Hansard, Tuesday, 27 February 2018

1 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) in the past five years, how many parents have provided false information to secure a place for their child in a school; (b) how are such cases handled by the authorities; and (c) whether the child in question is allowed to remain in the school that he or she has been enrolled in when the parents have been found guilty of providing false information.

Mr Speaker, MOE takes a serious view towards parents who intentionally falsify any information for the purpose of Primary 1 (P1) registration. In the last 10 years, there were less than 10 such reported cases.

Where there is reason to believe that false information may have been used, MOE will refer the case to the Police for their investigation and action. In cases where the verdict is finalised and the parent is convicted of the charge, the child who was previously registered in a school based on false information would be transferred to another school with available vacancies.

I thank the Minister for the answer. I have a couple of supplementary questions. First, in such cases, does the Ministry or the school provide counselling services for the child that is affected by this rather unfortunate turn of circumstances? Does the Ministry then follow up to see whether the child is adjusting well in the new school? My concern, of course, is coming from the perspective of the welfare of the child.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the clarification. Yes, if needed, we will extend the necessary support both educationally and emotionally to the child affected. After all, he or she is still the centre of the purpose of education.

2 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in each of the last five years, how many cases of trespass and unauthorised access to private properties and restricted areas, such as rooftops and military areas, have been reported to the Police; (b) how many cases involved (i) death (ii) injuries and (iii) damage to properties; (c) what are the main reasons for such trespass; (d) how many of these cases involved minors; and (e) what are the measures put in place to enhance the security of these sites.

Over the past five years, an average of about 580 cases of trespass were reported to the Police annually. This includes cases of unauthorised access to private properties and restricted areas.

Of these, an average of 30 cases each year involved acts which caused some damage to properties, that is, mischief and vandalism. Police do not track trespass cases by whether they involve death and injuries.

Each year, over the past five years, there was an average of about 700 persons arrested for trespassing and about 12% were youths under the age of 16 years old. Police's experience suggests that cases of trespass committed by youths were often due to peer influence or a desire to seek thrill in their free time. These youths would trespass into unoccupied schools, rooftops and other places.

Individuals may also have trespassed into private land and state land for various other reasons, including illicit activities, such as vice, or less malicious reasons, such as to access fishing sites at the beaches or to pick durians.

Where appropriate, Police work with stakeholders to enhance the security of sites to prevent and deter trespass. For example, there are signs in restricted areas, such as military installations and training grounds, as well as SLA's state lands, to warn the public against trespassing. Police have also put up Crime Alert signages at areas where there have been incidents, and work with Town Councils to ensure that HDB rooftops are secured to prevent unauthorised access.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I have one supplementary question. May I know how often reviews are carried out at protected areas to ensure they are secured and adequately guarded against intrusions, especially in this day and age when drones are becoming increasingly an accessible equipment.

I thank the Member for the question. The Home Team works together with owners of security-sensitive locations to regularly review their adequacy of security measures based on the prevailing threat assessment. This includes threats from unmanned aircraft which are prohibited from flying over security-sensitive locations without a permit under the Air Navigation Act. Law enforcement officers can end the flight or assume control of an unmanned aircraft if it poses a risk to the public or is flown in a way that contravenes regulations under the Air Navigation Act.

Enforcement agencies have also been building up their capability to counter safety and security threats posed by unmanned aircraft. This includes the ability to detect and identify the unmanned aircraft, to locate its operator or take down the aircraft safely.

3 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Home Affairs in the last five years (a) how many Police reports have been made involving sexual harassment or insults of modesty (i) through the use of technology and (ii) which occurred at the workplace respectively; and (b) how many of such reports have been made by women and men respectively.

Sexual harassment and insults of modesty are offences under the Protection from Harassment Act and section 509 of the Penal Code respectively.

The Police do not track how many such cases involved technology specifically. However, from 2013 to 2017, an average of about 100 Police reports were filed annually for upskirting, with the use of mobile phones or other image capturing devices.

In the same period, an average of about 20 Police reports were filed annually involving harassment or insults of modesty occurring at the workplace.

Around 97% of these reports were made by females.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. Are there other incidents of sexual harassment that have been reported to the Police that are outside of the use of technology or beyond the workplace? And are there plans to strengthen section 509 of the Penal Code to include men as victims of insult of modesty?

Places where outrage of modesty occurs include on public transport, at workplaces and various places. We are reviewing the Penal Code and one of these sections that we are looking at is that particular section. So, we will review it holistically and see what we need to strengthen.

4 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry will consider allowing students studying a particular Mother Tongue at school to obtain tuition assistance from the ethnic self-help group associated with that Mother Tongue even if the student does not belong to that ethnic group.

The Government does not direct the Self-Help groups (SHGs). Hence, it is not for the Ministry to allow or disallow students from obtaining tuition assistance from a self-help group of a different ethnic group.

I understand that students, regardless of the Mother Tongue they study in school, are eligible to enrol for tuition programmes offered under the Collaborative Tuition Programme, a scheme jointly organised by the SHGs.

5 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the findings on the safety of delivery riders/drivers from the Ministry's inspection of 50 food delivery and courier service companies between July and September 2017; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider introducing legislation to ensure that food delivery and courier service companies be accountable for work-related traffic accidents involving their deliverymen, including part-timers and contract personnel, on bicycles and personal mobility devices.

Mr Speaker, Sir, MOM inspected 50 food delivery and courier service companies last year and issued 71 notices to 44 errant companies for infringement of Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) regulations. More than 70% of the infringements were related to the lack of or inadequate risk assessment. These companies did not conduct risk assessment to identify hazards which can affect the safety and health of their employees and contract personnel.

Without risk assessments, the companies are not able to put in place the necessary preventive actions against accidents. These errant companies have since rectified the safety lapses and conducted proper risk assessments for their employees and contracted parties directly working under them. We will conduct similar operations this year on other delivery companies and couriers to ensure that they also adopt proper WSH measures at their workplaces.

On the need for legislation, the Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSHA) already requires food delivery and courier service companies to ensure the safety and health of their workers, including part-time employees and contract personnel. The safety measures include ensuring that their workers have taken adequate safety measures and have sufficient training on the use of bicycles and personal mobility devices.

I thank the Minister of State. I have one supplementary question. Will MOM consider making it mandatory for our employers to buy special insurance policies for their delivery men to cover third-party risks so that the victims can make claims should there be an accident?

Sir, under the existing law, third-party risks are already covered by motor insurance if the delivery men use vehicles, such as vans, lorries, cars and so on, to carry out their work. So, this is covered. However, there is one group of delivery men not covered under the current law and these are the delivery men using personal mobility devices to perform their tasks.

This issue is being studied by the Active Mobility Advisory Panel under MOT. I understand that the study is due to be completed by the end of this year. By then, we should have more information on how this gap can be closed.

6 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (a) whether there has been a significant rise in the average cost of living for Singaporeans since 2010 in terms of basic necessities/staple food, transportation, housing and medical care relative to other major cities with and without the same standard of living and full accessibility of goods and services respectively; and (b) how will the Government continue to provide Singaporeans with a higher standard of living and maintaining a lower cost of living.

The Consumer Price Index can be used as a proxy for changes in the cost of living in Singapore. Between 2010 and 2017, the Consumer Price Index (CPI-All Items) inflation rate was 1.8% per annum. However, most of the inflation over this period occurred in the earlier years. Last year, the inflation rate was lower, at 0.6%, following two years of negative inflation.

The Member asked about the inflation experience of other major cities. As most national statistical offices do not publish inflation data at the city level, we will look at the experiences of the three Newly Industrialised Economies (NIEs) of Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan instead. Over the period of 2010 to 2017, the inflation rates of South Korea and Taiwan, at 1.8% and 1.0% per annum respectively, were comparable to or lower than Singapore’s. On the other hand, Hong Kong's inflation rate was higher, at 3.6% per annum.

Apart from looking at the cost of living, we should also consider households' income growth which affects their ability to meet these costs. Between 2010 and 2017, resident households’ incomes increased faster than the inflation rate, leading to positive real income growth. For instance, median resident household income from work per member grew by 3.7% per year in real terms, while that for the lower income deciles rose by between 3.6% and 4.0% per annum.

Nonetheless, the Government recognises that cost of living may be of concern for some groups, particularly retirees and lower income households. The Government provides significant support for Singaporeans, such as in pre-school, education, housing, healthcare and public transport, to ensure that these are affordable. Direct social transfers, such as the GST Voucher, Workfare Income Supplement and Silver Support Schemes, provide additional support to the lower income. For needy families who require more support due to their unique circumstances, additional help is available at our Social Service Offices.

The Government will continue to monitor trends in inflation and cost of living closely and provide help to Singaporeans where required. In addition, the Government will continue to ensure that our economy remains competitive and dynamic, so as to provide good job opportunities with sustained income growth for Singaporeans. This will, in turn, help to ensure a higher standard of living for Singaporeans.

7 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) how do the absolute and relative costs – as a percentage of total expenses – of owning or renting property borne by SMEs and startups in Singapore compared to countries with a strong startup and SME sector, including Germany, Switzerland, Israel, Japan and the USA.

In line with global norms, purchases of property are considered as additions to fixed assets and do not form part of business costs. As for rental costs, these generally make up a small share of total business costs for SMEs in Singapore.

In 2016, rental costs contributed to between 0.4% and 5.3% of SMEs' business costs in the manufacturing sector and 8% or less of SMEs' business costs in most services sector.

Although the rental cost share for SMEs in the retail sector was higher at around 30%, retail rents have been on a decline in recent years, falling by 16% from 2014 to 2017. Similarly, office rents have fallen by about 14% since peaking in 2015, while those for industrial land decreased by 13% since peaking in 2014.

In absolute figures, the median rental per square foot per month in the last quarter of 2017 was about $9 for office space in Core Business areas and close to $5.50 in other areas; almost $10 for retail space in Orchard Road and about $5.50 in other parts of the Central area. For industrial space, the median rental per square foot per month in the last quarter of 2017 was about $2 for a multiple-user factory space and about $4 for Business Park space.

On the back of the decline in rentals, only 13% of the 2,500 SME respondents in the 2017 SME Development Survey conducted by DP Information Group cited high rental costs as one of the top business concerns in 2017, representing a decrease from 18% in 2015.

While the Government does not collect data on rental costs borne by SMEs and startups in other countries, property consultancy studies show that Singapore’s rents are generally competitive or comparable to similar cities in the United States, Switzerland and Japan.

To ensure that there continues to be sufficient flow of commercial and industrial space to meet demand and support economic growth, the Government releases land for private-sector developments through the Government Land Sales (GLS) programmes. JTC also develops innovative industrial facilities with shared services to help SMEs reduce capital expenditure and operating costs. To support startups, JTC has developed startup clusters known as LaunchPads. As startups may have different space requirements, JTC offers options ranging from bare units to units with air-conditioning and ready power provision. The startup community has taken well to the Launchpads.

The Government will continue to closely monitor the industrial and commercial property markets and ensure the stability and sustainability of rentals for businesses over the medium to longer term.

I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. Just one supplementary question. The Minister of State mentioned that the rental costs are comparable to major cities in the US, Japan and Switzerland. I think in some of these countries, SMEs may have the option of moving to the outskirts of the city and renting industrial property or even light industrial or commercial properties. I am not sure if that has been factored into the statistical comparison that the Minister of State mentioned.

So, my question is: will the Ministry consider studying the comparison between rental costs here and rental costs in key cities in these other countries, including the outskirts, and monitor that and study if that level of rental costs that we have is serving as an impediment to entrepreneurship or people wanting to continue in SMEs going forward.

Sir, I think we have provided for a good quantity of startup spaces that enable entrepreneurs to start their business, so one of the ideas is to start Launchpads. We are beginning to create more space for new entrepreneurs to start their businesses and Launchpads for innovation. I think that has been well received by entrepreneurs. The take-up rate in one-north area is almost 90%. JTC will continue to look at the demand and if there is more demand, we will see how best we can create some spaces for innovation and Launchpads for entrepreneurs to take off.

8 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport (a) what has been the number of international passengers for Changi Airport in 2017; and (b) what are the growth rates for international passengers for the past five years for Changi Airport compared to the same data for competing regional air hubs, including Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta.

Mr Speaker, between 2012 and 2017, the number of passengers at Changi Airport grew at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 4%, reaching 62.2 million passengers in 2017. In the same period, the number of overseas visitors who came to Singapore by air grew at a CAGR of 4.1%.

The five-year CAGR for international passengers handled at the Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta airports were 10.2%, 7.4% and 3.5% for the period 2011 to 2016, based on publicly available full-year data. We do not have data on the number of overseas visitors the three foreign airports handled.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. Given that the CAGR for Bangkok and Jakarta are quite substantially higher than Changi Airport, does the Ministry have any concerns that, over time, the competitiveness of our air hub will be eroded vis-à-vis Bangkok and Jakarta? What are some of the plans that the Ministry is looking into to mitigate that?

Indeed, the region's airports grow at different rates but, contextually, we must look at the growth conditions as well. Bangkok and Singapore Changi Airport are at about the same base but, in Bangkok, they have two different airports to serve the domestic and the international market at Don Muang and Suvarnabhumi Airports. With this advantage and also the domestic growth of LCCs, they have a 10.2% growth. We are watching this – as we always do – to make sure that Changi is competitive.

Whereas for Jakarta, it starts at a lower base, much lower numbers of passengers per year. When it starts off with different initial conditions, we have different growth rates. Nevertheless, what we want to do for Changi is to anchor it as a premier air hub, as we have done for so many years, which, also in time to come, will involve building a T5 for the expanded capacities to handle increased projected volumes of passengers.

9 Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked the Minister for Manpower of the number of university graduates aged 40 years and above in 2016 who had left their jobs or were retrenched in that year, how many have managed to secure employment thereafter in (i) the same industry they were in or (ii) a different industry respectively as a result of the SkillsFuture movement.

Mr Speaker, data on the number of employees who left their jobs but who were not retrenched is not available. There were about 5,000 retrenched local PMETs aged 40 and above in 2016. About one-third of those who subsequently found jobs re-entered the same industry, while the rest took up jobs in a different industry.

Singaporeans looking for a new job or career can tap on the Adapt and Grow initiative to supplement their own efforts. In 2017, more than 6,000 PMETs aged 40 and above found jobs through career matching services or programmes, such as the Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) and Career Support Programme (CSP), which provide training and wage support to bridge mismatches in skills or wage expectations. This is an increase of almost 50% compared to 2016.

Individuals also have access to a wide range of courses and initiatives under SkillsFuture to enhance or acquire new skills to stay relevant as the job market evolves.

I thank the Second Minister for the answer. It is quite heartening to know that there are Singaporeans being emplaced with jobs even after they are retrenched. However, in conversations with residents and some volunteers, not many are aware of the whole slew of SkillsFuture initiatives and schemes available. Whenever we mention SkillsFuture, the first thing that comes to mind is the $500 SkillsFuture Credit.

Is there any data that the Ministry has to show the level of awareness and knowledge that Singaporeans have about the various schemes and programmes under SkillsFuture? And are there plans to increase outreach or roadshows to inform and explain to Singaporeans that there are many different schemes and programmes under SkillsFuture that they can tap on?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for her questions. Actually, for SkillsFuture, the Minister is seated right here and he is better placed to answer that question. But I will try my best. We work as a team.

Indeed, if you consider the fact that SkillsFuture is a relatively new movement, the fact that so many people know of its existence is, to my mind, quite remarkable. Notwithstanding the fact that the one thing that is on their top of mind recall is the $500 credit.

I think, increasingly, individuals are beginning to learn more about SkillsFuture. If you look at the perspective of the students, if the student is in a Polytechnic, he would know that there are programmes, such as Earn and Learn, which is one of the SkillsFuture programmes. If they are already in the workforce, SkillsFuture has launched two major initiatives. One is an advisory for individuals; second, there is an initiative to reach out to businesses to help them, in turn, help their own employees make better use of the many schemes that are available under SkillsFuture.

Of course, at the same time, the Member correctly pointed out we would need to do things like roadshows and reach out to as many people as possible to help them understand how they can take advantage of the schemes. I should add that, in addition to SkillsFuture, likewise, we also conduct outreach on Adapt and Grow initiatives because, depending on individuals, whether they are actively looking for a job or they are just seeking to replenish their repertoire of skills in order to be ready for a transition in the future, I think it is worth our while to reach out to all of them. Many different types of approaches and channels will have to be exercised for that purpose.

10 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether IMDA places a limit on the number of mailboxes a postman has to cover each day; (b) whether there are regulations in place to safeguard the working conditions of postmen; and (c) how does IMDA plan to support SingPost in adopting technology or redesigning jobs to improve accuracy and efficiency of mail sorting and delivery to ease existing workloads.

Mr Speaker, the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) does not limit the number of letter boxes each postman serves. As a licensee, SingPost is required to plan and optimise its operations to meet the IMDA's Postal Quality of Service (QoS) standards, namely, to deliver 100% of all basic letters within two working days of posting. IMDA will take regulatory actions, such as imposing financial penalties, if SingPost fails to meet these standards.

Sir, I understand that SingPost recently reviewed its postman delivery routes to ensure that the daily delivery workload is equitably distributed amongst its postmen. Currently, each postman delivers mail items to approximately 2,000 dwelling units, or roughly 20 HDB blocks daily. In designing a postman's delivery route, SingPost ensures that each postman is able to complete his delivery within a standard six-hour delivery window. During peak periods where there are higher mail volumes, SingPost may engage temporary postal workers for sorting duties, redeploy staff or request postmen to work overtime to ensure that mail is delivered in a timely manner. Postmen who work overtime are given overtime pay.

The Member asked about regulations to safeguard the working conditions of postmen. Mr Speaker, SingPost has to comply with prevailing labour legislation that protects the rights and welfare of its workers. I am told that over the past few years, SingPost has increased the postmen’s salary and that MOM has not received any valid salary-related complaints over the last five years.

The Member also asked about leveraging technology to improve mail operations. I understand that SingPost has been actively adopting technology and has invested $100 million over the last few years to improve its operational efficiency. For instance, SingPost invested in a $45-million mail sorting machine that has automated 95% of the mail sorting process. To make it easier for its postmen to deliver mail, SingPost has also introduced more delivery vehicles, such as three-wheel scooters and customised mail delivery trolleys. IMDA is fully supportive of SingPost's on-going efforts to adopt technology and redesign jobs.

I thank the Minister for the reply. IMDA has also stated that it would be conducting a full investigation into the incident where the postman was dismissed for throwing away mail. Can the Minister share what the scope of the investigation is and, based on this investigation, if SingPost will be further reviewing the workload of postmen and postwomen?

IMDA is doing the investigations. I do not have the details as yet. But once we are finished with the investigations, we will communicate the outcome to SingPost. And if there are further remedial measures that SingPost will have to take, we will ask SingPost to comply with them.

At the end of the day, as I have mentioned earlier, we control the outcome through our Quality of Service standards and, if there are lapses in SingPost, we will have to deal with it accordingly.

Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills.

[(proc text) "to amend the Competition Act (Chapter 50B of the 2006 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon) on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade); read the First time; to be read a Second time at a Sitting of Parliament on or after 14 March 2018, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act (Chapter 272A of the 1996 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Koh Poh Koon) on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade); read the First time; to be read a Second time at a Sitting of Parliament on or after 14 March 2018, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Films Act (Chapter 107 of the 1998 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim); read the First time; to be read a Second time at a Sitting of Parliament on or after 14 March 2018, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to extend police powers to better prevent and respond to any incident or likely incident involving serious violence or large-scale public disorder in Singapore, to repeal the Public Order (Preservation) Act (Chapter 258 of the 1985 Revised Edition), and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo); read the First time; to be read a Second time at the Sitting of Parliament on or after 14 March 2018, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to establish common services tunnel areas and for the regulation of activities within or connected with common services tunnel areas to ensure the safe and efficient operation and functionality of any common services tunnel and any ancillary facility of the common services tunnel, and for connected purposes", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong); read the First time; to be read a Second time at the Sitting of Parliament on or after 14 March 2018, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [19 February 2018], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019." ‒ [Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, this year's Budget sets out the challenges we are facing, how do we respond and the measures needed and how do we find the means to carry out the comprehensive set of plans and initiatives in the medium to long term.

Deepening economic transformations continue to be the focus, with various schemes streamlined and better integrated, such as the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) and the Enterprise Development Grant (EDG), the piloting of the Open Innovation Platform to spur partnerships and the enhancements of various tax incentives, such as IP licensing, amongst others. I will speak on the economic measures during the MTI Committee of Supply (COS) debate.

I am glad that the introduction of the carbon tax would be phased in gradually to monitor the impact and applaud the Government’s commitment that the projected $1 billion revenue collected over the first five years will be used to support projects that will achieve greater emission reductions.

I also welcome the measures to further improve social mobility, such as increasing the annual Edusave contributions, updating the income eligibility for the Edusave Merit Bursary and enhancing the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme, among others. I believe we can do more on this front.

But among the most talked about aspect in this year’s Budget is, of course, the topic of fiscal sustainability and the two-percentage point increase in GST.

The timing of the GST increase, at least three years from now, should not come as a surprise as both the current and previous Ministers for Finance have already made it quite clear that we do have sufficient revenue to meet the increased expenditures for this term of Government. So, this increase in GST is not a deferred tax. It is meant to take care of future spending increases beyond 2020.

I appreciate the Government sharing this way ahead of time so that Singaporeans and businesses can better prepare for the increase. It will also give the Government time to work on offset schemes to further enhance the progressivity of our GST system, something quite unique to Singapore.

We know the reason why we need more revenues. Our expenditures have been rising rapidly, with healthcare and infrastructure spending among the main drivers. In the next decade, this trajectory is likely to continue with even higher healthcare and other recurring expenditures.

In some ways, as Members of Parliament, we have a part to play in these rising expenditures. To progress as a society and to improve the well-being of Singaporeans, we are relentless in pushing for more spending in many areas, such as education, housing, healthcare, transport and others. We asked for more subsidies to help low- and middle-income families; we ask for more facilities in the constituencies we represent. It is our duty to improve lives.

So, I must admit I am one of those. For example, I requested the Minister for Health for a polyclinic in my constituency three years ago. I am glad that construction will start this year. But I know that it would cost the Government tens of millions of dollars to build a polyclinic and, when completed, it will incur recurring operating and maintenance expenses in perpetuity. I have made another request to the Minister for Health for a Senior Care Centre, which I understand will cost about $1 million to build and, of course, will come with its operating costs thereafter.

But such facilities and the various expenditures are necessary to improve lives. Between not spending on these items or cutting spending, I would rather the Government spend prudently but look for more revenue sources so that we can continue to provide more to improve the quality of life for our people.

I believe most Singaporeans can understand why the expenditures are rising. The question is how do we find more revenue to pay for these rising expenditures. Some had suggested why not increase the share of Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) beyond 50% and asked if the Government is too prudent or conservative in managing the finances. So, let me offer my thoughts on this.

When I studied Civil Engineering at the Singapore Polytechnic, one of the structural engineering concepts that I learned was this term known as the "Factor of Safety". Essentially, what it meant is that whether it is a building or a structure like a bridge or a tower, engineers will design and build structures with a load carrying capacity way beyond the expected or intended loads ‒ often between two and three times. This is to reduce the probability of the structure collapsing due to unforeseen factors to a negligible level as you can never be 100% sure that the inputs that you use will be accurately captured in the calculations. There could be unexpected extreme wind loads or seismic movements due to major earthquakes nearby, for example, or other possibilities.

So, buildings and structures are purposely built much stronger than needed for normal usage, with a "factor of safety” added to, hopefully, cater for the extreme unexpected emergency situations.

Similarly, when we look at the long-term finances of a country, should we not also load a “factor of safety” so that, as a country, we will never be caught in a position where we are unable to decisively respond to an unexpected crisis or disaster? Should we not want to ensure that we have the ability to fight back and recover from an extreme risk event? And these risk events could be known unknowns to us or total unknown-unknowns to us. It could be weather calamities, severe global or regional economic crises or even geopolitical crises in the region.

Look at what happened to Qatar. Last year, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE and Egypt cut diplomatic relations with Qatar and imposed an air, sea and land blockade, with the aim to isolate Qatar’s economy. According to estimates by the ratings agency Moody’s, the Qatari government injected almost US$40 billion into the economy, just in the first couple of months of the crisis. Qatar’s huge reserves have certainly come into play in how they cope with the crisis.

We are a tiny island state. We are smaller than Qatar in size, with no oil or gas underneath us. Our economy heavily depended on external trade and investments to sustain our economic livelihood. Any changes to the global economic and trade order can have severe direct impact on our economy, more than any other countries in the world, due to our openness as an economy.

And given our inherent circumstances with almost no domestic hinterland, we will always have to be an open economy to seek opportunities. Our domestic consumption can never sustain growth in our economy and will certainly not earn us the foreign currency needed to pay for the imports that we need and want.

As we transform into a more innovative, entrepreneurial and internationalised economy, our risk exposures to the volatility of the world market will increase, not decrease.

The other reality of a small economy is that we will always be a price taker in the fiercely competitive world out there. Today, we have a vibrant and viable economy. We have strong export capabilities and we continue to be able to attract good investments into Singapore. But one day, if this global economic order changes and turns against us or countries decide to impose unfair trade barriers on us, we may really need to count on our reserves to help us buy time to turn things around. This is about survival.

So, I asked myself – what can go wrong for a country like Singapore to be more conservative in managing our finances? What are the downsides for doing that and what are the upsides?

Our solid financial position helps us to maintain our position as one the few countries in the world with a triple "A" credit rating – very few left in the world. It helps us to keep our Singapore dollar strong ‒ an important counter-inflation tool. It strengthens our position as an international financial centre, ensuring our connectivity and relevance to the world and, of course, creating very good jobs.

Perhaps, what is even more tangible is that the reserves that our forefathers have painstakingly built up over the decades have generated investment returns, and 50% of it is today the largest contributing revenue helping to balance our annual Budgets. This amounts to about $14.6 billion in FY2017, which is actually an expansionary injection to the economy, as it is not taken in through tax leakages.

Over the last 10 years, the Net Investment Returns (NIR) – previously the Net Investment Income (NII) – contributions of past Budgets have added up to more than $100 billion. Imagine us not having NIRCs or much lesser NIRC, our spending and subsidies of programmes would have been much lower and/or we may have to raise even higher taxes.

Parliament had debated the NIR framework in the past and had agreed on a 50-50 split between spending now and saving for the future. This is a fair balance between the current and future generations. I voted in support of the framework then and my position remains firmly unchanged.

It is always tempting to go for short-term painless solutions. Our forefathers were resolute in not taking that easy path and so should we.

Rather than use more of the returns for current spending, we should let the power of compounding returns do the work by re-investing the other 50% so as to grow the principal amount of the reserves and contribute to bigger value of the NIRC in the future.

Going forward, we actually need a bigger NIRC to keep our tax system competitive and, importantly, progressive as well.

So, what are the downsides of being more prudent or conservative?

Well, there may, indeed, be some years where we do collect more taxes than needed, such as in FY2017. There are many factors that can result in higher than forecasted surpluses ‒ better-than-expected economic performances, actual expenditure and revenue deviating from the forecast, better investment returns, among others. As the Government ‒ like most other governments in the world ‒ adopts a cash accounting approach, as opposed to accrual accounting like companies, the annual Budget position can be significantly affected when there are changes to payment timings for big ticket items.

Whenever there is a Budget surplus situation, the Government does have the practice of redistributing the surpluses, whether it is from the current Budget or past surpluses from the current term of Government, to Singaporeans. The payment of special GST Vouchers and the one-off SG Bonus are good examples where payouts are tilted in favour of the low and middle-income.

The Government has also used surpluses from each term of Government to top up endowment funds like ComCare, Pioneer Generation Package and, in this year's Budget, a further top-up to the GSTV Fund. This is to accumulate resources so that we can help more Singaporeans when the GST increase comes into effect after 2021.

Here, I hope the Minister for Finance can affirm this surplus redistribution arrangement as part of our social compact. Besides helping to mitigate the impact of GST and rising costs, it can also help manage the income disparity that we see widening in our society.

Of course, in the years ahead, we can never be sure of any surpluses or the extent at which our social expenditures rise and where the additional tax revenues are meant to be used for. However, in years where the country has done well, we should be targeted in distributing the surpluses to the low to middle-income. This would give Singaporeans a sense that everyone has a stake in this country and we are all aligned to work together for the betterment of Singapore.

This year’s Budget also sets out with great clarity the framework principles on how the Government would fund various spending and how, for some of the infrastructure projects, the share of funding can be distributed more equitably across generations.

I agree with the Minister for Finance that, for recurrent spending like healthcare, security and other social expenditures where it directly benefits the current generation, they should be funded with current taxation so that every generation pays its share. This approach would also instil spending discipline as any further rise in recurring expenditures would have to be funded through more taxes. This in-built discipline will help to keep our operating budget sustainable and fairer as well.

For the longer term mega infrastructure projects with high capital investments, the Government will set aside surpluses where possible, and to use savings accumulated to pay part of the lumpy investment costs. This pre-funding approach demonstrates commitment and ensures that there is sufficient funding for projects with very high capital expenditures, such as the Cross Island MRT Line.

I also welcome the new financing approach for projects that generate future economic returns to be undertaken by Statutory Boards or Government-owned companies where they can look to borrow to finance the projects and could potentially draw on the Government guarantee to lower the financing costs of these long-term borrowings.

The Government is a net creditor and does not need to borrow, other than the issuance of Singapore Government securities which are to help create a risk-free bond market yield curve. However, for the entity that builds the Government-invested infrastructure, borrowing at the project level does require higher financing costs because of the risks associated, such as construction risk. This could result in a negative situation from the Government's standpoint where borrowing rates may be higher than the returns derived from investing the reserves. Hence, it makes smart sense to tap on the Government guarantees to reduce the borrowing costs. I find this a refreshing approach.

Mr Speaker, it is timely that the Finance Minister sets out these funding principles clearly and the thinking behind it.

A recent Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey with regard to the use of reserves or taxation to pay for social spending suggests that Singaporeans do have an almost equal split view on this issue. We need to talk more on this issue and seek buy-in from Singaporeans on the approach that the Government is taking. Importantly, to expound on our value system about each generation – past, present and future – doing our part to shoulder the funding of a socially cohesive and economically vibrant future Singapore. To a certain extent, this Budget has brought to attention this issue and offers some clarity on how we intend to achieve this inter-generation equity. I urge that we continue this conversation.

Mr Speaker, overall, Budget 2018 exhibits traits which make Singapore exceptional – always plan and act for the long-term good of the country. And beyond just about living within our means, Budget 2018 acts to grow the means for better living in the future.

So, the most balanced way to look at this year's Budget is not just seeing it from today’s standpoint but imagining that we are in 2030 and looking back at the measures that we have put in place today. With that, Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, Budget 2018 is a far-sighted plan with targeted measures that build on the momentum to reform our economy and care for our people. It is prudent yet aspirational, as it plots a path to a visionary and sustainable future for our country.

It is also a bitter-sweet Budget. Singapore’s economy grew at a faster than expected pace, with encouraging growth in productivity, real wages and output. Last year’s Budget recorded a healthy surplus of $9.6 billion, thanks to exceptional items. Seven hundred million dollars was set aside to share with Singaporeans via SG Bonus.

When looking beyond short-term headline numbers into the longer-term outlook, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat prescribed the bitter pill of a GST hike to come. This is to cater for expected expenditures in the next decade for infrastructure developments and an ageing population. Even though it would have been more convenient to do otherwise, I appreciate the Minister's courage to be upfront and begin the uncomfortable conversation of "money not enough" now, in order to give Singaporeans plenty of time to prepare.

It is understandable that no one likes a GST hike. We can take comfort that this increase is not immediate with the exact timing of between 2021 and 2025, depending on the state of the Singapore economy, how much expenditures grow and how buoyant existing taxes will be. As a principle, I urge the Minister to try and delay the need to raise the GST rate.

First, with the recovering Singapore and world economies and the shift in global economic weight towards Asia, these shifts represent significant opportunities for our firms and people. One optimistic scenario sees Singapore’s economy continuing to outperform our forecasts over the next few years, with recurring Budget surpluses. Under these happy circumstances, we should review the need for a GST rate hike.

Second, I would like to call on the Government to continue studying all other possible streams of revenue. For example, expanding the scope of GST to cover the rapidly growing e-commerce market will plug tax leakage to online sales and level the playing field for offline companies that have struggled to compete. Indeed, with cross-border transactions expected to account for more than half of online sales, the plan to levy GST on all imported digital services by 2020 represents a significant step in broadening the Government’s tax revenue streams.

I hope that the tax on imported digital services will pave the way for a broader e- commerce tax on goods and services when complexities of an effective tax collection mechanism for low-value imported goods can be resolved. Given the projected exponential growth of e-commerce, its potential for GST contribution must be worth the effort to get it right.

Sir, I would also ask that, in line with the announcement of increased tobacco taxes, the Government also consider reviewing taxes on liquor and gambling. By bringing Singapore's low gambling tax rates of 5% to 15% closer in line with Macau's rate of 39% and Australia’s rate of up to 45% in some states, the authorities can collect much of the $3 billion intended to be drawn from a two-percentage point GST hike. The Government should also consider introducing sugar tax in the light of growing concerns over diabetes. Other tax avenues could include introduction of a capital gains tax or increase in property tax for non-resident property owners, as imposed by countries, such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

When GST hike becomes inevitable, I call on the Government to offer more in the Offset Package, to help lower- and middle-income households and seniors cope with increases in the cost of living. The new package should help people understand how support provided actually "offsets" taxes they pay on their expenses. The Government must do a better job to assure Singaporeans that a GST increase will be implemented in a progressive manner and that the authorities will moderate the impact of this increase on those who struggle to make ends meet.

Mr Speaker, I support the Minister’s decision not to tap our reserves any more than we currently do. Under the existing NIRC framework, 50% of expected net investment returns is already contributing the single largest source of funds for Government expenditure. Its contribution has risen steadily over the years, such that $1 in $5 of Government spending now comes from NIRC. This high dependency on NIRC, I think, represents a significant vulnerability for Singapore, given the volatility that comes naturally with any investment portfolio. Even the best investment managers will admit that they can only manage risks, not returns. To ensure a sustainable fiscal position, there may be a need, some time in the future, to consider a limit upon which Government spending can tap NIRC to avoid over dependency, over and above the current NIRC framework.

Sir, Singapore's reserves were built up because our pioneering leaders were financially prudent and this has strengthened Singapore’s footing on many fronts. The latest being the Government's consideration of using reserves to provide guarantees against long-term borrowings to build critical national infrastructure at lower financing costs. This is a much better way to tap on the strength of our reserves without having to draw directly on them. While I support this approach, I would like to ask the Minister how these borrowings against reserves can be structured and operationalised. What is the expected difference in borrowing costs versus investment returns from the reserves?

Mr Speaker, the Wage Credit Scheme and corporate income tax rebate will help companies to overcome near-term challenges. I am pleased to see broad-based schemes such as the Productivity and Innovation (PIC) Scheme, replaced by targeted measures to foster innovation and R&D, go international, build capabilities and forge partnerships. There are, however, three critical areas we need to address.

First, companies are still very concerned that Government regulations have not kept up with the times. I spoke in the last Budget about the need for the Government to create enabling environments, within which companies can become nimbler and more innovative, in order to cope with the rapid pace of innovation and increasing competition, even from within the ASEAN region. Companies do recognise that selected agencies have tried to do things differently, but they often voice their frustration of being tripped up by "last-mile" regulations. A whole-of-Government approach is needed to create a dynamic ecosystem, with coordinated efforts across agencies to update related rules and regulations.

Second, the impact of the $4.5 billion Industry Transformation Programme announced in Budget 2016 has yet to be realised. The Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) are still a work-in-progress. This effort will need to speed up, their implementation is urgent. ITMs were supposed to be a joint effort between industry partners, trade associations and public agencies, all coming together to support the sector’s transformation. The Government’s role was to bring industry stakeholders together to catalyse action, yet industry players feel that the private sector has not been adequately involved in the process. Given the pivotal role ITMs are meant to play in the future economy, all stakeholders, including the companies themselves, must start pulling its own weight for this important venture to succeed.

Third, the Budget does not address measures to deal with Singapore’s shrinking workforce nor offer guidance on foreign manpower policy, despite calls for help by businesses struggling to deal with manpower shortages. Many firms complain that they are not able to embrace the push for companies to go digital and adopt new technologies, amidst a severe tech talent crunch.

While we must continue our manpower-lean approach as the way for firms to grow and maintain the overall ratio of local-to-foreign talents in our workforce, I call on the Government to consider some adjustments to the mix of foreign manpower to support growth areas earmarked in the future economy, such as expertise in data analytics, artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. Shortage of skilled talent will constrain our efforts to transform our economy, with the problem becoming more acute as economic growth gains pace. In order to capitalise on the growth momentum, foreign manpower policies may need to evolve to include skill-based factors to prioritise types of foreign skills and expertise, like those adopted in other countries.

Mr Speaker, Budget 2018 addresses many issues, some of which confront us now and others which are on the horizon of the next decade, but all of them are of consequence. It lays out a roadmap for a fiscally sustainable and secure future for Singapore in the face of considerable challenges, including an ageing population and infrastructure. It calls on us to face down these challenges today, so that when we deal with them, we do so from a position of strength. As the old Chinese proverb goes, "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now." Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

12.00 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat and his team have presented a well-balanced plan that shows prudence in our fiscal policies and continues from last year’s theme of preparing Singapore for the future.

During the Budget debate last year, I mentioned that there is room to make our tax system more progressive and that those who can afford must contribute more. In particular, I suggested having an additional tier of Buyer's Stamp Duty for properties with transaction values above S$1 million.

I am glad that this has been introduced this year, although I must say that the Finance Minister is very kind to increase the marginal rate from 3% to 4%, as I had earlier suggested a much higher marginal rate of 10%.

Another progressive measure which I noticed is that the levy for foreign domestic workers (FDWs) has increased. In particular, the levy for a second FDW has increased from $265 to $450, representing almost a 70% increase. But I am sure households which can afford to hire two or more FDWs would be able to afford the increase.

I wish to reiterate that families who may need help in caring for young children, the elderly, or family members with disabilities will not be affected by this increase as they will continue to enjoy the concessionary levy rate of $60 a month which remains unchanged.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to reiterate the call for more ways to raise revenues in a progressive and discretionary manner. During the Second Reading of the Stamp Duties Bill last year, I suggested setting up a special department to look at creative ways to raise more revenues and also look out for existing tax loopholes which should be closed. I hope the Ministry is looking at this proposal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to offer two suggestions today.

First, I would like to repeat my suggestion last year to introduce the tender of SG-series registration number plates for cars. I noted that the front page of the Straits Times Budget Special covering the Budget Speech by the Finance Minister also featured a white car with a SG2018 number plate! I am convinced that the tender of SG series registration car number plates would raise good revenues which will help boost our Government coffers.

Second, I would like to suggest altering the duties payable for dutiable luxury goods, such as cigars and high-end wines and alcohol.

According to the Singapore Customs website, for most wines, there is no customs duty payable and the excise duty is $88 per litre of alcohol. Tobacco products are charged by weight and its excise duty rate. I would like to suggest charging duties based on a percentage of its value as opposed to the current rate based on physical measure, such as volume or weight.

Under the current system, a bottle of wine which costs $50 is charged the same duty as another bottle which costs more than $1,000. Similarly, a top-end Cuban cigar is taxed at a rate of $427 per kilogramme, which is a similar rate to normal cigarettes, even though it may cost many times more.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose to change the calculation of duties on luxury goods such as wines and cigars to one which is based on customs value. Understandably, this may incur more work for the customs office. However, I am hopeful the Ministry can look into my proposal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as our Government faces increasing expenditures for healthcare and social spending, we need to find ways to make our tax system even more progressive. Raising more revenues from luxury items, such as special car registration numbers, high-end wines and cigars, is not only progressive but also discretionary in nature as there is consumer choice.

Once again, I would like to thank the Finance Minister and his team at MOF for presenting a well-balanced and forward-looking Budget which prepares Singapore for the years ahead. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget.

In his Budget speech, the Finance Minister spoke of three major shifts in the coming decade. The rise of Asia was observed some years ago but the colossal scale of the change only became apparent to many with the conception of China's global One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative.

Technological disruption is mind-blowing, if not downright terrifying for some. The sight of agile robots from Boston Dynamics on our Facebook feeds, driverless vehicles and news of medical initiatives in cloning herald a world that was considered to be fictional only one generation ago.

The prospect of an ageing society, however, was not sudden. Successive Governments have identified it, with the second generation PAP leadership establishing the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Ageing which published its report in 1999 and with at least four other high-level committees on ageing since 1982, putting the issue squarely in the public imagination.

The Workers’ Party notes that this year’s Budget is one that seeks to prepare Singapore and establish strong foundations for economic growth for the next 10 years. Singapore's situation is unique. Economic growth is at the centre of our existence and an economy that exhibits a certain verve and vitality is critical to the well-being of our people. While the Government has got the headline issues right, as it had with identifying ageing almost 20 years ago, what will matter most is how its vision of looking after Singapore and Singaporeans is translated operationally and executed on the ground. My speech will cover education, fiscal sustainability and taxes.

In his Budget speech, the Finance Minister spoke of Industry 4.0, a reference to the technological shift from computer systems to integrated cyber, physical, biological and intelligent systems.

Mr Speaker, as much as we seek to encourage workers of today to embrace the future economy through the Industry Transformation Programmes, the Tech Skills Accelerator and the Go Digital Programme, amongst other initiatives, there is another segment of our population for whom the new economy is one they must fit into seamlessly. They are our younger Singaporeans – many of whom are still in school today.

On 19 February 2018, The Straits Times carried a fictional article that sought to imagine what Singapore would look like in 2030 for one young Singaporean. It spoke of the story of Alex, whose life was transformed by the Committee of the Future Economy (CFE) report of 2017. Alex interpreted the report to mean that entrepreneurship was the way of the future. By 2023, his fictitious company was awarded a contract to supply MOH with mechanical parts for robot-assisted surgery. With a local foothold, he expanded his business into Southeast Asia.

Alex’s story was fascinating to me particularly when I contrasted it against the speech of the former Head of Civil Service, Mr Lim Siong Guan, who gave a series of lectures as part of the IPS-SR Nathan Lecture Series on Singapore late last year. Most striking was Mr Lim’s observation of how we in Singapore pile accolades on those who reach the pinnacle of success, with others often remaining unnoticed and unmentioned. The call for innovation, a central pillar in this year’s Budget, requires – in Mr Lim's view – for our people to try more and fail; and to be recognised not only for their success but their effort, and to be proud of trying their best in exercising their talents and abilities.

In a second equally compelling and parallel anecdote, Mr Lim spoke about how Israeli mothers in the past wished their children to be doctors and lawyers. Fast forward 20 years and this scenario has apparently changed completely, with Israeli mothers wishing their children to be CEOs of start-ups. The situation is similar in Estonia and Finland. In Mr Lim's words, "Singapore has to get there and be exceptional in our own way".

I have my doubts about whether Alex’s parents are ready for him to forget how they changed addresses to get him enrolled into a better school before he entered Primary 1 and how they spent thousands of dollars in tuition fees so that he would be streamed for the best outcomes to secure a stable and lucrative career. More pointedly, unless Alex comes from a rich family, I am not sure he would be in a position to give up an education in accountancy in favour of entrepreneurship, given our cultural biases to what qualifies as a good job, school, university or career.

Mr Speaker, ensuring the readiness of the education system to drive future economic growth is a critical strategy that we cannot afford to overlook. Only last month, the Minister for Education in charge of Higher Education shared that the Government is examining how it can better design the learning landscape so as to ensure that opportunities are available for Singaporeans to succeed in life. However, the Minister said that this endeavour may take a generation.

Without a doubt, the education system has progressively evolved for the better, but do we have the luxury of time to undertake its transformation for the new economy, a transformation that is arguably as urgent as the economic transformation we desire? With our people as the only natural resource, we must begin from the starting point that each and every one of our students, each and every one of them, regardless of race, language or religion, can not just succeed, but excel in the economy of tomorrow. The focus cannot be on acing examinations alone as a means of securing a child's future, as is overwhelmingly the case today. Even as our education system has correctly made adjustments to allow for a minority of students to benefit from aptitude-based entry points across the education system, this may not be enough.

In fact, we continue to have a tuition culture which is alleged to be a billion-dollar industry in Singapore. There are no evident signs of this tuition culture abating. Even PAP Members have raised questions in this House about stress and anxiety levels in our students. Parents naturally equate poor PSLE results with relatively poorer opportunities and outcomes for their children in Secondary school. They fear that poor PSLE results will evince a bleak future, with their children condemned to schools dominated by problematic students who, in their estimation, do not like to study or cannot communicate well, hence, setting their own children up for mediocrity. Such fears, amongst others, correct or not, drive the tuition industry and the stress both in parents and, by extension, in students.

Mr Speaker, it will take a radical move to energise the cultural shift needed to change mindsets about tuition and early streaming among all stakeholders, particularly parents. But there is another downside – and a very important one – that requires us to hasten educational transformation. Streaming and ranking serve to reinforce the inequality the Finance Minister warned about in his Budget speech. This is particularly since our educational culture is weighted in favour of parents with means, and naturally so, and those who can pile on enrichment classes and tuition, and even consider paying educational professionals to work out long-term strategies to game Direct School Admission exercises.

The Government has previously looked at broad-based schemes like the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) to drive productivity, only to shift now to more targeted measures for specific industries through the ITMs. In similar vein, the Government should start identifying the specific policy changes needed to alter behaviour and drive cultural change in favour of learning. The time has come to squarely look at our tuition culture and, ironically, how it may actually be holding us back rather than spurring and motivating our students in a healthy manner.

The tuition industry is an important stakeholder in this undertaking. Rather than spend time and money on tuition, would our students not be better served by an education in various regional languages, more debates, better communication skills, financial literacy, problem-solving and negotiation, and on field trips rather than cramming model answers and methodologies for exam-based outcomes only for them to be forgotten very quickly thereafter? How critical is streaming and even the PSLE examinations for success in life in the future economy? If it is not critical, are there persuasive arguments that remain for their continued existence?

The need of the hour today is different from that of the past. A radical shift in direction needs to take place to set up our future generations of workers and employees for the future economy. Alex’s plans to become a successful entrepreneur with an appetite for risk – and for his story and Singapore’s economic future not to be a fictional one – depend on it.

Mr Speaker, from a citizen perspective, making deeper enquiries of the Government's Budget is no less important than acquiring deep skills for the future economy. Some very important and healthy conversations are taking place within our society about social protection and the size and use of our reserves, estimated in The Straits Times last week to be in excess of a trillion dollars – I will say that again in excess of a trillion dollars. How much of it do we need to protect the Singapore dollar from currency speculators is a valid question, given that yearly revenue from land sales alone ensures that our reserves continue to grow in size.

Some arguments have been made in public for the NIRC to be increased to 60% to stave off the GST hike. Similarly, there have been calls to consider only a temporary increase in NIRC to fund non-recurrent, lumpy infrastructure investments, such as the high-speed rail, new MRT lines and Changi T5 terminal. After such infrastructure has been completed, the NIRC can return to 50% and some portion of the revenue earned from such infrastructure can also be returned to the reserves.

Such proposals leave more scope for the Government to hold back from increasing regressive taxes like the GST, which also hit middle-income Singaporeans with young children and elderly parents the hardest, mainly because offset packages announced by the Government inherently target the low-income and needy more, and correctly so.

In his Budget speech, the Finance Minister made a fundamental distinction to set out the Government's thinking on recurrent spending which directly benefits current generations and that the responsible way to pay for such expenditure is through taxation. However, it is no secret that Singapore's approach to budgeting is highly conservative, with land sales excluded from the Government's income, even as more resources are required to take care of our elderly population through to 2030 and beyond. Reasonable Singaporeans take the view that there is scope to consider how elderly Singaporeans can be better protected in their twilight years, with the burden of additional taxes like the GST held off for as long as possible.

One novel, if not relatively radical approach in view of the current orthodoxy, is to reconsider the role land sales can play in recurrent spending. The Government is, by far and away, the largest landowner in Singapore. The majority of all land here comprises 99-year or less than 99-year leasehold properties. Seen in this light, should not the current generations be allowed to benefit from some percentage of today's land sales with the knowledge that such land regenerates itself in value for future generations, providing successive Governments with the recurring source of income? Should Singaporeans, who are now expected to live well into their 80s, reap more benefit from land sales so as to justify better social protection for them?

Even as land is scarce in Singapore, it is also highly valued, with land sales likely to be very healthy in the decades to come right until our HDB flats run down their leases and well into the second half of the century. As much as the development of the port in Tuas will cost money, the move of port facilities from Tanjong Pagar will free up prime and valuable waterfront land adjacent to Shenton Way. After 2035, a massive tract of land where the current Paya Lebar airport sits, massive by Singapore's standards at least, will be available for sale to the Government of the day. In between, the Government, as the largest landowner, has many sites open for development that will ensure steady growth of the reserves for the foreseeable future.

On the Government's "Factually" website, the argument against including land sales for budgetary spending is two-pronged, apart from constitutional restrictions.

Firstly, excluding land sales prevents the Government from unnecessarily selling land to meet expenditure needs. However, this argument can potentially be addressed with a cap on spending revenue from land sales, for example, not more than 20% of the value of average land sales over 20 years, or 20% of land sales for that year, whichever is lower. This would give no good reason for an ill-advised government to ramp up land sales when in government to increase its own income.

The second argument on the "Factually" website posits that income from land sales is invested and is already available to the Government for spending through the NIRC framework. While this is a stronger argument and certainly true, not co-mingling the income from land sales with other reserves for investment also brings with it the prospect of greater transparency to the public and of mitigating the consequences of poor investment decisions most dramatically highlighted by GIC's partial divestment of its stake in UBS and losing billions in the process, as reported last year.

Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party is open-minded about looking at different modalities of funding future Budgets with the view to strengthening social protection frameworks. This also promotes a healthier discussion of fiscal issues amongst our population. Of course, the money has to come from somewhere. But there are two ways of framing this conversation. One, is to say that proposals that seek to improve and suggest better social protection for Singaporeans are tantamount to raiding the reserves. The other is to take a strategic perspective of our reserves position – something only the Government can holistically do in view of the significant information asymmetries – look at how quickly the world is changing and always assess how Singaporeans can be better protected ahead of time.

To reiterate, allowing a portion of the revenue for land sales will also not stop the reserves from growing. They will continue to grow and disproportionately benefit future generations. But looking at using land sales also gives the Government of the day more flexibility to ensure that current generations of elderly Singaporeans' healthcare needs, for example, are adequately budgeted for, leaving more scope for the Government to strengthen social protection for the current generation of Singaporeans. Inter-generational equity is a subject that deserves greater discussion.

The importance and willingness to prepare for the future cannot be underestimated, especially since the very technological disruption the Finance Minister spoke of will, like globalisation in the past, have its discontents – those who cannot be readily retrained to assume higher-value jobs, those who may not be able to build new capabilities, those who, for example, cannot stand for too long and for whom job redesign is only a catchphrase, and those who may not be able to adapt to what they fear is a brave new world.

GST may not have to rise but Singaporeans could be more likely to accept it if the Government considers the pros and cons of moving from the established orthodoxy and considers new approaches that improve social protection thresholds for all, and elderly Singaporeans in particular.

As expected, the Budget drew much attention on the Government's plan to raise GST from 7% to 9% sometime in the future. However, there was inconsistency in the treatment of some additional taxes that will no doubt add to the Government's coffers before that. For example, the Government was able to confirm that the imposition of the carbon tax would bring an additional $1 billion a year of revenue after implementation. However, no estimates were provided on the likely additional revenue that would be added to the Government's income with the inclusion of the GST on imported services.

In addition, the journey to become a Smart Nation – another plank of this year's Budget – is likely to make Singapore more efficient in tax collection. There is also the question on the move to become a cashless society and the impact this will have on sectors which have traditionally been thought to under-declare their income, such as self-employed hawkers and taxi drivers. This prospect will become less probable with the advent of more electronic transactions and, in turn, is likely to have a positive effect on tax revenues.

Furthermore, with borrowing backed by Government guarantees proposed for large infrastructure projects, more spending for such projects can potentially be allocated elsewhere for recurrent spending.

In view of the absence of such details, the Workers' Party is unable to support the announcement of the GST hike at this moment in time. This is because of the lack of clarity surrounding projected expenditure when the Government raises GST in future and the relative lack of information on whether there is scope for the reserves to better support Singaporeans.

In addition, as the Prime Minister told the media some years ago when the GST was raised from 3% in response to initial objections from the Workers' Party, we would also need some understanding of the Government's offset package for the low-income and middle-income should the GST be raised ─ information which the Government has not released thus far.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the Government has made significant investments in placing Singapore to take advantage of initiatives like Belt and Road, and tapping on the potential of the ASEAN region. These are necessary investments to keep the Singapore economy humming along. However, the people who keep it humming must be equipped to succeed in tomorrow's economy. Equally, the security of elderly Singaporeans, each generation a pioneer generation of an improbable country in its own right, should not be made to feel insecure in their old age, particularly when it comes to healthcare. Instead, they should be respected for what they have done for Singapore and looked after in their golden years.

Mr Speaker, we must never be done making Singapore an even better home for all Singaporeans.

Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join this debate.

This Budget is of tremendous importance because it adds further strength and connectivity to the efforts that had already begun in previous Budgets to pave the way for Singapore to embark upon the future economy. In that sense, Budget 2018 cannot be looked at in isolation.

It is clear to anyone who has followed the sustained efforts of the last few Budgets that the determinants of where to apply the limited resources in order to maximise the benefits of the fiscal impulse are long-run social and economic objectives rather than short-term relief.

The economy’s transformation is based on ensuring greater efficiency in the use of resources, and a crude fiscal push with only short-term gains should be avoided. At best, such a move could crowd out the private sector in the competition for resources already in short supply, especially manpower. At worst, it could detract from the careful efforts already under way in each of the industry transformation maps and accompanying skills frameworks to deepen the push for future readiness.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the launch of the Industry Transformation Programme in Budget 2016, the economy has displayed tentative but encouraging signs of change. These include evidence of fortified strength in the labour market situation, the continuing improvement in competitiveness in external-oriented sectors and the revival in productivity performance.

In the labour market for instance, redundancies have stabilised, unemployment continues to be low and re-employment is encouraging. In industry competition, what we find is that businesses are beginning to rationalise their dependence on foreign manpower. In productivity performance, the situation is certainly something we have to continue to watch out for, but the recent uptick in productivity performance is something that we should be able to link to the efforts over the last few Budgets to improve the productivity situation.

However, the situation remains tentative. The main question is: what have we to continue to do in order to sustain these gains? Hence, against these positive signs, there are accelerating effects of long-term challenges, especially demographic shifts and national security, which are continuing reminders of our vulnerabilities as a small, open economy.

In this Budget, the programmes that are already well-funded continue to be so, with increases in social spending and infrastructure expected to continue in the years to come. But in the longer term, as spending needs grow, we will have to decide how to meet those needs in a responsible manner. Depending on potentially volatile and unanticipated increases in Budget surpluses is not ideal.

The unusual Budget surplus that we saw in last year's Budget is a welcome surprise in this case because of currency movements that had gone unexpectedly in MAS’ favour. But market movements which present large upside surprises in one year could also contain the potential to do the opposite. With sufficient diversification and vigilance, the chances of a downside surprise can be minimised but not eliminated. This is not a reliable recipe for funding long-term national commitments.

Despite criticisms about the extent of social spending, the incontrovertible fact remains that Social Development expenditures in Singapore account for the largest share of the Budget and has done so with rare exception in recent years.

Sir, in 1997, expenditures on Social Development amounted to over $8.7 billion. Of the four main areas of spending, Social Development accounted for the largest share of 38%, above the other areas, namely Security and External Relations, Economic Development and Government Administration.

By 2017, its share had risen to nearly half of total Government spending, more than twice that of the share of expenditures on Economic Development.

I pointed out before that we should not ignore the fact that the pace of increase in social spending must be managed in order to ensure the competition with other areas of spending does not drive up costs of limited resources.

From 1997 to 2005, Social Development expenditures grew at an annual rate of 3.7% per annum, below that of expenditures of Security and External Relations. From 2005 to 2017, however, the rate of growth of Social Development expenditures jumped to 10% a year.

This is a rate of growth that will double spending every seven years or so and this is way in excess of the rates of growth that we see in economies, like Sweden, which have taken a long time to reach the point that they are at, at this point in time. Such spending increases are an improvement that have been made possible by Singapore's continuing economic progress. There are many areas of Social Development, no doubt, that require urgent attention. New areas of needs arise as society develops and the economy matures. Sustainable solutions to such challenges require a focused and targeted approach.

Even advanced economies, Sir, have to continue to defend their vulnerabilities against unforeseen national security threats as well as sudden external economic upheavals. The competition to prioritise certain areas of spending should not lead to a softening of emphasis on areas of basic necessity, such as defence spending and the shoring up of our economic defences.

At any point in time, there are security threats in various parts of the world which may have an impact on shipping lanes and flight routes vital to our trade linkages. As a sovereign developed nation, it is our responsibility to be prepared to bear the burden of maintaining these vital connections. The building of national defence capabilities is a fundamental priority that cannot be ignored. The experiences of other advanced economies show that the failure to maintain up-to-date defence capabilities could lead to a diminished capacity to play a full role in defence partnerships. Just as with our national infrastructure, ensuring that our defence capabilities are continually upgraded to meet future needs is critical.

In recent years, there has been growing criticism from a vocal minority about the growth in Singapore’s reserves and what the reserves are needed for. Sir, Singapore has achieved advanced economy status in the space of half a century. As demonstrated by the last crisis, however, developed economies could actually be more exposed to certain types of crises than less developed ones.

The cost of confronting that crisis, Sir, was a costly affair for many governments. But as the experiences of several countries have shown, a strong response with a decisive and sufficiently large package of measures meant that the cost of the responses could usually be recovered if the intervention successfully revived asset valuations that had been downgraded by the crisis. In order for this to occur, the resources needed to mount the rescue packages had to be available in the first place.

At a critical point of the crisis, for example, the United States mounted a massively expensive rescue programme for its financial sector by assigning US$700 billion, to what was then known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP. As it turned out, all the amounts spent in the purchase of what had been toxic assets were subsequently recovered in full as the assets regained values.

Singapore is much smaller. Our role in financial markets is not small and these examples are not irrelevant. Our own experience during that crisis was no less informative. The sums assigned to the Resilience Package of 2009 by then-Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam included an unprecedented withdrawal of $4.9 billion from the reserves. The full amount of that was returned as a result of the strong recovery. If those reserves had not been readily available, the consequences would have been unimaginable.

This is why there is a need to protect and grow the reserves through a disciplined fiscal approach that includes responsible taxation. This Budget is a cogent demonstration of these principles of forward thinking and responsible planning. It recognises, for example, that taxing undesirable behaviour is necessary, but not a constructive approach to funding long-term needs.

A secure economy will provide the foundation for strengthening social programmes, supporting the needy and expanding opportunities for future generations. Sir, in a world that is facing significant disruption, the early steps that this and previous Budgets represent in gaining early traction on the future economy will enable Singaporeans to anticipate a future with richer opportunities. Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, as a Member of Parliament, I receive frequent requests from residents asking the Government to do more for them. Residents ask for financial help, they want lower transport fares, they appeal for more bus services to bring them to their specific destination; they ask for low-cost rental flats, they ask for blue CHAS cards, for higher healthcare subsidies and they ask for less expensive medical treatment at clinics and hospitals and the list goes on.

For many of these requests, I am sympathetic as these residents are usually low-income. Any reduction of costs or living expenses would be greatly welcomed by them. However, what some people do not remember is that it is not the Government who just pays for the subsidies. The financial burden would be borne by other taxpayers.

Not all residents understand that the Government is a trustee of sort to manage the taxes paid by Singaporeans and Singapore companies. In doing so, the Government has to be prudent in its spending and judiciously decide how to allocate scarce resources. Many of us have unlimited wants but there is only so much resource available for distribution.

Singapore has no natural resources. We do not have oil reserves, no timber forest or coal or natural minerals at our disposal. Almost everything has to be imported. But despite the lack of natural resources, Singapore has remained successful with good economic growth and has accumulated respectable financial reserves. I attribute this to good government as well as a hardworking and intelligent citizenship who have helped built Singapore to what it is today.

Our Budget theme for this year is "Together – A Better Future". In the Budget Statement, the Finance Minister explained that the Budget is a strategic and integrated plan. He asked Singaporeans to take a longer-term view, and set out our strategic challenges clearly and plainly. He indicated that the Government will spend more on healthcare by building more hospitals, polyclinics, nursing homes and eldercare centres. The Government will also spend more on infrastructure projects like the rail network, construction of Terminal 5, Tuas Port as well as the High Speed Rail. More will also be spent on education and security.

These priorities of the Government resonate with me. Indeed, healthcare is always a concern for many Singaporeans as there will be more and more seniors as we live longer. Many elderly citizens whom I speak to worry about high healthcare costs, especially those who suffer from chronic diseases or had suffered stroke or require long-term medication for cancer. In my constituency walkabouts, I see more and more residents on wheelchair or needing help with their mobility. More spending on healthcare will make it affordable for those who need help in their retirement years.

Having improved infrastructure will also allow better accessibility and convenience for many people and create a better environment for all Singaporeans. Lower transport fare is welcomed because public transport is a necessity and public transport should be kept affordable. An increase in education spending is also welcomed as it will prepare our children for the future challenges in the world. Increasing the financial support for students from lower-income families will mitigate the gap between the well-off students and lower-income families.

With increased terrorist activities, security should also be an area of priority and, indeed, we should ensure that whatever we have today should be protected from those who wish Singapore to fail.

However, the devil is always in the details. In allocating more resources to these areas of priorities, I urge the Government to consider and to ensure that the lives of all Singaporeans would improve. I understand the need to take better care of the poor and needy and those with low-income. But I urge the Government not to forget the struggles and difficulties of the rising number of middle-class citizens who may feel sandwiched by Government policies. They perceive some of the policies as not helping them. Hence, I urge the Government to implement policies which would help those in need and, at the same time, be fair to citizens who have contributed to build Singapore.

Thus, for incentives like S&CC rebates or GST vouchers, please consider helping those who live in bigger flats but with lower-income. Please do not just assess based on house type. Review the income ceiling for those who apply for CHAS card or those who should receive Silver Support. Keep an eye on the retirees and the middle-income Singaporeans so that they, too, can share or enjoy the growth of the country. Schemes like the Housing Grant and Proximity Housing Grant are good schemes that help the middle-income own HDB flats with large subsidies from the Government.

The increase in GST was voted in November last year. When the idea was floated, I said that there is always a political cost if you cannot persuade the ground that a hike in taxes is necessary. Nobody likes a tax increase as it takes away disposable income from the citizen and transfers it to the Government to manage.

The GST increase is planned for 2021 to 2025. The Prime Minister had previously said that in this current term of Government, which ends in 2021, it has enough revenue. Thus, I am glad that the GST increase is not taking effect next year or the year after. Instead, the Government is giving three years' advance notice that in order to maintain the spending on healthcare, security and other social spending, they would need to raise revenue by increasing GST by 2%.

In my view, it is fair and prudent to take a longer term view of the needs of the country. It is not always possible to expect the Government to keep increasing the spending on healthcare, security and other social spending without thinking of how to fund such spending. In particular, if the increase in GST would help reduce the healthcare burden on all citizens, if it helps subsidise transport costs, if it provides more care for the lower-income, it should be something that we should all support as we are helping the majority of Singaporeans, for the lower-income, middle-income and seniors.

The Minister for Finance has committed to enhancing the permanent GST Voucher scheme and he has also committed to make a $2 billion top-up to the GST Voucher Fund. When the GST increase is implemented, there will also be an offset package later.

So, with respect to Mr Pritam Singh, I would not agree that GST in the Singapore context is regressive. In fact, I am surprised at the Workers' Party's reservations on GST increase. Because if the Workers' Party agrees to increase social spending for healthcare, education and security, where can the funds come from to pay for these recurrent expenditures?

Minister Heng had said, "In the next decade, between 2021 and 2030, if we do not take measures early, we will not have enough revenues to meet our growing needs." Thus, to me, it is clear that the Government is planning not just for a few years later but for the next decade!

For those who say that we should use the Budget surplus last year to fund the increase in expenditure, I respectfully disagree because it is fiscally unsustainable to rely on a surplus which is not a constant or a guaranteed source of revenue. Last year’s surplus was an extraordinary gain and Minister Heng had explained how the surplus came about. Details of the surplus were also published in the media yesterday. Surely, we cannot expect currency translation effects or increases in stamp duty to be always available in future Budgets.

For those who advocate that we use more than 50% of the expected NIR and keep less in the reserves, I would urge the Government to be cautious. It is always easy to say spend more today and save less for the future. What should be the right balance is a question that everyone has an opinion about. To me, we should exercise prudence and try to spend within our means, especially if our expenses are on recurrent spending on healthcare, security and other social spending.

We have been fortunate that our NIR has been increasing year after year. Last year was $14.61 billion and this year the Budget is $15.85 billion. What if the NIR falls in the future years? Would we then say take more from the NIR again?

As for using proceeds from land sales, as suggested by Mr Pritam Singh, I want to sound a word of caution: once land is sold, the asset is gone. If we to use any part of the sales proceeds to fund recurrent expenses, does that mean that we are taking the monies away from the reserves? So, I humbly submit that we should allow our reserves to grow in tandem with the economy.

Before I conclude, allow me to seek a few clarifications from the Minister.

In previous years, when GST was increased, a Committee Against Profiteering (CAP) was set up to combat any illegal profiteering due to a GST increase. Would there be a similar committee set up before the GST increase is implemented?

Secondly, the Minister had said, the "Government is looking at borrowing by Statutory Boards and Government-owned companies which build infrastructure. This will help spread the cost of certain large investments over more years." Can the Minister clarify why is it necessary to borrow, considering our large reserves? Can we not rely on our other resources or borrow from our reserves and pay interest on those loans? With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget.

Sir, a clarification for the Member.

Yes, Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Sir. I would like to clarify with the Member Lim Biow Chuan. He made a statement to say that once the land is sold by the Government, it is gone. But does he not agree that actually the Government's definition of land sales includes leases. In fact, the cut-off period when you include a lease as a sale is actually a 10-year lease. So, it is not quite accurate to say that once the land is sold, it is gone.

In reply to Ms Sylvia Lim, when a land is sold, whether it is on a 99-year lease or otherwise, it is not sold in perpetuity. The funds, once they go back into the reserves, would be gone for that period. For you to get back the land, you have to wait 99 years for it to come back.

Mr Speaker, just a further clarification, I did file a Parliamentary Question to MOF to ask for the cut-off period for the definition of "land sales" under the Budget and the answer given to me was 10 years is the cut-off. So, again, I would like the Member to confirm that it is not accurate for him to say that once the land is sold, it is gone.

I am afraid I cannot understand what Ms Sylvia Lim is asking. When you sell a land for 99 years, then the proceeds of sale for that 99 years will be gone. You are going to wait 99 years for the monies to come back before it goes back into reserves. Then, you are spending funds that would be gone for 99 years. Yes, that is why, in this generation, you are spending money for the future generations.

A final clarification?

Mr Speaker, perhaps, I will wait for the Minister for Finance to clarify.

Mr Thomas Chua.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Members of Parliament, good afternoon! Today, my topic is: a strategic and long-term Budget which helps businesses grow sustainably.

A key highlight of this year’s Budget is that it materialises the framework promulgated by the Committee on the Future Economy through the introduction of a series of targeted measures to assist businesses. Before announcing this year’s Budget, the Government had widely sought views and feedback from trade associations and chambers. The various measures now introduced by the Budget have matched the expectations of the business community.

This year’s Budget is very far-sighted, as it is making preparations for a better future. Going forward, Singapore will increase public expenditure in healthcare, security, long-term infrastructure and education. We believe our people and businesses will benefit from public spending in these areas.

When I listened to the Minister for Finance as he delivered the Budget Statement, what I thought about the most was the question of how we can increase our revenue sources while curbing our expenditure, 开源节流 in Chinese. I am glad that the Government will, hence, observe the principle of 开源节流 when constructing large-scale infrastructure. Because such investments are huge, the Government is looking at allowing Statutory Boards and GLCs, like LTA, to fund them by borrowing or issuance of bonds, in order to avoid tapping into the national reserves. The Government is also considering providing guarantees for long-term borrowings for such infrastructure.

As a country with no natural resources, our reserves are like a financial linchpin that provides the country stability and should not be tapped into so easily. Hence, mobilising resources from the society to continuously obtain funds to finance such construction is a wise decision.

The other manifestation is to moderate the pace of Ministries’ budget growth. From FY2019, the rate of growth for the block budgets of Ministries will be reduced from 0.4 times of GDP growth to 0.3 times. As Singapore is already an ageing society, there will be more and more areas that will require spending in the future. We need to stringently control Ministry spending, monitor closely the policy implementation processes, plug loopholes in the abuse of Government resources, raise the quality of public projects and avoid the vicious cycle of problems arising from Government spending and then having to spend more money to resolve problems – this is truly how 开源节流 could be meaningfully carried out.

As for the adjustment of the Goods and Services Tax, this has been widely speculated before. It turned out that the Government would not immediately raise the GST, but would do so at least three years later, giving sufficient time to businesses and consumers to adapt. I would like to convey the views of some smaller retailers, particularly those from the northern part of Singapore. They are worried that following the GST increase, many consumers will swarm into Malaysia, particularly Johor Baru, to shop for daily products. These retailers believe that this is very likely to happen because the Singapore-Johor Rapid Transit System Link will start operating in 2024. With the ease of travelling, more convenient customs clearance, easier conveyance of goods and the strength of the Singapore dollar vis-à-vis the Malaysian ringgit, the lure across the Causeway would only grow greater. Come 2026, the surge in north-bound traffic could be even higher, as the Singapore-Kuala Lumpur High Speed Rail is projected to be operational by then and there will be many convenient places to shop along the route.

The Government has also announced that in two years' time, businesses that purchase imported services from overseas would also have to pay GST. To local businesses that provide similar services, this is a long-awaited equitable measure. According to the Department of Statistics, Singapore imported close to S$225 billion worth of services in 2016. This is a significant figure. Such purchases include software applications and a variety of Business-to-Business (B2B) services, including accounting and IT. On the other hand, once this GST is levied, many purchasers, especially SMEs, will face pressure arising from an increase in their operating cost.

However, on-line transaction of services is a complex matter. Whether it is the provision of services through the B2B or B2C model, there is a likelihood that charges from both ends may exploit technical or policy loopholes to gain an advantage in areas, such as during the transaction, the computation of tax assessment and tax rebate. There is a need to strengthen supervision in theses aspects.

Mr Speaker, the best approach to achieve 开源节流 is to assist our enterprises to grow. Only when our companies thrive and develop, they could then contribute more to Government revenue. The Government has continuously been helping our companies to transform and upgrade. Next, companies themselves have to be more proactive to push the pace of transformation and innovation. Workers need to learn new knowledge, new skills, while bosses must use a new mindset to develop new markets. Transformation is like stretching the body, where periodic pains are unavoidable. There is no guarantee that transformation will definitely succeed, but not transforming means certainty of elimination.

There is another Budget measure that is welcomed by businesses. Businesses passionate about charity have always enjoyed support through Government policies. In the last two years, donations to Institutions of Public Character (IPCs) are entitled to enjoy 250% of tax deduction. This deduction was originally supposed to cease at the end of this year. It is now going to be extended for another three years to encourage more companies to give back to society. Some businesses hope the Government could take a further step to raise the deduction to 300%. This could encourage even more people to make generous donations, contributing both money and effort to build a more caring and united society.

At the start of a new year, the Government has introduced a Budget that is strategic and with a long-term vision. Following this, it will require all the stakeholders in the society to proactively take action to execute all the measures that have been introduced.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Budget marks a significant progress from a wait-and-see posture to strategic and integrated planning to engage three major shifts affecting Singapore’s future. I focus on ageing here. I highlight that ageing is not uniformly experienced, and that men and women experience ageing and are affected by ageing very differently. There are, therefore, gender inequalities we need to tackle if we are to meet the challenges and opportunities of ageing successfully. Our policies targeted at ageing must factor in the gender differences for them to be effective. I focus on three sets of issues, namely, issues related to the gender income gap, issues with supporting caregivers and the economic and health security of seniors.

Let me start with issues related to the gender income gap. A study using data from MOM last year showed that the gender pay gap has not improved in the decade from 2006 to 2016. The gap in median monthly income between male and female has remained at around 18% to 19%, with women earning some $610 less than men.

It is unacceptable that we have not made any progress in closing the gender pay gap in 10 years. We need to tackle the gender pay gap because it will affect our future senior women and their retirement security. Already, women are living longer than men and CPF LIFE is structured in such a way that discriminates between gender, with women paying a higher premium and getting less payouts. The gender pay gap has, therefore, a compounding effect on the retirement security of women. Using the CPF LIFE Payout Estimator on the CPF Board website, my estimate is that, on the average, men will be getting 25% more income than women from CPF LIFE due to the gender pay gap.

The gender pay gap varies across sectors. There has been some attention on the gender pay gap in the finance sector and in senior management, but I think we should actually pay more attention to the majority of our women workers who are labouring in other sectors. Health and social service is still a sector that has one of the largest gender pay gaps, with women earning around $1,540 a month less than men. The health and social service sector impacts ageing and our seniors the most. It is also a sector that is, arguably, the most susceptible to what Minister Ong Ye Kung has noted as a key factor underpinning the gender pay gap, that is, the social norms and expectations placed on women. Minister Ong called for a mindset change. But this is also a structural issue.

The crux of the matter is nursing. Nursing makes up the bulk of the health and social service sector and most nurses are women. Nursing is also in high demand because of ageing. A strong professional body of local nurses is essential for us to successfully meet the challenges of ageing. For many decades, there has been an erosion of status and value attributed to nursing, which culminated in the 2013 Population White Paper footnote mistake in classifying nursing as a low-skilled job that is difficult to offshore. The apology and correction from Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean then was swift and right, and I believe there has been a narrowing of the prestige gap between nursing and other professions since 2013. But there are still two other associated issues.

First, while wages for nurses have been improving, there is still a lag. Based on mid-2016 data from MOM, the median gross monthly income from work of all full-time employed residents is $4,056, while the figure for nurses is $4,300. This is a ratio of 1.

06. This is not too different from similar ratios for OECD countries.

However, when compared to small countries with a similar demand profile for nurses, we are behind. For example, the ratio in Israel is 1.

4. In Australia, where ageing is also a major challenge for society, the ratio is 1.

2. Given the high demand for nursing because of our ageing society, there is scope to further increase the wages of nurses.

Second, it has been a longstanding fact that most nurses are women, which has entrenched the perception that nursing is a female occupation. This gendered composition and perception of nursing will continue to exacerbate the supply shortage of trained nurses. Increasing the wages of nurses will kill several birds with one stone. As most nurses are currently women, increasing the wages of nurses will help close the gender pay gap.

It will also signal the increased social value and respect that is attached to nursing; that nursing is far from being a low-skilled job; that, on the contrary, nursing is an especially precious skillset for the ageing society.

We all know that nursing is a very demanding job. It is emotionally straining, time consuming, especially with the shift work and overtime, and is also physically draining. Increasing the wages of nurses will make the remuneration more commensurate with the passion that is demanded of nurses.

Increasing the wages of nurses will also help to shift the mindset over time, so that more men would take up the calling and not be put off by the opportunity cost of higher pay for men in other professions.

Another issue related to the gender pay gap is the income security and prospects of women who have become mothers. Part of the reason for the gender pay gap is linked to women returning to the workforce after taking a prolonged break due to pregnancies or childcare responsibilities. Little recognition is given by employers and the Government to the years women spent in service to the family and to the nation to bear and raise children, unlike men who are often given a salary premium for the two years spent in National Service.

The current emphasis on lifelong learning and continuous retraining exacerbates the issue. By the time women try to return to the workforce, they face the triple challenges of making sure their skills stay relevant, discrimination against older workers and wage stagnation compared to their male peers.

Last year, during COS 2017, I proposed the SkillsFuture Mommy Awards to make re-entry into the workforce for mothers less challenging. We have the social and policy infrastructure to resolve this issue. This is an area that SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore should look into.

Let me move on now to the second set of issues related to caregivers, who, like nurses, are at the frontlines of the ageing society. Like nurses, most caregivers are women. So, again, we see gender closely connected to ageing. As with nurses, getting our policy right in supporting caregivers is essential for us to successfully meet the challenges of ageing. There are two issues associated with caregivers. If we can resolve these two issues, we will be able to support a strong body of caregivers who would form the bedrock of our silver care system, close the loop between healthcare and community care, and allow our seniors to successfully and actively age in place.

The first issue is recognition and reward for unpaid caregiving. It was estimated that there were over 210,000 caregivers in 2004. The numbers should have gone up by now. This is not a small number, as it represents around 10% of our resident workforce. In a national survey of informal caregiving of older adults aged 75 and above presented in 2013, only 55.6% of the caregivers reported that they were working full-time or part-time and the caregivers reported they spent an average of 38 hours a week in providing care.

Among the three problems of lack of family support, negative financial impact and negative impact on schedule and health, caregivers rated financial impact as the heaviest burden, followed closely by negative impact on schedule and health. This is despite the fact that 49% of caregivers in this survey had the support of foreign domestic workers.

The same survey shows that caregivers living in private property and, therefore, assumed to have better means, experienced lower stress, while caregivers who were working and who were facing more financial problems due to caregiving experienced higher stress. This is only one of the many surveys and studies that have shown consistent results. I think it is time we recognise that caregiving is full-time work, which prevents caregivers from realising their employment potential and affecting their financial security.

How can we better support caregivers in this respect? Two years ago, during COS 2016, I asked the Government to consider giving means-tested refundable tax credits to caregivers, so that caregivers who do not work or work part-time would get some cash refund. This would lessen their financial burden and improve their retirement adequacy. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann then replied that the Government’s approach focused on direct subsidies of services to lessen the costs borne by caregivers, rather than providing cash allowances to people looking after family members. I am of the view that the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. Cash allowances to caregivers suffering from extreme negative financial impact would allow them to access the subsidised services.

If we recognise full-time caregiving of seniors as unpaid work, then it is not far-fetched to consider them as low-wage employees who need income supplement. We should rethink the orthodoxy and provide income support to caregivers. There is already one scheme that is suited for this purpose – the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme. WIS is means-tested and, with older workers receiving higher payments, it will ensure the benefit will go to needy caregivers. Also, since 40% of the payment is given out in cash and 60% in CPF contributions, this will help take care of the immediate financial needs and enhance the retirement needs of the eligible caregivers.

The second issue is the stress faced by caregivers of seniors, which, in the worst case, can lead to depression and anxiety. Studies of caregivers in Singapore have consistently shown high stress levels among caregivers. But, there are important differences. Caregivers of seniors with dementia experience higher stress. Female caregivers of seniors, namely wives and daughters, tend to experience a lot more stress than male caregivers. These female caregivers reported feeling rundown and exhausted and experienced restless sleepless nights. Many of them reported the desire to be involved in culturally relevant recreational activities, such as a game of mahjong, but they lack the social networks to get involved.

Our caregivers are a heroic bunch with strong Asian family values. Another study has shown that caregivers often report concerns about the caregiving and much less about the effect of caregiving on their own physical and mental well-being. What this means is that while they know and are driven to care for their loved ones, the caregivers do not know how to care for themselves and tended to neglect their own well-being.

Last year, during COS 2017, I asked the Government to provide better support to caregivers of seniors by setting up caregiver support centres at Senior Care Centres (SCCs). I was glad to hear from Senior Minister of State Amy Khor that the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) has started a three-year pilot since September 2015 to embed caregiver support services in five SCCs, and that AIC had also started AICareLinks centres at five hospitals and its office at Maxwell Road for caregivers to receive advice on services and schemes. I think these are great initiatives, but we are starting from a very low baseline of no support for caregivers.

There is a lot more we can do, especially given the general reticence of caregivers to seek help for themselves. I suspect the caregivers are not too forthcoming in seeking caregiver support services at the SCCs and AICareLinks centres. It may well be that we would need to use the Social Service Offices (SSOs) and Family Service Centres (FSCs) infrastructure to bring the support to the caregivers to enhance their well-being.

I understand the logic to integrate health and social support for seniors under MOH and empowering AIC to be the central implementing agency to coordinate the services announced in the Budget Statement. But I hope this integration will not come at a cost to the cross-functional integration between MOH and MSF, and between AIC and the SSOs when it comes to needy seniors and vulnerable caregivers of seniors. In fact, with seniors ageing in place and in their communities, the delivery of services is most effectively achieved by leveraging the community networks of the SSOs and FSCs.

I turn now to the third and last set of issues, which are directly related to the retirement security of senior women. There are two issues here I would like to highlight: economic security and health security.

First, existing cohorts of elderly women and soon-to-be senior women cohorts are experiencing economic vulnerabilities. In 2016, it was reported that for those over 60 years of age, the average CPF balance for women is only 69% that of men. This gap is narrowing for younger cohorts as gender equality improves with better educational attainment by women in recent decades.

However, this problem will remain with us for at least another 20 years, as the gender CPF gap is similar for those aged 45 years and above. Back in 2008, HDB found that just over half of elderly residents living in HDB flats planned financially for retirement, with women much less likely to do so. Many elderly women, much more so than elderly men, are dependent on their spouses and children for financial support and many continued to work in low-paid jobs to supplement their meagre income.

One study in 2011 showed that 26% of those aged 55 years and above reported they perceived occasional or regular financial inadequacy, with more women reporting this than men. Another study estimated that the relative poverty rate among the working elderly had jumped from 13% in 1995 to 41% in 2011. This means that among the working elderly, 41% had income from work, family members and state assistance amounting to less than 40% of the median income in the workforce. This suggests that many seniors are working past retirement age not just because they want to, but because they had to, and many in this category are women.

It does not look like this issue is going to abate in the next decade. Instead, the scale of the economic insecurity problem will increase due to the doubling of the number of seniors to 2030. I would like to call on the Government to study this issue of the elderly working poor, especially involving women, more closely and adopt urgent measures to tackle the issue. One possible line of attack would be to look at how social service and community development agencies helping to place the elderly in jobs could also help the elderly draw up favourable contracts for service and provide advice and retraining opportunities to improve their income prospects.

In the meantime, the Silver Support Scheme could be enhanced to mitigate the problems faced by the elderly working poor. As many of the seniors are dependent on their spouse and children for their housing needs, we should make sure this housing dependence does not erode the efficacy of state assistance to support the needy seniors.

The Silver Support Scheme payouts to needy seniors are currently tiered according to the HDB housing types they are living in. This is unnecessary as the beneficiaries of the scheme are already means-tested. A needy senior living in a 5-room flat receiving $300 a quarter and a needy senior living in a 2-room flat receiving $750 a quarter are already means-tested to be facing low household support, with a monthly income per person in the household of not more than $1,100. One may be living in a bigger flat, but they are facing the same financial difficulties of meeting their everyday needs.

The 5-room flat is a long-term asset and cannot be simply unlocked to support their everyday needs. How is the size of the HDB flat related to the provision of household support to the elderly poor? Is the tiered payout signalling to the family that they should downsize the flat to better support their seniors? I believe needy seniors should receive $750 a quarter, regardless of the size of the HDB flat where they live.

The second issue is health security. Our seniors are now living longer, fruitful lives and receiving better healthcare. While women are living longer than men, women are also facing more downsides in health security than men. Senior women spend more years in disability than men, and women are two-and-a-half times more likely than men to report difficulties in carrying out typical activities of daily living. The gender-differentiated ElderShield premiums reflect this but, again, this means it compounds the gender income gap and greater financial insecurity faced by women.

Senior women are also more prone to suffering from dementia and higher rates of depression, which are more home-bound diseases that compound the caregiving burdens faced by female family members. The concern is that women are caught up in an inter-generational vicious circle of caregiving and deterioration of mental well-being. We need a more targeted approach to tackle dementia and mental well-being among seniors and the general population at the national level.

Mr Speaker, Sir, back in May last year, I asked a Parliamentary Question on whether the Government practises gender budgeting to determine the effect of policies on women. Gender budgeting involves analysing the Government’s annual Budget and programmes for their different impact on men and women, and then adjusting allocations and programme details to promote gender equality.

Minister Heng Swee Keat replied to the question saying that in the design, planning and delivery of programmes, the Government accounts for the impact of policies on different segments of society, including gender, and target benefits at those in need and that Government policies have, over the years, enabled the advancement of women in Singapore. Indeed, they have. I read this reply positively as the Government does do some form of gender budgeting for its programmes, though it is not formalised as such.

I especially like the part on targeting benefits at those in need. As I have made the case in this speech, gender equality is not just an aspiration, but a need. It is a need because, whether absolutely or relatively, the financial security of women through their career from young workers to would-be mothers to caregivers to seniors is paramount to the mitigation of neediness among our ageing population. It is a need because gender equality is one of the key upstream solutions to the downstream challenges of ageing and where opportunities for successful ageing of our seniors are shaped and forged. To promote gender equality is thus to be strategic and integrated, as this Budget seeks to be.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for allowing me to join the debate. I wish to state right here that I fully support this year's Budget.

Sir, when Singapore became independent, some of its key domestic socioeconomic challenges were: low levels of education for the general population, a young and growing working-age population that faced frustration over uncertain prospects, low wages, high unemployment of around 10%, amid unstable industrial relations. And the workforce then was predominantly rank-and-file.

Fifty-three years on, our challenges are now different. Our education system prepares students for PMET jobs. PMET employees comprise more than half of our workforce. A gig economy element is also growing.

We now have a rapidly ageing population and local workforce partly due to the Baby Boom generation effect, while our unemployment rate of 2% to 3% is much lower than that of 1965 in Singapore, or when we compare with most other countries currently, and our industrial relations are stable. The rising impact of disruption caused by changing business models, technology and global competition has significantly increased our risk of job obsolescence or, as some people call it ,"jobsolescence", as well as job loss.

General wage levels have risen but there is a need to continue efforts to transform low-wage industries for better earnings and prospects.

For Singapore as a whole and for the Labour Movement, these changes and realities will dictate our priorities as we continue to pursue our mission to care for our population and to care and value all working persons.

For the Labour Movement, we continue to want to work closely with the Government and employers to develop that better future for Singaporeans. To that point, there are three key priority areas where the Labour Movement could help Singapore and Singaporeans do better.

First, in the area of "High Age", and this is shorthand for the unavoidable ageing of our local workforce and its implications. I will speak more on this later.

Second, low wage. Over the past several years, dedicated efforts by the Tripartite Partners have brought about hard-earned tangible improvement in the terms of work for lower wage workers. The road ahead remains long and arduous, as structural improvements require sustained transformation of mindsets, skills, technology and procurement practices on the part of employers, service buyers, workers and regulators.

Third, the "Double Middle". Just because a growing proportion of the workforce comprises PMET jobs does not mean that every PMET employee is secure in his job. With changing technology alone, for example, artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), Manufacturing 4.0, Robotics and others, many longstanding routine PMET jobs will be redesigned or may be rendered redundant and be replaced by new roles and requirements. Add to that the continuing pressure to de-layer and flatten organisations and to outsource jobs and functions to more cost-competitive countries, we can see the need to help not only today's unemployed find jobs, but also to help those who may be more at risk of becoming "tomorrow's unemployed" manage their risks.

This will entail proactive Tripartite partnerships to spur transformation at the industry, company and job levels and to improve the conditions for prompt and seamless skills upgrading and conversion to take advantage of new income opportunities. It would also include enhancements to job-matching and job-switching machinery for both traditional and emerging ways to earn a living, as well as the corresponding safety nets to help the displaced find their feet again quickly.

Sir, my fellow Labour Members of Parliament will elaborate on these priorities in their Budget speeches that follow. Labour Member of Parliament, Mr Desmond Choo, will speak of the value that youth will bring to our nation and share how the NTUC is reaching out to them even before they join the workforce.

Touching on the issue concerning the "Double Middle" group, that is, middle-income and middle-age, and wherein there is a growing number of PMETs, my fellow Member of Parliament, Mr Patrick Tay, will share how we must value every such worker and how to keep them relevant.

Labour Nominated Member of Parliament, Ms Thanaletchimi, will call on all to value the family behind every worker, particularly for women, who often have to juggle between work and family commitments.

With the rise of the gig economy, Labour Member of Parliament, Mr Ang Hin Kee, will remind us not to underestimate the value that freelancers and the self-employed bring to our economy.

While fellow Labour Members of Parliament have touched on various worker groups, my Labour Member of Parliament colleague, Mr Zainal Sapari, will put the emphasis on the low-wage workers, whose contributions we must continue to value.

As we all spend our time at the workplace, Labour Member of Parliament, Mr Melvin Yong, will speak on the value of the life of every worker and how we can render every workplace safer and healthier.

Sir, let me now elaborate on the "High Age" area and argue why it is critical that we not allow ourselves to be blind-sided by this aspect.

Sir, Singapore quietly entered a new era in 2018. For the first time in our history, the proportion of our citizen population below 15 years old equaled that of our citizen population above 65 years old. In years to come, there will be more citizens above 65 than there are those below 15. By one estimate, by the year 2030, the below-15 segment might constitute, say, 11% of the population whereas the above-65 portion could be 27%. One might ask, so what? Well, that means that Singapore may be headed for a triple whammy, if we are not careful.

First, there will be the peaking of the citizen workforce around 2020 and thereafter plateau and then decline. That does not include attrition from the workforce due to skills obsolescence and mismatch. This shrinking of the citizen workforce will narrow the personal income tax base, adding strain to Government revenues.

Second, the shrinking citizen workforce and loss of relevant experience through retirement of older workers will impact the ability of companies to operate optimally, unless, of course, they are able to raise productivity or, perhaps, if they could increase the proportion of foreign manpower in their workforce, or profitably and sustainably retain the services of mature workers longer. The constraint on company growth will, in turn, lead to lower-than-potential corporate tax contributions to Government revenues. So, that is the second whammy.

The third one, the growing senior segment of the population, will lead to more social spending and support in healthcare and welfare, especially if structural unemployment or downward pressure on the income among seniors increases.

The combination of these three factors will mean that the shrinking working population and companies will shoulder an increasingly heavier tax burden to support the reducing tax contribution from the senior population as they leave employment and as they incur higher living expenses linked to ageing.

In short, the earlier the older segment of our population ceases to be able to contribute economically, the earlier and more painful we can expect the tax increases that the working population and companies would have to bear in support. Conversely, the longer our mature workers can remain employed and earning, the more they can help contribute towards Government revenues and also support their own needs and thus helping to delay and reduce the need for the general taxpayers and younger citizens and companies to have to chip in earlier than necessary.

It is also for this reason that the Tripartite Partners have agreed over the years to extend, first, the statutory Retirement Age, and then to introduce Re-employment and, most recently, to raise the Re-employment Age ceiling from 65 to 67 effective July 2017. The raising of re-employment age to 67 actually was contained in the recommendations of the Tripartite Committee on the Extension of the Retirement Age back in July 1997. It is very important but not something easy to do and it took us 20 years to move to 67.

Going forward, the question is what do we do and whether this broad tactic of prolonging employment across the board by law is going to be as doable as in the past 20 years or would it face additional challenges.

I would like to share that there are at least two specific considerations that we have to bear in mind, going forward.

Firstly, despite the improvement in the general health condition of our population over the years, across-the-board statutory re-employment age increase would more likely encounter different constraints for different industries and occupation types as we go into higher age brackets.

That said, investments in the use of assistive technology and age-universal process and job design and redesign must continue relentlessly, so that we are able to compensate for the physical declines of the workforce to the greatest extent possible. And in this, schemes like WorkPro should continue and be refined to produce more substantive and pervasive outcomes wherever such opportunities exist so that we maximise this benefit.

Secondly, and increasingly important, the threat to employability due to job obsolescence, skills obsolescence and skills mismatch. Hitherto, technology was used mainly to improve efficiency of work processes. Today, technology goes beyond that to drive Business Model revamps. What this means is that a person’s job may change or disappear much faster than before, not only because his company is not doing well, but because entire occupations, organisational layers and how value is created, delivered and captured in an industry may fundamentally change.

Some estimates say up to 25% of jobs in the current economy may be altered or displaced by technology in the coming 20 years. A person displaced for this reason will have a hard time finding a similar job because the job category itself may be fading. While this scenario may confront a worker of any age, the average older working person may face more and higher hurdles in the adaptation and switching process, on top of ageist attitudes among some employers, and may be displaced out of the workforce long before reaching the re-employment age. With such pervasive technology, rapid digitalisation and changing business models, how can companies stay competitive while tapping on mature workers who bring value, insights and experience to the table? Could we try harder in making the workplace more conducive for mature workers to contribute? How about training them to be more digitally aware and technologically competent, placing them in growth sectors?

When we travel to another country with a different plug and socket design for their appliances, we all know that it would be very troublesome if our appliance does not have the right plug design. Even if the appliance itself is functioning well, you cannot use it because you cannot connect to the power source. That is why we find the multi-adaptor plug so useful on trips. We also know that if we go to a country whose language we do not know, we will encounter many difficulties even to get very basic things done or to have ourselves understood. Conversely, if we understand and speak the language, we will be as a duck takes to water. This is the reality.

I say this as an analogy for the employment and employability of working people of all ages because, increasingly, it will be like becoming a multi-adaptor plug and being able to understand and use the language of a place. Workers who can learn and adapt repeatedly in their working lifespans will last longer and earn better, whilst those who cannot or will not do so will face increasing difficulties in employment and re-employment, regardless of whatever law you pass or wage subsidies that the Government may put in.

In this rapidly changing world of work, skills requirements change quickly with the flux of competitive business models, technology and innovation. Old areas of the economy fade away even as new opportunities emerge. Some growing job areas would be brought about by this very ageing of the population, such as in personal support services, healthcare and eldercare. That is why working persons must keep up with the changing requirements or else find themselves of the "wrong plug design" and become powerless.

In this context, workers need to and want to learn what are the skills at risk and what are the skills they need to pick up, and where they can do so efficiently and cost-effectively. This is where the expeditious implementation of the industry transformation Maps for key industries will be critical. Businesses and Industry Associations must take the lead, with the support of the Government and the Labour Movement, and to do this without delay.

Here, I want to remind everyone not to unconsciously fall into the mind trap of thinking that industry transformation involves only the younger working population or only the local population. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. A company’s workforce is typically both young and mature, both local and foreign. If a company or industry focuses transformation only on one part of its workforce and neglects or dismisses the other parts, it is, actually, short-changing itself.

If Singapore, therefore, neglects the segment of its workforce that is growing the fastest – and here, for the local workforce, that is the mature segment – then it is downright counter-productive for these reasons that I have discussed earlier. From the perspective of the company, it would be both sacrificing its own potential capability as well as practically inviting higher corporate tax burdens on itself sooner.

For all the above reasons and given that the recommendation of the Tripartite Committee on the Extension of the Retirement Age to 67 has been fully implemented, there is, therefore, cause, in my view, for another Tripartite Committee to be convened to consider the road ahead, beyond 67. I, therefore, call for the forming of such a Tripartite Committee and would like to propose that its terms of reference could include the following.

Firstly, to assess the effective retirement age, which is not the same as the statutory retirement age, since 1993, and recommend measures to further raise the employment rate of older workers. This includes how the implementation of the Industry Transformation Maps must include the upgrading of mature workers and the speeding up of progress toward more age-universal workplaces.

Secondly, in light of the pervasive adoption of the performance-based employment model over the years, to consider whether there is still a need for a statutory retirement age or for a ceiling to be applied to the re-employment age band.

Thirdly, if the statutory age and re-employment age band are still assessed to be necessary, clarify the conditions under which the re-employment ceiling of 67 could be further raised and to what long-term targeted age.

I further call for a special focus on confidence building for mature workers in digital awareness and competencies in working with robotics and in using data smartly to finesse the supply of and demand for goods and services. This is the new language in the world of work. We should proactively and aggressively promote their learning and use, just as we had in promoting basic literacy and numeracy through BEST and WISE courses, and IT confidence through the National IT Literacy Programme (NITLP) in years past.

The newly introduced SkillsFuture for the Digital Workplace is a good example of what needs to be done in this regard, and I hope and call for more to be done. Facility and adeptness are not innate attributes or in-born. They come with exposure and usage.

Finally, I urge the Government to specifically work out recruitment plans and conversion programmes to induct mature workers into the growing areas of healthcare, eldercare and ageing in place. These are growing areas of job opportunities and they also allow our mature workers actually to play to their strengths.

The NTUC and Labour Movement stand ready to actively partner and support the Government and the business community in all these areas to build this critical dynamic employability in our older working persons. And we will do that with our network of unions, social enterprises and U-Associate partners.

The better we are at pursuing these objectives, the more we will avert that triple-whammy I described and, in fact, turn adversity into advantage and a concern into strength.

A better future is possible, but it never comes from just hoping for the best. That future must be invested in, slogged for and cherished together. Time is ticking away and the consequences of our actions or lack of actions will become clearer by the day and month. So, let us press on resolutely. Let us not drop the ball. We must succeed so that our mature workers and citizens' future in Singapore will remain one of hope and promise. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, the Budget that we are debating about today is about the future of Singapore and, to a large extent, our ongoing economic transformation and the value that each and every worker brings to this ecosystem. Critical to this transformation are the social and career foundations that we are putting in place for the workforce. I will touch on how we can strengthen our social and career foundations further to help Singaporeans, especially younger Singaporean workers and families, to prepare for the changes.

Ever more rapid technological disruptions will continue to fundamentally change how work is done. Singapore's limited resources meant that we have ever narrower margins of error to prepare ourselves for the new economy. Our workforce, especially the workers of the future, must be able to take on future challenges quickly and adroitly. The Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) are important guides to help companies and workers understand and prepare for this future. We have committed $4.5 billion for this effort. Ideally, employers and employees are aligned in the ITMs and work towards redesigning jobs for the future, promote innovation and seek and seize opportunities to go international, where possible.

Because this transformation requires fundamental structural changes, ITMs will, understandably, take time to be pervasive. Two recent surveys done, one on businesses and another on students at the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) hinted that we need to intensify our transformation efforts.

In a survey done by the Singapore Business Federation (SBF), companies said that ITMs are a good initiative but about half of these companies are not so clear on what the transformation processes entail. One in four companies are slow to transform their businesses and some have not digitised any part of their businesses at all.

Clearly, these businesses lack transformation capacity. For example, many training programmes require time away from work. But in a tight labour market, workers are prioritised for operational purposes. The schemes announced in the Budget, such as Productivity Solutions Grant, will go in some way to aid companies to innovate and build deeper capabilities. However, there is still a missing link of a last mile connection of turning transformation plans into transformative actions.

Our future workers might also need to be primed for the transformation. Our younger Singaporeans are the future of Singapore’s workforce. They need to be part of this transformation.

In a recent survey done by Young NTUC in January 2018 on about 400 students in the universities and private educational institutions revealed that around 83% have not heard about the ITMs. Out of the 17% who said they have heard about ITMs, the level of understanding about them was only 6.5, out of a scale of one to 10, whereby 10 denotes that they fully understand the information.

This is a concern. It meant that, for most students, the industry that they are studying hard for would have changed in no small measure by the time they graduated. But they would not know this until they have entered the workforce.

Students in the IHLs who are poised to enter various industries need to understand these plans so that they can gear up for the changes in the sectors. While the roll-out of ITMs is not yet complete, the communication of the ITMs need to be stepped up so that businesses, workers and students are plugged into the plans and development within their sectors.

In both cases – for businesses and students – there is a "last mile gap" in connecting available schemes with the target groups and stakeholders. I would suggest that the Labour Movement could play a bigger role in bridging the gap for both businesses and students.

Recently, I visited the workers from the SATS Workers' Union (SATSWU) at their workplaces at the airport. They proudly showed me the new technologies, such as automated check-in and bag-drop. They could now attend to more passengers and guide them – adding value where they previously could not. There were important developments that would improve workers’ productivity and allow workers to work for longer in better jobs. So, I asked, "How is this possible?" They shared that because the industry changes were shared in advance, gaps were identified early and their skillsets were identified in advance. SATSWU also worked with the company to train its workers.

However, it was also noted that the operations also depended in part on sub-contractors. The passenger experience was dependent on the capabilities of these smaller companies. These smaller companies might lack the resources to train their workers and undertake productivity initiatives. The Labour Movement can coordinate with these companies and their bigger unionised counterparts on training needs. Then, the training modules can be placed on board NTUC’s ULEAP bite-sized training platforms, so that workers can be trained without significant downtime. This will eventually improve our transformation capacity.

Before I left the airport, I asked the workers, "Can we continue to do better?" They shared with me and said, "Of course, we can. Transformation is not new to us, changes at the airport are constant. As long as workers are involved early, productivity gains are shared, workers' value are unleashed to take advantage of transformation and workers' energies and ideas to make airport processes better".

For students, ITMs must be made accessible to them so that students can understand the key thrusts of our economic transformation for their desired industry or profession. NTUC, through its youth wing, can help the students navigate the ITMs through industry tie-ups and youth career networks. The latter peer-to-peer systems are more accessible and less top-down. It is shared from an industry peer to another student. Information is personalised, curated and more readily accepted by our millennials and younger generation.

Furthermore, to increase youth involvement in SMEs, we also call on the Government to try to help SMEs by providing seed funding to create internship opportunities, and these opportunities can be managed by intermediaries, such as NTUC or the trade associations. This would then give SMEs greater access to young talent.

The changes brought about by our economic transformation will require workers to be nimble and ready to take on new challenges. Thus, our social system must also be enhanced. More social support should be given to our workers to balance their work and home responsibilities better.

Young parents, for example, would require more support in the new economy as they can be considered as "double sandwiched" – middle-income and also having to take care of young children and older parents. As Singaporeans are marrying later, families are getting smaller and people have longer life expectancy, the responsibility of taking care of both young and older parents can converge at such a point in a young couple's life and for a prolonged period.

Such families would have to cope with the stresses and rising costs of looking after children and meet the needs of healthcare and other forms of care for their aged parents. Therefore, we need to review how our subsidies and support for childcare and student care are structured, especially for parents with more than one young child and also elderly parents to take care of.

As these responsibilities must be juggled and balanced with their careers, could the Government also consider making eldercare or family care leave mandatory in Singapore? This could provide some relief to Singaporeans who must take care of family members who are not covered by childcare leave or parental leave.

I am confident that as long as the Tripartite Partners work together, we can tackle the challenges and successfully transform our economy. We plug the gaps, we gear up our workers and students for these challenges and we provide greater support for them and their families. Together, we can create a better future for Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this year's Budget. If you ask me how I would describe this year's Budget, I would say it is a Budget with its "Feet on the ground, hand on the heart and eyes to the future”.

"Feet on the ground" because we ground ourselves on solid footing and fundamentals. We ensure our businesses and enterprises do well, so that our workers benefit through better jobs and pay, and stay employed and employable.

"Hand on the heart" because of it having the courage to confront the difficult fiscal challenges, share the fruits and to ensure no one is left behind.

"Eyes to the future" because of the clarity of focus to build our country, the curiosity to test new ideas and innovations and the conviction to stay the course and prepare for the future.

I am worried for a group of workers. My fellow Labour Member of Parliament, Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How mentioned it earlier – it is the double-middle group. They are our Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) or what we often call the "sandwiched class". Why am I worried?

The latest labour market report, as well as the labour market trends, do not auger well for them. Seventy percent of those laid off in 2016 and 2017 were PMETs. The trend is that the more degrees you have and the older you are, the more difficult for you to find employment after you have been laid off, are terminated from or leave your employment. Structural unemployment, under-employment and unemployment are three challenges which confront our workers in Singapore, especially PMEs.

The three "Ds" – Digitalisation, Disruption and Demographics will transform or make redundant traditional jobs, while creating new specialised jobs. In the new normal, skills acquisition will have to increase in frequency, while working people will progressively experience more transitions in their employment life-cycles.

A working person may be in a multi-national corporation today, a small and medium enterprise tomorrow, and possibly opt to freelance in the near future. The future of work, workers and workplaces will transform. In the Labour Movement, we value every worker and we are, therefore, concerned about employment and employability of all, especially the PMEs.

First, jobs at risk. Are there jobs at risk? During our Labour Movement’s recent Future Jobs, Skills and Training Forum last month, Citibank shared that four years ago, they set up their first smart banking branch and started eliminating jobs. There was no longer a need for bank tellers, greeters, cash officers and service bankers in the branches. In their place were 130 multi-skilled, universal service bankers. Job roles requiring a single skill were eliminated. The new job role consolidated adjacent skills and role requirements into one role.

In two years' time, the Universal Service Bankers' role will also evolve and may also not exist as more digitisation and digitalisation are adopted. Sales jobs have also been impacted as people prefer to procure services via the Internet or through mobile apps. For example, chatbots are likely to eliminate telephone marketing and support jobs as people prefer not to wait to talk to a person when they have a query; they want to have their query keyed in online and receive an immediate response in their digital environment of choice, for example, in Facebook.

In the accountancy sector, the traditional maker and checker roles to assess compliance in assurance, audit and tax will be transformed. With adoption of technology, the process of consolidating and making sense of information will be made easier. Employees will need to possess broader skills in areas of understanding technology. An example is a Tax Technologist who must also understand fraud detection systems. The audit role has to shift to one which helps the client to manage the risk and compliance issues of the business.

If it is of any relief, many jobs will continue to require uniquely human skills that artificial intelligence and machines cannot replicate, such as creativity, collaboration, abstract and systems thinking, complex communication and the ability to work in diverse environments.

The companies that fare best in this new disruptive era will be those that embrace these changes rapidly and effectively. Put simply, new jobs and economic growth will accrue to those who embrace technology, not those who resist it.

Second, skills at risk. Are there skills at risk? At risk of becoming obsolete? At risk of not becoming acquired fast enough?

My short answer is yes. The half-life of skills is about five years. We need to not just skill our workers to be great at their jobs today but also skilled so as to be prepared for the jobs of tomorrow.

Our working people typically take about 15 years to prepare themselves for their first job with the expectation to progress to more challenging and better paying jobs thereafter. Paradoxically, people generally spend less time and effort to prepare and upskill themselves for their next job. Given the time pressures, financial and family commitments, it would not be practical to set aside another 15 years to upskill working people for their next job.

The adult learning model thus has to be reworked to enable working people to upskill and remain marketable and relevant and enhance their opportunities for career progression. We need to re-tool at a faster rate.

That is why, in NTUC, we are reworking the entire adult learning model. We want to develop modules which are bite-sized and just-in-time for continuous learning.

The speed of demand for new skills is faster than the speed of supply of new skills. For every company which has lost out in the digital race, such as Kodak and Borders, there are new companies which are flourishing, such as Carousell and Airbnb.

There is a need to make available bite-sized and just-in-time training so that our working people can keep abreast of the latest developments in their work domains. For example, a cybersecurity practitioner needs to keep up with the latest cybersecurity threats and such training should be delivered within 24 hours through bite-sized two-to three-minute updates on-the-go.

In the same manner, a safety professional in the construction industry would need to keep abreast of industrial accidents so that they can learn quickly from them and apply the learning at their workplaces. This is a challenge that the world is facing and if Singapore gets this right, our workers can be one step ahead.

The traditional mode of curriculum development in Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) is a long one. IHLs have to take time to figure out the market demand, design the curriculum and mobilise workers to be trained.

To shorten the development phase, the way forward is to work with companies to design bespoke training to be conducted in-company to upskill their workers. This can shorten the development phase of training substantially as the company knows what skills it wants its workers to be trained in and can mobilise the workers to take up the training.

The need to continually upskill applies to both employees and freelancers – all working people should take personal responsibility to prepare and upskill in relevant areas for future jobs. It is imperative that freelancers take on the responsibility to keep their skillsets relevant, too.

Increasingly, it is not just a question of encouraging people to learn new skills, but of finding new ways to help them acquire the skills they will need. The biggest challenges involve the creation of ways to help people learn new skills and then rethinking how the labour market operates to enable employers and employees to move in more agile ways to fill up new positions.

We have $500 of SkillsFuture credit for individuals to encourage individual-initiated training. Why not take the employer-supported training funding formula, like giving the employers a similar SkillsFuture credit, for them to send their workers for training and skills upgrading?

In this respect, I have three suggestions on what employers and employees need to do. I call it the three Cs ─ Change Mindsets, Communicate and Collaborate.

Mindset change is crucial. Employers' mindsets have to change. Employers tend to fear that the benefits of investing in training are lost when employees leave. It is a valid, albeit myopic, concern. Instead of viewing training as a short-term cost, employee development should be regarded as a long-term investment that allows staff to add value to their roles and take up expanded job scopes. The better employees become at their jobs, the easier it is for organisations to attain the level of productivity projected.

Employers, when hiring, need to do skills-based interviews to assess skills, experiences and fit with organisation's culture and values and not just look at paper qualifications and age. Be open to hiring mature and older workers.

Our Labour Movement's recent research reveal that employers prefer to hire skilled, trained and experienced staff instead of training their existing staff for these new jobs or hiring someone untrained and train him up. In short, they want "plug and play" employees. We have a tight labour market and an ageing workforce. Employers will find it tough to find the perfect match.

I, therefore, urge employers to change their mindsets on "plug and play" and adopt a "hire then train" approach. Best of all, re-train, up-skill and multi-skill their existing workers so that they, too, can take on these new roles. We have started this in the financial sector, with the three local banks embarking on training more than 1,000 of their local workers through the in-house professional conversion programme (PCP) as part of the industry transformation and Tripartite efforts of the financial sector.

Lastly, the responsibility for skills development and acquisition does not reside solely with the employer nor the Government. Individuals must have a learning mindset in the course of their careers so as to remain able, agile and adaptable.

We need to bring people together sector by sector to collaborate, transform our companies and then take proactive and concrete steps to train, re-skill and up-skill employees to match the in-demand skills and competencies.

Besides our Tripartite Partners, the Labour Movement has started working with industry partners, training providers and IHL, for example, the Labour Movement’s Multi-Union, Multi-U Associate alliance to uplift standards and improve the employability of workers in the OPEC industries by uplifting standards of process technicians and engineers. By doing so, this will create accreditation of the process technicians' trade and raise the standards whilst boosting transferability of their skillsets. The Labour Movement is also partnering the Institute of Engineers, Singapore, to raise engineering and technical competencies in the profession.

The 23 Industry Transformation Maps are developed by the sector, but they are merely blueprints. More importantly, the Industry Transformation Maps must be operationalised to benefit the workers on the ground, and stakeholders must join hands to make this happen. In this rapidly changing landscape, transformation is critical and requires strong partnerships between unions, our working people, enterprises, education and training providers, professional guilds and the Government to enable meaningful and mutually-reinforcing transformation for the benefit of all stakeholders and our economy.

In engagements with various stakeholders, we found that one of the underlying factors impeding future-skilling and job mismatches was information asymmetry. It is important to align all stakeholders and identify what the future jobs and skills are and communicate effectively to all. Besides just looking at job losses and gains, concerted action needs to be taken to identify jobs at-risk of displacement. This is what I urge every sector and every company to do. To proactively and pre-emptively identify the jobs at risk in their organisations and help their employees, our working people, to stay Ready, Relevant and Resilient – Ready with the new skills, Relevant for the new jobs and also Resilient to the new changes. Our workforce has to be Able and equipped with the skills to take on these new jobs, Agile to move across sectors and Adaptable to change.

This reminds me of the Wallet Ninja, I have it here. It is a multi-purpose pocket multi-tool, it reminds me of the importance of multi-skilling and making our skills work for us in a variety of scenarios and conditions as and when the situation and need arises. It is also made of four times' treated steel, to remind us to steel ourselves for changes ahead.

In conclusion, we have a Budget which values every worker but done by keeping our feet on the ground and staying ready, relevant and resilient. Putting our hand on heart and communicating the jobs and skills at risk. Focusing our eyes on the future by helping the unemployed land into future jobs.

We can never change the direction of the wind but we can adjust our sails to always reach the destination. Before I end my speech, I wanted to respond to what hon Member Assoc Prof Daniel Goh spoke on earlier. He spoke about the future of women, plight of nurses, caregivers and seniors. He suggested we spend more and more to help them.

I was Executive Secretary and Advisor of the Healthcare Service Union since 2006, more than a decade ago. For the past decade, the Union has been collectively bargaining on behalf of all healthcare workers whether they are workers in the nursing as well in the non-nursing areas in our various healthcare clusters. We have reviewed salary scales on several occasions and had many heated negotiations and collective bargaining with our employers and have done a lot of work to raise wages as well as salaries and improving career conditions and career progression for healthcare workers, both nursing and non-nursing.

In fact, we have set up a Tripartite Committee and they have been looking at this issue for the past decade, working very closely with the major employers, including MOH, in particular, looking at how we can upskill and raise the career prospects to attract more into this sector where we are in need of workers. Their collective agreements are publicly available documents which Members can refer to. We have since negotiated increases in salary scales and made good progress in terms of annual increments and bonuses.

So, it is not right to say that their futures and their careers have not been looked after, or neglected. Since a decade ago, from job redesign, then to a one-race to the top, and then now to the Industry Transformation Maps, we have been working very closely with Tripartite Partners, we have made significant headway. If you speak to any healthcare worker in the public healthcare institutions, they can share with you some of the initiatives and programmes that they have done and embarked very tenaciously on.

In Singapore, more than two decades ago, we have adopted, at a Tripartite level, a very flexible wage system and a competency-based hiring and progression structure and framework. Therefore, I am surprised to hear that, with these structures and systems in place, some people are short-changed. But I think it is a journey. Yes, maybe perhaps there may be some form of discrimination here and there in small pockets. Yes, we do encounter some of them. But I think it is important to work together as Tripartite Partners and also on all fronts to make sure that, not just pay and wages but also their interests, are not just fair and responsible but also progressive.

I also want to express a bit of my concern over Assoc Prof Daniel Goh's various suggestions to raise wages, Silver support, healthcare spending. He has made many suggestions on increasing our country's spending but did not really talk about where the money should come from and whether it will be sustainable. I think that is something very important ‒ it must be sustainable.

It is this very reason that we want to ensure our healthcare workers are looked after and our healthcare costs are managed that we have this year's Budget. We are concerned and we do not want anyone ‒ whether young or old, male or female ‒ to be left behind.

This Budget 2018 is very imperative and its focus is to help each and every one of our Singaporeans navigate a path and be future-ready, and to build up our resources and stay focused. On that note, I support Budget 2018.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of Budget 2018 presented by Minister Heng Swee Keat. I am heartened that the Budget is all-inclusive and it embraces both the short-term and long-term needs of Singapore.

Sir, I will be speaking on two broad areas, that is, Industry Transformation Maps and Women at Work.

On operationalising Industry Transformation Maps in our journey of economic transformation, I agree that the approach of Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) for the 23 industries was a good start. We need to work on the strategies to operationalise them. The ITMs were a product of Tripartite efforts and should be treated beyond a paper exercise. All relevant stakeholders should continue to come together and implement the ideas on the ITMs. This should be an ongoing effort.

On 8 November 2017, Minister Gan Kim Yong, launched the Healthcare ITM which mapped out the key strategies to steer the healthcare industry and workforce towards better skills and better work, so that they can deliver better care for Singaporeans. The Singapore healthcare system is confronted with an ageing population with increasing chronic conditions, coupled with a slower workforce growth and rising healthcare costs.

Minister Gan presented three "beyonds", that is, beyond healthcare to health, beyond hospital to community and beyond quality to value to ensure our healthcare system meets the three core objectives of accessibility, quality and affordability. The future directions for the healthcare industry have been put forward clearly in the ITM. Therefore, it is important to operationalise the ideas effectively.

I shall now speak on national skills framework. First and foremost, there is a need to develop a national skills framework for current skills in demand and future skills. SkillsFuture Singapore has started its work on the development of the skills framework for six healthcare professions, namely, Physiotherapy, Speech Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Nursing, Patient Service Associate and Pharmacy Technician. We should continue to look at other healthcare professions, such as Therapy Assistant and Community Nurse, in view of the shift towards community care. We should also consider other job positions in the administrative job group to ensure that the relevant skills and training are mapped out for their career progression. There is fear amongst administrative and ancillary staff group, like the health attendants, that, with automation and robotics, will their job be redundant.

One way would be to embark on the progressive wage model (PWM) across all levels of healthcare professions. PWM will help to increase wages of healthcare employees through skills upgrading and productivity improvement. Another way would be to gradually move away from only recognising academic qualification to purely skill-based remuneration to break the glass ceiling. Hence, the shift towards modularised training is highly recommended. The Institutes of Higher Learning (IHL) should develop such modules to deepen the skills of healthcare employees. In return, the healthcare institutions, both public and private, should embrace and recognise these skills attained by the employees and remunerate them accordingly.

Let me share with you the plight of such a group of workers who felt their career is stagnant. These are the secretaries for the clinical department in the hospitals. They have no room for growth or career advancement unless they obtain higher academic qualifications, that is, diploma or degree. This should not be the case if we truly embark on skills-based PWM and elimination of the glass ceiling.

Next, it is also crucial to identify jobs at risk and work out feasible plans for affected employees to ensure smooth transition of employees from existing jobs to new jobs by engaging MOH, public healthcare clusters and various healthcare institutions. For example, the jobs in medical records departments in various healthcare institutions would be replaced by National Electronic Health Record (NEHR). Essentially, we need to engage the relevant stakeholders early to minimise disruption to employees’ livelihood. While we look at existing jobs at risk, it is equally important to identify future jobs to work out the skills and training required.

In addition, other support schemes, such as the Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs), Career Support Programme and Work or Career Trial, would supplement the existing efforts in attracting local talents into the growing manpower demand in the healthcare industry. We need to find ways to shorten the PCP programmes and improve the quality and standards of healthcare professionals, especially for career switchers. In this aspect, we need to draw in the expertise and wisdom of the professional licensing body. It is critical for us to change so as to attract more locals into the healthcare profession.

It would also be worthwhile to conduct a study on the nearly 4,000 non-practising nurses to understand their reasons for exiting from this profession and what would make them return as a practising nurse. With the shift to community nursing and the focus on the Intermediate and Long-Term Care (ILTC) sector, we will need more nurses with the relevant skillsets and attributes. I would like to suggest three ways to embark on this.

First, provide opportunity for workers in other industries who are potentially in danger of retrenchment or whose industries are in the sunset industry. Work with the relevant stakeholders, licensing body, IHL and professional group to review the current training programme and provide them with bite-sized curriculum.

Two, invite non-practising nurses to return to nursing, especially in community nursing and the ILTC sector. Provide them with the specific skillsets required for community nursing and allow flexible work arrangements. Though the return-to-work programme has been fairly successful in healthcare, we can tweak it to make it more attractive for such groups of non-practising nurses who are mainly housewives.

Third, tap the mature workforce to create supporting roles, such as healthcare assistants or healthcare attendants. Provide training for them so they have the relevant skills. These are decent jobs that will allow our mature workers to join the healthcare sector.

Last but not least, I would like to put forward the idea of setting up a Healthcare Academy at the Tripartite level with the participation of relevant stakeholders. I mooted this suggestion at the last Budget debate. I would like to re-ignite this, especially after having gathered more ground feedback from various professional groups of workers and relevant stakeholders.

The two key objectives of the Healthcare Academy are: one, to provide enhanced skills training to all healthcare professionals identified in the Healthcare ITM; and two, to standardise the foundational core skills training for identified healthcare professionals, especially in the ILTC sector.

The verticals of the skillset training must be seen in parallel with the horizontals of the soft skillset. This is all the more important as we are seeing an increasing number of healthcare professionals bringing healthcare services to patients at home. As the home setting is an uncontrolled environment compared to a controlled hospital setting, we need to equip our healthcare professionals with the relevant skills to deal with unforeseen situations and in managing their emotional and mental well-being.

Let me now touch on the topic of Women at Work. As a society, we embrace inclusivity and, as corporations, we should embrace corporate social responsibility where human capital, regardless of gender, has to be nurtured and retained. I concur with Labour Member Desmond Choo that more can be done to help our young parents thrive in the new economy. It is particularly challenging for women who often have to juggle work and family commitments. I will be speaking mainly on family-friendly workplaces and the employment and employability of women.

Value the family behind every worker. The topic on family-friendly workplace has been a discussion point without much yield. The slow adoption of the Tripartite Standards on Flexi-work Arrangement is rather concerning. Singapore remains a rather conservative country when it comes to caring for and valuing the family that is behind every worker. The burden of caring for the young and elderly often fall on the shoulders of women. Companies in various sectors can do more to help female workers.

I would like to share a case where a nurse working in a healthcare setting had to give up her job because she was not granted flexible work arrangements as she had to look after her children. The relationship with her Reporting Officer (RO) became strained after her RO refused to grant her flexible work arrangement as she could not find any person to take up parts of her duties. She related her experience to the union but decided not to take it up with the human resource department as she did not want to cause any trouble. Sir, I shall speak in Tamil.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] At this juncture, I would like to share a case of a nurse whom I know working in a healthcare setting who had to give up her job because she was not granted flexible work arrangements as she had to look after her children. The relationship with her employer became bitter after her reporting officer refused to grant her flexible work arrangements as she could not find any other nurse to take up part of her duties. She related her experience to the union but decided not to take it up with the higher-ups as she did not want to cause any trouble.

(In English): Similarly, another female staff, who devoted most of her working life to one employer had requested for flexible work arrangements as she has to look after her school-going children and ailing mother-in-law. She, too, had had her request turned down.

What do these anecdotal stories tell us? While the top management of most companies are supportive of flexible work arrangements in principle, however, it does not seem that such support trickles down to every level within the organisation. Departments and supervisors do not know exactly how to implement flexible work arrangements successfully. They have KPIs to meet and, therefore, tend to take a hard stand with such requests. In both cases, they typically involve women who are burdened and who are financially strapped. These women will need support throughout their lifetime if they are not working or fall out of employment for such reasons.

On mandating the right to request for flexible work arrangements, I urge the Government to commission a study on the plight of these working women so as to better understand the issues faced by different industries. I agree there must be progressive efforts made to create awareness. There is also a pressing need for sharing best practices in a more pervasive manner. We must have a change agent, early adopter, amongst companies and industries that have successfully rolled out FWA to share with the rest of the sectors and be a catalyst for change. I also call upon the Government to consider mandating the right to request for flexible work arrangements if all efforts – I repeat – if all efforts to persuade employers in this aspect fail.

Time and tide wait for no man. Therefore, we must change before more women at child-bearing age fall out of employment. This will surely pose social problems as our population ages.

On caregiving leave. A young mother, whose child was admitted to hospital due to several bouts of epileptic attacks, had to take leave to care for her child. Her supervisor was unhappy that she took too many days of leave to care for her sick child. Having been bogged down with KPIs, such as waiting time, the supervisor gave the young mother an ultimatum to resign from the job if she failed to make other childcare arrangements. The young mother needed her job so that she could continue to support her family and her child’s medical expenses. She approached the union for help and managed to settle the issue amicably with the union’s intervention.

This brings me to my point about Government mandating caregiving leave. Not many employers are adopting such good practices where staff feel cared for and, in return, employers will get 100% loyalty and support from the staff when the company needs them during dire situations without counting hours worked. Generally, the behaviour of many staff will fall into the category of “good deeds beget good deeds”. As a developed country, while we are concerned about economic growth, it should not be at the expense of social needs.

About 50% of our population are women and, increasingly, men, too, are embracing caregiving roles. It is, hence, essential for the Government to look at this from a broader viewpoint.

The third issue which I would like to raise specifically for women is to mandate the allocation of lactation room in all new commercial buildings as well as industrial workplaces where offices are located. Can the Government consider calling on owners of the buildings to set aside a certain percentage of the gross floor area for lactation rooms, with some incentives given? For existing buildings, we should evaluate the possibility of creating space for this purpose. With lactation rooms, we are promoting breastfeeding and, inadvertently, branding the workplace as a baby-friendly workplace. We need the Government’s support in this area. Singapore has among the highest gestational diabetes rates globally. Women with gestational diabetes are up to seven times more likely to develop Type-2 diabetes. However, longer durations of breastfeeding showed a correlation with reduction in the risk of women developing Type-2 diabetes. Now, in Malay, Sir.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The third issue which I would like to raise specifically for women is to mandate the allocation of lactation rooms in all new commercial buildings, as well as industrial workplaces where offices are located. Can the Government consider calling on owners of the buildings to set aside a certain percentage of the gross floor area for a lactation room, as well as offering some incentives to building owners?

For existing buildings, we should evaluate and identify the possibility of creating a space for this purpose. By having lactation rooms, we are promoting the benefits of breastfeeding and, at the same time, branding such workplaces as workplaces that are conducive for female workers who are mothers with babies or infants.

We need the Government’s support on this issue. The rate of gestational diabetes mellitus in Singapore is among the highest in the world. Mothers with this condition are also seven times more likely to develop Type-2 diabetes. However, a longer period of breastfeeding showed a correlation with a reduction in the risk of women developing Type-2 diabetes.

(In English): We need companies to understand this. Studies have shown that a mother should breast feed her infant for the first six months and up to two years of the child's life for the benefit of the child and mother. With four months of maternity leave, mothers tend to give up breastfeeding and switch to baby formula because of the lack of lactation rooms at the workplace. We should not allow this to happen.

Currently, the WorkPro Work-Life Grant – Developmental Grant allows owners of post-1990 buildings to tap on the funding, capped at S$20,000, to put in publicly accessible lactation facilities. Office building owners, which have not used up the permissible gross floor area will be able to tap on the funding to put in place the facilities. However, the take-up rate is very slow. Can we do more to increase the take-up rate? Let us make Singapore a socially responsible society at all levels. Make every workplace a family-friendly workplace.

On women in the STEM or Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics industry. Lastly, the employment and employability of women, especially in the STEM industry is a major concern. With a shrinking workforce, the reliance on women to set foot in all industries becomes dire. I certainly would like to believe that there is no gender-specific or gender-biased industry at present in Singapore but more so the preference of women to be working in certain specific sectors. I urge the Government to do more to nurture the next generation of female students to be well-geared in STEM subjects and, at a later age, join the STEM industry. We must do all we can to change the mindset of parents, employers and workers. There is a growing need to grow the workforce in the STEM sector as future jobs are more likely to be generated in this sector.

While we embark on the Return-to-Work (RTW) Programme, especially for mature women, we need to be more targeted. I would like to suggest that we work on each of the 23 industry sectors to customise the approach of training and induction as well as work trial. Mentors are of great help in those identified professions as they can handhold the individual, providing them with confidence and assurance. There should be a longer work trial period for complex jobs. I hope the Government can do more for the Return-to-Work Programme so that it can be more pervasive. Let us embrace and employ "different strokes for different folks". Mr Speaker, Sir, with this, I conclude.

Mr Speaker, one of the major shifts mentioned in this year's Budget speech is new technologies. Indeed, among the 200,000 self-employed persons or freelancers, many operate by using new technologies that either disrupted traditional businesses or created new markets.

This new form of employment should not be confused with workers who have been wrongly classified. There are generally three types of self-employed persons: first group are those who chose this profession as the preferred choice; second group are those who chose it not as a preferred choice; and third, there may be those who may have been wrongly classified as freelancers.

In this last category, the workers may be deployed as freelancers at the workplace and not counted as the company's headcount. However, they report for work and comply with the company's guidelines which are no different from salaried employees. These companies may have infringed the Employment Act and should be flagged out to MOM for investigations. In fact, all allegations, including possible tax evasions by freelancers who under-declare income, should be made to the relevant authorities. This is the only responsible way of ensuring that the issues are properly dealt with. We should do all we can not to wedge a divide as to which self-employed file tax properly and who under-declare their income.

For hardworking cabbies, I hope we do not undermine their integrity by making unfounded, sweeping statements that they under-declare income or may have under-declared their income. On the contrary, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been working with IRAS very closely to ensure that volunteer groups come into the taxi community to explain to the drivers how to file income tax returns and to do them properly. Fortunately, the majority of our self-employed persons ensure that they do the responsible thing and, in fact, we are glad that the majority of self-employed persons are in their preferred occupation.

Day to day, they face new platform intermediaries, such as Grab, IO Talents, Caregivers Asia, that are transforming the way businesses are run, making matching of services hassle-free. More consumers and self-employed persons now go to a common platform to find each other. For example, whether you need a cleaning service, photography service or chauffeured ride service.

Consumers now have easier access and more choices when it comes to selecting services. Freelancers, on the other hand, get to pitch and market their services to a bigger pool of prospective clients.

These intermediaries, however, are not obliged to perform the roles of an employer, such as making CPF contributions, or providing workplace insurance cover or medical leave for the freelancers. Some, however, do so voluntarily, contributing to the self-employed persons’ MediSave account or even providing insurance cover.

The majority do not do so. Instead, they can easily remove freelancers from their platforms, have huge control over payment and work arrangements, and freely set their own commission rates. Their impact will be more significant, now that the number of gig workers using such platforms may be increasing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, how do we ensure that the intermediaries are fair in their practices?

For example, before penalising or removing self-employed workers due to the fact that they receive poor service ratings from their customers, has there been enough thorough checks done to ensure that those allegations are properly investigated? Some freelancers shared with me that they are affected by delayed payment, unexpected cuts to the fees or the rates and changes in incentive payment at the last minute, without giving them due recognition and information ahead of time.

New technologies do bring dynamism to our economy. But with only vague and non-transparent guidelines, freelancers using such platforms are potentially at risk. As these intermediaries gain bigger market share, they also grow in power and, if left unchecked, they can dictate tougher terms over the self-employed persons and even consumers who use their platforms.

Having previously taken a light regulatory approach, perhaps it is more timely now for the Government agencies to review the operations of such platform intermediaries and consider getting them to take on more responsibilities. I hope to see more being done to support our self-employed persons.

Fortunately, there have been several good examples. A case in point is the Tripartite Standard on the procurement of services from media freelancers that was launched in November last year. This was jointly developed by Info-communications Media Development Authority with NTUC and stakeholders. It is an industry-specific Tripartite Standard that addresses the concerns of media freelancers.

Back in 2014, LTA, together with the National Taxi Association and taxi operators, also set up a mediation system to allow taxi drivers to resolve payment disputes with their taxi operators.

MOM also commissioned a survey on self-employed persons in 2016 to gather more information and understand their concerns. Following that survey, the Minister last year announced a Tripartite workgroup that was formed in March 2017 to study the issues faced by this group of workers. I was a member of this workgroup.

We have recently submitted our recommendations to the Minister and we look forward to more specific support and targeted assistance for self-employed persons. I will share more during the Committee of Supply when we debate on the MOM budget.

Mr Speaker, it suffices to say now that we need more support for self-employed persons, such as fair practices; a formalised structure for dispute resolution; workplace injury insurance; and also to ensure that all Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) and SkillsFuture planning include self-employed persons into their thought process and their scheme of things so that self-employed persons can also access skills upgrading to stay relevant and future-ready.

Budget 2018 is a Budget that prepares us for the future. We should not underestimate the value that self-employed persons bring to the economy. I hope the support for self-employed persons can be widely adopted to help them sustain their career choice and thrive in this new economy. With that, Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today on Singapore’s Budget 2018. My fellow Labour Members of Parliament have touched on various worker groups but we must not forget our more vulnerable low-wage workers. We must value their contributions, too. One of the core missions of every labour movement anywhere in the world is to look after its workers, particularly the more vulnerable workers in its midst. It is also a responsibility that our Government shoulders and commits to this mission in order to improve the livelihood of our people.

Low-wage workers will always be part of our labour landscape. Not by design but because there will always be those who form the lower tier in the income hierarchy. More importantly, the work they do forms an important part of our social fabric and contributes to our economy. Their struggles, hopes and aspirations give us reason to be their voice to pave a better future for them. Hence, for our Labour Movement, the Budget presents an opportunity for us to do good, do more and do right by them.

Indeed, I believe that with everyone's help – Government, union and employers – low-wage workers can have a sense of hope that their lives will be better year after year and, more importantly, that the future for their families and themselves are that much brighter.

To date, the efforts of the Labour Movement to help low-wage workers have paid off with the strong support provided by the Government and our Tripartite Partners. The long hours put in by policymakers, unions, companies and every one of us sitting here today have resulted in the implementation of many policies to better support and protect these workers’ wages and their employment rights.

Let me share some of these policies and initiatives.

The Progressive Wage Model (PWM) is one initiative that has improved the wages and skills of thousands of low-wage workers in the cleaning, security and landscape sectors. We believe that PWM has also caused a ripple effect that has led to the increase in wages of low-wage workers in other sectors as well. In fact, from 2012 to 2017, the wages of those in the 20th percentile have shown the largest increase. This has, hopefully, eased the ever-increasing cost of living for these workers.

Recently, the Tripartite Committees have made recommendations to have a built-in wage increase for workers in the cleaning and security sectors to ensure their real wages are not eroded by inflation or experience "down-waging" when their contracts are renewed.

Other schemes implemented over the years, such as Workfare Income Supplement (WIS), have also gone a fairly long way in making life easier for these low-wage workers. They have a better chance of bringing home higher salaries.

Under the Workfare Training Support Scheme, they also have better opportunities for upgrading their skills through available training programmes at heavily subsidised rates, giving them some confidence to be relevant to the workforce today.

Amendments to the Employment Act, such as requiring employers to issue pay slips and employment contracts, will go a long way to offer better protection to our vulnerable low-wage workers.

The road to improving the lives of low-wage workers cannot just end here. The sad reality is that many of the current lowest paying jobs in our country are held by elderly workers with little education and limited skills. During our engagement with our union leaders to arrow in on the plight of low-wage workers, the issue of ensuring workers' retirement adequacy, especially for low-wage workers, stood out prominently.

Of all the suggestions given on retirement adequacy for low-wage workers, there were some prominent ones that I would like to put up for the Government's consideration.

First, the union leaders felt strongly that it is about time for our Tripartite Partners to set up a committee to review the employer's CPF contribution for older workers. Currently, the employer's CPF contribution rate decreases progressively after the worker reaches 55 years of age.

The different CPF contribution rates tagged to different age bands were introduced in 1988 with good intentions to ensure our companies could remain competitive. However, the assumption to rationalise why older workers should have reduced employer's CPF contribution rates may no longer be valid today.

Many workers, regardless of their age, are already being paid based on the job value as we have moved away from a seniority-based wage structure. Moreover, given longer life expectancy, workers need to build on their retirement savings. There are also many who still need to service their mortgage loans, as well as take care of their aged parents who are living longer.

Hence, it may not be a bad idea to explore the possibility of working towards having one universal rate for employer's CPF contribution till the age of 65 years old. This would help workers build their retirement savings and would be especially beneficial for elderly low-wage workers.

It is also in our best interest to ensure that workers can meet their retirement sum as it would reduce the burden on social services in later years which would have to be shouldered by the current working population. Such a review would no doubt add cost for the companies, but I believe that we need to move away from the 1988 policy which has indirectly created a class of "cheaper, older" labour.

Employers must value our mature workers as an important resource who can still contribute to their businesses, especially in this tight labour market.

Secondly, the union leaders also call for Annual Wage Supplement (AWS) to be made mandatory for all workers. Many of us assume that all workers get the 13th-month bonus (AWS) at the end of the year. But the sad reality is that the very group that needs it the most is not receiving it.

Mandating AWS could bring about an increase of 8.3% to the salaries of low-wage workers ‒ and help reduce the widening income gap present in Singapore. I believe this 8.3% increase in salary will bring back much more than its worth in monetary value when it comes to making our vulnerable low-wage workers feel a sense of fairness, recognition and appreciation for the work they do. After all, this nation was also built on the backs of these toiling workers who had also played their part to pave the way for a better future ‒ a future that we, today, enjoy.

Third, the union leaders felt that more can be done to help low-wage workers cope with medical cost. The current provision of the Employment Act only requires employers to pay for the medical consultation fees when a worker sees a doctor for outpatient treatment.

Hence, the union leaders felt that the Tripartite Partners should consider amending the Employment Act to include better medical coverage for workers, by making employers pay for the full cost of non-chronic outpatient treatment at polyclinics or company-appointed clinics.

While a clear majority or 86% of employers do offer outpatient benefits beyond the required statutory requirements on a voluntary basis, it is the low-wage workers who are being hurt the most by the limited coverage under the Employment Act.

Mr Speaker, in this Budget, the Government is providing a lot of support for companies through all the various schemes and grants. Perhaps, the various Ministries may want to consider this as a leverage to incentivise companies to care more for their workers, particularly the low-wage workers. I am aware that the suggestions I am making may cause some pain not only to employers but also to us as final consumers. But, again, if there is no pain, there is no progress. Mr Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The rapidly changing current economic landscape and job situation can affect many workers. I am very concerned about the fate of low-wage workers who are mostly older and do not possess higher qualifications. Although many training opportunities have been made available to help them upgrade their skills, it is essential that the training is suitable to their age group and learning capabilities.

In order to ensure that low-wage workers have enough savings for their retirement, I would like to call on the Tripartite Partners to form a review committee on CPF to explore the possibility of having one universal rate for employer’s CPF contribution for all workers up to the age of 65 years old.

I would also like to suggest making the 13th month bonus or the Annual Wage Supplement mandatory, in order to boost the retirement savings of low-wage workers. Helping low-wage workers, by having employers pay for the costs of their outpatient treatment at polyclinics, can also relieve their burden.

(In English): In conclusion, in the past and also very recently, I have written several blogs to highlight the bread-and-butter issues of low-wage workers. I know that some of my entries might have caused some discomfort to some readers, particularly my most recent post entitled "Slavery of the poor". But there is nothing I would change about the message I intended to convey.

It was not a blog post I wanted people to scroll past, nor was it a post to exaggerate the struggles faced by these workers. It was a post that echoes the sentiments of our low-wage and elderly outsourced workers who exist in our society. These workers are real. Their families are real. The problems they face are real.

We must not fool ourselves to think that, as a society, we are doing enough in being fair to all our workers. While there are policies in place today to help our low-wage workers, many of them are still being taken advantage of. They struggle to make ends meet, let alone save for retirement, no matter how hard they work.

The stark realities faced by vulnerable workers do not have to persist year after year. We are not powerless to help them. We must have a bigger heart and mind to ease their livelihood. We must value their contributions and think more about them and less about us. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, Budget 2018 was presented as a strategic Budget that is meant to guide Singapore as we transit into the next decade. But while we continue in our quest to peer into the crystal ball and try to divine the future, we must not forget that the bedrock of our industries, present and future, are our workers.

My fellow Labour Members of Parliament have, in turn, argued for the various initiatives that the Government should embark on to enable workers to take on the jobs of the future – low-wage workers, high-age workers, middle-income, middle-aged workers, PMEs, including freelancers. They have also highlighted the value that each of our workers brings to the table. However, we will need a fit and healthy workforce in order to be able to take on these jobs in the first place.

Singapore is suffering from two worrying trends that will continue to have a profound impact on our labour force. First, we have a shrinking population. Our total fertility rate dipped to just 1.2 in 2016, despite having a relatively higher number of marriages and a slew of Government incentives to encourage parenthood. Second, we have a rapidly ageing population. A Business Times news report published late last year forecasted that 2018, this year, will see, for the first time in our history, the same percentage of those aged 65 years and above matching those younger than 15 years old.

Mr Speaker, if we place these two trends together, it becomes obvious that our labour force is set to shrink and each working adult will be expected to contribute more to support the older generation. Every worker is, therefore, a precious resource and we must value the life of each and every worker. As many of us spend most of our waking hours at the workplace, we need to do more in terms of workplace safety and health to keep our precious resource safe and healthy.

Let me first start with the need for safer workplaces. Earlier this month, the MOM reported that the number of workplace fatalities in 2017 had dropped to 42. This is the lowest figure in over a decade. This lowers our workplace fatality rate from 1.9 per 100,000 workers in 2014 to 1.2 in 2017. It is certainly encouraging to see that the sustained collective efforts by our Tripartite Partners to tackle workplace fatalities have borne some fruit.

However, every death is a tragedy and every accident is preventable. We must, and we should, do more to ensure that our workplaces are safer. One area that we can do better moving forward is to encourage better near-miss reporting, so that we can reduce the occurrence of accidents. While workplace fatalities have decreased in 2017, MOM’s report also showed that the number of workplace injury cases remains high. There were close to 12,500 workplace injury cases in 2017, with 574 workers sustaining serious injuries. This can be a worrying sign. Does it mean that the dip in fatal accidents was simply down to luck? A structured and well-participated near-miss reporting regime would help to better identify dangerous work conditions, and early interventions can help bring down the accident rate.

To make the next quantum leap in reducing workplace fatalities in the next decade, we will need bolder strategies to make Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) more pervasive in every workplace. During a recent Tripartite study visit to Finland, we learnt that Finland mandates that there must be one elected Occupational Safety and Health representative in workplaces where there are at least 10 employees working regularly. This has helped Finland achieve a workplace fatality rate of below 1.0 per 100,000 workers. Should Singapore, too, have a mandatory WSH officer in every company?

For a start, perhaps a more practical approach would be to make it compulsory for companies to appoint a WSH representative as part of the certification for BizSAFE Level 3. There is, currently, no such provision for companies applying for BizSAFE Level 3. For now, companies must appoint a Risk Management Champion (RMC) for BizSAFE Level 2. With proper training, the role of these RMCs can be expanded to serve as WSH representatives.

While it is important to have preventive measures to mitigate workplace injuries, it is also equally important to help workers return to work in the unfortunate event of an accident at the workplace. This is where we can do more to improve the Return-To-Work (RTW) Programme, which was recently started in November 2017. The RTW grant is currently restricted to Small and Medium Enterprises. To promote and deepen the RTW culture, the Government should consider extending the grant to large corporations, too. In the event an injured worker requires a change of employer and work scope due to a workplace accident, the current RTW grant does not cover vocational rehabilitation. The RTW grant should be extended to cover such cases.

Mr Speaker, much of our WSH efforts today focus on workplace safety. And "Health", as the final letter in "WSH", often gets neglected. Talks of occupational health issues, such as physical health and mental well-being, are often missing in our WSH conversations. But as our workforce ages faster than before, we will most certainly see more workplace health issues in the next decade. We must, therefore, act now.

Let me first start by talking about physical health. With many workers today doing desk-bound jobs and leading a sedentary lifestyle, it is important that we encourage regular exercise to prevent health problems, such as high cholesterol and high blood pressure, as we age. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) has a Healthy Workplace Ecosystem programme to encourage busy office workers to take part in physical activities and eat healthier options. To date, there are 30 participating Healthy Workplace Ecosystems. But more needs to be done to get more companies and employers on board to bring healthy lifestyle programmes to our workplaces.

It was announced recently that Singapore is one of the founding cities of the Active Citizens Worldwide project, which seeks to get people in cities to be more active. This is a good step forward and I encourage Sport Singapore to partner HPB to create more workplace healthy lifestyle programmes for our workers.

Of course, a big part of being healthy means eating healthy. As we continue in our war against diabetes, we must do more to help shape the eating habits of Singaporeans and lower the barriers to healthy eating. In many of my union visits, I have seen many staff canteens at the workplaces. A good place to start would be to encourage these staff canteens to sell healthier food. We check on what food and drinks are sold in school canteens to ensure that our children eat well in school. Perhaps it is time that we start a Healthy Canteen programme at our workplaces to ensure that there are healthier food options at our staff canteens.

One common complaint is that healthy food is often more expensive. To address that, the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU), which operates 45 canteens islandwide, introduced brown rice at a subsidised rate. If you eat at our NTWU canteens, it is cheaper to buy brown rice than white rice. We also encourage our canteen operators to serve coffee and tea without sugar as the base drink. But if you want to add sugar, there is a sugar counter at the side. But of course, we also put up posters at the sugar counter to remind you of diabetes. So, please do not add too much sugar when you go to the sugar counter.

For individuals, one of the biggest push factors for them to embark on a healthy lifestyle comes from knowing their own health status. This is why health screenings are important. In a joint project with the HPB and our public transport operators, the union organised a free health screening for 1,000 of our bus captains, testing them for their blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol. Sadly, but not unexpected, 80% of the bus captains tested failed at least one of the three health indicators. And surprisingly, 80% of these bus captains who had issues with their health, were doing a health screening for their first time. What is heartening to note is that after going through a period of health coaching, a third of these bus captains managed to achieve a pass in all three health indicators after six months. This shows the importance of early detection and early intervention. I, therefore, urge all employers to make free annual health screening a norm in their staff welfare benefits.

The final big pillar of occupational health that is rarely broached in most of our WSH conversations is the issue of mental health. The stressors of everyday life can take a toll on even the most strong-willed individuals. Like physical health, we must focus our attention on the early detection and prevention of mental health issues. A study was recently launched by the Institute of Mental Health and the NUS School of Public Health to examine the association between physical health and mental health, with the results expected to be released in 2021. As we work on the major physical health pillars under the umbrella of occupational health, the benefits to mental health should also be examined in the coming years, as our workforce faces increasing stress, having to adapt constantly to the rapidly changing economy.

Mr Speaker, the foundation of our economy – past, present, and future – has always and will always be our workforce. Every worker is precious and more can be done to value the life of each and every worker. As we work on upskilling our workers and transitioning to the new economy, we must also not forget to ensure that we have safe workplaces and healthy workers. We should and must do more to provide safer workplaces and build an ecosystem for all our workers to stay healthy. With that, Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support Budget 2018. With the recent spike in en bloc activity and the general meteoric rise in asking prices of properties, what is the simplest way to make sure that such gains go towards the majority of Singaporeans, rather than the rich who buy and sell property? How do we ensure that we are able to stretch the value of every Budget dollar, every tax dollar, for all Singaporeans to lead better lives?

The stamp duty is a progressive, simple tax which allows the Government to reap about $400 million in tax revenues is just one such example. This is the sort of simple socialism which has informed Singapore policymaking since our Independence and still does much of the heavy lifting in the redistribution of wealth today. Our socialism is captured by one simple phrase ─ that all of us work together for the well-being of that individual Singaporean who needs help. There are two elements which I would like to speak on today that relates to this year’s Budget ─ the use of NIRC and the need for greater equality in Singapore today.

The heavy redistribution that our socialism demands takes place today, in the main, within one generation, that is, the rich of today are taxed to help the poor of today. There is also a sense in which the rich of today are taxed to help the poor of yesterday, that is, those a generation or two earlier than them. But by and large, our socialism does not leap over time. We make each generation pay its own way, as far as possible. This is the first characteristic of Singapore's socialism and that is why we resist the populist call to spend more of our NIRC.

Since 2008, we have seen an increasing reliance on the NIRC. This is, as we all now know, our number one source and contributor to our revenue base. My views and questions to our Finance Minister are as follows.

Is this sustainable? What if the investment climate takes a turn for the worse? Would we be able to continue to finance or do we need to draw down on some of our welfare programmes? And is it fair to deprive future generations of the wealth that they would have enjoyed had we allowed the interest to compound?

Since the 2008 amendment to our Constitution, we have taken a less conservative approach to the use of the income from our reserves. We have, since then, seen about 11 instances where the percentage of NIRC to be used has come up in Parliamentary debates. Members of Parliament from either side of the House have called for this percentage to be increased. Such an argument is, in a way, understandable because it is an easy and popular course of action.

Why keep saving? Why not start spending? I think our socialism commits us to raising the percentage at some point but we do not know when or by how much. That is to say, it does not commit us to holding steadfast to a certain percentage, only to a certain way of spending.

Which brings me to the second characteristic of our simple socialism – the striving towards a more equal society. I have spoken before about how complete equality is an impossibility because human beings are not widgets and we are irreducible into one another. What we can do, however, is to strive towards equality in basic human experiences – a safe home, a good and meaningful job, a chance for our children to prosper and find their purpose in life; to value each and every one of our Singaporeans and ensure that, for generations to come, they are able to build better lives in this garden city we call home.

And this means that we need to put flesh on what it means to have a collective destiny. This means we need to address the challenges of poverty, the lack of opportunity; we need to compensate for the poor luck that fate might have dealt on any Singaporean – whether an illness or an abusive spouse, or even with an addiction to gambling. As a society, we help those who are most vulnerable.

It may be true that Singapore as a whole is so affluent that a family with a five-figure income may still feel deprived and feel entitled to even more subsidies. Our simple socialism, however, requires us to address not just felt deprivation relative to others, but real social needs.

Let me tell you a story about a friend of mine, Peter. He is 52 years old and earns less than $2,700 a month. He has two boys: one in Primary school and the other a teenage – in Secondary school. His wife does not work.

He has an HDB flat, just $60,000 shy of full payment. But he has to pay the financial institution 4% in finance costs for his loan. This is very high, because the current housing loan interest is around 2%. He went to all the major banks to try and refinance but there were no takers because his is a 2-room flat and the amount is less than $100,000.

Peter had originally taken this private loan over an HDB loan because, at that point in time, the starting interest rate offered by the financial institution was 1.17% and the housing agent then had told him that it was a better deal. Of course, over time, the interest rate went up. Incidentally, I should add here that although I would consider Peter a savvy man about finance, it is well-known that the cognitive tax on the lower-income is higher.

When Peter tried to refinance with HDB, unfortunately it was not approved. Peter has never taken a loan from HDB but our current rules are such that if you have taken a housing loan from a bank, you will not be allowed to refinance your flat with a housing loan from HDB.

While I understand the need for some of our policies to follow the principles of efficiency of the market, our commitment to equality demands that we change this rule to bring about greater equality. The financial institution is a commercial profit-making entity, but I think HDB can perhaps take a different goal as its guiding objective.

I also understand that one cannot pick and choose; that if you enjoy low interest when the market is flushed with capital, you cannot decline when the rate is hiked. The choice is between stability and perhaps a slightly higher rate with HDB and the ups and downs of the private market. Or is it?

There is an easy way to break this false choice. We could, for example, allow a means-tested way to facilitate the shift of private loans back to HDB, especially when their interest rates are so high above HDB rates. To do so does not require us to incur more expenditure ─ it merely shifts the interest profits from the bank and puts half of this in Peter’s pocket and, the other half, in a sense, in the Government.

This, of course, may over simplify the process, and I do oversimplify the process. Of course, this shifting of loans will mean messier policy implementation. I merely sound this out as a possibility for the Ministers here to consider. It is something that will be of great help to some lower-income families, like Peter, struggling to pay the monthly loans they had taken with commercial financial institutions.

Second, Peter usually pays $40 a month for his boy's school bus. He also enjoys a few other benefits under the MOE financial assistance scheme ─ free text books, a waiver for fees and 50% subsidies for buses. He is very appreciative and grateful for all these help from the Government. This year, however, he has to pay $166.50 a month, and he has lost all the other benefits. Why? Because he earned $75 dollars a month too much last year due to overtime pay.

The means test is at $675 per capita a month ─ Peter came in at $750 a month. He won but he also lost.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not a man who has a maid or a car. This is a man who has bought health insurance for both his wife and his sons. In fact, he has planned carefully so that when he is 65, he can count on an endowment policy maturing. Peter ha,s in a way, planned, has prospered slowly and carefully. But he has also laboured under some rules that weigh a bit more heavily on him.

He pays more in interest than his rich neighbour – we can change this. He loses benefits by a whisker of overtime pay – we can change this, too. This requires a new way, possibly a whole-of-Government approach to dealing with such specific instances.

There is much that remains to be done in Singapore to make our society more equal. Our simple socialism demands that we make difficult choices. We must recognise that even relatively well-off people can have a legitimate experience of relative deprivation, when compared to the very wealthy. At the same time, we must see the need to allocate resources more urgently to men like Peter. It is only when we do not have enough to cater to men like Peter that I feel we should consider raising the percentage – not as a means of populist hot air balloon for everyone who demands a specious equality with their neighbour.

Herman Daly wrote that there should be a moral limit to growth. So too, should there be a moral limit to the consumptive nature of man.

In the 52 years since the founding of Singapore, our socialism has evolved, with our welfare net cast a lot wider and deeper than before. This is as it should be, as our resources and wealth have grown over time. At the same time, we must recognise that the NIRC is already called into service to a very large extent. In this, we ought to be more generous to men like Peter and find ever more ways in the name of equality and justice to bring him and his family along with us and ensure his two boys fight for a land they believe in. If we do, indeed, collectively care for his family, all for one, and value the contributions that they have contributed to this country; then, in return, they will feel that they are Singaporean and work for our collective future. Sir, I support Budget 2018.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we live in interesting times. Of course, human beings in every era view their era as a time of modernity and change. But the era we are living through is seeing many fundamental economic and geopolitical changes to the post-World War II status quo, changes that are making the past a less and less reliable guide to the future, changes that underline ever more strongly that the strategies that brought us here today will not be the same ones that enable us to navigate successfully tomorrow.

The world is seeing the emergence of disruptive industries using new technology or new business models, like the sharing economy, industries that may reshape the economy – destroying old jobs and stodgy companies, but also creating new ones.

Geopolitical and economic weight is shifting towards Asia, particularly China, and to a lesser extent, India; while Japan and Korea remain major economies. Regional powers, including ASEAN, have the potential to carry much more weight.

Meanwhile, inequality, both within and between countries, is adding to the unpredictability, triggering political shifts like what happened in the US with the election of President Trump and, in the UK, with Brexit.

And climate change marches on, even as the world struggles to cope, using the Paris accords that the US abandoned.

The first broad point I would like to make in my speech is, while we pay special attention to Asia – and I agree that we should do this – as our home region and the world's fastest growing major economic region, let us not write off the West.

In spite of the structural issues faced by some western countries – which range from fiscal deficits and state debt to low productivity growth to inequality-fuelled populism and chronic crime in some cities – western countries still have unmatched soft power. In fields, such as R&D, entertainment, academia and information and communications technology (ICT), not to mention military technology and diplomatic clout, the West still leads the world, even if the size of that lead is diminishing.

We should ensure that our efforts to engage North America and Europe are well-maintained, so as to draw learnings and forge partnerships, whether in the public or private sector realms. We should not assume that Asia will continue to outgrow the West in a linear fashion. Some western countries have shown a tremendous resilience, an ability to rebound from setbacks. The recent victory of President Macron in France underlines that ability to self-correct and renew.

Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to talk about industry disruption but, specifically, in the context of Asia and, in particular, ASEAN.

The world economy is teeming with disruption, which both destroys and creates anew. Some emerging technologies and business models that are disrupting the world include big data analytics, the Internet of Things (iOT) which collects big data, artificial intelligence (AI) which is fed by big data, drones, autonomous vehicles, robotics including social robotics, 3D printing, virtual and augmented reality, cloud computing, crypto-currencies, genetic editing and renewable energy technologies like cutting-edge solar cells coupled with cutting-edge battery technology.

Many of these are coming together in interesting ways. For example, iOT could generate vast quantities of data for AI to work on so as to improve processes. And this is not even mentioning sharing economy industries like private car-hire, whose disruptive effect is already quite mature in some cities. As these technologies become increasingly mainstream, they will transform the economies of Asia. Indeed, that is already happening, in both mature and emerging Asian economies.

How can Singapore be relevant to this process of the unfolding of disruption in Asia? There are a number of ways.

Firstly, as a hub for R&D and localisation; secondly, as a test-bed to trial new products; thirdly, as a management headquarters for regional companies; fourthly, as a manufacturing base for high-tech, high-value added exports; fifthly, as a service export hub for things like analytics, professional and business services; and, lastly, as a financing centre.

Our economic agencies have, for a long time, conceived and implemented initiatives to help Singapore develop a role vis-à-vis the Asian region in these respects. These initiatives have helped to create and sustain many good-quality jobs and high value-added economic activities.

How could Singapore position itself to play such roles vis-à-vis the unfolding of disruptive industries in Asia?

For a start – and this is the second broad point in my speech – we could focus on ASEAN above all. I was glad to note some ASEAN-related initiatives in the Budget speech.