for. It provides the right for all workers to request for work from home, which employers can reject only based on certain business reasons. A study conducted in 2018 found that less than 5% of UK workers who worked from home or used staggered hours experience negative consequences due to their working arrangement. It is extremely unlikely that getting to work from home hurt someone's career. By contrast, the study found that work from home has been shown to reduce women's likelihood of working part-time after childbirth, reduces the motherhood penalty and potentially increase wage premium for women, especially in the longer run. In other words, the evidence suggests that legislating the right to work from home would help, not hinder women from succeeding at the workplace.

Sir, in conclusion, I hope we will legislate this right to work from home. Employers can reject the request with specific business-related reasons and employees who want to choose to work from the office can still feel free to do so. I believe this is a good middle ground win-win proposal.

For years, we told everyone that work from home helps with work-life balance, reduces employees absenteeism, leads to higher productivity, saves costs of office space and attracts and retains value employees. It even helped save lives during this pandemic.

For months, we make it law. All I am asking is that we now make this law permanent.

Minister Lawrence has said that working from home must be embraced as a new normal even after circuit breaker ends. We are now at a 50% work from home policy and I urge the Government not to reduce this any further, but instead take a step forward and ensure that work from home truly becomes a new normal.

Let me end by stressing that work from home is not just for fathers and mothers. It is for those are not married as well. At some point in our lives, we will have to care for someone else – be it children parents, grandparents, spouses, partners, friends and other loved ones. We will all need to be care-givers some day and we should have the flexibility to do so.

Working from home also helps with work-life balance and our well-being so it is also about caring for ourselves. Let us emerge stronger, as I have said many times in this House, spend time with those you love. One of these days, you will either say "I wish I had" or "I'm glad I did". Let us give our people a better chance of saying "I'm glad I did".

Dr Koh Poh Koon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the Debate on the President’s Address recently, I spoke as Deputy Secretary-General of the NTUC and urged the tripartite partners to come together to conduct an in-depth study on the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model, or PWM, across more sectors, so that we can move faster in this aspect when the economy recovers post-COVID-19.

Various Labour Members of Parliament – from former Secretary-General Lim Swee Say to former Parliamentary colleague Mr Zainal Sapari – have in their Parliamentary speeches over the many years also push for a faster and wider implementation of the PWM. Hence, NTUC welcomes the announcement to form a Tripartite Workgroup for Low-wage Workers to take concrete actions on this very important agenda.

Uplifting lower income Singaporeans have been a core mission of the PAP Government right from the outset. The PAP was born from the unions in the 1950s. Taking care of our workers has been a critical part of our DNA as a party. We have achieved what few have done over the last six decades, but the task is never finished. It is something that we must and will keep working on.

Under the PAP Government and with the support from the Labour Movement, the lives of millions of Singaporeans have been greatly improved: more than 90% of Singaporeans own their homes; our children get much better education; we invested in upgrading skills of our people so that they can stay employed and improve in their careers even as our economy transforms through the decades.

We have made significant progress in the past 10 years. The wages of workers at the lowest 20th percentile have increased by 24% in real terms in the last five years and by 39% over the last 10 years.

This was a big lift and faster than for those higher up on the wage ladder. It has also helped moderate income inequality in Singapore which is now at its narrowest in almost 20 years. The Gini coefficient calculated using the widely used OECD methodology, fell to 0.35 in 2019 after accounting for Government transfers such as Workfare Income Supplement.

All these did not happen just by itself. It is not by chance. It was brought about by sound economic policies, and the tripartite partners working actively to intervene to support workers. We implemented the “Triple Uplift” formula comprising the PWM, Workfare Income Supplement or WIS, and the National Wage Council or NWC recommendations.

The PWM lifted the wages of close to 80,000 cleaners, security officers and landscape workers. Their wages have increased by 30% in real terms in recent years without the loss of jobs. The PWM also enables them to climb the skills-ladder, improving their future employability and their wage progression at the same time.

This has been a significant achievement because the workers in these sectors tend to be older or with limited education and, therefore, are at a higher risk of this employment. It required very involved negotiations and firms, companies have to undertake changes of many of their practices to do so.

Workfare is another significant intervention. It acts like a form of negative income tax. The Government tops up the income of our workers earning less than $2,300 per month. There are many other efforts, all part of the on-going task of uplifting our workers.

Skills upgrading and job placement efforts by the NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute or e2i, working with Government agencies help many workers access better jobs, better pay and better job prospects. Bus drivers’ salaries jumped by more than 20% since 2015 with the new bus financing framework supported by the labour movement and National Transport Workers’ Union or NTWU.

In the last five years or so, we have pushed hard on our ITM efforts as well. This brought together tripartite partners integrating skills upgrading together with business transformation, productivity enhancement and innovation to catalyse change as a whole of eco-system to also create better jobs and better job prospects for our workers.

Raising the income of our less skilled and low-wage workers is, therefore, a holistic and a continuous effort. Through Workfare, the PWM and our efforts involving various stakeholders to boost skills and productivity in every sector, we are demonstrating exactly what Mdm Halimah spoke about in social solidarity. Our low-wage workers get an uplift in incomes through Workfare, supported by our taxes through the PWM and by productivity improvements. The upshot is that we can achieve higher incomes for low-wage workers without putting their employment at risk and minimising cost increases for our consumers.

How about the coverage of PWM?

The Government has committed to working with its tripartite partners to extend the PWM to all sectors in a manner that is appropriate to each and every sector's unique conditions.

I should point out also that the PWM in the existing sectors have also helped lift wages in the other non-PWM sectors as well. If we look at the occupations that are traditionally deemed as comprising workers with lower income – clerical support, service staff, tradesmen, operators, cleaners, labourers – there are, perhaps, about slightly over 850,000 workers doing these jobs in Singapore. The vast majority of them actually earn above $1,300 a month.

According to MOM, the residual number of low-wage workers who earn below $1,300 is about 100,000 workers. About a quarter of them actually are self-employed so they would not have benefited from any minimum wage, to begin with. With Workfare and employer's CPF contribution included, only about 56,000 across a variety of job roles earn less than $1,300. Of these, only about 32,000 are full-time employees.

So, what the Workers' Party wants to achieve with the proposed minimum wage of $1,300 a month, we have already achieved through PWM and many other policy measures, such as Workfare Income Supplement.

With this latest tripartite move, we will further reduce this number. We have, in fact, actually made tremendous strides over the decades. But as I said, it is still unfinished business.

The Workers' Party have called for a Minimum Wage of $1,300 a month to be applied across all sectors, as a quick way to cover everyone else. As I have just highlighted, this is a very small number of 32,000 to over 50,000-over, about 1.7% of our local workforce. Let me state that we are not ideologically against a minimum wage. In fact, the first rung of the wage ladder in the PWM is a form of sectoral minimum wage. Senior Minister Tharman has also called the PWM a “Minimum Wage Plus” – Minimum Wage plus a ladder for wage increase through upskilling. So, the idea of having some form of a minimum wage is not new and we share the same objective to uplift the incomes of low-wage workers. Where we differ though is the approach to getting there.

All programmes and policies have pros and cons and so too a single blanket minimum wage. Its appeal is that it is seemingly a quick way to raise the wages of workers who have to benefit from PWM – and maybe many other initiatives. But there are actually risks to jumping onto this single blanket minimum wage.

First, there is the question of its effectiveness in helping our lowest skilled and most vulnerable workers and not inadvertently putting them at a disadvantage. It is difficult to find the right a single minimum wage for all sectors.

If it is not set too low, then the benefit to workers in many sectors will be limited and defeats the purpose of having a minimum wage in the first place.

For example, the starting salary for a cleaner in Town Councils today under the mandatory PWM is already $1,442. With overtime pay, Workfare Income Supplement and Annual Wage Supplement or bonuses, this would be much higher than the $1,300 a month that the Workers' Party proposes as a minimum wage. Indeed, because of the mandatory PWM, the Workers' Party Town Councils' cleaners are being paid based on the PWM and not based on their Minimum Wage!

But if the Minimum Wage is set too high, then businesses especially the SMEs, cannot afford to pay. They will have to pass the costs on to consumers if they are able to or cut back on employment of workers of lower educational standards or skills, or, in the worse case scenario, go out of business.

In an ideal world, of course, a high Minimum Wage will force industries to invest more in technology, invest in items that can raise the productivity and favour the most efficient firms without lowering overall employment. But in practice there will be winners and losers and it is our SMEs who are the most vulnerable and our most vulnerable workers will also be at risk of losing out.

Sir, we all want to help low-wage workers to earn more. But in practice it is difficult to arbitrarily prescribe a single higher salary for all sectors and all industries. There must be a basis for setting the Minimum Wage that reflects the realities of each sector, including the profile of the low-wage worker sin that that particular sector so that it is sustainable, it benefits them and it avoids any unintended costs.

Veteran union leaders with long experience on the ground understand the importance of working this out and arriving at the tripartite consensus, so that “low wage” does not inadvertently become “no wage”.

If I may share what my good brother in the unions, Brother Toh Hock Poh, will always say when it comes to complex issues, "Ah nay kan duah, wa nang za teo zoh liow, ko tan li la kong" in Hokkien. Sir, if you do not mind I have to do this to justify the charisma of Brother Toh Hock Poh and show his charisma – what it means is; "If it was so simple, we would done it long go." So, a single Minimum Wage is no panacea.

The second risk – with a single blanket Minimum Wage is the inevitable politicisation of wage setting. What do I mean? Today, let us say we can all agree to $1,300 Minimum Wage proposed by the Workers' Party, a “moral imperative” as Mr Singh puts it in his recent Facebook post.

But what next? What happens next? How will this number change from this year to the next and on what basis?

In a political contest, a political party will surely come along and say, "Well, $1,500 will reflect higher 'moral imperatives'". Yet another will come along and say, "$1,300 is good; $1,500 is better, but $1,700 must surely be more 'divine' moral imperatives". It can become a political auction.

When this process, this political auction gathers momentum and becomes detached from market realities, the Minimum Wage escalates beyond what employers are able to pay. And the jobs of our more vulnerable sisters and brothers in these sectors will be threatened with the risk of unemployment.

So, I am not so much concerned by what Mr Singh and the Workers' Party is proposing for now, but what it portends for the future – the possibility of a political auction that will price out our lower skilled workers, our brothers and sisters, and disadvantage our smaller enterprises, our SMEs. This is not an academic issue.

We are seeing this kind of political processes, this political auction, happening in other countries. What is a better way? At NTUC, we believe the PWM is one way of doing so.

Under PWM, we can engage the different stakeholders of each industry, work out how to address their concerns and challenges, and arrive at a consensus with a basis that they can all actively support. With this sectoral tripartite consensus building approach, it is much less likely for a political auction to happen.

We can and should do more to help the lowest paid in our society but we must go about doing it in a way that ensures the upside while minimising the downsides. The cure surely should not be worse than the problem it tries to solve.

A third complication, and this is a major one, is the question of migrant workers. In most developed countries, the legal Minimum Wage applies to all workers including migrant workers. If the Minimum Wage is driven simply by a "moral imperative", then the natural question to ask is whether it should include non-Singaporeans such as migrant workers, including our foreign domestic workers.

I do see an online petition going on now in the honour of Mr Singh's name, with all the text he put into his Facebook on the page calling for people to petition to support Minimum Wage for foreign domestic workers as well. So, perhaps, Mr Singh should also take this chance to explain to Singaporeans what the position of the Workers' Party is when you advocate for Minimum Wage.

Now, if businesses cannot bear the resulting cost, is there also a "moral imperative" to help our SMEs? This is a particular pertinent consideration at this time, when we are in a deep COVID-19 crisis. Many companies, especially our SMEs, such as those in the construction sector, are suffering and not quite out of the woods. What is Mr Singh's views on this?

I do note that in his Facebook post, the very first line and I quote, "A universal Minimum Wage for the Singaporean worker is not just a moral imperative, it is an act of national solidarity, one that is even more relevant in today's economic environment".

I have been listening to some of the speeches of many of the Workers' Party's Members in the House yesterday and today, and I must thank them for sharing the Government's view on improving career coaching, reforming our education, supporting our workers, helping our SMEs. And the Member Jamus Lim's earlier speech talked about supporting SMEs, which I am sure will be welcomed. But if we juxtapose this together with his speech at the last Sitting about raising Minimum Wages, how does it square away? Are we supporting SMEs or are we adding more oil to the fire, so to speak? Perhaps it will be better explained in Chinese, we call it 雪上加霜.

With the companies in a deep economic freeze now or economic recession, is what is being proposed by the Workers' Party – raising wages through a Minimum Wage legislation – going to add more frost to the snow in companies in deep winter right now?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek the support of this House for us to continue to push for PWM. NTUC will continue our conversations with our tripartite partners via the newly convened tripartite Workgroup on expanding PWM, to ensure that we take into account the concerns of all our stakeholders for a sustainable implementation of the PWMs, even as we work collectively to help ourselves to get out of this economic recession.

In the interim, the PWM Mark that was recently introduced by Minister Josephine Teo in Parliament as a potential means of recognising firms that voluntarily pay progressive wages, is something that we welcome. We welcome such ideas as it would enable consumers to choose whether to support progressive-minded firms.

While introducing a PWM Mark is a good first step, voluntary schemes on their own may not be attractive enough for companies to come onboard. Government must be prepared to use regulatory levers to help incentivise firms to adopt the PWM Mark, such as requiring companies that access Government schemes or bid for Government contracts to come onboard this voluntary Mark. That way, we can also raise the awareness of consumers and service buyers to price the contracts fairly, and build trust towards eventual mandatory PWM for other sectors.

Beyond the lift and escalator PWM becoming mandatory in 2022, NTUC had also submitted a proposal to the Government to form a Tripartite Cluster for the Waste Management Industry to introduce a PWM focusing on the waste collection sub- sectors. We look forward to the Government’s strong support and will work closely with our tripartite partners to bring about better wages, welfare and work prospects for the low-wage workers in this sector.

In expanding the PWM, we should also consider studying other approaches to complement the existing PWM efforts, such as setting a sectoral wage benchmark as a first step for companies in sectors where there are currently no regulatory levers to mandate a PWM. The benchmarks would be a good way, a good starting point, a first step towards empowering workers with greater awareness of wages in their own occupations and their sectors. This can be done through leveraging various sources of data that we currently have, such as the Occupational Wage Survey Data.

In sectors with a more variegated employment landscape such as Food Services and Retail, sectoral wage benchmarks may help catalyse more companies to embark on uplifting the livelihoods of our lower wage workers. This, of course, in time to come, can evolve into a PWM. The Tripartite Workgroup could also study lower wage occupations that cut across multiple sectors to see how best to help improve their wage prospects. Some job roles, clerical job roles, for example, do not neatly fall into one particular sector and it is horizontal across many sectors. Having employers, Government and union at the same table would enable us to have frank and deep discussions on policy innovations to move the way forward.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is much work to be done to uplift more lower wage workers, many of whom provide essential services for all of us. We should recognise what the Government and the tripartite partners have achieved in providing a genuine uplift for the workforce, especially our lower wage workers, and be willing to adopt new approaches. Indeed, the PWM and Workfare Income Supplement have major new approaches in recent years and we, of course, remain open to new ideas.

Achieving social equality and enabling lower income families to improve their lives is never a simple task. There is no silver bullet. It is also continuous hard work. NTUC and the tripartite partners will focus on this real hard work of uplifting wages of low-wage workers and seek public support for our workers, while hoping to avoid all the possible downsides. [Applause.]

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his extensive comments on this matter. I was not intending to speak in this debate but in view of the questions that he has put to me arising from a Facebook post, which was a response to another Facebook post or two Facebook posts by the Minister for Manpower and the NTUC Secretary-General, I will put the position out. Because when we campaigned in the last election, a Minimum Wage was one of the central pillars of our ambit of the proposals that we had put to Singaporeans.

So, I would like to start with, actually, what I felt was a very powerful line from the Senior Minister of State, which was he is not so much concerned at our proposal of a Minimum Wage. And indeed, there is no reason to be very concerned about it because what we are talking about is those Singaporeans who earn below the $1,300 mark. It is not a number that has come out of the sky. I will explain shortly.

The Senior Minister of State has been helpful in providing some data. I believe a newspaper article, just a few days ago, from a former parliamentarian, someone who I think many of us parliamentarians enjoyed listening to, the economist Walter Theseira, asked some important questions. He asked what are the sectors where Singaporeans are earning less than $1,300? How many workers are impacted? And for those who are significantly below the $1,300 floor, what will happen to them?

And that is precisely my question for the numbers that the Senior Minister of State had shared – about the 100,000, a quarter of them self-employed; 56,000 not full-time workers, if I remember correctly, and 32,000 are full-time. Very important figures. I think this is the first time the Government has shared these figures.

And my question quite simply is, do we need to wait so long to cover these Singaporeans? Can we not consider how we can cover them immediately because it is not a small number. It is a large number. If you think of 60,000 rental units available from HDB and you compare that with this number, it is significant – it is quite a lot of Singaporeans who need some help. So, my Facebook posts really was not to diss or dismiss the PWM. It was to nudge the Government, to tell the Government, "Hey, wait a minute. Can we move faster on people who are really, really at one end of the spectrum?"

So, I think the Senior Minister of State understands that context, so that is not so much the issue. So, that was the first question, whether we can reach out more quickly to these individuals.

And I do not believe SMEs would be significantly impacted, with all respect to SMEs, employers and businesses who have also made their views known also in the mainstream media over the last one, one and a half months, perhaps. This number of Singaporeans, we can look after them, we can take care of them, and we can do it quite fast. If there is anybody who can do it for the people who I know as my friends in NTUC, I am pretty sure they are going to work hard with the Government to make that happen. So, I hope the Government takes them up.

My second point is about politicisation, which was what the Minister feared. Are we going to get into an auction when one party says $1,300 and another one says $1,500? This is where we probably have to defer to the experts. The National Wages Council is potentially one forum. And there are also some useful statistics we can use, like the average household expenditure on basic necessities; how much really does it cost for the Singaporean family who is at that end of the spectrum. And the Minimum Wage or the floor can be set at a number which is realistic and correspondent to that.

Actually, the bigger concern I have with the PWM and some of the sectors that the Senior Minister of State has been referring to, is potential profiteering on the back of raising wages for Singaporeans. My question to the Senior Minister of State is what mechanisms are available in NTUC, with MOM, to ensure that companies do not do that.

Now, I say this because earlier this week, I just sat in our usual weekly Town Council meeting and I am aware that certain lift maintenance contracts are coming up for renewal. I have some numbers from the lift companies. For one lift company, costs are going up by 47%. Another lift company, 5%, 10%, 5%, 10%, something of that nature, over a few years. So, because we have different contractors, they have different proposals. Now, if all this increase is going to the Singaporean worker, then I am prepared to take on that burden to persuade our Town Council residents that we need to raise S&CC. I am prepared to take it on because Singaporeans are going to benefit from it.

But my question is, is that a realistic hike in costs? So, I would like the Senior Minister of State to share how can we be sure that as the PWM moves forward and particularly for raising of salaries, those costs will go to our workers and will not be translated into profits.

I think the Senior Minister of State had a question on the ambit of our Minimum Wage proposal. The Minimum Wage we are proposing does not include foreign domestic workers at this point. It does not include foreign manpower at this point because there are other regulatory levers, especially for foreign workers – quotas, levies. I know they serve specific purposes, but I think you will have to implement this and see how best to work the overall manpower situation that SMEs demand and what the economy demands.

Coming back to the important number, it was, I think Senior Minister of State said 1.7% of the population. I am sure Senior Minister of State agrees with me that –

Workforce.

Workforce – I beg your pardon. 1.7% of the workforce. Thank you. I am sure Senior Minister of State agrees with me that we can do and we can move quite fast for this people. I will be prepared to work with Senior Minister of State to ensure that we can actually reach out to these Singaporeans as quickly as the Government can.

Because, I do not think it is acceptable that any one, any Singaporean is earning below this number. It is simply not acceptable. And if we can do something about it in double quick time, let us do it.

Dr Koh Poh Koon.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some of his clarifications. I must say it is quite easy to propose a Minimum Wage and then when we ask questions about what it is based on and how they will implement it – does it include foreign workers and all – they say, "Government go sort it out". I think if as Brother Hock Poh said, "If it is so easy to do, we would have done it with any long ago".

Proposing it for panel of experts to do, do research and studies, that could be one way, but that is actually also what the tripartite partners do. We look at data, but we incorporate the consensus of all the stakeholders including businesses so that they also must be prepared to price this into their business cost and have a way to also socialise it to the consumers. Indeed, as the hon Member said, when there is a wage ladder that goes up or any cost increase for Minimum Wage, this cost will have to be passed to the consumers at some point. So, there has to be a cost implication in the cost impact.

The good news of course is that the PWM, as it stands today, applies only to Singaporean local workforce, Singaporean workers. So, wage increases for PWM only benefits Singapore workers. That is why I asked the question about proposing a blanket single Minimum Wage across all sectors, which has to necessarily cover all workers. Because in many developed countries, the concept of a Minimum Wage, as it is applied, includes migrant workers as well.

So, I think we have to be careful about what we are saying here, because to buck the norm, to be different, there must be a real strong justification.

The data, 1.7% percent of the local workforce, it is not a very clean data because it includes a whole group of people across different job roles. But it also includes people who are technically "employed" but they could be employed in jobs like hawker assistant, helping a family member. They are drawing a salary, but they are happy to be just getting $700 a month helping the father or the mother or something like that, manning a store, for example. How do you legislate a Minimum Wage to say that the father who runs the store, employing the son as as a worker, as an employee, has to add a cost on and mandate it?

Those are the challenges when you go down to the bottom. They will be the challenges of implementation.

Research, data, all these are good. If I may use Brother Hock Poh's words again, he said "Wo jiak yam bi li jiak bee zuay" or I eat more salt than you eat more rice; "Tak chek jin ho", but "ai zor jin gan kor" or easier said than done. So, his point is this, reams and reams of data and research is good. But in practice, is always harder to do, because there are practical considerations, there are pushbacks. So, that is why a negotiator approach with stakeholders is the most important.

In the area of working with our stakeholders, I believe that that is why when we work on the negotiated outcome, there is always that balance that can be struck. Where the businesses are prepared to absorb the cost; if not, they have a way to rationalise how to pass the cost on to the consumers.

I am glad to hear that Mr Singh is prepared to also raise the S&CC charges to justify for higher wage cost when we eventually push up the mandatory PWM for the lift and escalator sectors, to make sure that our brothers and sisters in this sector get get paid a fair wage. And I think collectively we ought to socialise Singaporean consumers to the need to up the wages of those at the lower end and demonstrate social solidarity.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his impassioned defence of the PWM model. I would just take the opportunity to just clarify a few points and perhaps obtain some clarifications as well.

One of them is that Senior Minister of State mentioned a few times that a lot of these affect real lives and I have no doubt that they affect real lives because that is precisely what we are fighting for. But, with all due respect, as much as it will be lovely to always rely on folksy wisdom and beliefs by labour union leaders, at the same time, it is important to realise that when when we talk about studies that show that the Minimum Wage does not lead to any appreciable increase in unemployment, this is based on careful consideration and not just beliefs.

It is worth reminding ourselves that there was a time in the 16th century, when people believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. But that belief is not in fact the same as evidence and all evidence from countries all over the world demonstrate that a Minimum Wage has minimal impact on unemployment as long as it is not set too high.

So, that leaves us with discussing why, what is too high? And again, I think we made a clear justification on why we believe that $1,300 is a justifiable number. But why we believe as well that it is important to be open to other possibilities is because we, likewise, do not want this number to be politicised. There are lots of numbers that can be politicised, the interest rate can be politicised. We ensure that the central banks do not politicise the interest rate by making sure that they have independence. Which is why, one way forward is to ensure that we have an independent wage board comprised of academics as well as representatives from both the Labour Movement as well as employers to come up with a number so that is not politicised.

I will just close by pointing out one thing. It is that I do not believe in schadenfreude. We have been throwing out Chinese idioms so I will define that 幸灾乐祸. I do not think that supporting SMEs, as I said in my speech just now, is exclusive from supporting a Minimum Wage, which I mentioned in my maiden speech. In fact, I would just remind everyone that Henry Ford who invented the automobile understood this. He said he has to pay his workers enough so that they can buy his cars. So, when we pay our workers enough, it need not be the case that our small businesses end up suffering as a result.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Speaker. I believe Senior Minister of State has not answered my question with regard to how the tripartite partners assess in a particular sector whether profiteering is taking place on the back of what ought to be wage increases for our Singaporean workers.

Sir, I think the simple answer to that is that in a tripartite PWM model, the wages are pegged to a skills ladder, that can be verified by either a participation in a course or verified through an industry accredited programme. So, with the skills increase, the person would then be justified for wage increase, based on the larger job scope or a more productive outcome in the work delivered.

Mr Pritam Singh.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. But I am more referring to a case where like the Labour Annual this year in May, talked about extending the PWM to the lift and escalator sector and I believe there is one more sector, I am not sure whether it was waste management, but one of them.

My point is, this is in the future, but some of these companies are already pricing it in today and is that legitimately correct for them to do so? Apart from that, if there is a reason for a vendor to assert that actually the cost is being overstated here and PWM is being used as an excuse to increase costs, what recourse would the Government consider? Will there be a committee that we can potentially go to to address some of these matters?

Sir, then the simple process is to make sure that the Town Council when you tender contracts, you have a process of evaluating a competitive tender to assess the points of merit surely, unless you are talking about collusion among various vendors for the same project. Otherwise, there has to be somebody who is prepared to price his service or his product competitively and reasonably.

Mr Leon Perera.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Just some points of clarification to the Senior Minister of State, Dr Koh Poh Koon, who gave a spirited defence of the PWM model. We have said that we do not think that PWM and Minimum Wage are mutually exclusive.

My first question is really how long does the Senior Minister of State envisage the rolling out of the PWM to all the vulnerable workers who are now earning very low incomes; how long would that take? The number could be 100,000 or 36,000 depending on the definition used, but how long we are going to take to address the needs of that group?

Secondly, Senior Minister of State Koh also talked about how a Minimum Wage inevitably becomes politicised, but the Senior Minister of State presumably does not feel that PWM inevitably becomes politicised. Why does Minimum Wage inevitably become politicised but the PWM model does not also become a political football and become politicised.

Third point of clarification is really on how the Minimum Wage may hurt our SMEs. Senior Minister of State did say that the number of people who will be affected by a minimum wage of $1,300 per month could actually be very small. So, how does such a small number actually effect a very substantial hurt or a disadvantage to SMEs if the number is basically small? In making this point, I would note that some discussions publicly that have happened about Minimum Wage within the business community, that have been reported in The Business Times and so on, have shown that many business owners are in fact open to a Minimum Wage if it is not set too high because they also want to pay their employees with dignity.

The last point is really on the Senior Minister of State who talked about the contrast between Minimum Wage and Progressive Wage Model that with the Progressive Wage Model, you are less likely to lose jobs because that is a negotiated outcome with employers. But would the Senior Minister of State accept that you can have a process to set a Minimum Wage nationally, with reference to research and facts that involves consultation with employers before that Minimum Wage is set, so you do not surrender that advantage as well.

I think in my speech, I did explain that different sectors have different eco-systems, different kind of skills requirement and therefore different starting pay even for certain lower job roles. And therefore, if at a national level, it is very hard to decide on one number that everyone can agree to as their starting pay. How would that process be to make sure tat there is convergence on one single number – to have the lowest end of a cleaner and a lowest end of a clerical staff – all having the same minimum wage that is acceptable across different industry sectors? So, that is a practical challenge that cannot be overcome so easily with a single Minimum Wage.

How do we help the lower wage workers, maybe the 1.7% that we spoke about? I think when we look at this, wage is only one aspect of helping a lower wage worker. Today, with Workfare, we already top up the wages and that is one way of helping them without having to make employers jump through the hoops, without having to make disadvantaged workers that have to do a lot of heavy lifting to get to the Minimum Wage, for example.

Bear in mind that this segment of workers, some of them could have disabilities that may not be able to embark on the kind of jobs without Government support to begin with. So, by giving some of these Workfare supplements, we actually top up the kind of wages because otherwise, an employer may not be prepared to employ someone with a certain disability that may not be able to fulfil the full function of the job scope. This is where you will end up leading to dis-employment for a particular segment of vulnerable workers. So, it cannot be a one-size-fits-all because there are different segments of people, different industry demands.

How long? I think the process will be something that we want to do now, talk about it, discuss it, work out some schematics. But when can we implement? Obviously, we have to look at the economic situation as well because this will be probably the wrong time to push for increased wage costs onto our SMEs who are already suffering.

Why would the PWM structure be less likely to be politicised? Because it has tripartite negotiations. It is not decided politically by one party. The employers naturally will push back as well if what we are proposing for the sector is not sustainable to them, business-wise. If what is being pushed from just a political base would put them out of business and make them non-competitive, there will be a natural push back. Otherwise, if it is just a single number that is decided based on politics, I think this is where the danger of the slippery slope occurs.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarification.

Just two quick points. One on the issue of heterogeneity, needing each sector to have their own specific Minimum Wage. I would actually put it across even more simply. What I believe that the Workers’ Party would argue is that if you can establish that the Minimum Wage for the lowest paying sector within the PWM is at least $1,300, it is absolutely fine if the other sectors were willing to pay more than that $1,300, for that particular lowest pay sector.

The other point is I think it is actually a bit disconcerting to bring in special cases like disability and the individual that happens to work part-time for his father, or even to talk about earning more than one $1,300 if someone works overtime, because honestly these are, if I may use the term, straw man. We are not comparing these particular special cases. We are talking about individuals without disability that happen to be working just regular full-time work week and are nevertheless struggling to make ends meet.

Even if it is 32,000 people, I do not think that any of these 32,000 people feel that they are being taken care of. And I also do not feel that we should let them, in as rich a society as we are, flounder on their own.

Mr Edward Chia.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Businesses need to stay competitive and avoid passing all costs to consumers to stay competitive. So, an increased wage has to be coupled with an increase in productivity. If not, it may actually lead to no wage.

So, could I seek clarifications from the Workers’ Party on whether they actually recognise the downside risks of low wage becoming no wage, especially when technology automation is increasingly being adopted?

Mr Pritam Singh.

I would like to clarify with the Member. I do not believe any of us made that specific remark. But I would like to ask the Member in return: is he agreeable to pay the 100,000 workers, specifically narrowed down now to 32,000 workers, $1,300 as a business employer? Is he prepared to do that? I hope he is.

Mr Edward Chia.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his clarification. I think as a business owner, the responsibility is not to a specific sector of employees but to the entire company. Sustaining a business means providing jobs for the whole company.

So, a business owner needs to look at sustainability, and it is the responsibility of a business owner to look at productivity increase because that is what makes businesses profitable, viable and then scalable to be able to provide more jobs for Singaporeans.

So, an arbitrary Minimum Wage may actually be more negative for a business. We need to look at it as a holistic approach, helping businesses upskill their employees, helping businesses to grow their business. So, as the businesses grow, we can provide more to our workers and we can actually hire more workers. I think that is what businesses are looking towards in terms of good effective policy.