Hansard, Tuesday, 1 March 2022

Order. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of Standing Order 92, I have fixed the times for the conclusion of consideration of the heads of expenditure in the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2022/2023 in the Committee of Supply (COS).

In fixing these times, I have taken into account the reduction of Question Time to 30 minutes on the days allotted for the COS debates and the extension of sitting times of the Committee of Supply for each of the allotted days.

Additionally, Members are notified that the sittings on the allotted days of 3 to 10 March will commence at 10.30 am.

The "guillotine" times I have fixed have been notified to hon Members. I would also like to remind Members to use slides and videos sparingly to keep the spirit of our debating Chamber. Focusing on the delivery of speeches to be made will create a greater impact in a debate.”

Order. Questions for oral answer.

1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower what are the penalties for employers who implement attendance-based incentive schemes after the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) are amended by next year to clarify that such schemes are a breach of the TGFEP.

Mr Speaker, the answer that the Member has sought has already been answered in yesterday's Question No 7. This specific question is related to his supplementary question yesterday.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. I understand the penalty is the curtailment of work pass privileges. But could I ask how many companies, including SMEs in Singapore, do not hire foreigners? And two, what then is the penalties for these companies that do not hire foreigners, since curtailing their work pass privileges will be ineffective?

Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. In fact, the majority of employers here employ foreign workers. As the suspension of work pass privileges can last up to 24 months, the penalty is still effective, even if the employer does not hire any foreign worker when the suspension was first imposed.

2 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has conducted surveys to assess the proficiency of local employers at managing remote work by using technology such as assessment tools and collaboration technology; (b) whether employers have adequate support to help them improve in managing remote and hybrid work teams; and (c) whether the Ministry is equipped to mediate disagreements over employee assessment due to reduced in-person work and resulting change in assessment criteria.

MOM and our Tripartite Partners take a practical approach towards supporting companies that are implementing remote work and other forms of flexible work arrangements. Specifically on remote work, employers are best placed to assess what types of work in the company are suitable for this form of flexible work arrangement, how best to implement it, retain their employees and motivate them, while ensuring the needs of the business are met.

Mr Speaker, the Government should not overreach or be overly prescriptive. Otherwise, we stifle the spirit of free enterprise and entrepreneurship.

Some employers may need financial support to implement the digital technologies to support remote work. The Government supports them through the Productivity Solutions Grant. The HR profession has also come together to share experiences and best practices. For example, the Institute for Human Resource Professionals developed a Playbook on Hybrid Workplaces. We will continue to consult closely with our Tripartite Partners to identify resources and tools to support companies in implementing remote work as well as other forms of flexible work arrangements.

Employees who experience unfair treatment, including in performance assessment while on remote-work arrangements, can reach out to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) for advice and assistance. The principles underlying the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices are clear. Remote work may be an emerging workplace practice, but the principle of fair and objective assessment remains unchanged.

Mr Yip.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I ask this Parliamentary Question (PQ) because remote and hybrid work arrangements are going to be here to stay and perhaps may even be more prevalent in the post-COVID-19 world. I agree that the Government should not overreach. I just have a short supplementary question, which is that will the Ministry consider leading the way in terms of coming up with certain financial assistance or grants to help facilitate companies to take up remote and hybrid work arrangements, including the use of technology?

The Government recognises that some companies may need help in implementing remote work and other forms flexible work arrangements. On the subject of supporting companies that might need some funding support to acquire technologies to implement remote work, we do have the Productivity Solutions Grants for companies to consider.

The following question stood in the name of Ms Mariam Jaafar –

3 To ask the Minister for National Development (a) whether an update can be provided on the current number of HDB rental flats that are vacant (i) in Woodlands and (ii) nationwide; (b) of which, what is the respective number of flats that needs to be spruced up; (c) what are the reasons for flats that does not need sprucing up to be left vacant; and (d) when does the Ministry expect to clear the backlog of flats that need to be spruced up.

Question No 3, Sir.

Sir, there are about 8,000 vacant rental flats across Singapore. About half of these are not available for new applicants as they are in blocks that are due for redevelopment or are reserved to house existing tenants of flats that are affected by redevelopment. The other half are available to new applicants, of which two-thirds need to be spruced up before they can be let out. In Woodlands, there are 320 vacant flats available to new applicants, and about 220 of them need to be spruced up before they can be let out.

Rental flats that are available to new applicants may be vacant as it takes time for flats to be matched to applicants, depending on the flat type, location and Ethnic Integration Policy limits.

For vacant flats that need to be spruced up, the pace of sprucing works has been adversely affected by manpower shortages in the construction industry during this COVID-19 period. To expedite the works, HDB has appointed additional contractors to supplement HDB’s existing pool of term contractors. HDB is monitoring the situation closely and aims to clear the backlog of flats that need to be spruced up by the third quarter of this year.

HDB will continue to prioritise and expedite flat allocation for applicants who are in urgent need of a rental flat, such as applicants with medical needs or other exceptional circumstances, though we may not always be able to meet their locational preferences.

Leader of the Opposition.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a few short questions for the Minister of State. In view of the figures he gave for rental flats that are available today, is there a plan to increase the rental flat supply in Singapore? Is it the Ministry's assessment that that number needs to be increased?

The second question is that usage of this word "spruced up". How long does it take to turn around one rental flat, between one applicant who has moved out of the flat, and to get the flat ready for the next person to come in? I ask because if we consider Home Improvement Programme (HIP) timeline of 10 days, for example, to renovate toilets and stuff, then, how long is that period before the flat can be ready for the next tenant to use?

And finally, just very quickly, Mr Speaker, for the waiting times, currently, what is the average waiting time for an applicant who has successfully been allocated a rental flat?

Sir, I thank the Member for the questions. One is about the waiting time. We shared in the reply in January that it is less than a year.

And for the supply of rental flats, we have enough rental flats to meet the demand and we will continue to watch this carefully.

About the sprucing up, it depends on the condition of the flat that we take over from the tenant. Some may need more time; others can be done quite easily. So, I want to assure Members that we do our best to provide rental flats to all the applicants. And now, with these additional resources, manpower, contractors that we have, we are confident that we will be able to do the sprucing up by the third quarter of this year.

Mr Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just following up on one of the answers. The Minister of State said that it will be less than a year for waiting time. I think one of the recent answers was about five months. My question is, is it now projected to be more than five months or less than five months, in view of the evolving manpower situation?

Sir, I am not sure whether Mr Singh has followed the PQs in recent months. I think what he quoted was actually six months – that was in July. But in January, we answered another PQ that we said that it is less than a year. That is recent and the situation remains. What is key is that we are doing our best to do the sprucing up and allocate as early as possible.

4 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) for each year over the past five years, how many pet animal abandonment cases have been investigated; (b) how many fines and jail terms have been issued; (c) what proportion of these animals are cats; and (d) whether the Ministry will review and strengthen frameworks for investigations into and sentencing for such cases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, NParks investigated 180 alleged cases of pet abandonment in 2017, 225 cases in 2018, 230 cases in 2019, 215 cases in 2020 and 225 cases in 2021. Of these cases, 11 persons were issued composition fines, 21 persons were sentenced in Court and fined, and one was given a jail term. About half the cases investigated, and half the cases for which further action was taken, involved cats.

We take a serious view of pet abandonment, and all acts involving failure in the duty of care for pets. NParks investigates all feedback on alleged pet abandonment and will take enforcement action as appropriate. Individuals who are found guilty of pet abandonment can be charged under the Animals and Birds Act. First-time offenders can face a maximum fine of $10,000, or a jail term of up to 12 months, or both. We will continue to review the penalties under the Act to ensure that they remain effective in deterring acts of pet abandonment.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Could I follow up quickly on whether we would consider micro-chipping the cats? This is something I have pushed for for many years because I think that will help to reduce the abandonment of cats, as for example, like dogs that we now license and micro-chip. It is pretty hard to abandon them because we would be able to trace the owners quite easily.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. As the Member would be aware, we have started a comprehensive review of the pet sector, involving various stakeholders, looking at training regimes or trainers, looking at rehabilitation, adoption, routines and practices with the animal welfare groups, engaging breeders and boarders, and also individual pet owners. We have undertaken a review and put in place various new practices, guidelines to raise standards of pet care, training, breeding, boarding, as well as the kinds of licensing regimes.

The Member had asked about the micro-chipping of cats. This will also be taken into consideration as we review the pet sector.

Mr Leon Perera.

Thank you. Just one question to follow up. I think the Minister of State mentioned that penalties are being reviewed. I think there is feedback from animal rights, animal rescue groups, that some of the sentences for offences that are being seen are below the maximum and may not be so effective as a deterrent. Is there a timeframe for this review of the penalties for pet abandonment?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. As also shared in my reply to Member Mr Louis Ng, we are undertaking – and it is actually in process – quite a comprehensive review of the pet sector. We are looking at the various regimes, regulations, guidelines, best practices and engaging various stakeholders.

As part of this review, we are also reviewing the Animals and Birds Act and we are also looking at the kind of penalty frameworks that are in place. So, certainly, this is one area that we will consider as part of the review and we hope to do so in the coming months and, hopefully, by this year.

5 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what preventive measures are there to reduce the number of fire and gas leakage cases in hawker and food centres; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider installing gas, smoke or fire detectors in these centres.

Fire safety and gas supply in our hawker centres are subject to the Singapore Civil Defence Force’s (SCDF) prevailing regulations and Fire Code requirements. Hawker centres are installed with fire safety provisions such as manual fire alarms, heat/smoke detectors, fire extinguishers and fire hose reels.

SCDF’s Fire Code requires liquefied petroleum gas, or LPG, cylinders within the allowable capacity, to be stored at ground level outside the hawker centre, at a well-ventilated area where any potential gas leakage can be safely and rapidly dispersed. To help prevent gas leakage and minimise fire risk, the LPG manifold systems have to be designed by a Qualified Person and approved by SCDF. Regular safety checks and pressure leak tests are also required. Similarly, the installation and use of piped Town Gas is regulated by the Energy Market Authority, or EMA, and regular checks and maintenance must be carried out by a Licensed Gas Worker (LGW).

NEA and SCDF have also been issuing regular advisories to stallholders on how to exercise personal responsibility in preventing stall fires. We urge all stallholders to stay vigilant and do their part by maintaining good fire safety practices.

Ms Pereira.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. We have come across cases where fires had broken out in hawkers or market stalls that were closed. Would the Ministry consider installing emergency unlocking mechanisms in future upgrading programmes, or maybe even master key arrangements to be given to suitable persons, like the hawker committee, so that others can access stalls on fire, even if they are closed?

I thank the Member for her suggestion. NEA will review the suggestion, considering the purpose as well as practicality of such a system as suggested by the Member, especially during emergencies.

In the event of a stall fire incident, stallholders should consider their safety first and, hence, they ought to contact the SCDF who are trained and equipped to deal with such emergencies. And as a first line of defence, we want to urge all stallholders to focus on fire prevention, that is, staying vigilant and maintaining good fire safety practices.

In fact, over the last three years, between 2019 and 2021, there was a total of 31 stall fire incidents at hawker centres, and the majority of these – 22 or about 71% – were due to unattended cooking, and four were due to either faulty appliances or power supply overloading.

So, indeed, as the authorities, the agencies and the partners, the supplier of the LPG gas or town gas, we will do our part to ensure that the infrastructure at the hawker centres is safe and sound, want to urge the stallholders to exercise personal responsibility in preventing stall fires. So, for instance, not to leave cooking unattended, to make sure there is no power supply overload, check for faulty appliances. If your stove does not light up, to ventilate that area, to switch off all appliances at the end of the day and, of course, to clean your stove and kitchen exhaust regularly, so that it does not accumulate grease, and reduce fire risk.

6 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether technology such as tagging or otherwise can be adopted to alert victims of high-risk or violent ex-offenders when such offenders come within a stipulated radius or are in close proximity to them.

Sir, ex-offenders who have completed their sentence are not subjected to electronic monitoring. It is not appropriate to do so when they have not committed any further crime.

Instead, to reduce their risk of committing violent acts again after release, we try to address the underlying issues. While incarcerated, offenders who are at risk of violent re-offending are enrolled in psychology-based correctional programmes. They learn to address negative thinking patterns that lead them to violence, better regulate their emotions and resolve conflicts without resorting to violence. The Singapore Prison Service also works with the families and community partners to support ex-offenders after their release to better prevent re-offending.

Members of the public who are in any danger of harm are advised to call "999" for assistance. The National Anti-Violence Helpline, "1800 777 0000", which is manned by trained social workers, is also available 24/7 for members of the public to seek help or report on violence.

Mr Zhulkarnain.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his response. I asked the Parliamentary Question (PQ) and my intention is actually to seek clarification on a process whereby we can prevent further stigmatisation; and at the same time, promote rehabilitation and reconciliation between the ex-offender and the family.

Back in December 2021, there was a case of domestic violence involving someone, the perpetrator who had breached bail conditions. Sir, I was wondering whether there can be more emphasis on rehabilitation and reconciliation between family members which, I think, would be a far more permanent and longer-term solution, which would be beneficial to both parties and the children as well. In this regard, what would the Ministry be conducting to do, to help in the reconciliation process of our ex-offenders?

By the way, I do not like the word "ex-offenders". I think we should call them "overcomers" – they would overcome the challenge of their checkered past.

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. We agree with his suggestion about how we should focus on reconciliation, and that is what we hope to do for every ex-offender because that will also make their rehabilitation and reintegration process better.

So, essentially, what we do is that for those with known family violence, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) will refer these cases to and work with MSF and also with the relevant social service agencies before the person is being released from prison. In some cases, we also have case conferences where we discuss deeper into the situation and see how we can help them better.

We have social service professionals, for example, those from the family violence specialist centre, who would also engage the families, not only from the reconciliation perspective, but also how to provide safety plan, in case there is re-offending. At the same time, we also engage the perpetrators to connect with family, and also to encourage him or her to better understand what are the avenues, how they can overcome such behaviour. This, in itself, we want them to respectfully, resolve their conflict and to reduce the risk of family violence.

If you have followed the developments that we have been doing in family violence, we have formed a Taskforce on Family Violence where the Minister of State Sun Xueling and I co-chaired, and we have released a set of 16 recommendations in September 2021. I am happy to share the Government has accepted, in principle, our recommendations. We hope to progressively implement this over the next few years.

Essentially, what we hope to do, is to increase awareness of and strengthen societal attitudes against family violence, and enhance preventive efforts for persons at risk. And, also, we want to develop more avenues to make it easier for survivors and the community to report family violence and get immediate help. We are also working to strengthen protection and support for survivors to reduce their risk of being harmed again. And, I think, last but not least, we will increase the accountability of perpetrators and strengthen their rehabilitation to reduce their chances of re-offending.

So, we will continue to work with community partners to tackle family violence. In fact, everyone can play a part in breaking the cycles of abuse and neglect.

7 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower for each year between 2016 and 2020, of the employers issued with warnings, composition fines or charged for kickback offences, how many workers have these employers been found to have collected kickbacks from.

Sir, I note that Mr Louis Ng1,2 has filed two additional oral Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and one written PQ that are scheduled for subsequent Sittings. As all the next three PQs he has filed are on the issue of kickbacks, I will be addressing all these three PQs together with this particular one, please.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) takes stern action against employers or any other party who collect kickbacks from migrant workers as a condition or guarantee of employment.

Between 2016 and 2020, MOM took enforcement action against an average of 102 errant employers for collecting kickbacks from migrant workers. On average, there were about five migrant workers affected per employer. While the amount of kickbacks paid by each migrant worker to errant employers were recorded as part of investigation, MOM does not track this data in a structured manner. The typical amount of kickbacks paid by migrant workers could range from $1,000 to $3,000.

Once a kickback is being investigated, employers will not be allowed to repatriate the affected workers. To further support the migrant workers who are victims of kickbacks, MOM refers them to employment agency partners who will help to facilitate a change of employer for those who wish to continue to work in Singapore. These employment agencies are committed not to charge the affected migrant workers any fees. This would assure workers that they can continue to stay here to earn an income when they report their employers for the collection of kickbacks. MOM will also require the accused to return the kickbacks collected to these affected workers.

Between 2016 and 2020, about 20% of the affected migrant workers found new employment and about 30% chose to continue working for their current employer after the kickback issues were resolved. For the remaining workers, they chose to return home.

In recent years, MOM has made use of data analytics to identify and detect unusual patterns in hiring practices to better detect cases of kickbacks. However, it is much more effective if workers come forward to report such malpractices. MOM has also utilised data mining capabilities to strengthen evidence gathering and better enable MOM to take enforcement action against errant employers.

On the education and engagement front, MOM has stepped up our efforts to educate and engage migrant workers. For example, the topic on kickbacks is covered in the mandatory Settling-In Programme for first time work permit holders and MOM has published Facebook posts on identifying and reporting kickbacks which are also transmitted to migrant workers through the FWMOMCare app. Migrant workers who are asked to pay kickbacks, should immediately approach MOM for assistance. MOM will investigate and take all complaints and whistleblowing seriously.

Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the order of the day.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [18 February 2022] [2nd Allotted Day] (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023." – [Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The past two years had us tackling the immediate challenge of protecting lives and livelihoods during the pandemic while building on the foundations of an economically vibrant, socially cohesive and sustainable Singapore for us to call home.

In many countries, the pandemic had exposed cracks and divisions within society. There are those against being masked, as well as anti-vaxxers, voicing out against measures amidst the pandemic. What made us different? The difference was our coming together as a united society, helping each other in these exceptional times. We understood we had a responsibility and the part to play for the greater good of public health.

Volunteers reached out, especially to seniors staying-alone, encouraging vaccination and ensuring the seniors do not feel isolated amidst the pandemic. Grassroot organisations distributed care packs, masks, assisted in COVID-19 Support Grants and organised career fairs for those that lost their jobs. Private organisations such as Ghifari Network, helped to obtain and distribute care packs including for the migrant workers. Industries supported each other such as aerospace workers supporting vaccination centres. Companies took in mid-career workers switching from challenged industries through the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme. There are many more instances where things could have been much worse, but by coming together and helping one another we have emerged from this pandemic stronger.

However, there remains many challenges ahead. The situation in East Europe reminds us peace is fragile. The global economy is more competitive and digitalised. Climate change continues to threaten the world. We are one of the fastest ageing populations in the world with one in four Singaporeans above the age of 65 by 2030. As we emerge from this pandemic, we must position Singapore for the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

We are at an inflexion point in our history. It is for us to define how we want to grow as a society in this next phase. We must reaffirm our commitment for progress in an inclusive society. We must continue to impart the right values to the next generation. Our ageing population would increase the demand for healthcare and social care. How do we, as a society care for our seniors? How do we, support our less-privileged families and our low-wage workers? How do we continue to improve the lives of all Singaporean by growing our economy and staying relevant in an increasingly competitive global economy? How do we manage work-life harmony in a future work environment that blurs the line between work and home? How do we contribute to global efforts in tackling climate change?

These are all pertinent questions we must answer but our means to provide resources for these will come under great strain as the ratio of our working population supporting aged dependents decreases. We can only get through this stronger if we remain united, helping and working together to ensure that the outcome is greater than the sum of all our efforts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a balanced Budget. We continue to provide support for workers, businesses and households in tackling the immediate challenges due to the pandemic while positioning ourselves to be future-ready by continuing our journey in transforming our businesses, developing new capabilities and investing in our people.

This Budget also reaffirms our societal commitment towards inclusive growth: caring for our seniors, assisting our low-wage workers and preparing for increased healthcare and social care needs. Do we leave individuals to find their own way, or do we as a society collectively agree to provide stepping ladders for those in need?

That being said Mr Speaker, Sir, I do worry that this is our third consecutive year running a Budget deficit and we will be digging into our reserves yet again. I have a few points for clarification.

Firstly, on GST and how can we protect our residents by preventing profiteering from the GST increase? Secondly, in light of the challenges ahead, how do we remain relevant in the global economy and drive sector-specific industry transformation? And thirdly, how do we ensure inclusive growth for all?

One of the concerns that has been echoed by residents is how do we prevent businesses profiteering from the GST increase at the expense of the consumers? A Pasir Ris resident, Mr Wong, shared that he worries businesses will increase prices disproportionately at each GST hike in 2023 and 2024. The outcome will result in a disproportionate increase in cost that is borne only by the end consumer. How can we prevent businesses from passing costs straight to consumers instead of everyone shouldering a bit of the pain?

Can I also seek clarification from the Minister on how the Committee against Profiteering will be implemented and how will it address concerns of businesses perceived to be profiteering from the GST increase?

How can the Committee against Profiteering identify the singular cause of price increase and hence, identify businesses profiteering from GST in light of increasing cost of supplies, rental, labour, energy in addition to the step increases in GST? How can we ensure the committee is effective in protecting our residents?

Moving beyond GST, in light of our future challenges, how do we remain relevant in the global economy and drive sector-specific industry transformation? It was previously mentioned that the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) will be refreshed by this year to meet the accelerated changes brought about by the pandemic. What is the progress of the ITM refresh?

And given that in this year's Budget, a lot of additional resource is provided to bring about business transformation, how do we ensure companies develop capabilities in line with the refreshed ITMs to take full advantage of the opportunities available in the industry? How will the economic transformation efforts be integrated more closely with the National Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2025 plans? Will the ITM Refresh consider workplace transformation and specifically address the upskilling, retraining and hiring of mature workers, workers with disabilities and other vulnerable workers for an inclusive transformation of the industries? How can we leverage on the 811 company training committees (CTSs) set up by NTUC and its affiliated unions to identify the training and skills workers need to keep up with the transformation. Will there be a clear direction on how to enhance sustainability efforts in our ITM Refresh? For example, in the aerospace ITM Refresh, what will be our direction on sustainability activities such as sustainable aviation fuels, electric hydrogen or hybrid propulsion. How will electric vehicles feature in our land transport industry transformation?

As we position ourselves for the challenges and opportunities ahead and transform our industry, I am heartened that in this Budget, we have provisioned significant resources to renew and strengthen our social compact. Our efforts to uplift low-wage workers have been ongoing for the past decade and I believe we can continue to do more to support our low-wage workers. It is important to ensure that productivity continues to improve so that wage growth is sustainable. If real productivity is not achieved, there is a risk wage growth would drive up costs and make us less competitive in the global market. The key to sustainable wage growth is upgrading workers' skills to ensure our workers maintain a good job, earn a good wage and have the opportunity to earn more.

In this Budget, we have apportioned significant resources such as $200 million for building digital capability and increasing the capacity at Polytechnics and ITE centres to engage in technology. We will also invest in an additional $100 million to support NTUC to scale up CTCs and introduce new grants to support transformation plans.

How can we encourage and support SMEs to transform their businesses so that lower-wage workers can be deployed more productively, with more scope for progression? How can we get business associations to support more SMEs?

I am heartened that Progressive Wage Model (PWM) will be extended and wage increase for low-wage workers will be co-funded under the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme. This will be further boosted by the Enhance Workfare Income Supplement Scheme. The qualifying monthly income cap for this scheme has been raised, age eligibility has been extended and the payouts increased especially for people with disabilities.

While Companies transform to drive real productivity growth, how do we encourage low-wage workers to continuously upskill and upgrade? Can we consider a yearly workfare income supplement "bonus" or tiered supplement scheme if the worker utilise his SkillsFuture credit or attend training and courses yearly to upgrade himself or herself?

Disadvantaged platform workers also need assistance to meet their housing and retirement needs as well as with getting an adequate amount of baseline coverage for work injuries. Will MOM be able to provide an update on discussions at the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers?

Inclusive growth should create opportunities for seniors, workers with special needs and those with caregiving responsibilities. With the increasing prevalence of Flexible Work Arrangements including work hours, how will MOM encourage employers to sustain these arrangements? Can we create second careers for our seniors who are still able and willing to work but do not want to work full-time? Can the Ministry consider promoting flexible work arrangement, flexible work hours and work-sharing to create opportunities for these individuals?

Even as we make adjustments to foreign worker policies, to increase its effectiveness, we must progress on fair employment opportunities. How are we progressing at legislating TAFEP guidelines to ensure fair employment practices and treatment at the workplace?

Beyond supporting our workers, we must also ensure that students from all background are given equal opportunities to excel in the skills-based economy. How is our education system preparing our students for employment in a skills-based economy? For students in our ITEs and Polytechnics, can MOE consider apprenticeship schemes where students can work with experienced staff from industry partners, learning job-specific skills and gaining applied competency? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In the future, Singapore will face an ageing population, with one in four Singaporeans above the age of 65 by 2030. We also believe that we need to continue to help senior citizens and less fortunate families in our society. This means that our healthcare and social needs will increase, while the resources required to support the increase will be limited.

I am heartened that this Budget shows that we remain committed to inclusive economic growth. The KidSTART and UPLIFT programmes will be expanded further to help more underprivileged students. The Progressive Wage Model will be extended to other industries and wage increases for low-wage workers will be co-funded under the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme.

The Workfare Income Supplement scheme will also be enhanced. The qualifying monthly income cap for the scheme has been raised, the age eligibility has been extended and the payout increased especially for persons with disabilities. These programmes, among others, aim to ensure a fair and inclusive Singapore.

This Budget is a balanced budget, which provides support to workers, businesses and households to tackle the challenges due to the pandemic, and at the same time, it also prepares us for a more challenging future by transforming our businesses, developing new capabilities and investing in our people.

However, several areas can be improved:

The first is how the "Committee Against Profiteering" can prevent businesses from profiteering from the GST hike. Second, in light of future challenges, how do we remain relevant in the global economy and drive sector-specific industry transformation via the Industry Transformation Maps? Third, we must continue our journey towards inclusive growth by providing assistance for platform workers, providing job opportunities for senior citizens who still wish to work and special needs workers and, and also address workplace discrimination through TAFEP legislation.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a balanced Budget. it provides support to workers, businesses and households in tackling the immediate challenges brought about by the pandemic while positioning ourselves to be future ready, by continuing our journey towards transforming our businesses, developing new capabilities and investing in our people. I am heartened that we continue to invest in our people and strengthen our social compact. We have always committed ourselves towards inclusive growth and we will continue to do so.

Notwithstanding the clarifications above, I rise in support of the Budget.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

In the concluding paragraphs of the Budget Statement, the Finance Minister highlighted how various sectors of Singapore society rose to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. He applauded the Singapore spirit, as seen from frontline workers to those who set up community care facilities to the footballers and fans at the AFF Suzuki Cup semi-final. He was emphatic that Singapore would always prevail so long as we stood side by side in solidarity with one another.

There is nothing to disagree with this. That said, two years on into the pandemic, it is appropriate to start evaluating how governments and people across the world responded to the pandemic, not just in terms of the health and economic impacts, but also what lessons or hints can be drawn about a nation’s culture and innovative potential.

One analysis early on into the pandemic studied how 57 countries around the world responded to the pandemic. This study was published early last year in The Lancet by Prof Michele Gelfand, a cultural psychologist at the University of Maryland, USA and several colleagues. Prof Gelfand divided the countries based on whether they had “tight” or “loose” cultures.

Thus, for instance, countries like China and Singapore were classified as having tight cultures, in that our societies tended to be highly respectful of rules and norms; contrast this with a country like the United States, where people tended to defy them. She observed, unsurprisingly, that loose countries had more difficulties enforcing social distancing measures due to the attitude of the people to rules; this in turn was associated with more COVID-19 deaths and serious illness in loose countries compared to tight countries.

To be clear, these findings were more about the culture of the people rather than what the state did. For us here, classified as a tight culture, Singaporeans have fared well to comply with rules and guidance; this has contributed to keeping the overall health impacts of COVID in Singapore at a relatively manageable level.

In talking about Prof Gelfand’s study some months later, CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria went further. He noted that as the COVID-19 pandemic raged on, the development of vaccines shed another dimension on tight and loose cultures. He observed that some of the loosest countries, which fared poorly in managing the pandemic through social distancing measures, were the most innovative and dynamic at developing, procuring and distributing the vaccine. These loose countries included the United States, Britain, Israel and Chile. Mr Zakaria posited that the very traits that made it hard to follow social distancing rules, were the ones that helped generate the solution to the problem. He concluded that these loose countries benefitted from the creativity, risk-taking and rule-breaking that was endemic in their people. Today, it is clear how these solutions have benefited humankind across the globe.

While Singapore has done relatively well in the pandemic for health outcomes, it would be opportune to do a stock-take of how we did to invent or create solutions for COVID-19. On the one hand, there are some indications of significant breakthroughs. For instance, it was reported that a Singapore team from Duke-NUS had developed a COVID-19 neutralising antibody test kit, which was the first of its kind to get approval from the American Food and Drug Administration. Another example is the COVID-19 PCR test kit developed by DSO National Laboratories, that did not require reagents to process samples. On the other hand, despite some initial hype, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has yet to approve for public use any Singapore manufactured vaccine or Antigen Rapid Test kit for home use, arguably two of the most critical resources needed in the pandemic.

Speaker, a lack of locally manufactured solutions is not just a matter of national pride. We have experienced first-hand how, in a global pandemic, needing to procure supplies from abroad subjects us to market forces and has resulted in supply shortages.

On a related note, the Budget Statement highlighted that the mRNA vaccine manufacturer, BioNTech, will establish a manufacturing facility here. I also note the recent announcement that work has started on a new vaccine manufacturing facility at Depot Road by Hilleman Laboratories. This facility is part of efforts by the Economic Development Board to strengthen capabilities across the biopharmaceutical manufacturing value chain. These are reassuring developments.

Nevertheless, we should strive to move up the value chain, to be the owners of such intellectual property. This raises the more general question: what is the state of Singapore’s capacity to innovate?

According to the Global Innovation Index 2021 published by the World Intellectual Property Office, Singapore ranked overall eighth globally, and has been in the top 10 list for more than a decade. When one drills down further to why Singapore is ranked highly, we see that this is mainly due to its institutions and market and business sophistication. We did not fare so well in the area of Creative Outputs and Knowledge and Technology Outputs. For a high income country, we were ranked especially weak in the areas of Knowledge Creation and the Registration of Trademarks and Industrial Designs. For the 2021 ranking, it is notable that South Korea shot to fifth position and overtook Singapore. The report highlighted that countries like South Korea were particularly active in commercialising and patenting inventions in health-related technologies during the pandemic. South Korea was especially strong in registering patents, trademarks and industrial designs.

Sir, we should do some introspection on why we seem to be somewhat lagging in the area of Creative Outputs and Knowledge and Technology Outputs. As a high-income country, we can contribute more to improve the quality of life for humankind. Do we need to do more to nurture creativity and risk-taking? Are there other inhibitors in Singapore’s ecosystem that need to be addressed? These need constant review.

Sir, the other point I wish to make today concerns inclusivity of the Budget Statement. Budget 2022 is entitled “Charting Our New Way Forward Together”. If one looks at its coverage, it does indeed provide measures that support a broad church – from business to households and workers. It also imposes increased obligations on the more able to contribute more to the public purse, while accelerating salary increases for many low-wage workers.

On GST, my Workers’ Party colleagues have explained why we do not think the GST hike is necessary. For my part, I will just make an observation on the household illustrations used in the Budget Statement on the expected impact of the GST increase.

From paragraphs 286 to 287 of the Budget Statement, and also Annex F-3, there are four household scenarios highlighted. It will be noted that all the households comprise of a wedded couple living in an HDB flat, mostly with children; if the couple is of working age, the husband is always older and always earns more than the wife. There is a further assumption that all household members are Singapore Citizens.

To be fair, the Ministry may have used them because the scenarios are typical. However, these illustrations may inadvertently alienate Singaporeans whose households do not fit into the traditional structure. They also reinforce the stereotype of the man being the major breadwinner. In addition, these households may experience less severe impacts from the GST increase than other types of households, due to more offsets.

I wonder if the Ministry could, in future, be broader in its illustrations to capture some other types of households. Such other types of households, which are not uncommon, include divorced families, families with a foreign spouse and adult singles living with elderly parents. In addition, from a gender perspective, I feel that there is no need for the illustrations to stipulate the amounts earned by husbands and wives separately. Instead, the indication of the combined household income would suffice.

By including some other types of households, we can have a fuller picture of the impact of tax changes on different segments of society. More importantly, I believe including them would have an important signalling effect that every household, whatever its composition, is part and parcel of the Singapore compact.

Sir, to conclude, I have spoken today on how the COVID-19 pandemic has tested countries not just in terms of how to contain the virus, but also pointed to the environments which appear to promote the finding of inventive solutions. Singapore would do well if it finds a balance between tightness and looseness. I have also made an observation about the household illustrations used in the Budget, which in my view could be more inclusive.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Mr Speaker. First, let me just say thank our Finance Minister Lawrence Wong, as well as the team from MOF for putting up this particular Budget that is forward-looking as we move towards the post-pandemic phase to build a greener, as well as more inclusive Singapore.

During the last financial crisis in 2008, the Government dipped into our national reserves to support the economy and the amount utilised was probably returned when the economy rebounded strongly, post-crisis. This time, the Government has again deep into our national reserves for the pandemic, and the amount utilised is actually much larger compared to the last crisis. Using the same lyrics that was from last year's National Day song – that "we did it before and we'll do it again" – or just wondering whether will the Government be doing it again, and how and when the Government will be able to recoup and return the drawdowns that have been made during the pandemic so that we can return the reserves to our future generations.

I will focus my speech now on three areas that affects the poor, the rich and all. First, inflation. Second, the tax system. Last, clean energy.

On inflation, we are already feeling the pinch of inflation even before the Budget statement was made. The rise in petrol prices, the higher electrical tariffs, supply chain disruption, higher labour costs arising from the pandemic have triggered across-the-board rise in the cost of living. HDB resale price went up, private property prices went up. Public transport fares were increased last year. School bus transport fees were increased. Childcare services fees were also increased and taxi fares are all going up.

Cooking oil and eggs prices are also moving up. Even throwing rubbish cost for now, as refuse removal fees was increased; and soon, even the plastic bags will cost some money, if you collect plastic bags from the supermarket. And having a sugary drink itself may cost more if the Government decides to implement a sugar tax.

Inflation is making in-roads into the pockets of the man-on-the-street, especially the lower socio-economic groups. We have heard rumblings of higher cost of living as the people struggle to adjust with the cost to the loss of purchasing power. Salaries, if there had been any increases at all, are unable to fend off the rise in the cost of transport, cost of food, as well as other essential household items and healthcare services. And this Budget, we will see a higher GST next year, a higher carbon tax next year, which fuel inflation to an even higher level.

The combined effects of the trio – GST increase, carbon tax increase and wages increase – cannot be underestimated. The cost of running businesses is rising rapidly, although there are various packages from the Government to cushion the impact on the operational overheads.

Yes, under the 2012 Progressive Wage Model (PWM), the salaries of local lower-wage workers were increased. Employees' salaries went up by 3.3% in 2021 compared to 3.6% in 2019 and it is expected to rise by 3.5% in 2022, according to Mercer's 2021 Total Remuneration Survey (TRS). However, Singapore's headline inflation in 2021 was 3.9% to 4%. So, these numbers show how inflation is eating into the worker's income.

GST was first introduced in 1994, with a 3% rate. Headline inflation then was 3.1% in 1994, and it dipped to 1.7% in 1995. MAS allowed the currency to appreciate steadily during this phase. This helped to contain overall domestic inflationary pressures. I take reference from the MAS "50 Years of Inflation Experience in Singapore" that was published by Macroeconomic Review October last year.

In 2003, GST was raised to 4% and again to 5% in 2004, and it was up again from 5% to 7% in 2007. In the latter half of the 2000s, exchange rate policy was generally tightened as Singapore's headline inflation rose rapidly, from 0.5% to 6.6% in 2008. This increase was attributed to the backdrop of strong global commodity prices and also partly due to the China's rapid economic growth and other emerging economies. According to MAS, this was estimated to add around 0.4% to 0.5% to headline inflation each year in 2007 and 2008. During this period, the price of crude oil increased significantly due to heightened uncertainty, leading to a short bout of high inflation. In 2008, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose above 5% for two months due to skyrocketing gas prices – sounds déjà vu again. By the third quarter of 2008, the effect of the US banking crisis impacted our economy. This resulted in Singapore being hit by recession.

By allowing our Singapore currency to appreciate, it will help to cushion the inflation of imported goods and services but it will also harm our businesses by making our exports more expensive and reduce our competitiveness.

While Singaporeans note that the Government has an offset package in place to cushion the effect of the GST rise, they argued that this offset package is only temporary. The inflationary effect on the cost of living is permanent. And they worry for their children and grandchildren having to live with this high costs. And, for businesses, their biggest overheads – wages, rental and property prices, only go one way – they will go up. Once business costs go up, this will also affect all consumers. Are we chasing our own tail? As we push for more wage increase for Singaporeans especially the lower-income group, business cost will also have to go up and inflation will increase and erode the purchasing power of these workers.

Mr Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Government has pledged to do more, if inflation becomes more persistent and more serious than expected. I would like to raise the question: what is the projected acceptable medium and long-term inflation numbers? If inflation goes up, it hits people's savings especially the poor, the elderly and retirees. They would feel the drop in their buying power, and everything is more expensive for them. Those with savings would find themselves digging deeper, further into their savings than before. What may previously be an adequate amount of retirement funds could now become insufficient.

How are we to manage wage increases to go up in tandem with this inflation? Otherwise, the Government's efforts in helping the workers and employers with the Wage Credit Scheme would be a futile effort. We need to examine this carefully and how are we to manage inflation when the GST rise kicks in.

Next, on the tax system. The big question is that is it progressive enough or is this just the beginning?

Mr Speaker, I agree that progressive tax changes include the latest income tax levied. But there is one area where I feel we should take a closer look; that is the property tax. I feel that there is more room for adjustment. From the current Budget, I do not see how the Government can recover the expenses that the Government requires in the coming years in order to reduce the deficit. Recently, we kept hearing news of record transacted prices of Good Class Bungalows. Should we have done more to make property tax more progressive, especially for the top-end properties like in this category?

Our tax system is based on the annual value of the property which is as I understand is computed based on the imputed rental value of the property. Because of the land area of GCB compared with a high-rise and more densely populated condominium, the property tax levied on GCB is comparatively lower. The expanse of land for a condominium would include the many facilities and car parks, but the density is much higher, even for HDB blocks. They could be paying much more property tax per square foot than a GCB.

So, my question is – Singapore has only 728 square kilometres of land, of which 14% is allocated for residential housing. What is the total amount of property tax on residential property that the Government collects every year from this? And what is the distribution of this property tax going by housing type, such as GCB, various landed properties, low and high-rise condominiums as well as HDB properties? Besides this, I would like to ask whether there is a differentiation between a freehold and lease hold property in the computation of property tax? If not, why?

I would like to ask about property developers who sell their housing projects on a 99-year lease basis but using their freehold or 999-year lease land. Do these companies pay any tax on the value that they are holding since the ownership of the land will go back to them after the expiry of the 99-year lease? Otherwise, it would seem that these companies or developers are allowed to hold value without paying any taxes for 99 years.

Since the Government need to increase revenue to support the long-term needs of an ageing population, why were sin taxes, such as gambling, alcohol and cigarette taxes, not increased in this Budget? Increasing sin taxes will encourage Singaporeans to adopt a healthier lifestyle and help our Government to support the revenue.

My last topic will be on sustainability and clean energy. I agree with Dr Tan Wu Meng on what he said yesterday. Singapore is a small city state of just over 700 square kilometres. The limited size that we have also limits the amount of renewable energy that we can harvest. Even if we put a solar panel on the whole island, we will still not generate enough energy to meet our daily needs. So, my next question is: is it realistic for Singapore to aim for carbon zero?

Between land for housing, transport, security, healthcare, education and a whole suite of economic infrastructure, we also push out land for infrastructure for Electric Vehicles (EVs) in public and private housing estates, office buildings, public roads and carparks. I know we have embarked on tapping solar energy and explored many other avenues to reduce our carbon footprint, but is it enough?

I know that the Government has been working to import clean energy from ASEAN and various countries. All these are fine, as long as the relationship between countries are good and stable and the supply countries do not face any disruption or any sudden domestic needs increase. With climate change causing a heightened frequency and intensity of climate disasters in our supply countries, this is a real threat. The concerns over our energy security, as well as resilience, arises if we are significantly rely and depend on external supplies.

The events in Europe are a good eye-opener of how energy prices shot up amidst the disruption and the supply of gas and because of conflicts between countries. However, only France seems to be in a better place than the rest of Europe because its electricity supply is supplied by its own nuclear power plants and this accounts for more than two-thirds of its total electricity generation in 2021.

In the Far East, Hong Kong, which is slightly bigger than us, about 1,106 square kilometres, gets its electricity generated from coal, natural gas and also nuclear energy. Hong Kong gets its electricity from a nuclear power plant that is in Guangdong, the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station.

I have raised this question previously before, that was before the nuclear incident in Japan occurred, whether will Singapore consider nuclear energy. I also raised this question in a written Parliamentary Question (PQ) as well to MTI earlier this year and Minister Gan Kim Yong has replied as a written reply to say that Singapore supports the international effort to strengthen the global nuclear safety as well as the security architecture. But the question is: how far are we from there?

I appreciate the response, that Singapore can give some priority to review the tapping of nuclear energy as part of our option to use clean energy, to meet our commitment to the global community on environmental sustainability, technological advances in micro nuclear reactors will enhance safety, reliability as well as cost effectiveness. We need to keep an open mind and tap this option in the future to enhance our energy security and resilience and reduce our dependence on other countries. With that, Mr Speaker, I do support the Budget.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, Budget 2022 is a step in the right direction, in many ways. Even as the Workers' Party disagrees with the key proposal of the GST hike. In my speech, I would like to talk about a carbon tax, our transitions in the petrochemicals and industry and transport, before touching on the GST impact on healthcare costs.

Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party has been supportive of a carbon tax when it was first mooted. We recognise that the Government has finally thought it appropriate to raise the common tax to a level in line with international standards to help Singapore achieve a net-zero and emissions ambition. We support the move to see the common tax raise progressively to a target between $50 and $80 dollars by 2030. This is still broadly similar to the range as proposed by my colleague, the hon member for Sengkang, Assoc Prof James Lim, in his previous speeches.

It will impose a temporary cause to Singaporeans, but we are of the view that when we do become a green economy, the impact of the carbon taxes will be reduced. However, I like to seek a clarification from the Minister on whether there are any efforts to extend the carbon tax to companies that emit less than 25,000 tonnes of GHGs per annum to enhance our efforts toward a net-zero ambition. I also hope that the Government will present more details on how they intend to mitigate the impact of the increase of the carbon tax on our households beyond the U-Save vouchers.

Mr Speaker, I wish to further address the important issue of Singapore's green transition. This is an important subject, given the carbon taxes increase over the next eight years and to aim to achieve net-zero emissions, by or around mid-century. Although some details, such as the exact day of the net-zero achievement and of the transition framework for emissions, intensive and trade expo sectors, as well as the exact quantum of the additional U-Save rebates to help mitigate the cost increases to businesses and households, have not been released, this is a step in the right direction for Singapore. The Workers' Party agrees with the need to transit our economy to a green one as soon as it is practical.

However, the Workers' Party also recognises that while decarbonisation is necessary, it will also impose a cost. This is especially so if we are to provide climate leadership for our citizens and in this region.

Singapore has taken some early measures on sustainable development, such as switching to natural gas for electricity generation instead of more pollutive fuel oil, imposed a vehicle quota system to cap vehicle growth and has introduced a suite of mitigation measures to decarbonize our industry, buildings and households sector.

We now have a bolder carbon tax trajectory and improve our net-zero climate ambition. Therefore, we need to think carefully about how to bring about this change and not leave anyone behind.

In my speech during the "Towards a Low-carbon Society" Motion last month, I have argued that we are in need of a just transition, one that is inclusive and equips those who work here and plan to work here with the necessary know-how, to access good job opportunities in the sustainability sector. Today, I wish to talk about the need for a just transition within the petrochemicals industry.

There have been movements towards a greener transition within our petrochemical industry. In November last year, Shell has announced that it is halving its crude processing capacity at its Singapore hub and reduce fuel exports. The oil major, a major part of our oil and gas industry, is intending to transit from fossil fuels to cut emissions and meet lobal low-carbon energy needs. This is part of a wider global trend in a transition towards lower carbon fuels and it undoubtedly will affect Singapore.

Earlier this year, students from the group Students for A Fossil-free Future (S4F), produced a 68-page report calling for universities to divest from fossil fuels. I empathised with the concerns of these students. They have proposed that Singapore Universities seek sustainable alternatives to linkages with the fossil fuel industry and implement climate crisis education over the short, medium and long-term.

However, while it is true that we do need to transition, what does that mean for the petrochemical industry in Singapore in its current form? We know that our petrochemical industry has been a strategic pillar of our industrial sector. According to a 2019 answer by MTI to a Parliamentary Question (PQ), the energy and chemicals industry contributes nearly 3% of our GDP and employs about 28,000 people in 2017, with the majority in their 30s and 40s. The number went down to 27,000 in 2020, according to MTI's answer to my PQ in April 2021.

Mr Speaker, any growing resistance in Singapore against the oil and gas industry may mean a talent pipeline disruption in this strategic pillar. In 2019, Singapore was the world's fourth biggest exporter of refined petroleum, and fuels and chemicals accounted for around 23% of our total merchandise trade, according to data from the World Bank and the Observatory of Economic Complexity. We are also a regional trading centre for coal, natural gas and oil products and support dozens of finance houses that specialise in the said commodities. More than a hundred global chemical companies have operations in the city.

As noted above, Singapore's linkages into the current brown economy are deep. And while we build for the economy of the future, the reality is that if we take away the manpower and capital in the petrochemical industry abruptly, we will cut the oxygen prematurely at a time when our green ambitions have only just begun. And there is still a need for some petrochemicals in the modern green economy as some petrochemicals can be found in modern solar panels, modern wind turbines and batteries, to name but a few.

Therefore, I ask that the Government provide more details on how it intends to manage the green transition in our petrochemicals industry and if Singapore will continue to attract and keep parts of the petrochemicals industry in Singapore that are relevant for the green economy. In the Committee of Supply debates, I will focus on the manpower transition in the industry with the hope that Singapore will be adequately prepared for the transition so that our Singaporean workers, young and old, will be able to be optimally employed in the sector as it undergoes the green transition and that we will not need to rely on or import significant foreign manpower.

Mr Speaker, I next move to some updates from the Minister on our drive towards electrification of the vehicles on our roads.

Last month. I filed a question to the Minister for Transport asking for the total number of electric vehicle chargers installed in 2021 and the expected number of EV chargers that will be installed progressively over 2022 and 2025. Minister S Iswaran said that there were around 2,200 electric vehicle charging points in Singapore, of which, 300 were installed by commercial operators in the past year. In 2022, there will be more than 600 charging points deployed at public car parks under the joint LTA-URA pilot tender, in addition to charging points in other locations like private residences, malls and petrol stations. The Minister also said that LTA will continue to monitor EV adoption trends and accelerate the deployment of our EV charging network where necessary to meet our 2030 target of 60,000 charging points island-wide. The year 2200 appears a long way off the target of 60,000 in eight years' time and I would like to ask the Minister again what are the Government's progressive targets over the next few years and how does the Government plan to step up on the installation of public EV chargers.

Last year, in my Budget debate speech, I also mentioned that having a critical number of charging points required in all residential commercial car parks and public car parks as well as the design of the car parks and the siting of the EV charging points are important. Singapore is unlike other countries like the US or Australia, where most people have the luxury of charging their cars in their own garage overnight. The minimum charging time, even with an incomplete charge with a fast charger, may still lead to queues in HDB or condo car parks, if there are insufficient chargers or if the chargers are inappropriately sited.

A year on, I would like to ask the Minister what the Government's experience with the installation of our initial chargers over the past year has been. Has the Government done any study to establish a suitable ratio of EV chargers versus the number of cars per car park? Will the public car parks be adopting all fast chargers or will there be a combination of fast and slow chargers? Does the Government have any specific planning requirements for the design of car parks in public, private residential or commercial buildings in respect of the installation and siting of EV chargers in car parks to minimise waiting time and avoid any traffic blockage caused by vehicles waiting for charging? For existing car parks, does the Government foresee that some or all car parks may require modifications? If modifications are required, would the assistance offered by way of the current EV common charger grant to MCSTs be sufficient?

Not unlike ICE cars, most vehicles, except for commercial vehicles, will not require daily charging. However, drivers will still have to develop new habits of charging their cars with some forward planning. ICE cars may need just 10 minutes in petrol kiosks. But, for EVs, queuing time aside, typically, a fast charger may take between 30 and 40 minutes for up to an 80% charge, and a slow charger may take up to eight hours for a full charge. Technology is, of course, improving constantly, but depending on the number of cars waiting for charging at any one time, an HDB car park with, say, just three to four chargers, may still possibly create queuing time not currently seen with ICE cars in petrol stations, even with charging operators charging a penalty charge for drivers who leave their cars beyond the charging time required. Will MOT consider using public education messaging on wise and considerate use of public chargers so that we can start engendering good and considerate habits with our drivers while the EV numbers are still small and growing, just as we also want to encourage our ICE drivers not to use slots reserved for EV charging?

It is good to get these issues right as early as possible so that we can minimise the waiting time and enhance charging access for EV owners. Importantly, this will, in turn, have an impact on our efforts to persuade more vehicle owners to convert earlier to the use of EVs.

Mr Speaker, I next move on briefly to the proposed GST hike. As I have mentioned earlier, the Workers' Party recognises the costs that the decarbonisation move will impose on Singaporeans. Therefore, the GST hike comes at an inopportune time for Singaporeans, many of whom are dealing with record consumer price inflation. I echo my other Workers' Party colleagues who are asking for the GST hike to be implemented only as a last resort.

Mr Speaker, I am aware that the Finance Minister has provided assistance packages to cushion the impact of the proposed GST increases. Apart from the adequacy of such packages, I note that the assistance package is only available for a few years. As for the enhancement to the permanent GST Voucher Scheme, those with an assessable income beyond $34,000 will not be receiving any assistance, a sharp cliff where, for some, these packages may no longer apply should they earn more. I note that GST has only gone up and has never gone down, even if assistance packages will adequately cushion the impact for low-income earners and even the lower-middle middle class in the short term.

The eventuality is that the GST increase will be a burden on the middle class, increasing their costs of living. And as the sandwich class, this may be something they can less afford, as compared to higher income groups above them. In particular, we need to pay attention to Singaporeans in their 30s to 50s, but the vast majority are not just paying for necessities for themselves but also for their parents and their children. The compounded pain that households will have to deal with is not something we should ignore out of hand. This is particularly so as we expect an ageing population to come in the near future. According to a Straits Times report on 27 July 2021, citing figures from Census 2020, residents aged 65 years and above form 15.2% of the resident population in 2020, up from 9% in 2010.

About one in four will be above 65 in 2030 and a corresponding increase in old-age dependency is to be expected. Singaporeans will be facing more questions on out-of-pocket healthcare prices. The Government has argued that the Government's healthcare expenditure will increase significantly, but the out-of-pocket costs of healthcare paid for by the people will also increase as a result of the GST hike. While subsidised patients in public hospitals and polyclinics do not pay any GST, the GST on the goods and services provided by GST-registered private clinics and non-structured hospitals that Singaporeans do go to are not absorbed by the Government. GST also applies to premiums of Shield and group medical insurance plans. Can the Government assure Singaporeans that the hike in GST will not mean that Singaporeans are going to pay more in their out-of-pocket healthcare costs?

Mr Speaker, let me conclude. While Budget 2022 can be said to be matching our climate ambitions to the international standards, the devil is, of course, in the details as we will need to transition away from our current economic structure at some cost. I look forward to more details from the Government on how it intends to manage the transition, particularly within the petrochemical industry, and the move towards electric vehicles.

Mr Don Wee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I am the Adviser to the Union of ITE Training Staff on a pro bono basis. I am heartened that the Finance Minister is committed to making more investments in our people and social infrastructure to strengthen our social compact. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In our rapidly ageing country, each of our youths becomes even more precious. The Government and the community should invest in and develop our youths, especially those coming from disadvantaged families, and help them grow and learn in a healthy way. Youths nurtured with care will grow up to be successful and contribute to our country.

The Government should allocate more resources to help disadvantaged families to help minimise the adverse impact of family problems on teenagers.

When families are struggling, the Government needs to step in quickly to prevent their situation from deteriorating further. A stitch in time saves nine! Many youth problems, such as school absenteeism, delinquency and addictions, can be prevented if we intervene early to nip the problems in the bud.

(In English): Will the Government elaborate on how we will strengthen our framework to identify families in crisis more quickly? I applaud the scaling up of the ComLink initiative nationwide to 21 towns. I hope there will be a teenage version of Comlink. How can we hire, retain and train more family support counsellors to help vulnerable families navigate the assistance schemes available to them?

All youths benefit from caring role models, guidance and advice for their studies and future careers. For disadvantaged youths, these are even more vital in order for them to get out of the poverty cycle. How can we increase accessibility to mentorship opportunities and provide better internship and career placement support to them?

In the latest survey conducted by Young NTUC, youths and young adults ranked mentorship opportunities the second most useful in terms of career-related resources but they also noted that they have little access to them.

In 2020 and 2021, when physical events were curtailed, Young NTUC organised virtual career mentoring sessions. I understand that about 1,200 youths took part. There was a high demand. Hence, I urge the Government to provide more funding to organisations, such as Young NTUC, that run mentorship programmes to support the recruitment and training of mentors and ensure their quality.

Better internship and career placement support is also important. I would like to request for more Government incentives to encourage companies to provide internship opportunities for our youths. Funding is needed for allowance subsidies and to support various components of an internship programme, such as the training of company supervisors.

I also hope that the Government will consider giving incentives to spur sectoral tripartite cooperation to build a more systemic approach in curating internship and placement opportunities.

Creating an internship of quality requires input and cooperation among the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), employers and Government agencies. Companies need more help to design good internship programmes that enable the students to gain work experience, make meaningful contributions and gain insights of the industry. These should help the students gain clarity on their career options and make informed postgraduate choices.

We should encourage youths to go beyond their compulsory school internships today and embark on additional ones if possible.

Internships should also benefit companies as opportunities to spot potential talents and employees. We need to change our employers’ attitude towards interns and internships as temporary exercises. Internships should be taken seriously as part of a firm’s long-term human resource management. If our youths have positive experiences, we may be able to address the problem of local manpower shortage for certain vocations and industries.

A promising approach is to get the employers, unemployed youths and the IHLs to come together to develop a work-study experience. It can be an apprenticeship plus internship programme or a conversion programme where they learn before commencing work. This method had proven quite effective for Work-Study Diplomas, a mid-career switch conversion programme. However, the process to develop and approve new courses can take some time. To expedite, the Government, through MOM or NTUC, can take the lead and drive each sector's development in this area.

Would the Government also consider providing funds to help unemployed graduates as union members? As members, they are entitled to the equivalent of student passes so that they can get further job placements or skills training.

It is also important to support ITE students and youths-in-transition from school to the workplace and provide programmes to build up their experiences through internship opportunities. For certain sectors, due to limited internship opportunities, they get some exposure through school projects but this is not the same as work experience.

Special needs youths need help to secure internship opportunities too. Both the youths and employers would need customised training and support to make sure that the work arrangements can be sustained. Would the Government please provide more funds and support to incentivise companies to be more inclusive?

I would also like to ask for more funding to support IHLs to develop Continuing Education and Training modules with input from sector leaders and companies. Such an ecosystem will facilitate the development of updated training programmes, which are relevant and in demand by industries.

An excellent example of a multi-parties' involvement for training is Google's Skills Ignition SG programme, a partnership between Google, EDB, IMDA and SkillsFuture. The programme involves online vocational and on-the-job learning with local and global host companies.

Indeed, a tripartite approach is the most promising one to ensure timely and relevant curriculum development and good matches to place the trained participants.

In recent years, there has been a sharp increase in the number of platform workers. We need to rethink our approach to supporting their welfare.

A key factor contributing to the gig economy's expansion was the improvement of digital technology. This facilitated the matching of workers to tasks. However, the relationship between these technology companies and assigned workers is unequal and heavily weighed in favour of the firms, which have access to the data, customers and a wide pool of non-union, unorganised workers. The tech companies have no obligation to the independent workers, which mostly include private hire drivers and food delivery couriers.

As independent service providers, they are not employees and thus are not entitled to employee rights such as sick leave, mandatory leave, CPF contributions, medical expenses, so on and so forth. Therefore, although they have flexibility and autonomy, the fact is that they have limited bargaining power and will find it hard to earn a sustaining wage if they do not work full-time.

While many platform workers are young and work part-time, now, the number of full-timers are also significant. As a gauge, consider in 2018, 8% to 10% of Singapore's resident workforce was self-employed or they did full-time independent work. It is time for us to review their work conditions and consider if we should amend legislation to require platform companies to treat the full-time platform worker as employees as well as to allow them to form unions to protect their rights, including fair and timely payment.

Presently, they are prone to exploitation and have very little say on how much they get paid – they are price takers – and in order to make a decent living, which include the incentive pay, which comes with completing certain assigned jobs, they have to work long hours to reach their target wages.

Due to low barriers of entry, the jobs are attractive to those who have difficulty finding other jobs due to low levels of education, lack of skillsets or credentials, or other reasons, such as a prior criminal record. While they provide a much needed and in-demand service, they are in dead-end jobs with no prospect of progression. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To residents of Chua Chu Kang, and platform workers, my fellow Members of Parliament and I will help you get fair wages and rights.

(In English): The least we can do for them is to ensure that they have representation via unions and are treated fairly, in another words, with the full rights and entitlements of employees.

Finally, I would like to speak on the topic of carbon taxes.

With the changes in carbon taxes, companies will face increasing pressure to transform. However, the cost of transformation will ultimately be passed on to the consumers and lead to higher costs of living. With inflation and logistics challenges due to the pandemic, ordinary families will face financial pressures. SMEs will also face challenges dealing with the higher carbon taxes.

Singapore is the first or the only Southeast Asian country to introduce a carbon tax. While I support our efforts to go green, both figuratively and literally, I am very worried about the impact on our middle- and lower-income families and the competitiveness of our local SMEs. I hope the Government will assist them more over the transition period.

With this, I would like to conclude with my support for the Budget.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap.

Sir, there are two parts to my speech. First, I will cover the topic of a caring and inclusive society, which I will deliver in English. For the second part, I will speak on a couple of issues related to the Malay/Muslim community in Malay.

Sir, the constant feature of almost every Budget tabled in this Chamber has been efforts to build a caring and inclusive society. This year was no different. With this in mind, I would like to use my speech to invite the Government and every Member of this House to reflect on the issues that are faced by certain segments of our fellow Singaporeans who may still feel marginalised.

For those who belong to these segments, the phrase "caring and inclusive society" may provoke anger and disappointment rather than any joy or pride.

Sir, let us start by identifying who these people are and what the reasons are for their discontent. They are the ones who face challenges in their respective lives due to certain existing Government policies. I want to highlight the difficulties they face and make some suggestions that could alleviate the hardship these citizens face. The issues I am about to cover are not new. Rather, they have been discussed before and been raised repeatedly by many Members from both sides of this House, including myself.

Sir, the first marginalised group I wish to highlight are our fellow countrymen who are low-income earners and are low-income motorcyclists who depend on motorcycles to support themselves and their families.

In November 2021, I put forth an Adjournment Motion on the ever-increasing issues of motorcycle COEs. I proposed some suggestions which I felt could reduce the burden on motorcyclists and motorcycle owners. In responding to the Motion, MOT agreed on how the high COE prices burden motorcycle owners, especially those belonging to the low-income segments. The Ministry said it would monitor the situation and will assess what were the best measures that could be taken to address the matter.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask MOT whether it has any updates to share with the House relating to this matter, about four months after the Adjournment Motion.

Sir, the COE prices for motorcycles had already crossed the $10,000 mark. I would like to know whether the Government considers this situation to be an appropriate one and what are the steps that have been or are being considered so that those who depend on the use of motorcycles to make a living do not face even deeper troubles as a result of this situation.

The second group of citizens are those whose spouse is not a Singaporean Citizen. The difficulty they face is in obtaining a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or Singaporean permanent residence or Singapore Permanent Resident status. I believe I do not need to elaborate at length as this matter has been raised repeatedly in this Chamber. However, I want to emphasise the negative implications stemming from the situation whereby applications for the Long-Term Visit Pass and permanent residence are rejected many times. I personally know some of my residents who face such situations, the implication of which is separation.

This is very sad, because it is far from demonstrating our caring and inclusive society that every Budget claims to want to achieve.

On this issue, the Workers' Party has specifically called for foreign spouses to be given priority for citizenship naturalisation if they apply after five years on their LTVP+, on the condition that they have been married to their current Singaporean spouse for three years or more and they have at least one child together.

Another stressful situation faced by individuals married to foreign spouses is the cost of schooling for the children of their spouses. That is, their stepchildren. They have to pay high school fees because their stepchildren are student pass holders.

For low-income earners, this is a very heavy burden. Many such individuals are destitute and find themselves out of options and solutions for their financial problems arising from the high school fees. Many of these individuals have already sought to obtain Permanent Resident status in the hope that their children would not be subject to high fees. However, many of those who have applied have been unsuccessful.

As a concern for Singaporeans experiencing such a situation, I would like to ask the Government to re-evaluate our immigration policy in order to provide relief in this situation. Alternatively, I recommend that MOE considers establishing a subsidy scheme for such students, especially for those from low-income families and where their stepfathers have legal guardianship status over them.

The next group who feels marginalised are divorcees: single mothers or fathers and also unwed single parents.

Many still suffer from failing to find a place to live. Although there are reform measures taken by the Government such as allowing single parents to buy subsidised flats without having to go through a development period and also allowing unwed single parents to purchase up to a 3-room flat in a non-mature estate from HDB or a resale flat, but I think more flexibility can be exercised to reduce the difficulties of this group.

This is worrying as there are still many restrictions in our public housing policies for unwed single parents as they and their children do not meet the criteria of a family nucleus under the existing rules. I and many other Members of Parliament have expressed our concerns on the matter and have been calling to abolish this unfavourable ruling and at the same time, to extend public housing benefits to all single parents regardless of their marital status.

I hope this issue can be given due attention and will result in more positive changes to HDB's existing housing policies.

There are two other concerns I have voiced in recent years, which I feel can have a positive impact in our effort in continuing to reinforce caring and inclusive values if they are addressed.

One is with respect to the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme, KiFAS.

I have asked on several occasions in this Chamber to have this scheme extended to students from low-income families who attend kindergartens run by non-profit organisations such as charities, voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and religious entities such as mosques and churches. This is because parents who wish to send their children to a kindergarten of their choice for certain reasons should not be sidelined or deprived of the opportunity to obtain financial assistance schemes. I do not think this is in line with inclusive values.

Full-time madrasah students may also feel excluded from society in some ways. While the move to provide all full-time students at madrasah with Edusave accounts is a welcome one, I note that the Edusave awards, which are presented to students who have performed well or shown good improvement in a mainstream school, remains unavailable to madrasah students.

Sir, at this point, I would like to declare that my daughter is a student at one of the full-time madrasah.

I would like to once again request MOE take additional inclusive measures by extending the Edusave award to full-time madrasah students.

Sir, the recognition of MOE through the Edusave award should not be limited to school students under the administration of the Ministry. Such awards should be extended to every Singaporean student to further strengthen efforts to inculcate inclusive values in our society, especially students.

Sir, the last category of individuals which I wish to highlight are those whose nationality is classified as unknown or stateless.

I have raised this matter in this House, previously citing two individuals who have sought my assistance on their dilemma of being stateless. Both of them were born and bred in Singapore and have never left this country as a result of their nationality status. One of them has to bear a heavier financial burden due to ineligibility for medical fee subsidies and the other is unable to access ComCare assistance. Having stayed in this country for the whole of their life and after giving their youth and energy to the building of this nation, they were repeatedly told of their unsuccessful applications and appeals for citizenship. Other Members of this House have also separately filed questions relating to the plight of the stateless.

According to the Minister for Home Affairs, as of end November 2020, there were 1,109 stateless individuals in Singapore, of which 76% have obtained Permanent Residence status. That still leaves another 266 individuals. I also note that the Minister for Manpower had said in January 2021 that there were no regulations preventing the employment of stateless persons. However, I note that there are several steps that prospective employers of stateless persons need to take before employing them.

Sir, I understand that the immigration authorities take this issue seriously and have to assess each application for Permanent Residency and Citizenship in detail before issuing their decision on whether to approve an application. I hope that the authorities will consider formulating streamlined policies to resolve the status of the stateless in Singapore. Sir, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to bring up a number of issues relating to the Malay-Muslim community, during this Budget debate as well as the Committee of Supply debate.

In today's debate, I would like to touch on two matters, that should be given due emphasis and attention to ensure the well-being of the Malay/Muslim community in Singapore. First, on home ownership and second, on education.

After almost 57 years of independence, Singapore has attained many commendable achievements. The excellence that we achieved is the result of having awareness, hard work accompanied by sweat and tears, in addition to the spirit, perseverance, commitment, determination and solidarity of our people with a touch of vision and aspiration. As the people of a multi-racial Singapore, we are cognizant that united we stand, divide we fall. As a result, we can see now that on the world stage, Singapore is increasingly known as an exceptional and reputable brand name.

We are a nation that is far ahead in many areas like economic growth, public administration, quality education, health services, anti-corruption and so on.

Sir, as Members are aware, Singapore’s excellent achievements today have made our citizens more educated, skilled and capable.

However, there are still many who are unable to say that they are self-sufficient. This is because we are facing critical challenges and problems, brought about by the wave of progress in the name of development, success and prosperity

In short, we all face the pressure of a very high cost of living. Just look at last January’s core inflation which has gone up by 2.4% on a year-on-year basis, reaching the highest level in nine years, driven by higher inflation in food, electricity and gas, as well as a smaller decline in the cost of retail and other goods. This was declared by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) in a joint statement on 23 February.

In this august Chamber, I would like to say clearly and plainly that the increase in prices of goods has adversely affected our people's cost of living.

In this challenging and increasingly stressful situation, the Malay community is the most affected. The Population Census showed that the number of Malay households living in 1-room and 2-room rental flats has more than doubled in 10 years, from around 9,100 in 2010 to 18,600 in 2020.

This, Mr Speaker, this is not progress but regression. If every rental flat is occupied by a family of four, it means 74,400 Malays are now living in a cramped, stressful and hampered manner. This comprises almost 15% of the entire Malay community in Singapore.

So, I would like to ask the Government; first, what is being done by the Government to improve the ability of Malays to purchase flats and therefore leave the rental flats? Second, how many Malays are living in HDB rental flats in 2021? Third, what are the Government’s short-term and medium-term plans to reduce the number of Malays living in 1-room and 2-room rental flats? Four, what is the Government's target to reduce the number of Malays living in rental flats by 2030?

Sir, moving on, I would like to know clearly the Government's plans on the education of Malay children, especially with regard to the Malay language. I am very concerned, looking at the growing number of our children who are more comfortable speaking in English. This will cause their command of the Malay language as their Mother Tongue to be eroded. In future, perhaps within another decade, Singaporean Malays will generally feel awkward speaking in their own language.

According to statistics from the 2020 Population Census, there were 38,668 Malay boys and girls aged 0 to 4 years old. Children at this age are at a critical stage in their growth development. With married couples focused on supporting families, most of these children are placed in childcare centres before being sent to kindergarten.

The upbringing and teaching of Malay Language, whether at home or at childcare centres, are equally important. However, I discovered from a reply by the Minister for Social and Family Development in April 2021 that 350 childcare centres provided Malay Language lessons beginning this year, despite having more than 1,800 preschools here. This means that only 19% of preschools here teach Malay Language. This is far from sufficient.

I acknowledge that it is important for our people to have a good command of English, and the bilingual policy adopted by the Government should ensure a balance for all mother tongues, including the Malay Language, and on this point, my concern is that if there is no concerted effort, the majority of our 38,668 Malay children will have difficulty mastering the Malay Language, much less being fluent in their Mother Tongue.

Moreover, the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) results showed a very clear indication that the percentage of Malay children who scored grade A* to C for the Malay Language had declined. The lowest percentage was 97.5% in 2020, and this downward trend began since the beginning of the new millennium in 2001. The Malay community cannot allow this decline to continue on. This is an early indication that a critical step must be taken to prevent this problem from worsening. Some may think that this decline is very small or negligible.

Therefore, on this issue, I would like to pose some questions to the Government on the education of Malay children. This will allow the community to know more clearly the Government's position and stand in ensuring that Malay children are not hindered from the opportunity to learn Malay Language from a young age. As the saying goes, bend the bamboo while it is still a bamboo shoot.

Sir, I have these questions for the Government.

First, what will the Government do to address the shortage of preschools offering the teaching of Mother Tongue? Will the Government provide a bigger allocation to attract more professionals to join the preschool teaching sector to teach the Malay language?

Second, what are the Government's plans to increase the number of preschools that can offer the teaching of Malay Language to meet the needs of the majority of the 38,668 children aged 0 to 4 years old, where currently only 350 preschools out of around 1,800 preschools that are doing so.

Third, what are the immediate steps that will be taken by the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs as well as the Mendaki Foundation to improve Malay language proficiency among primary school students who will sit for the PSLE. Generally we know that Mendaki Tuition Classes do not offer tuition in the Malay language.

Four, what is the near-term objective of the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) to address the lack of Malay Language teaching in preschools by 2030?

Sir, what I presented are part of several key issues that the Government needs to address with detailed answers. The Malay community is always told about our achievement and progress, and when we look that the available statistics, we can see a significant weakness over the last 10 years.

The issues highlighted must be addressed decisively and judiciously.

At the same time, we also seek the Government’s understanding to look into the living situation of Malays, with many increasingly living in rental flats. This has to be addressed quickly to extract them of the cycle and grip of poverty, and all the social problems that come with it.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the world has changed since the hon Minister for Finance delivered his Budget Statement on 18 February 2022. We heard an account of this from the hon Minister for Foreign Affairs in this House yesterday.

Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 in what has been described as the biggest invasion of a European country since World War II. In a flash, blood has been spilled. Families have been displaced. Worryingly, I see no end in sight in the immediate future.

Financial and economic sanctions on an unprecedented scale have been imposed on Russia by the US and EU countries. Singapore decided to follow suit and impose its own sanctions on Russia based on our principled approach to diplomacy. The hon Minister was quick to point out that our decision will come at a cost. We need to be prepared for this.

The consequence for the rest of the world is substantial and serious. Both Russia and Ukraine are substantial commodity producers. We have seen spikes in the prices of oil, gas and agricultural commodities. Singapore is not immune. We are already hit with the inflationary pressures arising from the pandemic and supply chain issues. These pressures are likely to worsen.

I trust that both sides of the House are solidly behind the hon Minister for Foreign Affairs’ condemnation of Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and call for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine to be respected. As he eloquently highlighted, our own short history as a tiny island city-state informs us that we too will always be vulnerable to machinations of big powers and must continually be prepared to guard against any existential threat to Singapore and fellow Singaporeans.

We have little influence in what happens globally. We are price takers. We have no choice but to take the world as it is. That is why our defence policy is based on the twin pillars of diplomacy which advocates a rule-based approach to settling international disputes in accordance with the UN Charter and international law; and deterrence, which involves a strong defence capability and ensuring that any enemy will know that there will be a big price to pay if they take us on.

It is these developments that have guided me to draw hon Members’ attention to one aspect of the Budget Statement which is not specifically spelt out but is the raison d’etre for a number of initiatives stated in the Budget, that is strengthening our nation’s resilience and robustness.

I am not using these terms interchangeably. I am guided by how Princeton professor Markus Brunnermeier has defined these terms in his book published last year titled “The Resilient Society”. He described “resilience” as the ability to rebound from a shock, whereas “robustness” is the ability to resist.

Closer to home, at NUS, environmental scholars at the Lee Kuan Yew School have defined “resilience” as R1 and R2. The first being an ability to mitigate and resist; the second, to adapt and flourish in new circumstances.

Whatever their names, the two are ways to respond to external shocks. More importantly, the Lee Kuan Yew School researchers point out that resilience is not a cost-free virtue. In fact, the price of resilience is inefficiency – a point I shall elaborate on below. Investing in both these capabilities are important to ensure Singapore’s survival in this unpredictable and volatile world. What is clear is that we cannot afford to adopt a “feast and famine” approach to building these capabilities.

Thinking long term to secure Singapore’s future has always been the hallmark of the PAP Government. Let me provide a few examples.

Hon Members will recall Prime Minister Lee’s bold plan to build polders and barrages for a period of between 50 and 100 years to save Singapore from rising sea levels costing at least $100 billion.

The hon Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat spoke last year about efforts to strengthen Singapore’s capabilities in biomedical sciences and health infrastructures to be ready for Disease X. The hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim recounted some of these efforts in her speech just now and aptly described them as a "reassuring development".

Also last year, the hon Education Minister Chan Chun Sing announced plans for MOE to roll out mental health education lessons to our children at Primary, Secondary and pre-university levels by next year to help them build up their resilience.

These are not short-term plans, with an eye on the next electoral cycle. They are for the protection and flourishing of our children, grandchildren, and generations beyond – but already hardwired into our spending today. I applaud these moves and other Government initiatives aimed at making Singapore and Singaporeans more resilient and robust.

No doubt though, there is a cost – and one we bear today – in developing these capacities.

Let us take grocery supply as an example.

It costs less for a supermarket to stock groceries employing a just-in-time inventory, something that hon Member Mr Seah Kian Peng knows very well. Purchase decisions can be made based on current conditions. It makes the business operations leaner but susceptible to disruptions when the suppliers cannot supply.

The other option is to employ a just-in-case model which will allow the businesses to be more agile and respond to sudden demand increases quickly. It does, however, mean that business costs will be higher. This may not be the most efficient way to use resources. But it may be the better way when dealing with strategic goods.

This is where we, on both sides of the House, must come together and affirm that these costs must be incurred progressively over the long term because what is ultimately at stake is Singapore’s survival and viability.

My question to the hon Minister for Finance is two-fold; first, could he please let us know what are the strategic areas that the Government intends to build resilience and robustness capabilities for the immediate as well as the long term; and two, have we committed sufficient funds and resources for the building of these capabilities?

My hope is that the Government will continue to eschew the natural tendency, when our country’s fiscal position is relatively weak and there is a pressure to increase social expenditure, to cut back on investments to progressively build such capabilities. We cannot be capricious. We must hold fast to our resolve to develop these strategic capabilities.

I now turn to the hon Minister’s decision to increase the tax responsibility on wealthier Singaporeans through personal income tax, property tax, luxury car tax and GST increases.

With respect to GST, I am glad to note the progressive way in which the GST will be implemented. The progressive nature of our policy ensures that low- and middle-income Singaporeans will, on a net basis receive significantly more benefits from tax transfers than what they would have paid. This is provided for under the Assurance Package and the permanent GST Voucher Scheme.

This also means that, on a net basis, it will be the wealthier Singaporeans, who will be bearing the brunt of the impact of the GST increase.

I have carefully considered the reasons provided by the Minister for the tax increases. I support the Minister’s decision requiring those with more to contribute more tax to fund our social programmes and, in particular, help those whom the hon Member Mr Faisal Manap referred to in his speech just now as "marginalised people" and keep our social compact strong.

In fact, such contributions by the wealthier amongst us will so serve as “investment” not just for the future of the less fortunate but also for their own continued economic well-being and growth. After all, the strength of our social compact provides the foundations of our economic growth. In this way, their businesses and wealth will continue to grow, in a society that is stable and fair, where each man feels he has a place.

Not only that, we should also acknowledge that our tax bases are still relatively low, even with the proposed increases.

One point which I wish to emphasise though is the continued need to keep our public expenditure lean.

As the hon Minister mentioned, Government spending today, excluding COVID-19 related expenditure, stands at 18% of our GDP which is the lowest among developed economies but yet it has produced social and economic outcomes that have been better than most. This fiscal discipline must continue. If we do not and we just continue to fund social expenditure for the less fortunate through knee-jerk increases in tax for the wealthy, then I am afraid the social compact will, ironically, weaken. There will be a danger that our society will fracture as a result of an “us against them” mentality taking root. It is a point that hon Members who spoke before me also raised.

Already I see warning signs that this may happen. I note calls amongst persons who own private landed properties but have no steady income streams asking for Government support. Indeed, in the Assurance Package, it is provided that a person who owns a single private landed property but does not have income can get up to $1,600 over five years. This, with other measures such as CDC Vouchers and MediSave top-ups for seniors, will allow them to get more than five times the GST that they would have paid in a year.

The reality, however, is that with the landed property prices as they are, these persons can well afford to fund their own expenses through readily available reverse mortgages from banks which will allow them to live comfortably in their homes until the end of their lives. Thereafter, their homes may be sold and the proceeds applied against loans extended by the bank. It is not easy to make these arguments to people who feel very strongly about their properties, but we must, on behalf of a society where more than 90% live in flats, push back against such claims.

A similar example involves elderly retired couples in an HDB flat which is eligible for the Lease Buyback Scheme. They would again be entitled to Government support because they are living in an HDB flat without income. In reality though, they would be able to fund their expenses through the Lease Buyback Scheme which would again enable them to sell the tail end of their lease to HDB and live comfortably in their homes until the end of their life with the proceeds obtained.

Some time back, I met an elderly couple who sought ComCare assistance because they are retired and their children are not willing to give them any allowance. I suggested the Lease Buyback Scheme to them as a way to resolve their financial woes. After some thought, they came back to me and the answer was that they are not keen. The reason is because they want to pass on their homes as inheritance to their children even though their children are not paying for their upkeep. As parents, they are amazing but as claimants on taxpayers’ monies used in substitution for their upkeep, they become what economists refer to as “free riders”.

Private inheritance comes at a cost of public funds. This also means that there is less money for helping a person who may have a more pressing need for assistance. Again, this may be a hard argument to make to the elderly couple, but if we do not, we will be a nation of ComCarers, with a large budget. And there is no large budget without large taxes.

At some point in time, as our social spending increases, we will have to make hard decisions on whom we should support through social assistance so that we can keep public spending lean and only to be given to the truly need it, while we focus on making our safety “trampoline” – a phrase made popular by Senior Minister Tharman – springier.

The final area I wish to touch on in my speech concerns the development of entrepreneurial talent undertaking sustainability initiatives that can generate carbon credits for use by businesses to offset carbon tax.

I support the move to increase the carbon tax as part of Singapore’s commitment to reduce emissions and tackle climate change.

I note with interest that the hon Minister intends to allow businesses to use high quality, international carbon credits to offset up to 5% of their taxable incomes in lieu of paying carbon tax.

What I wish to explore is whether assistance may be provided to entrepreneurial businesses in Singapore which have promising sustainability projects but lack the scale necessary to attract carbon credit financing.

One suggestion I have is for Government or Statutory Boards to partner these businesses in the provision of services such as waste to energy plants to power lamp posts in business parks.

With established track records, these Singapore businesses would be able to establish good branding and reputation as leaders in this field, venture into the region or beyond, and undertake larger scale projects to reduce carbon emissions that can be financed through carbon credits.

Through this we would have developed a value proposition for Singaporean businesses and allow them an opportunity to participate in the international carbon credit value-chain.

Sir, that I am able to speak of carbon credits, long-term spending on climate resilience and the structure of taxation, in the middle of a global pandemic and a military invasion that has impacted the entire world, speaks to how important peace and stability are to a small state.

We cannot take this for granted. It is not the natural position of price takers. But while we cannot determine our own price, we can continue to write our own destiny as long as we are a sovereign state, with the will and wherewithal to defend it. To continue to write each page, requires resources and careful husbandry of what we have. This is what our Budget does, and this is why I support it. [Applause.]

Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic serves as a reminder to all of us of the importance of national resilience. We are now moving towards life with COVID-19 as an endemic disease, a path which is bound to be fraught with unexpected challenges. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been a stark demonstration of the fragility of territorial sovereignty in the face of aggression by a larger neighbour.

Building national resilience is a key effort we need to undertake to prepare for current and future challenges. It has to be a joint effort, borne out of the partnership between the people, society, companies and the Government. It is vital that Government policies must be supportive of this endeavour to build and strengthen resilience.

As I respond to the Finance Minister's Budget Statement, I will talk about seven pillars of resilience I believe that we need to continuously build up our nation. These are resilient families, resilient environment, resilient infrastructure, resilient companies, resilient workforce, resilient society and resilient government.

Families are the building block of society. We must do all we can to increase the resilience of family units whatever form they might come in.

I am concerned about the plan to raise the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) by 3.5% per year for the next five cohorts turning 55 from 2023 to 2027. MOF said that eight in 10 CPF members turning 55 in 2027 will be able to set aside the heightened BRS. This means that 20% of them will not be able to withdraw more than a token sum from their CPF. Currently, some 435,000 Singaporeans aged between 55 and 70 are unable to meet the prevailing BRS. Many of them struggle with their living expenses and are not able to use their CPF of housing payments. I hope that MOF will give careful consideration to the needs of CPF members with lower balances before raising the BRS.

For our children, building resilience starts at home. All parents, myself included, view our kids as precious gems, but we must be careful not to mollycoddle them. Let us encourage our children to take part in competitions, whether in sports, games or the arts. Every competition will have only one winner and many losers. Let them learn to win with grace and remain resilient in defeat by picking themselves up to fight another day.

Let our children take public transport to school instead of ferrying them everywhere by car. This brings an additional benefit of reducing traffic jams around schools. I commend schools that disallow parents from turning up at schools with water bottles or homework that their children left at home. Occasions like these are opportunities for our children to take responsibility for their actions and their belongings.

Next, on building a resilient environment. I am glad to hear the Finance Minister announced that Singapore aims to achieve net zero emissions by or around mid-century. In order to realise this goal, Singapore must be prepared to make big investments in emerging green technologies and take decisive steps towards wielding the mantle of climate leadership, regionally and globally.

I would like to renew my call made in January for Singapore to launch a national hydrogen strategy, and roadmap to spur the creation of a hydrogen economy in Singapore. This will set Singapore on a path towards being a global player in the hydrogen industry and benefit Singaporean workers.

NEA is now mulling the introduction of a mandatory plastic bag charge at supermarkets. I support the reduction of one-time-use plastics. However, policies designed to achieve this must take into account the local context. Most shoppers do not throw away their plastic bags but use them to bag their thrash before throwing it down the rubbish chute. If they do not have enough plastic bags from supermarkets, they might end up buying plastic bags or, worse, throwing their rubbish directly down the chutes.

Therefore, any policy interventions should strive to encourage intrinsic attitudes towards conservation, not lead to people trying to work around punitive measures. Instead of a per-bag charge, has NEA considered requiring large supermarkets to offer a discount as an incentive for not using plastic bags?

Singapore's rapid urban development and ascent on the global economic stage was made possible in large part due to good infrastructure. Our public transport network has seen improvements in recent years although the convenience and frequency of bus services in some areas like Bedok Reservoir has been a bugbear for many commuters. This has shown up in commuters' surveys which rate bus services the lowest among transport modes. I will speak more about this during MOT Committee of Supply.

Moving on to digital infrastructure, the prevalence of online scams points to the need for more resilient cyber infrastructure, not only at the backend but also at the frontend, with efforts to detect attempts at social engineering and prevent people from falling prey to scammers.

While our public education is important, the financial institutions must redouble their efforts to use technological solutions to detect suspicious patterns of use and stop using SMS as a channel for sending passwords.

The world has entered a stage where cyber warfare is a real threat, as demonstrated by Russia's alleged cyberattacks Ukrainian's infrastructure, long before the air, land and sea invasion began. Adversaries can potentially maliciously shut down or control critical infrastructure with the click of a mouse. Are our Government agencies putting enough resources into countering this threat and are critical infrastructure providers, like water treatment plants, power grid operators, telcos and public transport operators, ready to counter these threats?

Our companies have seen challenging times in this pandemic. Many are still struggling to stay afloat. The pandemic has shown our over-reliance on our foreign workforce. We need to transform our economy to boost the attractiveness of local talent to companies.

MOM should watch out for companies that circumvent market testing requirements, for example, doing a token posting on MyCareersFuture when they already have a foreigner in mind to hire. Where there are instances of companies claiming that they are unable to find Singaporeans to take up positions, we need to make a deeper qualitative assessment on why this is so. For example, are there gaps in our education system that are preventing our schools from producing market-ready graduates?

On a separate note, I believe that one of the brightest sparks from the pandemic is the mainstreaming of work-from-home arrangements. A large proportion of both employees and employers want to continue remote work, at least part of the time, even after the pandemic ends. We should build on these gains and encourage more companies, especially the traditional SMEs, to provide work-from-home options for their employees.

Good economic prospects and technological advances disproportionately benefit the high-skilled. To make our growth more inclusive, we should engage more Singaporeans economically, including people with disabilities and the elderly. Companies should extend work-from-home opportunities to engage and empower Singaporeans with mobility issues. Not only do they form a large untapped labour market with valuable experience to contribute, enabling them to work from home will help them to connect better with society, improve their overall well-being and strengthen Singapore's social security. I hope MOM can consider ways to incentivise companies to extend work-from-home opportunities to this group of Singaporeans.

In his Budget Statement, the Finance Minister introduced a $500-a-month minimum income requirement to qualify for the Workfare Income Supplement from 2013. This could potentially impact up to 46,600 employed residents, inclusive of part-timers, who earn less than $500 a month. It will disadvantage workers who have extremely low incomes and are forced to work reduced hours through no fault of their own or have unpaid caregiving responsibilities. The Minister said that this is to encourage part-timers and casual workers to take up regular full-time work. However, I fear that it will result in the exact opposite. Workers may decide to drop out of the workforce because their income cannot even cover their travel expenses. I appeal to the Minister to rescind the minimum income requirement, so that all lower-wage workers will benefit from Workfare. This was a call made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition as well.

We must ensure that every working Singaporean receives a decent minimum wage. I welcome the requirements for all local workers to be paid at least $1,400 a month, if their companies employ foreign workers. All the workers are in a Progressive Wage Model (PWM) sector or occupation.

I am cheered that the Government is going to co-fund the pay increases for low-wage workers over the next five years. Building on this approach, would the Minister consider also co-funding for five years the pay increases of all Singaporean workers who are taking home less than $1,300, including those who are not in sectors or occupations covered by the PWM? This will help companies adjust to paying their workers a minimum wage and bring Singapore closer towards implementing a national minimum wage, something that the Workers' Party has been consistently advocating for.

In addition to strengthening our workers' rights, we also need to build more resilience in our local workers. Some employers have lamented to me about local employees quitting when they are made to work long hours, in contrast to foreigners whom they claimed have no qualms about working overtime. We should not be dismissive about those who may have genuine domestic responsibilities like taking care of children or elderly parents. However, for those that do not, including many young professionals, I feel it does not hurt to "pia" a bit more during your first job, so you can establish your career and compete more effectively with the global workforce. Of course, do this without sacrificing your mental and physical health.

A vibrant local sports scene contributes towards building a resilient society. The Suzuki Cup football tournament was a great demonstration of how sports can promote national unity. I experienced it myself when I took my son to see one of the matches.

However, cheering the Lions once every two years is not enough. Our sporting talents are playing in the international tournaments throughout the year. They should be better featured. For example, Loh Kean Yew's historic victory at the 2021 Badminton World Championships could only be watched live on Cable Television. Non-subscribers had to wait almost a week to watch it on free-to-air TV. Featuring more of our local sporting talents on free-to-air TV or local online channels, like meWATCH, will not only imbue a greater national spirit, but will also inspire generation of young sports enthusiasts, who may go on to become future champions.

Finally, I believe we need a resilient government. A sizable presence of opposition Members in Parliament will keep the government on its toes and responsive to the needs of the people and increase the resilience of our government.

On the other side of the coin, as an efficient and effective civil service, I commend our public servants for demonstrating great resilience in helping our nation through the pandemic. I was once a civil servant and, to this day, I hold close to my heart a piece of advice that my Permanent Secretary gave to me when I first joined the service. He told me he expected me to be a subject matter expert on the issues covered by my desk. He said it was my responsibility to provide objective recommendations in my policy submissions I put up to the senior management and Ministers. This was sound advice.

Civil servants should not second-guess what their political masters want or implement instructions blindly, just because the Ministers said so. They must also not be afraid to respectfully point out policy errors made by political officeholders, as it is in Singapore's interests that the best possible policies are advanced. The civil service must also remain politically neutral.

The final point I wish to raise is to register my concerns over the planned hike in the GST rates in 2023 and 2024. I understand the budgetary pressures that come with an ageing society, and I support moves to socialise more provision of more public welfare services, especially for the elderly. However, it remains my belief that a consumption tax hike should be the last resort to increasing revenue. This is because the GST is an inherently regressive tax, to which the poor pay a higher percentage of their income compared to the rich.

In Singapore, only a portion of the GST paid is returned in the form of GST Vouchers. The GST Offset Package is meant to help lower-income households adjust but this will last only five to 10 years. However, the GST hike will be forever.

MOF should consider other more progressive sources of revenue besides the GST hike. Yesterday, Member of Parliament for Sengkang Assoc Prof Jamus Lim did a deep dive into the Workers' Party's alternative levers for raising revenue. This includes higher taxes in carbon emissions, multinational corporations and wealth, using a portion of land sales and increasing investment returns contribution, which can more than make up for shortfalls in revenue brought about by higher social spending without having to increase GST.

Mr Speaker, the pandemic has precipitated societal and political upheavals in many countries. Singapore has, thankfully, been largely spared the kind of widespread rifts in society caused by measures to deal with the pandemic. Nevertheless, we must anticipate that future challenges will only get harder. Let us take the necessary steps now to build a more resilient Singapore, so that our next generation will be better prepared to weather any storm that comes.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, last year’s Budget had set us on the course to brave the storm of this pandemic by helping businesses, workers and families. We had also planted the seeds of growth on the SG Green Plan through sustainability efforts and green financing.

Our consistent and careful handling of the COVID-19 crisis has led to greater confidence not only in Singapore but the region as well. However, we are not out of the woods yet. New challenges have emerged in the course of the past year.

COVID-19 and its variants have tested our system and the resilience of our people. But we have prevailed, thanks to the cooperation and understanding of everyone. This is also assisted by the various schemes like the JSS, COVID-19 Relief Grant and the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI), just to name a few.

We are also facing a period of global economic uncertainty and higher energy prices, given the recent developments in the Ukraine region.

With these challenges we now face, I agree with Minister Lawrence Wong that we have to further strengthen our social compact as one people, more so now than ever before.

In this regard, in my Committee of Supply cuts, I will focus on three main areas.

First, strengthen our institutions and relations. This includes strengthening our total defence and relevance of National Service (NS) to our people and new citizens, maintaining and improving our relationship with other countries in the region and all over the world.

Second, prepare our people to be secure and confident to face a post-COVID-19 world, that means maximising the potential of everyone, especially the most vulnerable, like ex-offenders. Instead of offenders, they can become overcomers through our help in their rehabilitation and reintegration into the workforce and society.

We must also look at the retirement security of not only our seniors but entire communities, by considering reforms to make it easier and affordable for Singaporeans to plan for their retirement and their future.

Third, invest in our next generations through technology, education and skills required for the future. This involves not just targeting young people or students but also working with their parents, educators and industry players. How we support the young determines how they will grow to support our country in the future.

However, all of these goals and aspirations will only remain as a wish list if we do not have the fiscal discipline and proper planning to finance our plans in the future. This Budget 2022 gives us the springboard to do so. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Budget is bigger than last year. Total Expenditure exceeded $100 billion, which is $4 billion higher than the Revised FY2021 estimate.

Although revenue is projected to be higher than last year, this is not sufficient to cover our recurring expenses. The projected overall fiscal position for the year is a deficit of about $3 billion. Therefore, there is a need to increase revenue not just for current and future expenditure but to save for our future generations.

Many people are talking about GST. Minister Lawrence Wong has explained its reasons and the fact that the GST increase will be done in stages and will only take place from next year onwards.

However, anecdotally some Chua Chu Kang residents have informed me that they are already seeing some shops and stalls increasing retail prices.

While it is unclear if this is due to an expectation of GST increase or other factors like the rise in the costs of energy and supplies, I welcome the establishment of a Taskforce by the Government to tackle profiteering and those who take advantage of the upcoming GST hike as an excuse to raise prices. The Taskforce is not something new as it was also set up during the GST hike in 2007.

Our GST system is progressive and the features of the permanent GST Vouchers and other transfers have the effect of helping those who need it the most. At the same time, it also results in savings in administrative costs and implementation.

The increase in GST alone will not be able to cover our expenditure, especially healthcare expenditure which will continue to increase.

At the same time, while the Government had been able to tap on the country's reserves to respond to the COVID-19 crisis, this is untenable for the long term. We need to take steps to reduce the budget deficit in the future.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, as stated, this year’s Budget will have an even bigger deficit. What this means is that we need to do three things: first, work hard; second, spend smart; and third, save more.

First, given the continued impact and uncertainty of the pandemic and global situation we have to continue to work hard in our economic recovery and strengthen our social compact. I am glad that we have come up with many efforts for close coordination between Ministries and agencies in specific areas which would also give us the ability to work harder together.

For example, the Singapore Green Plan 2030 involves various Government agencies working in concert, along with a whole-of-society effort, to meet a global challenge. Just like the saying, "if you want to run fast, run alone. If you want to run further, run together".

In recent years, MOF had also developed a number of joint Budgets to ensure better alignment and greater efficiency and value. We have seen these efforts in the Smart Nation initiative for example.

What other whole-of-government efforts can be better coordinated across Ministries and agencies so that we can also attain greater efficiency and savings in implementation? For instance, I would suggest that the recommendations of the taskforce on family violence be considered for potential implementation not just by MSF alone but on a whole-of-Government effort.

With regard to the pandemic, does MOF track the coordination of efforts and resources by MTF and the various agencies and Ministries related to the COVID-19 pandemic? This would be useful for future studies on the impact of the pandemic and how much it cost our country to provide the necessary support and response.

I would suggest a multi-Ministerial consolidated Budget or allocation to address any future crisis. This will also provide a more accurate picture of non-crisis related expense by a particular Ministry or agency.

The second step, spend smart. In my work with the Parliament Estimates Committee, we looked at the Government's budget to see how improvements may be effected to increase efficiency. In the course of the past year, we have also introduced various legislation which has helped in this.

One example is the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act (SINGA) which allows Government borrowings for major national infrastructure projects that will last for at least 50 years. If I may clarify, can Minister illustrate how significant the financial impact of SINGA has been on this year’s and future Budgets in an easy to read and digestible manner? With such explanations or regular reports, Singaporeans can understand that the borrowing will not only help “free up” our spending capacity but at the same time not be a burden to future generations.

Next, streamlining our tax system. One example is the Land Betterment Charge Act (LBC) which streamlines the previous framework for tax collection. Under the previous framework, landowners and developers have to pay to either the URA or SLA, a Development Charge or a Temporary Development Levy or a Differential Premium. However, now under the new Act, the LBC will replace all these previous charges and collected by just one agency, SLA. This is a good example of making things more efficient.

I have a clarification: would MOF be looking into streamlining the imposition and collection of other charges to ensure greater efficiency? Is there a specific department that looks into this? Our tax system is admittedly already simpler and less complicated to navigate than other jurisdictions', but we can still see how to make it more efficient.

Perhaps just like how we set targets on right-sizing Government spending with 5-year Block Budget Framework, MOF can similarly set targets to trim down the number and types of taxes too.

Third, save more. Besides cutting on costs and spending smart, we must save more into our reserves. Our country does not have any other viable natural resources. NIRC, is already the single largest source of revenue. We cannot be over reliant on this alone. We cannot tax this golden goose. Now is the time for us to start planning to put more into our reserves for the future generations.

Would MOF set some targets within the next five years, to reinvest more of our investment returns to build up our reserves and explore more revenue streams to complement our investment income? Hopefully with such targets we will be able to save more for our children and their children.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must continue to work hard, spend smart and save more for Singaporeans of today and Singaporeans of tomorrow. I stand in support of the Budget.

Ms Mariam Jaafar.

Mr Speaker, budgets are seen by most lay people mostly from the lens of “what’s in it for me” – what am I going to have to pay more for? What goodies am I going to get? How will my business benefit? Economists and market watchers look to be convinced of whether the Budget will make Singapore more competitive and foster GDP growth. But just as organisations are finding that employees are increasingly looking beyond dollars and cents for companies with a clear and inspiring purpose, I believe that Singaporeans are also looking for more in a Budget: do the values reflected by the policies and initiatives proposed align with our own core values?

Because when the values espoused are aligned with your own core values, it is a very special and awesome feeling – just ask any Liverpool fan who has bought into the ethos of "You Never Walk Alone". It is about not just getting results but doing it in a way that makes you deeply proud to be a Singaporean.

On this measure, the evolution of the social compact towards a fairer, greener and more inclusive Singapore, as described by the Finance Minister, delivers. These are values and a vision for the future that are shared by the broad middle ground of Singaporeans.

Personal responsibility and collective support. The yin and yang of the Singapore way, mutually reinforcing. While reinforcing personal responsibility through tying incentives and support to work, the Budget continues the tilt towards collective support. This has been happening for the past more than 10 years. The Government has recognised the need for greater social support, in response to growing inequality, technological change and changing societal expectations, and adjusted the system, very deliberately, over time, including the introduction of the new anchors of our social security system like Workfare, Silver Support and now PWM, and the tightening of foreign manpower policy.

Collective support means we all pay, which also ensures that we all understand that nothing we get comes for free. But the wealthy pay more. The more money you have, the better the life you lead, the more you can afford to pay for other people's children's education and other people’s healthcare. That is just and fair. I welcome the progressive moves in the Budget: the uplift in salaries for lower-income workers, the higher income taxes for the rich, the wealth taxes, and the combination of GST with GST Vouchers and other rebates. By raising revenue in a broad-based way, but spending it in a targeted and fair way, we set ourselves up for a more sustainable fiscal position, while giving time and support for the transition.

However, one area I urge the Minister to review, in light of recent developments, is the Household Support Package. Many Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have spoken about their concerns over the cost of living. I must echo this concern, for low- and middle-income households.

I sat and talked to one of my residents. He and his wife have five children, they live in a five-room flat. Very typical upper middle-income family. Over the past few months, his electricity bill has gone up from $120 a month to $200 or by $80 a month. Multiply that by 12, $960 a year. His water bill has gone up from $30 to $60, multiply by 12, $360. His petrol bill, which he uses to work and ferry his kids to and from school has gone from $500 to $800 or $300 increase a month, $3,600 a year. His food expenditure – they do not cook a lot, so they mostly eat out – has gone up by about 15% to 20%, he says. Fortunately, his spend on healthcare and education have not gone up by much.

But as you can see, these add up pretty quickly. Some of these, we expect to come down in due time, as MTI has previously shared, but the developments in Ukraine and the continued disruption of supply chains, give rise to concerns that this situation might go on past the end of the year.

Mr Speaker, if anything is regressive, inflation is regressive. So, I would like to ask the Finance Minister, what assumptions of inflationary trends were made in developing the $560 million Household Support Package and whether more support can be given, including to the middle-income, for whom ComCare is not an option.

But long term, the way to make sure that the increased cost of living does not bite too hard, is to ensure that incomes grow faster than expenses at every level of the workforce. With the expanded PWM, I think we are quite covered with the lower-income workers. For the middle-income, it is vital that we continue to enhance the competitiveness of our economy so that we can continue to create and retain good jobs. It is vital that we continue to invest in capability building and take a balanced, tempered approach in implementing the tax and manpower policy changes.

In the Committee of Supply, I will speak more on measures to enhance the competitiveness of the economy, build capabilities in our people and businesses, accelerate the green transition and manage the healthcare costs and workforce for an ageing population.

I would like to focus the rest of my speech today on three strategies for our nation’s development, strategies that are driven by alignment of values.

The first is an economic strategy. Go after the Beyond Great companies.

There is a set of leading global companies that are moving past all definitions of “great”, companies that used to focus on scale and strong shareholder returns. One example is Microsoft. These Beyond Great companies have realised that sustainable competitive advantage in an era of technological, geopolitical and social change, can only be attained by being responsive to the needs of all stakeholders, shareholders, but also customers, employees, local communities, governments and the natural environment. The have agile business models that offer customised solutions to borderless communities of digitally connected customers and are experts at forming flexible ecosystems of partners. Conscious of their responsibility to the countries they operate in, they nurture local expertise, enable SMEs to participate in global and regional value chains and help the countries they are in to develop customised solutions to their toughest problems. They are willing to provide jobs and opportunities for a combination of skills, from the highly skilled global professionals who compete with the best in the world, to the middle and lower-skilled workers who may compete more often with lower-cost resources in the region, because they understand that for Singapore to be true to our values, we must have jobs for every Singaporean.

The Government, led by EDB, can proactively attract and nurture Beyond Great companies to anchor in Singapore. To attract these companies, we must continue to offer financial stability, predictability, transparency and low taxes. But these are table stakes. Beyond Great companies will also demand world class digital infrastructure and customs procedures that minimise transaction costs, cross border data sharing frameworks and safeguards, regional trade agreements that harmonise regulations. All of these are necessary for them to transact international business through digital platforms and fast-evolving ecosystems.

Beyond Great companies also require flexible labour policies and the ability to tap on global employees and freelancers sitting outside the host country and within a country, a workforce that is not only highly skilled with specialised technical capabilities but also people with digital mindsets, who are agile and always hungry to learn, who have motivation and grit.

In my maiden speech at the start of this Parliament, I spoke about the need for the Government and companies to invest in our people. We have made significant moves since then, but it is still not enough. We must continue to accelerate the reskilling and upskilling of our workforce for a more digital, more green future and, over the long term, we must reexamine the entire education system from early childhood all the way to work, to enable learning at the right time, at the right place, on a personalised learning journey.

We must also collaborate in public-private ecosystems with these Beyond Great companies to align plans, policies and incentives to achieve mutually shared goals beyond profit and growth.

The second strategy deals with social policy – implement a permanent growth dividend.

As I have alluded to earlier in my speech, we have built, over time, a comprehensive social security system fit for our demographic profile with Workfare, Silver Support and Progressive Wage Model – really quite game changing.

I must confess though that when schemes like the Solidarity Payment and Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers were announced, I was quite bemused. Did rich Singaporeans really need the $100 to feel solidarity with other Singaporeans? But after getting feedback on the vouchers from the ground, I must say my position has shifted. My residents in 5-room, executive apartment (EA), executive maisonette (EM) and Jumbo flats – we happen to have a lot in my division – told me that it felt good to finally get something when, usually, there is nothing for them, even though quite a few of them donated theirs.

In the discussion on GST in this and previous Budgets, we have talked about the advantages of GST as a broad-based tax on revenue. Perhaps, there is something to be said about boosting solidarity through a broad-based distribution, which also provides an additional way to enhance financial security and mitigate inequality for those whose fortunes do not reflect the nation's success.

The support package has elements of this but, if we want to be more inclusive, could we explore a more structural change to provide a permanent growth dividend tied to GDP or Budget surpluses, with different payouts, of course, based on wealth or income, partly in cash, partly in CPF, that give every Singaporean an additional stake in the nation's economic progress, reinforcing that we win and lose as a team.

We have done this before with one-off payments like the SG Bonus in 2018, the Growth Dividend in 2011, the New Singapore Shares in 2001 and, of course, the discounted Singtel shares in the 1990s. It may feel moot to even be discussing this in the context of consecutive years of Budget deficits, but I hope the Minister might consider this as we move forward.

The third strategy deals with shaping our values themselves – build a positive national culture.

Our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, famously said in 1977, "You know the Singaporean. He is a hardworking, industrious, rugged individual. Or we would not have made the grade. But let us also recognise that he is a champion grumbler." Forty-five years later, we may laugh and wryly say some things never change.

But who do we really want to be? Have we thought about how much better and stronger we would be if we were a more positive people? Not just law-abiding but positive. There are three components of a positive national culture that I think are particularly important.

First is empathy. In dealing with people, we must make the effort to get to know them as whole human beings. It increases the likelihood that they will go the extra mile when we need them to. The relationship and the trust between the people and the Government and the Public Service are a massive ingredient to sustainable success for our nation.

Second is mutual respect. If we respect others, we must accept that people have different strengths and weaknesses and support them to use their strengths to flourish and not be stuck with narrow ideas of what good looks like and of what should be valued. We must accept different backgrounds, cultures and viewpoints while not letting society become more and more fragmented. We must speak to one another, on the streets and in this House, with respect and with integrity.

Third, aspiration or ambition – always believing that we can do better, be better. We fight complacency and cynicism by surrounding ourselves with people who push us to aim higher and do better. We believe that no matter how small we are, our actions matter.

For example, with respect to climate change, we could take the view that Singapore going to net-zero may not move the needle if bigger countries in the region and the world do not do their part or we could take the view that I mooted in last year's Budget debate that by investing in research and development (R&D) and developing solutions for the greatest existential crisis of our times, we can lead and change the world.

We must cultivate that eternal optimism, that sense of idealism and adventure.

Mr Speaker, at this point, I cannot help but remember another famous speech by our founding Prime Minister, "There is a glorious rainbow that beckons those with the spirit of adventure. And there are rich findings at the end of that rainbow. To the young and the not so old, I say, look at that horizon, follow that rainbow, go ride it. Not all will be rich. Quite a few will find a vein of gold. Dig it out. But all those who pursue that rainbow will have a joyous and exhilarating ride and some profit."

Mr Speaker, building this positive national culture requires a lot of work that has to start early in life – in our schools, communities, workplaces, in our interactions with Government agencies, in social media, in the metaverse. We have to enable and stimulate the building of networks, support groups, mentorship programmes, volunteer groups.

In my youth, we had a lot of public education campaigns on radio and television. Who can forget Singa the Courtesy Lion, Teamy the Bee and all those jingles? Now, the same types of campaigns may not be quite so effective with Singaporeans today but we have even more new mediums, tools and talents today to put out relatable and inspiring content to propagate positivity among Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, during the pandemic, there was a catchphrase that became quite popular. Test negative, be positive. Let us infect one another with positivity, regardless of backgrounds, cultures or political leanings.

Mr Speaker, before I end, let me say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Not long ago, I received a message over Facebook from a Chinese resident. Taking pains to say that it was nothing racist but an encouragement to me, our Malay MP in our Sembawang GRC, she shared what she overheard from a group of Chinese women:

"Aiyo, you see, generally Malays are less hardworking … But you see that our Sembawang GRC Malay MP looks so cheerful, so hardworking and active?"

Is this racist? Some will say yes, some will say no. But it is at least prejudice. The truth is prejudices are real. As minorities, the truth is we have always had to work harder than others just to be seen as working as hard as others. Is that fair? No. But is there a genuine desire to put in the hard work to change things? I believe this to be the case with this Government.

It is fashionable these days to cry out injustices, to see calls to cancel someone or something. Sadly, that can sometimes do a great injustice to the hard work being done to change things.

The Budget represents a vision of a fairer, greener and more inclusive Singapore. A fairer and more inclusive Singapore where the fruits of progress are shared more equally by all augurs well for our community. I hope our community will take full advantage of the commitment to invest in our people, invest in our children. I hope more will be done to build a positive national culture and that through the formation of networks, mentorship and communities, the Malay community can be lifted by a positive spirit.

I know many are unhappy about introducing GST in next year, but I also know that with the $6.6b Assurance package, the vast majority of our community will not be affected by the GST increase at all until 5 or even 10 years or more from now. Indeed, some will get a GST bonus in the interim. During this time, we must continue to work on increasing incomes across all levels of our community through our individual efforts to upskill, and through further Government effort. Separate from GST, there are valid concerns about cost of living. I hope the Government will move swiftly to support Singaporeans even more if the high costs persist.

I also hope that the 4G leaders will continue to build genuine relationships with our community, understand our values, our constraints, but also our talents, our efforts and our hustle. And then please be our ally and help us develop and use our strengths to benefit ourselves and society. Because we don’t just want to get better than we were, we want to be at par with everyone else.

(In English) Mr Speaker, Budget 2022 makes a significant move down the path of a fairer, greener, more inclusive Singapore, from which may emerge a vision of a Singapore that is beyond great. It moves further to build capabilities to keep our economy and our people competitive, scaling up early intensive interventions to boost social mobility.

It is a Budget we can be proud of. I support the Budget.

Mr Chee Hong Tat.

Mr Speaker, the Labour Movement welcomes the pro-worker, inclusive and forward-looking Budget by Minister Lawrence Wong.

I join Members of this House to thank our workers for their hard work and sacrifices during the pandemic. This includes our frontline workers and also those who are providing critical support behind the scenes.

In my capacity as advisor to the Healthcare Services Employees' Union (HSEU) and as Senior Minister of State for Transport, I have witnessed how our healthcare and transport workers have stood strong and resilient in the face of challenging circumstances, to care for patients and commuters, and to keep Singapore connected with the world.

Our Labour Members of Parliament will speak about how NTUC and our tripartite partners have worked together to protect, enable and care for our workers.

Brother Abdul Samad will share his views on the protection of workers during the pandemic and beyond.

Brother Heng Chee How will touch on enhancing employment for older workers, a topic close to his heart.

Brother Patrick Tay will focus on strengthening workplace fairness and support for professionals, managers and executives.

Brother Desmond Choo will talk about providing support and opportunities for younger workers.

Brother Melvin Yong will speak on improving mental health support for our workers and enhancing consumer protection.

Brother Fahmi Aliman will touch on NTUC's efforts to uplift lower-wage workers, reflecting our shared values with the People's Action Party to build a fair and just society.

Sister Yeo Wan Ling will highlight how NTUC has provided support for women, family, self-employed persons and workers in small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

Brother Seah Kian Peng will share on cost pressures faced by SMEs and how NTUC and our social enterprises have helped Singaporeans to manage costs of living and provided assistance to our members.

Together, the Labour Members of Parliament will present how NTUC has championed the interests of our workers and helped them to achieve better wages, better welfare and better work prospects – because every worker matters, and every worker can make a difference.

Sir, today, I will focus on how a strong tripartite partnership between the Labour Movement, Government and employers will enable our workers to benefit from better growth, better protection and better skills.

Let me start with growth and why this is important to give our workers a brighter future.

In his speech at the 1976 NTUC's Second Triennial Delegates Conference, Dr Goh Keng Swee warned about the dangers of having small or no economic growth. Without sufficient growth, we have a zero-sum game. This will intensify social conflict because one group can only benefit at the expense of another. Instead of win-win, we have win-lose. And when cohesion is affected, win-lose will soon become "lose-lose".

This is why the Labour Movement fully supports the Government’s efforts to grow Singapore’s economy and to ensure that when companies do well, our workers receive a fair share of the gains. The PAP Government has consistently placed emphasis on achieving this win-win outcome through tripartism, to keep improving the lives of our workers.

As Mr Lee Kuan Yew said: "It is in the interest of the workers and their unions that we must strive for growth and development. In other words, growth is meaningless unless it is shared by the workers." When Singapore’s economy transforms and the profile of our workforce changes, this important purpose shall remain at the heart of NTUC’s mission. Even as we evolve "what" we do and "how" we achieve our outcomes. In Mandarin, we say 不忘初心，与时并进. Never forgetting our core purpose and DNA, while moving in tandem with changing times.

We could see how this principle was translated into action when NTUC implemented new ideas over the years. For example, when we developed the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) to uplift the salaries and skills of our low-wage workers without exposing them to dis-employment risks. Or when NTUC set up e2i to work with Government agencies and employers to improve productivity and help workers find jobs, which is especially important during a crisis.

A more recent innovation is the formation of Company Training Committees (CTCs) between our unions and employers to strengthen our engagements with companies and workers through NTUC’s Training and Placement Ecosystem. Since Brother Koh Poh Koon started the CTCs in April 2019, we have set up 826 CTCs so far, with both large organisations and SMEs. Our ecosystem brings together a comprehensive package of training and placement services provided by e2i, NTUC LearningHub, Ong Teng Cheong Labour Leadership Institute and NTUC’s Industry Training and Transformation team.

Compared to an entity which does only training or only job matching, we provide companies and workers with a wider range of integrated services. Our union leaders will mobilise workers to actively upskill themselves and support the company’s transformation plans. Depending on their requirements, NTUC can help CTC companies to redesign jobs and implement productivity improvements, improve workplace safety and health, to promote physical and mental well-being of our workers, provide training to existing workers and new entrants and match jobseekers to companies that are growing and expanding their workforce.

We also have strong support from Government agencies and employers, which makes a powerful combination for driving enterprise and workforce transformation through CTC as a collaboration platform. I am happy that Ms Janet Ang, Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Sharael Taha have expressed support for setting up CTCs. They are experienced business leaders who understand tripartism well.

The Labour Movement would also like to thank the Government for agreeing to our proposal to provide NTUC with $100 million to scale up our CTCs. And this includes a $70 million grant to help CTC companies implement their transformation plans. This will give NTUC additional resources to work with our CTC companies and co-fund their proposals to raise productivity, re-design jobs, upskill workers and improve work prospects by helping every worker to become a better worker through training, making every job a better job through job redesign and then matching the better workers to the better jobs through effective job placement.

Certact Engineering is a local SME that provides precision and plastic engineering services. The Managing Director, Ms Ellis Eng, is a strong believer in training and self-improvement. She started her career as a nurse before she joined Certact. Through on-the-job training, she picked up new skills and learnt more about its business functions. Certact Engineering formed a CTC with the Advanced Manufacturing Employees’ Union (AMEU). Management and union agreed to redesign the role of "Machinists" to "Robotics Operators".

Some of the workers were initially reluctant because they were unsure how they could adapt to the new requirements because they had been working as "Machinists" for many years. But with support from the union and from management, the workers embarked on the transformation journey and, over time, they became more confident and more familiar with the digital tools. After its transformation, Certact Engineering has more than doubled its revenue and is expanding its operations to take on more contracts. The growth benefited the workers, too, as they received significant wage increases. It is a win-win outcome that we want to scale up and achieve together with other CTC companies.

NTUC will go beyond our original target of forming 1,000 CTCs by this year to achieve a more ambitious goal of having at least 2,500 CTCs by 2025. We will make good use of the $30 million funding from the Government to expand our team of Industry Training Officers (ITOs) and enlarge our network of CTCs to benefit more workers and more companies.

I will now talk about protection for our workers and I will focus on two areas: first, how NTUC can uplift vulnerable workers, including ex-offenders as well as persons with special needs and disabilities, through skills upgrading and job placement. Second, why the Labour Movement firmly supports the Government’s policy for Singapore to remain open to international trade, investments and foreign workers.

Because we know that our workers can have better wages and better work prospects when our economy is open and connected with the world and when we allow employers to have a complementary mix of local and foreign workers to grow their business in Singapore.

Let me start with the support for vulnerable workers. I visited Agape Connecting People, a social enterprise that helps individuals turn their lives around through skills upgrading and job placement. The beneficiaries include people who are physically or visually challenged, single mothers and ex-offenders, with the last group forming the majority of their clients.

One of its co-founders, Mr Anil David, is an ex-offender himself. He founded Agape Connecting People to help other vulnerable workers by equipping them with job-ready skills. He and his team have helped more than 800 vulnerable workers to find jobs and, just as important, to discover their sense of purpose, dignity and self-worth.

One beneficiary is Ms Nur Madiah Lim, who was born without hands and legs. When Nur approached Agape Connecting People for help, the company trained and appointed her as one of its contact centre agents. She has been in this job now for the past three years and continually hones her skills to manage calls, emails and live chats. Nur went on to handle a National CARE Hotline (NCH) and earned her diploma, which was one of the goals she set to achieve. Her other goal was to own an HDB flat, which she has also achieved. Well done, Nur! Your resilience, determination and positive attitude are a source of inspiration.

NTUC and e2i have been partnering social enterprises and agencies like Agape Connecting People, Yellow Ribbon, Singapore Prison Service and SG Enable to help our fellow Singaporean workers like Nur and many others. I am also glad the Jobs Growth Incentive, which has been extended to September 2022, will continue to include higher support for employers who hire persons with disabilities and ex-offenders. Together with our partners, NTUC will expand our services to help even more vulnerable workers through training and job placement.

The number of vulnerable workers may be a small proportion of our overall workforce, but this is a meaningful area for the Tripartite Partners to focus on. Last evening, Mr Shawn Huang spoke passionately about how he and his colleagues have worked with Ms Denise Phua to help a group of vulnerable workers find meaningful employment. And what he shared really touched my heart – to build a more caring and inclusive society, we must do our best to leave no one behind.

Sir, another way to benefit our local workers is to keep Singapore open and connected with the world, so that our companies can grow their business operations and create good jobs for Singaporeans. I agree with Mr Edward Chia that Singaporean workers are capable, but there are not enough of us. Minister Ong Ye Kung made the same point during an earlier debate in this House. We believe a balanced and complementary approach is better for our local workers, instead of rejecting free trade agreements (FTAs) and turning away foreigners and foreign investments.

We understand the concerns of local workers regarding competition from foreigners. NTUC will do our best to protect the rice bowls of our workers and champion fair employment practices for locals. However, we know this alone is not sufficient. Having an empty rice bowl does not help our workers. They cannot eat the bowl. To enable our workers to have better jobs and better lives, we must also protect our rice fields and ensure that the fields are productive and can yield bountiful harvests year after year. Then our workers and their families, their rice bowls will be filled with rice. This is why NTUC works closely with employers and the Government to grow Singapore's economy, attract more investments and create more good jobs for our people.

As Minister Lawrence Wong said in the Budget Statement: "by combining local and foreign professionals, we form the teams in Singapore to create value together. This gives us that extra advantage to excel amidst intense global competition and to create many good jobs and career choices for Singaporeans."

Sir, to be clear, there are some employers who do not practise fair hiring and do not invest enough in developing their Singaporean Core. They are the minority among employers, but their behaviours have created a negative impact on the lived experiences of our workers and their families. NTUC supports the Government’s moves to differentiate the inflow of foreigners to offer better protection for Singaporean workers and to take firm enforcement action against errant employers to send a clear message.

However, we must not react to the small number of black sheep employers by implementing overly tight foreign manpower measures that will hurt our businesses, or worse, by stirring anti-foreigner sentiments amongst our population.

Such moves are detrimental to Singapore and Singaporeans as they damage our international standing, erode cohesion in our society and lead to job losses for our workers. Instead, a key part of our response must focus on working with employers and HR managers through tripartism to improve workplace practices for local workers, strengthen the emphasis on developing local talent and invest in building a strong Singaporean Core.

Last year, I suggested at an event with business and HR leaders that the Government should sharpen the differentiation in how we treat employers with good HR practices and strong relationships with the unions, versus those with poor HR records and do not put in effort to develop their local workforce.

A differentiated approach is also fairer to good employers who have invested resources in building a strong Singaporean Core and developed positive relations with the Labour Movement.

These companies add value to their workers and to the community and we should recognise their contributions in tangible ways, for example, by giving them a competitive advantage over their peers, including in areas, such as Government projects, grants and work pass applications.

One example is dnata Singapore, which has been badly affected by the pandemic as their main business is ground handling, cargo and catering services to the aviation industry. After they formed a CTC with NTUC and completed their Operation and Technology Roadmap in 2020, the company started offering food services to local business and retail customers. They also invested in upskilling their workforce to support their transformation and to prepare for the recovery in the aviation sector. A 115 employees have taken on expanded job roles in Air Service Management, Passenger Services, Load Control and Cargo Services.

I met three of their staff during my visit – Ms Garmit Kuar, Mr Abdul Faizal and Ms Ferry Carisma. Garmit and Faizal are locals, while Ferry came from the Philippines. They shared with me their challenges during the pandemic and their upskilling journeys to become trainers in dnata. They enjoy their new roles as it gives them great satisfaction to help their colleagues acquire new skills and knowledge. I was also happy to learn from Garmit and Faizal that they appreciate having Ferry and other foreign colleagues as co-workers because they contribute to making the team more productive. And when the company does better, everyone gets to enjoy larger bonuses and higher salary increments.

Dnata's example show that if we can work with companies through our tripartite partnership and CTC platform to create good jobs for locals and develop a strong Singaporean Core, it will help to provide sufficient protection and assurance to our people which will in turn allow Singapore to remain open and connected with the world.

This brings me to the third and final area, skills upgrading for our workers. The Labour Movement believes that a good job is the best welfare for workers. And the best protection for their employability is to invest in their continuous training and skills upgrading. Lifelong learning for lifelong employability.

I fully support MOE's plans to give lifelong learning a further boost and Minister Chan Chun Sing's call for all Singaporeans to "learn for life, and to learn throughout life". Skills upgrading and continuous learning are key priorities for the Labour Movement too. One practical challenge we want to tackle is the jobs-skills mismatch, where employers who are short-handed could not find enough workers with the right skills to fill their job vacancies. Some workers also feel frustrated when the new skills they acquire after going through training are not a good fit with what employers are looking for.

We propose to address the skills mismatch by forming Tripartite Academies, where we bring together unions, employers and Government agencies to jointly identify industry-specific skills requirements, so that workers can receive job-relevant training that prepare them for jobs that employers offer. The tripartite coordination can help achieve better alignment, improve job placement rates and reduce wasted time and effort for both employers and job-seekers.

We have some experience with such tripartite collaborations. The Singapore Bus Academy (SGBA) was formed in 2016 as a partnership between Land Transport Authority, National Transport Workers' Union and the public bus operators to train bus captains and technicians. They have been doing good work to identify new skills required in the industry and preparing existing workers and new entrants with the relevant training.

Another example is the Singapore Institute of Power and Gas (SIPG) that was set up in 2014 to be a Centralised Training Institute. I was then Chief Executive of the Energy Market Authority (EMA). This has grown into a tripartite collaboration between the Union of Power and Gas Employees (UPAGE), industry and Government agencies like EMA. Under the leadership of Brother Samad, UPAGE worked with SIPG to train our workers in emerging areas, for example, Electric Vehicle charging facilities and wider adoption of renewable energy in Singapore.

More recently, NTUC set up the Tourism Careers Hub with Singapore Tourism Board. We also brought in Workforce Singapore, e2i and the industry associations to help employers and workers from the tourism sector. The tourism industry has gone through a difficult period during the pandemic, but it is slowly recovering and I am confident it will bounce back.

Tourism Careers Hub will provide customised training courses focusing on skillsets that employers require, including traditional areas such as safety, security and customer service as well as emerging areas such as digital skills and knowledge in eco-tourism. Dedicated career coaches will advise new entrants and existing workers on the training they need to take on higher level jobs in the industry.

Tourism Careers Hub will also facilitate placement of workers within the industry to help employers who are facing manpower shortages. Besides tourism, the Labour Movement is discussing with employers and Government agencies to explore setting up Tripartite Academies in sectors such as advanced manufacturing, retail, logistics, security, healthcare and maritime. We plan to start with these and grow the list of sectors over time.

The Tripartite Academies will serve as collaboration platforms at the sectoral level to complement our network of CTCs which are collaboration platforms at the enterprise level. Both platforms are important because they support the larger national objective of transforming Singapore's economy by building stronger enterprise and workforce capabilities which will in turn provide better jobs and better wages for our workers. Mr Speaker, please allow me to continue in Mandarin before I conclude in English.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, we must continue to drive the transformation of businesses to achieve sufficient economic growth, to give our workers better wages, welfare and work prospects. We must protect their jobs and interests, treat them fairly, and ensure that their skills are constantly upgraded through lifelong learning.

Take the Chang Cheng Group for example. They started from a coffee shop in Toa Payoh. Mr Kok Kuan Hwa, founder of the Chang Cheng Group, became an apprentice chef at the age of 15. Over the years, he and his team have worked hard, listened to customers' feedback, and improved constantly. They have improved efficiency, developed new products and brands, and become the food and beverage group it is today.

The Chang Cheng Group and the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers Union worked together to set up a Company Training Committee (CTC) to develop plans for employee training, business transformation and job redesign, to train and upgrade the skills of all their employees (close to 1,000) and give them better job prospects.

The Chang Cheng Group is also working with e2i to improve work efficiency, training employees to perform multiple roles, and help 56 low-wage workers and 15 older workers to upgrade their skills and earn higher wages.

Through our tripartite partnership, NTUC will give full support to companies like the Chang Cheng Group and other local enterprises, enhance their competitiveness through transformation, and create more good jobs, better wages and a secure future for our workers.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken about the importance of Growth, Protection and Skills Upgrading or "GPS". As a navigation tool, GPS can show us how to get to our destination, but GPS cannot get us there unless we embark on the journey. This is the journey of transforming and growing our economy to build stronger enterprise and workforce capabilities through tripartism and helping our workers to upgrade their skills to remain employable and to take on the new jobs that are being created.

There will be obstacles and unexpected developments during this journey. Sometimes, the GPS may wrongly indicate a turning or we could discover new paths along the way. So, we will need to adjust and calibrate our measures as we progress but never lose sight of the direction we are taking and the destination we want to arrive at. And always remain cohesive so that we can stay together while we move ahead as one united people.

SG Together, Solidarity Forever! Sir, I support the Budget. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr Abdul Samad.

Mr Speaker, I will like to begin my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Budget 2022 provides various forms of support to help Singaporeans cope with the increasing cost of living. As always, the low-income group should receive such support to help them with their living expenses. I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to the Government to review the eligibility requirements in terms of individual or family income, by taking into account the middle-income group so that they are also given a fair share of support.

It is also important that employers hire Singaporean workers and make them the first choice. As someone who represent workers, I am very heartened with the announcement on the lowering of the Dependency Ratio Ceiling. This approach reflects our openness to foreign workers because we are all aware that there is a shortage of manpower that is needed to continue developing Singapore's economy.

Furthermore, the announcement of the $100 million grant to NTUC shows the Government's trust and confidence in NTUC's efforts to enhance the capabilities of workers alongside their employers through the Company Training Committees or CTC. The main objective of forming these committees is to allow trade unions and the management to work together to improve the quality and capability of their workers through comprehensive and new skills. As a result of this effort, I hope that the workers can have better income, career and welfare.

We often hear news reports where Government says that a lot of job opportunities will be made available through new companies that will commence operations in Singapore for the near and long term. This announcement is very much welcomed and therefore, I encourage all workers to constantly improve your skills and capabilities so that we can take on the jobs that will be offered.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest appreciation to every nurse, doctor, paramedic and all those involved in managing this crisis. In addition, I would also like to convey my appreciation to the Fatwa Council and our religious leaders in providing guidance to fulfil our religious obligations at the mosques in terms of Friday prayers as well as daily prayers. This includes the mosque committee members and volunteers who have been working hard to facilitate and ensure safe distancing measures, among others, so that the congregants can come to the mosques in a safe and orderly manner.

(In English): Sir, I will now begin my speech in English. I am heartened that this Budget reflects the Government's continuous support for workers and businesses that are still impacted as we move to an endemic situation. The Budget also acknowledges and empathise my fellow workers' plight given the rising cost of living and their stagnating income.

I would like to begin by highlighting some of the efforts undertaken by fellow Union leaders and NTUC to protect workers and their livelihoods since COVID-19 struck us. We partnered with Government agencies to help redeploy workers from hard-hit sectors to sectors that had an urgent need for manpower.

For workers who unfortunately lost their jobs, we negotiated for reasonable retrenchment benefits and at the same time, provided immediate employment assistance through our Job Security Council. For the companies that were still doing well, we pursued the skills upgrading and career development of workers through the company training committees. These all are only possible due to our unique model of tripartism. Yes, tripartism.

As our economy shows signs of recovery, and our resident unemployment rate has rebounding to pre-COVID-19 levels. This is an opportune time to grow jobs and improve the wages, welfare and work prospects of our workers. This brings me to the first topic of my speech, very close to my heart and indeed all in this Chamber, I believe – Strengthening our Singaporean Core.

This pandemic has accelerated technology adoption across all industries. We have seen many positive examples of unionised companies automating lower-level manual jobs and upskilling workers to work with technological solutions to increase their job value and productivity. As the COVID-19 situation improves and borders are slowly opening, companies should avoid taking the easy way out by bringing back foreign labour as a quick fix solution. Companies should invest in technology and automation for work processes to be easier, safer and smarter. I understand that there are some jobs that need to be supplemented by foreign labour but we should build on the momentum to train and transform our workforce to strengthen our Singaporean Core.

The recent announcement on the reduction of Foreign Dependency Ratio from one is to seven to one is to five, is a positive move to reduce reliance on foreign workers, but raising the minimum qualifying salary by $500 for Employment Pass and S Pass applicants created some misconception and unhappiness because, some see this as a move to increase wages of foreign workers but our Singaporeans do not get similar adjustments over the same period of time.

While the rationale is to ensure employability of our local workforce, MOM needs to clearly show how the increase in the qualifying salary of S Pass and Employment Pass has benefited the local workforce and resulted in the overall increase in wages for Singaporeans. Even with the reduction of the Dependency Ratio, I would also like to see that MOM continues to be stringent in assessing the needs of companies for foreign labour and ensure that such talents that come, complement our Singaporean workforce and augment their skills and capabilities.

Strengthening our Singaporean Core applies to workers of all levels, including our Professionals, Managers, Executives (PMEs). The demands for good and high-skilled jobs that would attract PMEs are also growing, and this provides opportunities for localisation of jobs and career development. The NTUC-SNEF PME task force reported that younger PMEs, aged below 40, opined that their employers are not investing enough to equip them with relevant skills to prepare them for the future. Companies should not take advantage of the recovering economy to bring in foreign talents but instead put in place career development for their Singaporean workers to take on these jobs and grow their careers.

While we could continue to embark on the transformation journey, together with enhancing foreign manpower and companies' policies, we acknowledge that it is important for us to keep up with the demands of the evolving job market, hence it is imperative that companies continue to invest in training, to build deep capabilities in our local workforce for us to strengthen our Singaporean Core.

NTUC is very heartened by the Government's strong support in setting aside $100 million to scale up the company training committees (CTCs) to support companies' transformation plans. NTUC is very committed and ready to partner with companies to form CTCs to identify relevant training to upskill and transform workers in tandem with industry transformation. Such efforts must lead to better wages, better work prospects and better welfare for our workers. These three outcomes will be the catalyst to encourage workers to attend training.

I would like to ensure our companies that NTUC is more than able to support such efforts through our NTUC Training and Placement ecosystem, comprising Employment and Employability Institute (e2i), NTUC Learning Hub, NTUC Industry Training and Transformation (IT&T) and Ong Teng Cheong Labour Leadership Institute (OTCi). Sir, NTUC is well positioned to support companies in their business strategy planning, job matching, job redesign and more importantly, workforce training.

For instance, amid the COVID-19 outbreak, NTUC Learning Hub swiftly augmented its training capabilities to respond to training needs and the national agenda to upskill. This allowed companies from hard-hit sectors such as aviation, hospitality and among others, to reskill and upskill their employees. I am pleased to share that NTUC Learning Hub has achieved a record of over 500,000 training places and upskill more than 300,000 workers since the start of the pandemic.

NTUC Learning Hub also launched their Learning eXperience Platform (LXP) late last year to encourage online learning at one's own pace, anytime and anywhere. This is to also encourage our workforce to embrace lifelong learning and upskilling – complementing CTCs' efforts in partnering companies to transform their business and workforce towards Industry 4.0 and Worker 4.0.

As a strategic partner for industrial transformation, companies can tap on NTUC's Training and Placement network for a smoother business transformation journey, mobilise workers for upskilling and into new jobs to meet the aspirations of their workers, for better staff retention.

Mr Speaker, union leaders are glad that the Government continues to support the aviation industry as it slowly recovers from the severe impact caused by this pandemic. For Singapore to remain its Airhub status, there needs to be a continuous and healthy pipeline of talents to perform these good skilled jobs. With this support, companies need to ramp up their technological solutions and also train their workforce. Companies should also find ways to retain experienced workers through better salaries and benefits while at the same time, improve internship opportunities for Polytechnic and ITE students.

Besides aviation, tourism is another severely impacted sector and have been facing severe manpower shortage. Workloads have increased and sadly, salaries have not increased much since pre-COVID-19. Now and post pandemic, companies are and will continue to change to be leaner and more efficient in their operations, where skilled manpower is sought after. There are efforts to upskill the workforce so that it enables companies to cope with international demand when it returns.

These are good jobs where a worker who has picked up the relevant industry knowledge and has the passion to contribute can rise very quickly to take up management level positions. We hope companies could increase the local Polytechnic and ITE graduate entry level salaries to attract Singaporeans and retain them in the long run. Otherwise, the salaries offered by the gig economy will draw them away from these industries.

However, while Singapore gradually expands vaccinated travel lanes, there remains economic challenges and COVID-19 fear. These put additional pressure on effective recovery of international tourism. I hope and I call on the Government to review and extend similar support to the hotel sector too.

Next point that I would like to raise is on the rising cost of living, with my focus towards extending more support to the middle-income earners. We are all aware that inflation has been on the rise. Singapore's overall inflation in December 2021 has jumped to 4% on a year-on-year basis and has remained at 4% in January 2022. For the whole of 2021, overall inflation rose to 2.3%, and in fact, this is the highest since year 2013.

Based on the feedback and sentiments from my peers and fellow workers, inflation is quickly emerging as a key challenge this year, as households face rising prices on multiple fronts, ranging from food, education to housing. This is especially for our middle-income earners.

We are really heartened by Government's initiatives such as the GST support package to help lower- and middle-income households as well as retirees to cope with the GST hike. Aside from GST Voucher and doubling the U-Save rebates applicable to all HDB households for the remaining quarter in 2022, we also appreciate the increase of annual assessable income to $34,000 as a qualifying criterion for the GST Cash Payment. On this note, we hope that it could be further increased so that it can be extended to middle-income Singaporeans to help them cope with the rising cost of living.

Let us also not forget the group of lower middle-income workers, who are earning slightly more than lower-income individuals, but their families are also struggling with increasing daily expenses, yet they are losing access to Government support schemes as they have just fallen short slightly of the income criteria of these support schemes.

I hope the Government can review the income criteria of various support schemes such as Kindergarten, Student Care and Childcare Subsidies, CPF Housing Grants, to prevent the "cliff effect" and better support the lower middle-income family.

To my fellow workers, rest assured that the unions and NTUC hear your concerns and anxieties on the cost of living. We are also paying close attention and finding avenues to better support you. Our NTUC's social enterprises are committed to continue helping members and workers to moderate the cost of living and stretching their hard-earned dollars.

Today, there are 10 NTUC social enterprises under the NTUC Enterprise group, ranging from FairPrice, FoodFare, Kopitiam, First Campus, Learning Hub and more. Each of them is created to primarily address specific concerns that weigh on the minds of fellow Singaporeans, from rising food costs, catering to the broader needs of Singaporean working parents and their families to staying relevant throughout their working lives. They will continue to roll out initiatives to help Singaporeans cope with the rising cost of living.

I would close my speech by making two key points. One, as our economy recovers, we should build on the momentum to train and transform the Singaporean workforce. NTUC is here to support companies to form CTCs and through the Training and Placement ecosystem, we will provide support for business strategy planning, job redesign and workforce training. Together with the strong support of the Government, we will continue to walk this journey with you, raise local workforce capabilities through upskilling and reskilling. Most importantly, building the pipeline of local talents for the future.

Second is for our middle-income earners. I really hope Government hears our call for greater support for middle-income earners to cope with the increasing cost of living as well as constantly reviewing the criteria of various support schemes to ensure this group of workers does not fall through the cracks.

Unions and NTUC will continue to protect our workers, and the social enterprises will continue to cushion the impact of the cost of living through our various initiatives. Together, unions, NTUC and our social enterprises are committed to serve our members and workers better. We are and will always be by your side, because every worker matters! Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Patrick Tay.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of Budget 2022. This is indeed a Budget that is well-considered and targeted in giving our nation, economy and society a strong boost for the future while supporting our fellow Singaporeans to ride through this pandemic and easing their concerns over the cost of living today. It is one that invests more in our people and social infrastructure so that together, we can bring Singapore out of the COVID-19 shadows and re-inject the nation with resilience and strong growth.

It is important that we continue to build a vibrant economy with thriving companies, supported by a future-ready workforce that can access good jobs and wages, and ensure that no one is left behind. Being part of NTUC and as Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Chair for Education, I believe in investing in our workforce and our companies. As shared by fellow Labour Members of Parliament, Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat as well Labour Nominated Member of Parliament, Brother Abdul Samad earlier, as well as many other hon Members of this House, we are glad to see further investments in our people – not just the young but also supporting Continuing Education and Training, and Lifelong Learning for all, especially our mid-career workers amidst an ageing workforce. By training our workers and equipping them with good and in-demand skills, and giving them good jobs and opportunities, we want them to have better income stability to manage their daily cost of living and tools for success to achieve their aspirations.

In my last Budget debate speech, I made a special highlight on a segment of our workforce which the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted immensely. They are the Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) in Singapore, especially those in the ages of 40s to 60s.

Last year, the NTUC-SNEF PME taskforce, which I co-chaired, consulted more than 10,000 PMEs and stakeholders to understand their concerns, needs, aspirations and fears at the workplace. In response to our local PMEs’ call for assistance, NTUC and SNEF want to strengthen their employment and employability and ensure that they can compete fairly and effectively to meet employers’ manpower and skill demands in a dynamic labour landscape.

NTUC and SNEF have together deliberated the various challenges and concerns faced to arrive at nine recommendations under four key thrusts, which was presented to Minister Tan See Leng and MOM on 21 October 2021.

I am heartened that the Government has taken the NTUC-SNEF PME Taskforce recommendations into serious consideration, as reflected in the Budget Statement made by Minister Lawrence Wong.

In this regard, I would like to elaborate on four of the most urgent tasks on hand to enhance workplace fairness, employment and employability for our PMEs, which are: first, strengthening the Singaporean Core through enhancing the Employment Pass framework; second, imposing a penalty framework for egregious cases of workplace fairness; third, protecting the confidentiality of whistle-blowers of discriminatory practices; and lastly, four, helping mature PMEs to transit into new roles through short term salary support.

First, strengthening the Singaporean Core through enhancing the Employment Pass framework.

While many of us, including the local PMEs whom the NTUC-SNEF PME Taskforce surveyed, recognised the contribution and complementarity of foreign PMEs to Singapore’s economy and the need for us to stay open and competitive, there remained ground concerns and perceptions that an overreliance on foreign PMEs has led to an unnecessary increase in competition in the local job market and employment.

To safeguard our Singaporean Core and curb discriminatory hiring, we must ensure that Singaporean PMEs have access to a level playing field for jobs while at the same time, balance companies’ manpower needs in the immediate and longer term.

Today, the eligibility criteria for Employment Pass (EP) applications generally focus on the individual applicant’s educational qualifications and salary. With the qualifying salaries of both the EP and S Pass holders raised in the past, and with further increases announced in Budget 2022, this will go some way to level the playing field for local PMEs as it ties in with the rise in their median wages. However, I opine that such a system, by itself, is inadequate to level the playing field for our local PMEs.

It is therefore pertinent that the EP framework be further enhanced to meet the objective of ensuring that foreign professionals complement our local PME workforce and that employers practice fair hiring as well as improve the diversity of their workforce.

I am elated that Minister Lawrence Wong announced earlier that the Government will refine the EP application framework so that there is complementarity, transparency and diversity of the foreign workforce. I look forward to MOM sharing more details of the refined EP framework at the Committee of Supply.

I hope that MOM will take in our NTUC-SNEF PME Taskforce’s recommendation for the enhancement of the EP application review process and include a point system which factors in: (a) sectoral input; (b) whether the employer has been hiring and developing local workers; and (c) the diversity of nationalities within the companies.

We believe that such a system will provide the flexibility to let employers who have justified genuinely and adequately, secure foreign talents to complement their local PME workforce and restrict access to foreign talents for the errant companies. And for our local PMEs, we believe both a refinement of the EP system, coupled with the workplace fairness legislation, will go a long way to give better protection and stronger assurance to our local PME populace, especially those 40 to 60 years of age.

Second, imposing a penalty framework for egregious cases of workplace fairness.

While there have been many measures and policies, even with the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) set up over the years, more needs to be done to penalise the small proportion of egregious companies that are out to exploit the system, so that local PMEs can continue to receive fair opportunities and treatment while maintaining Singapore’s economic competitiveness.

I am glad MOM has formed the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness and I hope to see a set of recommendations which will include establishing a robust framework to help achieve workplace fairness for our local PMEs. This should include measures to strengthen enforcement against errant companies and management personnel who adopt unfair practices and require their remedial action. The measures should also be supported by grievance handling processes that will be entrenched to facilitate the therapeutic resolution of grievances at company level for our local PMEs.

Third, protecting the confidentiality of whistle-blowers of discriminatory practices. This brings me to my third point on mandating whistle-blowing policies and procedures to ensure that employees can speak up safely, especially with the forthcoming workplace fairness legislation.

In my engagements, I have heard from various HR professionals and PMEs who have witnessed or experienced discriminatory practices at work. However, in most cases, they do not report such practices for fear of potential reprisals or consequences in their workplace or in their industry.

It is beneficial for those who experienced workplace discrimination or harassment to come forward so that problems can be resolved and positive norms can be established.

We will therefore need to incorporate legal protections to promote transparency and fairness by safeguarding employees’ confidentiality and preventing retaliation by the employer. In this aspect, I hope that policies can be put in place to mandate that employers set up formal grievance handling processes that are communicated clearly to employees. Equally important in the process, is to ensure confidentiality of the whistle-blowers and prohibit retaliation against employees, ex-employees and potential employees, who report discrimination or harassment.

Fourth, helping mature PMEs transit into new roles through short-term salary support. The findings of the NTUC-SNEF PME Taskforce Report shows that mature PMEs are in a particularly precarious and vulnerable situation when they are retrenched or unemployed.

In an online survey with 1,000 PMEs last year in April, we found that as compared to younger PMEs who are 20 to 40 years old, a higher percentage of the mature PMEs who are 40 to 60 years old, attributed their age to be a disadvantage to them at workplaces. In another online survey conducted last year in July with another 1,000 mature PMEs, majority of these mature PMEs expressed challenges in their search for employment and attributed their age to be the key reason. Half of them expressed that they faced some form of discrimination during their job search or at their current workplaces. Some also held the perception that companies are not open to hiring workers who are aged 40 and above.