Hansard, Tuesday, 3 March 2015

1 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the rationale for discontinuing the recruitment of daily-rated workers in NEA; and (b) whether there is scope to retain the daily-rated worker scheme in NEA to offer our local low-wage workers more stable and secure jobs.

Mdm Speaker, currently, NEA employs 622 daily-rated workers. The majority of these workers are involved in vector control, sanitation, cleansing and maintenance. About half of these 622 daily-rated workers are above the age of 62. In fact, 99.5% are above the age of 40.

NEA will continue to re-employ daily-rated workers even beyond 62 years old, so long as they are medically fit to continue working and have shown consistent satisfactory work performance and good conduct. We do not have an age limit on the re-employment of such workers.

However, the Daily-rated Employment scheme was discontinued in 2001 because new recruits are placed on either contract or permanent service.

Order. End of Question Time. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.

[(proc text) "to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund and the Development Fund of the sums necessary to meet the estimated expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2015/16. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to provide for making supplementary provision to meet additional expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam); read the First time; to be read a Second time after the conclusion of proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2015/16. (proc text)]

Page: 11

[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [23 February 2015], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016." – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]

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

Mdm Speaker, thank you for the honour to kick off this debate.

I rise in support of this Budget because I believe it goes quite far in building a society that is on the one hand fair and inclusive and, on the other hand, still forward-looking and keeping our economy vibrant.

In particular, the Government has answered calls for more help and assistance for the middle-income families "sandwiched" between having to take care of elderly parents and raising young children. The various top-ups for education accounts, waiver of exam fees, affordable childcare, lower maid levy and the 50% income tax rebate capped at $1,000, among others, are welcomed measures.

At the same time, I hope that our efforts to restructure the economy and to raise productivity and skills will also benefit the middle-income group in terms of better jobs and better pay. The middle-income group is the backbone of our economy and at the heart of our social fabric. They hence should always be our central focus.

Mdm Speaker, I intend to speak on three broad areas today: addressing inequality, restructuring our economy and developing our people. I will start with inequality.

The Silver Support Scheme is a significant move by the Government to reduce inequality of outcomes by ensuring that our low-income seniors who might not have saved enough over the years are not left in the lurch. This is the continuation of the major shift by the Government that started a few years ago to strengthen the social safety net and to take care of those who may have been left behind. There are four things I like about this scheme.

One, the scheme is a permanent one and not just for the Pioneer Generation. This is a recognition that there are Singaporeans in every cohort who could do with some help, despite the best efforts of individuals and their families. It will give each batch of needy Singaporeans an added peace of mind, knowing that even as life expectancy rises, assistance

Page: 12

will continue to be available, for as long as they live.

Two, it covers 20% to 30% of Singaporeans in each cohort, or an estimated 150,000 of today's retirees. On the one hand by restricting coverage to 20% to 30% of each cohort, the Government is ensuring a more meaningful sum to each of the seniors in need. This is not a small group. One in three seniors you meet at random is eligible. This is a reminder to us that people who need help are all around us. And the rest of us who might not need help need not feel left out. We are grateful that we are doing fine on our own and we chip in and unite as a society to help our peers because it is the right thing to do and because it is who we are.

Three, the average payout is $200 per month, which is not an insignificant sum. Of course, it is not enough to live on. But it will act as an important supplement to the individual's savings, what help his family can provide, as well as other existing government schemes that he is likely to be on. Seniors that I have spoken to say that in their old age, they are not big spenders but merely wish to retire with a peace of mind, and any supplement would certainly be reassuring and heartening that they are not forgotten.

Four, payments will be made automatically, without the need to apply. The last thing that our retirees need is to deal with tedious forms and complicated bureaucracy.

Mdm Speaker, with the introduction of the Silver Support Scheme, following Workfare and MediShield Life, all of which are permanent schemes, anyone looking at our social safety net as a whole can see that it has become more comprehensive.

As in previous years, there is no shortage of labels to describe each year's Budget. This year, we saw descriptions, such as "Budget for Families", "Budget for the Future", "Budget for the Middle Class", "Jubilee Budget", "Hongbao Budget" and so on.

One refreshing label for this year's Budget that I picked up from the media was "Robin Hood Budget"; first coined by Bloomberg News. It was an attention-grabbing tagline but not backed by the substance of the Budget. Budget 2015 more than helps the poor. It also significantly helps the middle-income group as well as the SMEs. Besides, the Government's approach has always been to a build a broader tax base rather than to target just one particular segment – because if everyone pays some taxes, there is a sense that we all have a stake in the nation's progress. We are all in it together. Nevertheless, I fully support the move to build further progressivity in our income tax regime.

Perhaps, the most interesting label for this year's Budget is the one that says Budget 2015 is a "further shift to the left"; a label that I tend to agree with.

Page: 13

In all fairness, the Government has been further left in the past than it has been recognised for. In our early years as a nation, the Government ramped up significantly the subsidised public housing programme. Today, we have 90% homeownership, out of which 80% of households living in subsidised HDB flats. You would be hard pressed to find a left-leaning government as successful in housing the masses as we have been.

However, over the years, our left-leaning approach to housing did not spread to other policy areas. There was a strong belief that the country could not afford it at that stage of development without running into deficit and that increasing employment and income was better welfare than welfare itself. We were not wrong and the lives of millions of Singaporeans improved by leaps and bounds as we progressed from Third World to First.

But anyone who thinks the story has stopped there is out of touch with the situation. We have reached a different stage of development. Prime Minister Lee in his 2013 National Day Rally (NDR) speech explained that the situation had changed and that we needed to make the strategic shift and embark on a new way forward. The Government recognised that in some cases individual efforts, especially among the vulnerable like the low-income families and elderly, may not be enough. The Government and the community have to do more to help some segments of society. Besides more subsidies in housing, education and healthcare, the new approach would include cash supplements like Workfare for the lower income group and Silver Support when low-income Singaporeans enter into their retirement. These schemes are now permanent.

Mdm Speaker, this is our New Deal and one that I fully support.

We are able to make the change in a responsible manner because over the last 50 years we have built a stronger and more sustainable financial position through careful budgeting and sheer discipline.

Notwithstanding the various significant and permanent social programmes that were introduced in the last few years in response to our changing social landscape, we can see that our Finance Minister is still, in my view, a fiscal conservative at heart who does not believe in spending beyond our means and passing on debts to our children's generation. The setting aside of $8 billion to establish the Pioneer Generation Fund last year to fund the PG package (PGP) is one good example.

In this Budget, it was announced that Temasek Holdings would be included in the Net Investment Returns framework. This follows the constitutional change in 2008, where the Government is allowed to spend up to 50% of the long-term expected real rate of returns on the funds managed by GIC and MAS. These moves effectively provide for the government of

Page: 14

the day a stable and predictable flow of funds to help balance the Budget and spend on various long-term programmes.

Mdm Speaker, even as we spend more on our social programmes, the concern among many that I have spoken to is whether we will become a welfare state in no time and whether our people will become less self-reliant. Will we lose our economic dynamism and soon descend into the sorry state that some European countries presently find themselves in?

How we debate this year's Budget, in the midst of this strategic shift, can have a bearing on where we would be heading. Where is that fair balance to strike and how quickly should we expand our social programmes?

In the case of the $350 million Silver Support, I would like to ask the Finance Minister whether it will balloon into a much bigger spending commitment as more Singaporeans turn 65? How is the Government preparing for the future spending increases in the various long-term social programmes? Do we again, like the PGP set aside funds from the current term to provide for the likely future increase in spending for the Silver Support?

Mdm Speaker, what must remain unchanged is that we continue to uphold fiscal discipline and fiscal sustainability. We must not cross the red line of failing to balance our Budget within each term of Government. And we ought to spend in accordance to necessity, in a targeted manner to those who need them.

For this reason, Mdm Speaker, I would hence like to propose that fiscal sustainability review be added as a clear term of reference for the Parliament's Estimates Committee when they sit. In particular, under the Committee's agenda, additional scrutiny and oversight be given to spending programmes that last longer than 10 years.

This would ensure long-term fiscal sustainability which is a solemn responsibility that we have to our future generations.

I would like to move on to talk about economic restructuring.

The old way of encouraging growth in part through liberally bringing in foreign workers is not sustainable. Our change in course is painful in the short term, but it is necessary because not changing course will by far be more painful in the long run; both economically and socially.

On this note, I affirm the continued commitment in this Budget to helping companies adapt by extending the Wage Credit Scheme and the Corporate Income Tax Rebates, by

Page: 15

raising and extending the Temporary Employment Credit, by deferring foreign worker levy increases and by making the Capability Development Grants more accessible.

Mdm Speaker, despite our efforts, productivity growth is not picking up as planned and the Finance Minister has explained the reasons in his speech.

I urge that the Government continue to look for new approaches.

Here are two suggestions. One, to extend our focus and efforts beyond SMEs to large companies; and two, to also leverage on and synergise with our vision of transforming Singapore into a Smart Nation.

While we continue to assist SMEs to improve productivity, there will come a point where the marginal gains that can be squeezed out in the form of productivity improvements will be less than the marginal effort put in.

Many SMEs reflected to me that they are down to bare bone in terms of productivity improvements. A SME boss illustrated that if he has two forklifts, he cannot possibly be operating two forklifts with one driver.

Larger companies are in a better position to bear the cost of trial and error as they find the right innovative change to make. Once the large companies move, the whole industry moves, because competition will compel them to do so. The Government should encourage and in some cases work with larger companies on specific initiatives to innovate and even change the service model at large.

My second point is about working smarter as a system and as a nation. We live in an age where data and technologies are increasing and improving faster than we are learning to take advantage of them. The setting up of the Smart Nation Office is a move in the right direction and helps us find strategic ways of staying ahead of the technology curve. I also believe the Government has a role in building more platforms to help businesses work smarter.

On data, the key is to make sure as much of it is available to the public as is feasible, because better data makes for better business decisions. If an entrepreneur with too little resources to do extensive market research is given access to more public data, he might decide to locate his restaurant in a different part of the city, or he might decide against opening a restaurant and that will ease the pressure on the labour crunch. Either way, the economy as a whole avoids waste.

Page: 16

This is, in fact, the problem on the ground that we see. We know of shopping malls that mostly consist of F&B outlets. Besides the resources committed, each outlet will demand its fair share of workers, adding to the manpower crunch. At the end of it, some businesses may not be viable due to oversupply of eateries and other business owners will take over. So, individually, the companies may well be productive, but as a whole, from a macro stand point, we are not optimally using our resources. With more data and information sharing, better optimality of resources can be achieved.

Another example is in technology, which has enabled people to do things like crowd funding and to build a sharing economy. If there are more platforms and applications, such as Task Rabbit or oDesk, and more of them are adapted to the local context, then people who have small pockets of time throughout the day would be able to do some work, thereby increasing labour participation and hopefully go some way in reducing our need for foreign workers.

Finally, Mdm Speaker, in my view the most important part of this Budget is about developing our people. All policies, whether social or economic, must ultimately benefit and add to the long-term well-being of the people. And the way to do that is to help people reach their full potential as individuals. In this regard, I applaud the Budget's efforts in investing in Singaporean workers by encouraging lifelong learning through the Skills Future Initiatives, the Earn and Learn Programme and enhanced training subsidies, among others.

The SkillsFuture initiative marks a new phase in the development and investment in our people. It represents a significant undertaking by the Government, setting aside $1 billion per year for the next five years.

SkillsFuture is a long-term strategy that will complement the ongoing measures to help businesses raise productivity. More importantly, it is the only sustainable, long-term way to bring about real wage growth and improve the well-being of Singaporeans.

The new SkillsFuture Credit, with an initial $500 top-up, coupled with the Individual Learning Portfolio will enable individuals to take ownership of their learning journey and always to anticipate future skill sets demand.

Finally, I also welcome the enhanced subsidies for mid-career Singaporeans for their further education and training. However, I have three points that, in my view, are important for SkillsFuture to work.

Firstly, we need to ensure the right motivation for skills upgrading and for each individual to do this out of passion and for pride of their trade and the desire to achieve skills

Page: 17

mastery. For this, we need to build a culture in which society respects people from every occupation for being good at what they do, and not solely based on how much they earn. If people from all walks of life have a sense of wanting to be the best at what they do, and they take pride in that, then skills upgrading becomes simply a natural part of that quest of self-improvement.

Secondly, with the introduction of SkillsFuture, training is now a public good and that can be tapped on by all stakeholders. Employers must see the higher purpose of training and skills upgrading for their employees. The enlightened approach to take must be that it is good for the overall industry development and growth. It would, in the medium to long term, alleviate the need for higher numbers of foreign labour.

Last but not least, the training and courses must make sense to the employee in terms of career progression and personal development; and to the employers in terms of an accretive to their businesses. It is something that we cannot rush into.

Increasingly, we are seeing the rise of new business models and processes; enabled by rapid technological advancement. Fast-paced development in digitisation, data analytics and machine learning may have accelerated the hollowing out of the middle-skilled jobs; such as those that are in the knowledge-based and in the service industry. There are no other alternatives to meeting this onslaught other than constantly upgrading and sharpening our skills to remain relevant and versatile. SkillsFuture may well be the secret weapon that we need in the new landscape.

Mdm Speaker, as I wrap up my speech, I note that this is our 50th Budget and I would like to draw attention to the first Budget speech by then Finance Minister Mr Lim Kim San, in December 1965, just four months after our separation.

What strikes me most about that speech is its international outlook. There was a lot of focus on trade – with Indonesia, with other markets, whether in the industrialised world or in the newly emerging economies. There was a good amount of discussion, of course, about the new relationship with Malaysia as well as the impact of various international developments of Singapore. We were a new country then, a very small one in a very scary world. We were keenly aware of how important the world was to us.

Mdm Speaker, 50 years have passed and we are in a much stronger position today. We must continue to pay the same amount of attention to the world around us.

None of the changes that I have spoken about today, whether it is the move to the left when it comes to our social policies, or the restructuring that is taking place in the economic

Page: 18

arena, or the developing of our people – none of those changes take place in a vacuum. If we maintain a sense of perspective of our place in the world, if we are quick to learn from the best practices of other countries while competing with them, if we strengthen our unity as a nation by providing more assistance while remembering our global and regional vulnerabilities and hence never overstretching ourselves, if we restructure our economy in the knowledge that our workers have to be productive because we are ultimately competing with foreigners all over the world, not just those that arrive at our shores – if we do all those things, then we are well-poised to make the most of the next 50 years. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate. The Labour Movement has been advocating for the strengthening of mature workers' CPF savings through higher employment contributions, equal contribution rates at least for workers up to age 55 and to further improve on CPF interest rates and the contribution ceiling. We have also called on the Government to take steps to strengthen the incentive for employers to keep employing workers even beyond the age 65. We are very happy and grateful that the Government has responded positively and substantively on all these fronts.

Mdm Speaker, I would to now like to speak on two concerns as we consider the transformation journey thus far. I hope that this will help us continue to focus the attention and efforts of the Government and tripartite partners on this very critical undertaking.

When Singapore became independent in 1965, the median real income of a worker then was only one-sixth of what it is now. So, in other words, in 50 years we grew sixfold, not only nominally but in real terms. This is a real achievement by any measure, by any comparison for any country.

That said, I think it is important that we be aware of the challenges that we continue to face as we make our journey forward toward greater success.

According to MOM statistics, the annualised Real Median wage growth rate for the period 2004 to 2014 – that 10-year period – was 2.2% per annum. If you break that 10-year period into two five-year periods, the first five and the next five, then the median real wage growth was 2.5% per annum between 2004 and 2009 and slowing to 1.9% per annum for 2009 to 2014. And if were to look at the most recent one year period, that is 2013 to 2014, that one year, the rate was even lower, at 0.7%. So, that was the trend for median real wage

Page: 19

growth.

If we were to look at the trend for labour productivity, according to the statistics from the Department of Statistics: in 2007, it was 0.4%; in 2008, -7.2%; in 2009, -3.3%; then there was a rebound after that sharp recession, so, in 2010, 11.6%; followed by 2.2% in 2011; then three years of minuses; -1.4% in 2012, -0.2% in 2013, and -0.8% in 2014.

So, in other words, for the period 2007 to 2014, labour productivity was negative for five out of eight years and for three out of the four most recent years. What are the implications?

First, we can see that prolonged negative labour productivity will eventually drag down the prospect, or in fact, the reality of real wage growth. The two are inevitably linked. This will then constrain improvements in the standards of living. As real wages are what ultimately matters to workers, the Labour Movement wants to see a turnaround of this pattern as soon as possible.

Second, unless the numerator of labour productivity, namely the value-add, grows at a faster rate than the denominator, labour productivity will continue to be low and sliding and with it, again, it will pull down the real wage growth. The question is how do we get this labour productivity up?

It being a ratio, really, there are only two ways. One, you try to shrink the denominator. You do that by trying to shrink to workforce. And the second one is, you try to improve the numerator and that is by enhancing value-add.

What is our reality? Our stark reality is our demography and that is our small population and one that is rapidly ageing. It is in our own national interest to continue to encourage and facilitate a higher labour force participation rate so that more people may earn income over more working years to provide better for their retirement. We certainly do not want to see a growing pool of unemployed citizens, many of whom older, just so that those who remain employed can enjoy a better life.

At the same time, we also do not want to see a growing workforce that risks getting stuck in real wage stagnation or decline. Those two things, we do not want to see and therefore, the only viable way forward for us is to improve both the employment rate and real wages so as to enhance value-add faster than workforce growth rate.

To enhance value-add, we must make sure that jobs, work processes and technologies are designed and redesigned in that direction. Clearly, we are not seeing enough outcomes

Page: 20

in this area. Of course, the picture is not even and there is faster productivity growth in the export-oriented sectors because it is subjected to international competition – it is do or die there. The picture is much more mixed and feeble for the domestically oriented sector. When we look at another aspect of job redesign, this time about WorkPro, with regards to redesigning for an ageing workforce – I will come back to this point because it is important. It is not that part that it is ageing but it is at growing characteristics of our work or so. What we do there, our ability to do what we are doing, matters.

When we look at that, we also do not see a strong take-up, as of now. And unless and until we can move this piece of the jigsaw, what we end up doing is just trying to cut more wood by sawing harder with the saw that we have, instead of changing to a better and sharper saw. We have to redesign and get that better saw.

I, therefore, call on the Government, industry and tripartite partners to continue with and to increase our efforts and resources to spur Job and Process Redesign across the different industries, and in particular, in the light of an ageing workforce, to review and enhance the WorkPro programme for greater reach and impact.

In this Budget, one key focus has been on SkillsFuture. While building skills is certainly a critical success factor, it is a strategic complement to, and it is not a substitute for restructuring, creation and innovation in products, jobs and processes. The momentum of the National Productivity Council (NPC)'s work in spurring national and sectoral productivity growth and revival remains absolutely crucial.

At the same time, we must make sure that workers are able to take on these higher valued jobs. Otherwise, you have the better jobs but if the workers are not able to take them on, then these workers will drag down productivity through being less than adequately skilled, or having their potential wasted through rigid worship of paper qualification, or we see a continued over-reliance on low-skilled foreign manpower.

To the extent that we are not doing enough of job and process redesign and not putting enough focus and effort in investing in our workforce of all profiles to make them evergreen, then we would in effect be slowing the growth of our value-add down unnecessarily. That would be an "own goal" that we score against ourselves that we can scarcely afford.

Therefore, in this light, I want now to draw attention to and emphasise the importance of continuing to invest in the capabilities of our workers but I will focus my speech here in particular on the importance of investing and continuing to invest in the capabilities of our mature workers. My fellow labour colleagues in Parliament will be elaborating on the

Page: 21

different profiles of workers.

Many organisations may still not have evolved their human resource and operations functions to fully appreciate the meaning of having workers who will continue to work with their companies into their more senior years. They still think, plan and operate as if workers will retire at age 55, maybe 60. But that is no longer the reality.

By having not evolved and still stuck in that mindset, then many would reason that there is no point investing in the training, updating and up-skilling of older workers because they say that they do not have the long payback period left with the company, so it is harder to justify the training investment compared to if they were to put the money investing in a younger person.

I think that employers who think and act this way would be mistaken on two counts. Firstly, research show that mature workers are much less likely to switch jobs, compared to their younger counterparts. What this means is that the effective runways for older workers are not necessarily shorter than those of younger workers in the company. I urge companies to seriously reconsider that assumption.

Second, if you have an ageing workforce overall and if you take the attitude of stopping to invest in them at some stage, prematurely, then what happens is that they are then left under-skilled but they are still part of the workforce. They are left un-updated but they are still part of your workforce. They are not going to be able to help you move forward. In fact, they may become a drag on it. Therefore, you will get a self-fulfilling prophecy: you create the inability that you assumed about them which is something you can therefore also reverse by reversing your thinking, reversing your investment stance and continuing to believe in and to invest in the capabilities of your older workforce, not out of sympathy, not out of coercion by law, but out of enlightened self-interest because they are part of the workforce. That part is also growing. The better skilled they are the better off your company will be.

I, therefore, am in full support of SkillsFuture in all its aspects and, in particular, the Budget measures to subsidise training for workers 40 years and above at 90% and also to empower initiative by workers to upgrade themselves through the SkillsFuture Credit individual training accounts.

I spoke at length about what I believe to be the important attitudes of companies, but of course it takes two hands to clap. Where such opportunities are made available, where the funds are made available, workers must step up and help themselves.

Page: 22

And on this, I call on all employers and the HR professionals to play their part, especially given the strong funding by Government, to continue to invest in the training and updating of their mature workers as a key and lasting part of their total workforce.

Mdm Speaker, we must press on with and redouble our efforts to create ageless jobs and evergreen workers. This is the surest and, ultimately, the only way that we can make best use of our total potential as a nation and a people, and create that Better Future that we all hope for. Mdm Speaker, I fully support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, Budget 2015 is a highly anticipated Budget. I am glad that it has introduced a range of measures that not only help to relieve some of the pressures Singaporeans face today, but also invests in Singaporeans' personal development in preparation for a dynamic future ahead. Overall, I believe the Budget has put in place good and generally balanced measures. I would, however, like to make suggestions and comments in four areas, for the Finance Minister's consideration.

First, on investing in the future and the SkillsFuture scheme. The SkillsFuture scheme announced is a strong signal of the need to develop a passion and culture of lifelong learning. It is also a tangible commitment by the Government to encourage and enable Singaporeans to develop ourselves throughout life. To me, introducing the SkillsFuture Credit is really about empowering Singaporeans to take greater responsibility for our own personal development and career progression.

I hope that all the SkillsFuture initiatives taken together will, over the long term, foster a workforce that is always up to date, highly employable and highly sought after regardless of how the world or economy changes. The skills and knowledge gained in this way will become an invaluable asset that nobody can take away. With good job security, I look forward to a time when Singaporeans can be more excited about pursuing their dreams in retirement than to be worried about whether they have enough savings to live out the rest of their lives.

The current form of SkillsFuture is a significant move and fiscal commitment. Nevertheless, I would like to call on the Government to consider allowing a wider selection of courses to be covered by the SkillsFuture Credit.

Currently, the scheme applies to only a selection of MOE and WDA approved courses. While I can understand the rationale for restricting the courses that can benefit from the Credit scheme, I also note some education programmes such as Masters degrees are not

Page: 23

included. Hence, could the SkillsFuture Credit be extended to, for instance Masters programmes offered at local or locally-based institutions? Allowing this will no doubt help Singaporeans, such as PMEs, who aspire to and have the ability to attain higher tertiary qualifications. The SkillsFuture Credit is about empowerment and giving Singaporeans the autonomy and responsibility over their own personal development and career progression. The amount of top up to these credit accounts that the Government is prepared to make, as it seems, is already fixed anyway. Hence, why not broaden the selection of courses for Singaporeans to decide for themselves?

Second, on retirement adequacy and the Silver Support Scheme. The Silver Support Scheme is a bold commitment from the Government and I believe many people have gotten rather excited about it. I do think it will give Singaporeans a strong assurance that they will not be left in the cold should they face misfortunes when they retire. At least $300 per person per quarter for a low-income elderly is a substantial sum that will significantly increase the retiree's spending power.

I know this is still in the works and that the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister had outlined very broadly the three factors which the Government will consider when deciding on the eligibility. But I hope that the Government will also consider appeals on a case by case basis. I recognise the potential strain and additional load of administering this, but I believe it is necessary as some elderly may face particular circumstances. For example, some elderly may well be living with children in condominiums but their kids may face their own pressures and are unable to support them much. Some elders may also be living in landed homes that were inherited from their forefathers but they are in reality financially poor. Expecting or asking them to sell their homes to generate cash is extremely sensitive.

Also, in its eligibility criteria, I hope the Government will look at the final CPF balance in addition to lifetime wage and CPF contributions in the past. At present, there are restricted uses of the CPF. Hence, the likelihood of CPF account members splurging the money on frivolous items is not high. However, if the elderly has a very low CPF balance, it suggests a very real likelihood that the elderly will have less payouts for retirement. This criterion is not meant to be the deciding factor, but I hope that it will be one of the factors to be considered so as to provide more flexibility and compassion for elderly Singaporeans who are deserving but disadvantaged by circumstances.

On a separate but related note, I would like to ask if the introduction of this scheme would affect existing financial or public assistance that a low-income elderly is receiving? For instance, some Government help schemes take into consideration the applicants' sources of income, including CPF balances and payouts, when deciding whether they deserve financial assistance. For those who have been receiving financial assistance from these organisations, does that mean that they will see a reduction or withdrawal of the aid given to them? Some

Page: 24

needy elderly receive about $200-$300 worth of financial assistance on a monthly basis. Hence, will they be better off or worse off with the Silver Support Scheme?

Mdm Speaker, please allow me to continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the Silver Support Scheme introduced by this Budget will cost the Government a substantial sum and is a touching move from the Government. The scheme will give Singaporeans assurance that should they face misfortunes in life and end up with not enough savings for retirement, they will not be left in the cold. I understand that this scheme is still in the works and the Finance Minister has outlined three eligible criteria for people to benefit from it. I hope the Government could allow some flexibility when deciding who is eligible. Some retirees may not be able to qualify due to various reasons, such as those elderly who live in private properties but are financially strained and those who have a low CPF balance upon retirement.

Some elderly may live in condominiums with their children but their children may not be able to support them due to various reasons. Some elderly may live in landed homes that were inherited many years ago but they themselves are in reality financially poor. Asking them to sell their homes to generate cash is quite hard on them emotionally. How can we have the heart to do so?

Hence, I hope the Government will consider appeals from these ineligible retirees and give them a chance to prove that they indeed need support. We should not automatically deprive them of the opportunity to benefit from the scheme.

In addition, I hope the Government will also look at people's CPF balance upon retirement. Some people may have earned a good salary while they were working, but for whatever reason have depleted their CPF savings, resulting in limited monthly payout from CPF. At present, there are restricted uses of the CPF. Hence, the likelihood of people splurging their CPF savings is not high.

This does not mean that the Government must consider the CPF balance upon retirement. What I am hoping is, when considering the ineligible cases, the Government can take into account of the elderly's savings to see whether they can retire with peace of mind. The main purpose of the suggestion is to provide more flexibility and compassion, so that elderly Singaporeans who are ineligible, but deserving, can get help too.

(In English): Third, on increasing the top rate of personal income tax. In this Budget, the Finance Minister has announced an increase to the top rate of personal income tax, which

Page: 25

affects the top 5% of earners. I support this move. It is appropriate that we try to redistribute more wealth and reduce the income gap. It signals that those who are more able and with more resources should do more to uplift those who are less well-endowed or fortunate in life.

However, I question the effectiveness of this move. For people in this income bracket, the truly rich are more than capable of structuring their finances so that they can avoid paying the expected tax increase. In fact, given that the top personal income tax rate at about 22% now is 5% higher than the top corporate income tax rate which is at 17%, surely, there is enormous incentive for high-income earners to incorporate themselves. Bosses who own their own firms probably have more leeway to do this. Only high-earning employees who have limited flexibility to do tax planning will pay for the increase in taxes.

This does not sound fair and neither does it help to meet the objective set out. Hence, I would like to ask: what is the Government's assessment of this and what is it going to do to address it?

Fourth, on the Changes to the Net Investment Returns, or NIR. In his Budget speech, the Finance Minister has announced the inclusion of Temasek in the NIR framework. I appreciate that this would give the Government more resources to implement its programmes and help more Singaporeans. However, with the uncertainties in the global economy, to which ours is inextricably linked, are we being too aggressive now to include Temasek into the NIR framework? The framework was liberalised in 2009, and is already based on long-term expected returns, including both realised and unrealised capital gains. To include the NIR from Temasek would mean that we are now more dependent on the performance of these two entities in a hyper-competitive and uncertain world. Can we be certain that they will continue to perform well? Are we in danger of becoming overly dependent on uncertain and unassured sources of revenue?

Currently, NIR from GIC contributes about $8 billion to our Budget annually. NIR from Temasek is expected to contribute about another $4 billion to $5 billion. In total, that is almost one-fifth of our usual Budget. I know of no other country in the world with an endowment from their forefathers that pays a fifth of their annual Budget. That we can do so is a strong testament to the hard work, prudence and sacrifice of our Pioneers, who despite starting with so little managed to build up so much and vest the resources with the current generations.

But I worry about what an endowment such as this might do to our work ethic and national spirit. I am concerned about whether Singaporeans will take the NIR for granted and fail to understand that it is something special and rare. I am concerned that Singaporeans will become over reliant on this source of revenue and lose the drive to save and invest in

Page: 26

future, and leave something for future generations. Studies have shown that countries which have abundant natural resources often do not do as well over the long term, because their people do not have to work as hard and apply their wits and gradually lose their vitality and initiative. Singapore may not have oil reserves, but we must take care that our financial reserves can also have the same corrupting effect on our drive and resilience.

I know that I risk sounding like I have split personalities in posing these concerns, since I am also guilty of asking for more goodies at every Budget and these must be funded somehow. I am not saying that we should only save and not spend. But I am concerned about our long-term sustainability and that we need to put in place proper safeguards. We need to ensure that we do not set unrealistic expectations of what we can draw from NIR and end up depleting the reserves, rather than just spend the investment returns. We need to set controls to stop ourselves from making further rule changes, such as the one in 2009 and this year, which enable us to draw more from NIR each time we need more revenue to fund new needs. We need to explain to Singaporeans that the NIR comes from our reserves which are extraordinary and precious and should not be taken for granted; and also that the Singapore spirit that has enabled us to build up such levels of reserves is also extraordinary and precious and we must sustain this spirit. I hope that the Finance Minister can give an assurance that we can do all these, even as we increase the NIR to fund our new projects and priorities.

In all, while I have reservations over certain components of Budget 2015, I do think that this Budget has put in place good and generally balanced measures to help Singaporeans. Therefore, notwithstanding the reservations expressed, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of this year's Budget. Many have hailed it as a Budget for the future and I agree with them. This Budget, coming in the year of our Golden Jubilee, is appropriately about building upon our cumulative achievements of the last 50 years for the future.

The new wave of investments in our infrastructure and our people, the fresh subsidies to help families and the elderly, the incentives to grow our companies – this is a Budget which has gained widespread approval and I am proud to note that Standard & Poor's Rating Services (S&P) has rated this Budget "AAA" for showing "the strength of the government's institutional and governance effectiveness".

This year's Budget is all encompassing and benefits practically all age groups. Starting from birth, the Child Development Accounts will be topped up and can be used until the

Page: 27

children are six years old. For schooling Singaporeans, their Edusave accounts and Post Secondary Education Accounts will also be topped up, covering those seven to 20 years old. And the Government will be starting the SkillsFuture Programme, starting an account for every Singaporean from 25 years old with $500 for upgrading and training, with future top-ups expected.

For more mature Singaporeans above 50 years old, they will see their retirement funds being enhanced with increased CPF contributions. And for 30% of Singaporeans above 65 years old, they will receive the new Silver Support bonuses for life, as announced by the Prime Minister last year.

This is really from cradle to grave. Well, almost. Someone pointed out to me that those between 21 and 25 years old do not seem to be benefiting directly from this year's Budget.

After rescanning the details of Budget 2015, I have to disagree. For individuals aged 21 and above whose assessable incomes for Year of Assessment 2014 are below $26,000 and who live in properties which have annual values below $21,000, they will receive GST vouchers of $150 or $300 in cash, depending on their homes' annual values.

While those living in bigger properties will not receive these GST vouchers, I would like to mention that 21 is the age of independence. After one's 21st birthday, one can watch R21 movies, vote at the elections, open one's own bank account and apply for an HDB flat if he or she has a sweetheart. The 21st birthday cake is usually a key design to signal the key to freedom and, most importantly, adulthood and independence. I am not sure whether this is well intended by the Minister for Finance – the Government is giving absolute freedom for our new full-fledged adult Singaporeans to strive for themselves in the first four years of adulthood.

Madam, we will be embarking on many significant infrastructural projects, with the development of Changi Airport's new terminal, T5, the Tuas seaport and improvement works on our public transport and in our HDB heartlands.

It is important at this juncture that we pause and consider how we can improve our modus operandi in terms of taking a holistic approach in our infrastructural works to reduce wastage and duplication and, more importantly, to optimise land use and limited resources. Whenever possible, different stakeholders should be involved and consulted, and the surrounding environment and external needs taken into account before plans are finalised.

Let me share an example from my previous constituency – Queenstown. There is an overhead pedestrian bridge spanning over a busy road, Queensway, linking HDB blocks 24

Page: 28

to 32 in Tanglin Halt to Stirling Road. There has been much feedback over the challenge of elderly residents having to climb the high staircase to cross the road. However, due to site constraints, it was not possible to add ramps to the overhead bridge. After election 2006 when I became the Member of Parliament in Queenstown, the construction of the Queenstown Polyclinic was already underway at the Stirling Road end of the overhead bridge. Ideally, when constructing the polyclinic, an extension from the existing overhead bridge could be built to join the polyclinic probably at the second level, so that visitors to the polyclinic could enter it directly and need not have to climb the stairs down and make the way round to the front entrance and enter the polyclinic. After the polyclinic's opening hours, access from the overhead bridge could be closed for security reasons. But such a connection would require coordination and budgeting between LTA and MOH. It would appear that planning could have been more holistic and better efforts been made for better integration of public amenities.

Madam, integration is only possible with cooperation and coordination among Government agencies. I think we are already doing a great job as a nation in this respect; otherwise, we would not have come so far and achieved so much with our lack of resources.

However, going forward, to just maintain our current position in the amazing race of nations, we have to be more than good in our teamwork. We have to be extraordinarily good.

At a forum organised by the Institute of Policy Studies last month, Ambassador-at-Large and policy adviser of MFA, Mr Bilahari Kausikan, mentioned that Singapore's ability to remain relevant depends on us being an extraordinary success.

This resonated with me and, I believe, with many others as well. Particularly, extraordinary success in governance. It is not a "nice to have" for us; in fact, it is essential for us in Singapore – the survival of our country.

Our Ministries and agencies evaluate themselves against key performance indicators (KPIs). Do we have a set of KPIs for adopting a whole-of-Government approach? If we do, how can we recalibrate or include new indicators to ensure tighter coordination and better cooperation among Government bodies?

We would have arrived when we no longer need the Municipal Services Office to clear a fishball stick. We would have arrived when it is not just about building a bridge to connect to a building, but having the mindset to bridge gaps and silo mentalities.

We would then be able to tap on the wealth of data and capabilities from our SMART Nation initiative to better integrate planning among Government agencies and not end up

Page: 29

hoarding information and expertise.

Madam, next, I would like to touch on how the Government is managing feedback and making decisions. Collecting feedback and opinions from stakeholders is an onerous task. First, we have administrative, budgetary and logistics considerations, from how we initiate the process, organise the publicity and raise awareness, ensure adequate participation, select discussion platforms and venues, decide on modes of information collection, whether online or face to face, compile, summarise and analyse the feedback and so forth. It is a time-consuming process and at the end of it, decisions have to be made based not only on the feedback collected but also on current information possessed by planners and assessments of likely outcomes and future impact.

As our society becomes more diversified and perhaps even stratified and the public more articulate and active in civic participation, decision making gets more complicated.

So, how is the Government to make sense of all the different views and perspectives? What if the preference of the majority is detriment to society at large, such as the manifestations of not-in-my-backyard syndrome? What happens if the personal values and judgements of key decision makers are in conflict with the other stakeholders?

Policies and decisions should not be based on who speaks the loudest, the most frequently or even the most eloquently. The Government must know when to take the lead to shape sentiments and make difficult choices if necessary and when to realise that the landscape has shifted and policies need to reflect changing demographics and worldwide trends.

There is a very fine balance between a diversified society where a hundred flowers bloom and a polarised society where people cannot see eye to eye with one another, or with the Government. Certain policies may not be equitable but Singaporeans must be prepared to respect the decisions made and accommodate one another. Without this social contract, it would be very difficult to stay united as a people and build a harmonious nation.

Madam, finally, let us also remember that for all the hard-headed decisions and sacrifices we have to make for our motherland, it is the soft power of her sights and sounds, smells and tastes which binds our hearts.

Singaporeans overseas, even for a short holiday away from home, would testify that when they are away, what they miss are the tastes of Singapore food and the heart-warming sounds of Singlish. These have become integral components of the Singapore identity. They

Page: 30

are uniquely Singaporean and even foreign visitors find them charming and appealing.

We should embrace and support the development of our cultural heritage and icons. In 2012, I spoke about the uniqueness and importance of the getai culture. I am happy to note that over the last few years, the Government and various organisations have been working with getai as a channel of public communications and tapping on getai personalities to spread information like the Pioneer Generation Package. We can do more and in more areas.

Outstanding hawkers, for example, can be awarded Singapore's equivalent of Michelin stars and given national honours.

We should give our creative talents support and regular platforms to showcase their talent. How do we create another wave of the xinyao movement? How do we develop the next generation of composers, performers and audience to create and appreciate works that reflect the Singapore culture?

Countries, such as France and South Korea, punch above their weight on the world stage in terms of cultural influence, thanks to the long-term strategic planning and generous support of their governments for their various cultural pursuits.

These countries not only ensure that their national and cultural identities are not overwhelmed and eroded due to the influence of countries with much bigger populations. They even managed to secure economic benefits from their cultural exports and goodwill from other nations. They offer us important and valuable lessons in this area.

Madam, recently, I watched the film "Ah Boys to Men 3" at the cinema and also caught "Ah Boys to Men 1" and "Ah Boys to Men 2" again on Channel 8. The genre and content endear to many Singaporeans and only a local director like Jack Neo could tell such a story well. It is obvious, at least to me, that the third movie is the best and that Jack Neo has, indeed, improved his story-telling and film-making craft. It was a better plot with better and deeper character development.

I also wondered whether I enjoyed the third movie more because I watched it on the big screen in the cinema and not at home where obviously my TV screen is not as big as that in the cinema. But I think one main reason is because the cinema version was not dubbed in perfect Mandarin. The NS boys spoke a combination of English, Mandarin, Malay and Chinese dialects in the movie, just like what one would do in National Service. However, when the films were broadcast on TV, they just spoke English and Mandarin.

Page: 31

I can understand and I do support our language policies that there should not be dialects on national TV. While we may lose the authentic flavour and culture, it is important that another Chinese audience from China or Taiwan understands our dubbed Mandarin.

In the televised version, there was a scene where the mother, played by Irene Ang, told her son, the main character, Recruit Ken Chow, in Mandarin, "你不可以铁牙". "铁牙" literally means "metal teeth" in Mandarin. So, I thought that Mrs Chow did not want her son to have braces. Ken apparently did not understand his mother and also asked her what she meant. Mrs Chow explained that "铁牙" means "stubborn". She was chiding her son for being stubborn. I suddenly realised that it was actually the Hokkien phrase "Tee Kee". Honestly, it sounded very odd on TV to hear it as "铁牙" in Mandarin. So, well, definitely Recruit Ken Chow did not understand – probably, he also did not understand the Hokkien phrase. But I believe most Singaporeans also took a while to get it, to understand exactly what it means. And I am also very sure that our friends in China, Hong Kong or Taiwan also would not know the meaning, even if the same characters were said in perfect Mandarin.

We have made exceptions for Hong Kong and Taiwanese artistes when they come to Singapore to attend and support our TV charity shows to speak and sing in Cantonese and Hokkien. Let us not just do it for charity. Even as young people like Ken do not understand dialects well – and I do not think they ever will – there are many elderly and Pioneer Generation Singaporeans who are still very attached to our dialects. I hope that we can be slightly more flexible in our language policy implementation when it is about our own movies, about Singapore's own culture and sense of belonging. Just as what we did – we used dialects to communicate better on the Pioneer Generation Package – it is also befitting that on the occasion of SG50, let us have the courage and confidence to celebrate the diversity and heritage of Singapore culture and what truly defines and binds us.

I would like to end with an appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance to consider allotting a greater portion of our future Budgets to develop our cultural segments, our cultural identity or cultural heritage, as they are essential to our national identity. With that, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, as I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance deliver Budget 2015, I noted some difference in tone and approach from the past. From a traditional stance of emphasising individual responsibility and treating cross-subsidies with disdain, we see the language of collective responsibility, giving Singaporeans greater assurance at each stage of life, strengthening our social security

Page: 32

system and using not just hard heads but warm hearts.

In this landmark year when we celebrate 50 years of nationhood, it is timely to reflect on the Government's philosophy of budgeting and the role of the people in nation-building. We want to move together as one united people. How can we use the Budget to build social solidarity?

This Budget explicitly talks about strengthening social safety nets. This suggests a shift to the left, a direction which I believe is right. A shift to the left is not desired for its own sake, but because it can build confidence in the people. People who have safety nets are more willing to make choices with longer term payoffs, like taking time out for training, being an entrepreneur or taking risks to innovate at work. Countries with good records on innovation and productivity tend to have strong safety nets. A shift left does not necessarily undermine economic performance but could well enhance it.

A shift left is also important to mitigate Singapore's income and wealth inequality. As at 2014, our Gini coefficient measuring income distribution was 0.464 before Government transfers and 0.412 after transfers. Though the coefficient has now come down from the highs of 2007 and 2012, it is still high. As for wealth inequality, the Government has said that it does not measure the wealth gap. However, our global image over the last 10 years seems to have morphed into being a playground for the rich, with Singapore being termed the world's newest Monaco in a 2013 article of the Wall Street Journal.

One particular concern is to avoid poverty becoming entrenched across generations where children of poor parents are more likely to end up poor as well. I have come across poor young families in my ward and see a real risk that the children may be distracted or demoralised by the challenges their families faced and not do well in school, affecting their prospects for social mobility. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged this challenge in Singapore, with fewer children from lower-income families rising to the top.

Two of the key thrusts of this year's Budget are the SkillsFuture Initiative and the Silver Support Scheme. These two initiatives are important for social solidarity as they have the potential to mitigate inequality in Singapore.

First, SkillsFuture. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance said that the aim was to create a meritocracy of skills, moving away from academic credentialism around grades earned early in life. SkillsFuture emphasises life-long learning in the pursuit of non-graduate pathways to skills mastery. Put another way, there is a national attempt to enable someone who may not have had the best school results to try to catch up and find a niche in Singapore. SkillsFuture should, thus, not just be about upskilling the workforce. It should also

Page: 33

be about increasing social mobility.

As someone who is involved in continuing education and working with adult learners for more than 12 years, I have seen the drive of Singaporeans when given an opportunity to earn a higher qualification. While some do so in order to do their jobs better, most are aspiring towards promotions, better prospects and better salaries. In high-cost Singapore, it is still a rat race.

SkillsFuture has the potential to be a social leveller if the qualifications and products of SkillsFuture's courses earn the respect of employers and significantly improve wages. We have had skills-based certificates and diplomas around for decades and it cannot be that SkillsFuture is more of the same. For SkillsFuture to truly impact lives, the scissor must have two blades. The first is to change employer mindsets and foster real career paths tied to skills attainment goals. The second is that SkillsFuture courses must be rigorous. The training sector must have the capacity and quality needed to deliver good skills training. We are not ready yet as the Government has acknowledged that it needs more time to develop quality offerings in the SkillsFuture landscape.

To this end, it was mentioned that the SkillsFuture credit could be used for a broad range of courses supported by Government agencies. Besides the courses run by Institutes of Higher Learning and accredited education and training providers, it will be useful to know what other courses might be funded by WDA and how it will go about ensuring the quality and programmes of its trainers.

Next, Silver Support. The other initiative that has the potential to mitigate inequality is the Silver Support Scheme. This scheme comes as a surprise to most because it embodies what the PAP Government has always eschewed – having any form of rights-based defined benefits welfare scheme. Up to now, Government assistance schemes were usually temporary and subject to continuous means-testing and conditions, with applicants needing to fill forms and provide documentary proof of illness and family income. Now, with Silver Support, between 20% and 30% of the elderly who are aged 65 will get some form of cash support for the rest of their lives once they qualify. They do not even need to apply. Silver Support is thus a limited pension for up to 30% of the elderly population. It is an important gesture of gratitude from society to our seniors and will give some an option not to work in their old age.

While I welcome Silver Support, I see it as an acknowledgement by the Government that the CPF system and family support are not sufficient to provide retirement adequacy to about 30% of our seniors. This is worrying. As seen from various surveys, the top concerns of Singaporeans are usually about the cost of living and the cost of healthcare. These are

Page: 34

likely to be what seniors especially worry about.

Besides Silver Support, can we do a broader review of policies to give our seniors more peace of mind? One example is Medisave usage for outpatient treatment. We commonly come across seniors in their 70s and 80s requiring medical treatment and drugs and yet have to stomach going to their children for cash when they have tens of thousands locked in their Medisave accounts. It seems absurd to deny an elderly person the use of his Medisave savings for medical needs in his twilight years. I am glad that the Government has finally taken some steps to relax Medisave usage for seniors. Can we relax this further for the very old? If more policies like such could be reviewed to ease the burden on families, it will go a long way to give Singaporeans the greater assurance that they need.

Next, Madam, I move on to revenue to fund spending. This year's Budget is also refreshing in how it secures additional funding for the increased expenditures in FY2015 and beyond. The Budget names two immediate steps to secure additional revenues. The first additional revenue source comes from including Temasek Holdings in the Net Investment Returns framework. This is the second step to channel more of our investment returns to fund the annual Budget. The first step was in 2009 when the definition of investment contribution was expanded from just income and dividends, to include the expected long-term real returns on net assets managed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and GIC.

These steps evince a shift towards unlocking more of the investment returns for current needs, rather than locking these additional monies to grow the reserves. Probably, the Government has concluded that there is a better balance to be reached between locking up for the future and investing in the present. As the total size of our reserves is not published, I can only surmise that elaborate calculations have been done to ensure that the additional monies being channelled to fund the annual Budget are "affordable".

The second source of additional revenue is the decision to increase the top marginal rate of personal income tax for the top 5% of income earners. Those with chargeable income above $320,000 will see their tax rate go up by 2%, from 20% to 22%. Others in the top 5% range will see smaller increases. I welcome this change. It makes our tax system more progressive and was something I advocated in the Budget Debate two years ago.

While I agree that we should not take tax competitiveness lightly, the fact is that many foreigners choose to come here because our tax rates are far lower than the 40% to 50% range they pay in their home countries. I believe we still have room to increase progressivity of personal income tax to beyond 22% for the top marginal rate. It would be useful to

Page: 35

understand the Government's plans on this.

Finally, Madam, let me round up. To a very large extent, the way we raise our national revenue and allocate expenses says something about our values as a nation. This Budget illustrates that the Government has options at its disposal to fund annual expenditures. It also shows that some of the costs imposed on the people may have been unnecessary such as fees on national examinations. Having seen families agonise over how to pay these costs, one wonders whether the anguish was necessary. Perhaps, the Government realises that it has been too calculating with the people and is now making adjustments.

The Budget can play a large part in nation-building. This and recent Budgets called on the spirit of collective responsibility in several notable ways – providing Silver Support to seniors in need, implementing risk-pooling for life's vicissitudes via MediShield Life and emphasising social responsibility of high-income earners to pay more progressive taxes.

The Government has also moved to utilise more of the returns on investments of reserves to fund national expenditures while sinking resources for lifelong learning that has the potential to mitigate inequality. These are welcome directions as they carry the ingredients of building social solidarity and a united nation. Thank you, Madam.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to deliver my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, hon Members, good afternoon to everyone! Firstly, I would like to declare that I am the President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry. For the 2015 Budget Statement announced in Parliament, Lianhe Zaobao summed it up with these words: "Deepening skills, Growing enterprises, Strengthening infrastructure, Assuring retirement". These give me mixed feelings.

I am heartened that this is an inclusive Budget. It strengthens the social safety net, looks after the elderly, advocates lifelong learning, helps Singaporeans to build up their skills for the future, tops up the students' education fund, even doing away with examination fees and so on. These measures remind me of the traditional Confucian concept: "There is adequate care and protection for the elderly, employment for the able, and education and nurture for young people.". This originates from the Book of Rites, written about 200 BC, and represents hopes and dreams of the Chinese people for more than 2,000 years.

Page: 36

My concern is that "Deepening skills, Strengthening infrastructure, Assuring retirement" all require large amounts of funding. Although this year's Budget has increased the personal income tax for the top income earners and raised petrol duty, this is only a small fraction of what is needed for the large social expenditure. As the saying goes, "Even a resourceful woman cannot cook a meal without rice", the crucial concern is that if the social system is to be sustained, the most pivotal area lies in "Growing enterprises". The value created by enterprises is the granary of the Government.

In creating value, multinational corporations (MNCs) always take the lead. However, local Singapore enterprises also play a crucial role. We have a huge number of local enterprises which provide employment opportunities to every strata of society and, at the same time, provide supporting services to MNCs. Just as in the construction of a skyscraper, while we cannot do without steel bars and cement, other building materials, such as sand, stones, glass, paint, pipes, cables, bricks or even landscaping elements like flowers and grass, are also essential.

The Government has singled out five growth clusters, such as advanced manufacturing. However, other industries, especially the traditional industries, should not be overlooked. We need to realise that these important industries grew out of the foundations of the past. Today, if we could give greater support to mould and nurture more industries to prepare for a rainy day in the future, we may be able to have more companies to become world-class Singapore enterprises.

Based on this year's Budget, the previous transitional support schemes will be gradually phased out, while the assistance schemes to support enterprises in innovation and internationalisation efforts will be retained and enhanced. However, the business community did not see any tangible measures to lower their business costs, measures they had, in fact, been eagerly looking forward to. I would like to take this opportunity to urge local enterprises to review and make adjustments to their business models. During a period of economic restructuring, some enterprises will find difficulty adapting and experience certain problems. The Government's assistance schemes can only act as a painkiller for temporary relief. The only way to solve the problems completely is to be self-reliant and press on to upgrade.

In the new business environment, original policies or measures may not always be applicable. If the Government continues to tweak these policies and measures, it is not only time-consuming, but the outcome may not necessarily be positive. In this period of economic restructuring, the Government has been encouraging enterprises to innovate and achieve a breakthrough in business models. In this regard, we also hope that the Government will lead the way in achieving a breakthrough to think out of the box, simplify complex problems and

Page: 37

create revolutionary new policies to stimulate economic growth.

For instance, there is a great diversity of local enterprises representing all kinds of trades and industries. In order to dispense the right treatment and medication, there must firstly be one "polyclinic" to handle initial check-ups before sending patients to other specialists. If the patient has to run from one specialist to another, he would already be exhausted prior to consultation.

Hence, I wish to put in an appeal once again on behalf of the business community. In order to increase the effectiveness of economic restructuring, I hope the Government would appoint a coordinator to help local enterprises, especially the SMEs, and avoid having the scenario of letting them knock at the doors of different Government agencies to no avail. As I know, the Public Service has a "No Wrong Door Policy", meaning that Government agencies need to appreciate and understand the public's appeal for assistance and solve their problems, instead of shoving them from one department to another. With regard to this coordinator whom I had mentioned, the objective is aligned with the "No Wrong Door Policy" principle – meaning that the Government should streamline its resources with the ultimate objective to help enterprises to grow.

The Government has many pro-business policies. However, the majority of the public is not concerned with the rationale behind the policies. Instead, they are concerned either with personal benefits, or how the policies may affect them. This is an important challenge facing the Government right now. For example, in the past few years the Government rolled out the Capability Development Grants, iSPRINT and Market Readiness Assessment Scheme, with the objective of helping local enterprises to strengthen their capability. But what is the actual take-up rate? Based on the Chamber's survey, the take-up rate for the Capability Development Grant was 12%, that of iSPRINT was not even 9%, whilst the Market Readiness Assessment Scheme fared even lower, with less than 3% take-up rate.

This is a vicious circle. On the one hand, we see that Government agencies keep rolling out pro-business policies. On the other hand, based on survey results, not that many enterprises really stand to benefit. When SME bosses talk about Government assistance schemes, their general sentiment is that some schemes are mainly providing additional benefits to the medium and large enterprises, whereas, for SMEs, what they really need is for someone to send them charcoal in the midst of winter.

Moving forward, the key to raise our productivity lies in increasing the overall capabilities of the entire industry and this is a task that cannot be achieved by one company or one department alone. It needs concerted collaboration between the Government and businesses. On 16 March this year, the Chamber's new batch of council members will take office and we shall invest even more resources to work together with the trade associations,

Page: 38

engage with businesses and follow up on their requests.

Hence, in order to make this Budget achieve even greater effectiveness, I would like to raise two recommendations. One is to support even more local enterprises in the effort to become world-class Singapore enterprises. Second, I recommend appointing a Government coordinator to handle issues related to business and improve effectiveness at the execution level. I believe that only by helping local companies to strengthen their competitiveness and become world-class Singapore enterprises can we continue to create wealth to support the social security system. Let us work together towards this objective!

Mdm Speaker, thank you for letting me join in this debate. In this Budget debate, I hope to draw attention to challenges faced by freelancers and self-employed workers. Indeed, many will benefit from SkillsFuture Credits as they currently do not have an employer who will set aside training budgets in their training needs. Many also struggle to set aside money in their CPF and the additional 1% interest for the first $30,000 in the Special Account is something they will benefit from if they have been conscientiously setting aside money to make voluntary CPF contributions. Alas, many whom I spoke with have not done so.

I hope that the Government agencies can in future include freelancers and self-employed workers specifically in their strategies. Take our national productivity efforts, for instance. We can certainly do more with them.

A case in point would be our taxi drivers. In a recent Singapore Medical Journal article, researchers from the National University Health System found that fatigue among taxi drivers is high. Many drive long hours and have poor health. They conclude, as we would, too, that a lower prevalence of fatigued driving would lead to lower risks of accidents and increased productivity.

Following LTA's introduction of the Taxi Availability Framework in 2013, the percentage of taxis on the roads and daily utilisation of taxis have also increased. More taxis are now available to commuters and there have been a million trips made a day from taxis alone. We should, therefore, find more ways to make our taxis work harder, but not the taxi drivers, as evident in the NUHS study.

There are three areas which I think we can help in driving productivity amongst our taxi drivers.

Page: 39

First, among the 28,000 taxis on the roads, only 66% comprised a hirer and a relief driver sharing a taxi. Ten thousand of them still drive as a one-man operator and drive long hours. It has been tough to look for relief drivers because taxi operators themselves are also struggling to look for drivers to take over as hirers. To this end, I hope that the LTA and taxi operators can explore new ways to reach out to new or the inactive pool of Taxi Driver Vocational Licence holders to attract them to join as relief drivers.

Secondly, with many of them spending long hours on the roads and, therefore, more prone to accidents, it will be useful to equip them with skills to drive safer. For example, last year, the NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute and the National Taxi Association announced a funding scheme targeted at training drivers to hone their safer driving skills. And with the SkillsFuture Credit, I am quite happy to note that the unfunded portion from the taxi drivers can, therefore, probably tap on this $500 training grant that is set aside for them.

To augment this training, can LTA and operators look at new tools that can detect lane deviation by vehicles or alert drivers to any tell-tale signs of driving patterns that arise from fatigue? These technologies are available in some of the modern vehicles and we hope that such tools can be implemented in our taxis in the future. Of course, hopefully, this will not lead to a corresponding huge rise in rental, otherwise, it will negate the positive impact as more taxi drivers will have to drive even harder to cover the rise in costs.

Third, more taxi drivers are also subscribing to third-party taxi booking apps to take on additional bookings. As these apps are able to link commuters to any taxi fleet, the matching process is, therefore, very productive and efficient, making it easier for commuters to get a cab.

This is one way which we can make the taxi work harder and it is a smarter approach as well. I have spoken to many of these third-party apps and they have told me that we are merely scratching the tip of the iceberg as far as the use of technology and productivity tools are concerned. I hope that the LTA can speed up the legislation on the role of the third-party apps so that more productivity tools can be incorporated into the third-party taxi booking systems and, as a result, make our taxi services more productive.

Mdm Speaker, productivity efforts should also include those who work as freelance sports coaches, adult educators, tour guides and other self-employed workers. As we help companies and individuals to be more innovative and future-ready, let us also do the same for these groups. Help them expand their footprints in overseas markets, take on assignments and projects out of Singapore as well. I, therefore, call on the Government agencies to work with the Labour Movement and the various stakeholders to do more to assist our freelancers and self-employed workers to be innovative, well-skilled and do well

Page: 40

in their respective roles.

For the second part of my speech, I will do it in Mandarin, Mdm Speaker.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to talk about how to help working mothers. Every Chinese New Year, we look forward to eating handmade pineapple tarts. But some people prefer machine-made pineapple tarts and it is sometimes hard to tell the difference. What I do know for sure, you will get a sore throat, if you eat too much.

Similarly, we have different types of childcare centres and facilities. Some are privately owned, some are run by non-profit organisations. Some children are looked after by neighbours or nannies.

Over the recent years, the Government has introduced a series of policies and measures to help working mothers. And we are seeing some results. As at 2014, the employment rate for women aged between 25 and 64 is 70.5% is at a historical high.

I have two suggestions and hope to help more working mothers. First, family nannies. Most parents either place their children in childcare centres or let them be looked after by grandparents or domestic helpers. A small minority will be cared for by nannies. These nannies come from diverse backgrounds and most of them are middle-aged housewives whose children have grown up. They are not highly educated but love to look after children.

Currently, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) provides a matching service through some childcare centres to help connect interested parents with people providing family childcare services. The nanny will undergo training on family childcare development courses and receive relevant certification. Perhaps, we can consider expanding these matching services.

Actually, more and more companies are providing childcare matching services. They will match a suitable nanny based on the parents' requirements. Some even include transport services and the pickup locations can be decided by the parents. Parents are also able to share their experiences online and even praise or criticise the nannies.

Currently, parents can receive subsidies if they use infant care services. Perhaps, we can expand the scope of such subsidy so that parents who leave their children with the nanny can also receive the subsidy. This model will allow us to have more reliable and convenient childcare services.

Page: 41

My second suggestion is to have better measures to help working mothers. Many mothers have problems adjusting back to working life after their maternity leave. Some may suffer from post-natal blues and find it difficult to cope with work and family responsibilities. And they may need to take leave quite often as newborns tend to have a weaker immune system and fall sick easily. They may need to leave work early to pick up their children from the childcare centre.

For a working mother, it is a challenge to juggle and balance between being a good mother and a good employee. Helping working mothers should not be limited to improving childcare and providing better maternity benefits. Some companies will choose to employ temps when staff are on maternity leave, so that the temps can hand over their work to the working mothers when they return from maternity leave. Can the Government provide subsidies to help companies cope with the cost of employing temps?

There can be two phases: pre-natal and post-natal. The pre-natal phase is for the expectant mother to hand over her work to the temp. The post-natal phase is to allow the new mother to adapt to shouldering family and work responsibilities. This initiative can help companies solve their manpower issue while giving working mothers a sense of assurance.

We should work on strengthening childcare services, families and work environments to support and help parents. By doing this, I believe more mothers can return to the workforce and increase their family income.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, in addition to helping our freelancers and self-employed workers, I hope we can do more to assist our back-to-work women find a more pleasant and more efficient way to return to the workforce after their maternity leave. With that, I would like to support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on this year's Budget.

Budget 2015 is not like any other fiscal policy announcement. It is more than that and I would like to share with the House my thoughts on what it means in the grander scheme of things.

The nation today is in a celebratory mood this year for 50 years of our Independence. Many Singaporeans have come up with various initiatives to commemorate and celebrate this milestone – some on their own, while others in groups. This goes to show the amount

Page: 42

of love and adoration Singaporeans have for their young nation. A nation that they have grown up with quality education, a comfortable home, a safe and secure environment and sound infrastructure – all of which have been achieved in the short space of 50 years. But while it is a year for celebration and rejoicing, it is also a year for reflection.

The reflection of all these efforts that Singaporeans are putting into celebrating the jubilee year brought me to ponder over a question: what is it that binds Singaporeans together and to Singapore, their homeland? Fortunately, I did not have to go very far to search for the answer. It was right there in our National Pledge – something all Singaporeans are familiar with.

Because, "We, the Citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language, or religion". In many societies around the world, such commitments may be made as well, but, in Singapore, we truly are a society where we stand united in diversity. That is why, when the late Mr S Rajaratnam wrote the Pledge, he made this as the first commitment that Singaporeans would make.

Mr Rajaratnam, who developed the National Pledge on behalf of the newly-formed PAP Government in 1966, believed that it would not only be an oath of allegiance to Singapore, but he wanted it to encapsulate elements of a common dream and a common vision to build a Singapore we can be proud of. A dream that would match the aspirations of Singaporeans and remain a common denominator among them throughout Singapore's history. A dream that the Government, which he was part of, was confident of providing for Singaporeans and would strive to improve on.

This dream that the Government had was: "to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation". There is no doubt that during Singapore's short history, we have seen the nation achieve these things. But the PAP Government is not one to rest on its laurels and is always looking to give Singaporeans a better quality of life and something higher to aspire towards.

In this context, Budget 2015 has helped hit the right notes, by taking the dream embodied in our National Pledge as a compass. Allow me to explain.

Let us start with prosperity and progress. There were many measures in the Budget that focused on helping businesses in Singapore. We are in the middle of Singapore's economic restructuring drive and the initial segment of replacing foreign labour with innovative, greater technology has yielded some results. We are getting companies here to be less reliant on cheap foreign labour to enable higher wages for our Singaporean workers and to

Page: 43

be more conscious about being more productive and innovative.

This year, the Government has moved to the next level of its productivity push by focusing on innovation and the internationalisation of companies. This will help companies to be more productive about their top-lines and increase their revenues. This will also increase income levels for our companies and create jobs for Singaporeans. Not only are these ordinary jobs but, by first focusing on technology and now on innovation and internationalisation, the Government has ensured that the jobs for Singaporeans are going to be very much up the value-chain and the better-paying ones.

Even as global economic conditions continue to remain uncertain, the Government has taken steps to ensure that the current jobs of Singaporeans remain safe. The Wage Credit Scheme has been extended in this regard so that employers can sustain their manpower headcount and not have to cut jobs.

SMEs have also great reason to cheer because the Government has extended the corporate income tax rebate and introduced a 100% rebate for road tax on all commercial vehicles.

By keeping our economy vibrant, strong and resilient, sustainable and progressive, the Government has made sure that we have "prosperity and progress" for our nation.

Next, moving on to equality. It is important that Singaporeans can have a shared stake in this prosperity and progress created for our nation. For that to happen, Singaporeans must have opportunities to be a part of this success. Since Singapore's economy is moving up the value-chain and our companies will also upgrade themselves to be innovative, technologically-driven and outward-looking, then it will also demand a workforce that can be adaptable to these skills.

In this regard, through Budget 2015, the Government has invested substantial resources in education and skills upgrading to ensure that Singaporeans will have access to affordable and good quality education, and have ample opportunities to upgrade themselves to be relevant to the workforce.

By addressing fees for key national examinations and transport costs for students, the Government has reduced cost and affordability as barriers to education. Therefore, in this regard, I have to disagree with the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim's comment earlier that the Singapore Government has always been calculative, that it charges even for school examination fees. Examination fees have always been a common practice. Personally, I have not seen any student being barred from examinations or being unable to take national

Page: 44

examinations when they could not afford it. We have always had the heart to help the young in their education, as well as those who cannot afford it. Therefore, I think the Government has always had the heart to help any citizen in need. This measure reinforces the Government's belief that education is a great social leveller and embodies our value of equality.

So, I hope the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim can give credit to the Government for this significant move to help parents and students, where credit is due. At the same time, I also hope that the Government will continue to do what is right when it is right to do so, regardless of those who take potshots at our policies.

The SkillsFuture scheme is another important initiative in this regard. By highlighting the skills needed, especially in the clusters that have been identified, the Government is already helping to develop the pipeline of talent that is needed. And the Government is not even placing the burden of this retraining on the individual Singaporean or on businesses. Through Budget 2015, the Government has backed Singaporeans to chart their career directions and acquire the requisite skills along the way. In doing so, the Government has helped Singaporeans pursue the dream of equality that Mr Rajaratnam had enshrined in the Pledge. The PAP Government is committed to providing such equality of opportunities to Singaporeans.

Moving on to justice: but even as the nation prospers and everyone gets equal access to benefit from this progress, there may be a segment that needs more help. In any meritocratic society, it is inevitable that some may gain more than others. But as a nation, Singapore has committed in its Pledge that it will build a society based on justice and equality. While I have explained earlier that the Government has ensured that Singaporeans gain equal access to opportunities, we may inevitably get a situation where the outcomes are unequal. We all take examinations, for example. Same opportunity, but the outcomes are different grades, depending on effort and talent. This is also the same at work. We all work hard and do our best, but outcomes we expect are also dependent on many other factors. This is even though the Government tries to level up all Singaporeans in terms of skills and education.

Nevertheless, within the context of a nation, a responsible government has to do as much as it can to ensure that no one gets left behind as the nation prospers. This can be best seen in Budget 2015, where the Government extended help to a cross-section of society, from the low-income to the middle-income and, certainly, the elderly, indeed.

We are hardly a welfare society and I am glad we are not, because we also have to be mindful of other aspects of our Pledge – a point that I will expand on shortly. But the Government's approach of targeted help, especially in terms of education, healthcare,

Page: 45

housing and balancing our costs of living, is a much better approach of ensuring that social justice is meted out to Singaporeans.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to move a little away from the Pledge to touch on another aspect that is important to Singapore and Singaporeans – peace.

I dare say that peace, security and stability make Singapore stand out from the rest of the world and differentiate it from other countries. But, as a country, we must not ever let this get to our heads and take them for granted. We have lots of work to do, both for the Government and the rest of us as a society, in preserving the peace and harmony in Singapore and the region.

Here, I would like to take a minute to thank and commend our uniformed services – the Armed Forces, Air Force, Navy, Police, Civil Defence, ICA and Customs – who have worked tirelessly to ensure that we can have a good night's sleep, who help us have the comfort of thought knowing that when our loved ones are out, that they are generally safe. There are very few places in the world that provide you with such assurances and I am thankful that Singapore is one of them. So, we are grateful to all of these organisations and their staff for creating this environment for us.

We also have to thank our Foreign Service, which does an amazing job in maintaining and expanding Singapore's sovereign right and space in international circles. They also do a lot behind the scenes in helping to preserve the harmony and stability of the region we live in.

But as the world becomes a more complicated place, with newer and more complex threats and challenges, we need to ensure that our internal and external defences all have enough resources to help them be effective and efficient. So, in this regard, the Government's continued allocation of substantial resources towards defence and homeland security is essential.

How can we have more prosperity and progress – if our peace and stability are ever in doubt? I applaud the Government for not taking its eyes off these areas, even in years when the economy had less rosy prospects. We cannot compromise peace for anything else.

Moving on to happiness: some have asked if Singapore should include happiness indicators as a barometer of how our country is doing. However, if you look at the Pledge closely, we have already inculcated this into our dreams and aspirations for a united Singapore.

Page: 46

By building a democratic society, based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation; by creating the other elements and strengthening them, the Government has provided the basis for happiness in our society.

As individuals, we should set our aspirations, moral compass and personal goals right and try to find happiness, hopefully, in our journey in life. We have many things that are going right for us. Life is never perfect, not here, not anywhere else in the world. So, celebrate our achievements, every little goal and dream we fulfil. And never let envy or others who only strive to put us down get in the way.

Budget 2015 has seen the Government do that as it strives to achieve the general betterment and happiness of Singapore, even though this may be challenging, considering that there are many different constituents and their wishes, which can sometimes be contradictory, to take care of. A responsible government will do its utmost to balance all of its citizens' needs and I am sure this Government will do its best. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to continue in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I am very happy, not only with what has been presented in the Budget, but also with the community's positive reaction, with many applauding the measures and incentives that provide greater opportunities for them to improve themselves along with Singapore's progress. For example, the SkillsFuture initiative is well received, with discussions focused on how the community needs to take full advantage of the opportunities offered. At the same time, many agree that there are various incentives in Budget 2015 that meet the needs of every Singaporean, today and tomorrow. Hence, Singaporeans should take the time to study, one by one, what is being offered by the Government.

I suggest to the Government that more effort be made to provide information and guidance to everyone, so that they can understand the details of the Budget and the long-term future direction of Singapore.

For me, this Budget is meant to further reinforce our fundamentals, to meet today's needs and tomorrow's challenges. The SkillsFuture initiative, for instance, is an important indication and philosophy of the Government on how it values and highly regards its people as human capital and important talents, to ensure the survival of the nation. Every citizen is an important member in this relationship. It is also a philosophy embedded in the Singapore Pledge, which is equality, or the equality of opportunity to progress, for instance, through education, with help from schemes like SkillsFuture and others. As stated in Berita Harian's editorial, the philosophy of continuing education and training is increasingly being widely implemented. With lower costs and better affordability, combined with subsidies and various assistance schemes like SkillsFuture Credit, it is hoped that this philosophy will be

Page: 47

accepted by the people. As for the Malay community, these opportunities must be fully utilised.

Beyond that, the other measures provided can also reduce the burden on Malay families, including the middle-income and especially those with children. They will no longer be burdened by certain costs, for instance, the examination fees of their children.

A number of incentives, such as the reduction of foreign domestic worker levy, will help to reduce the cost of living. With such incentives, families will be able to focus on other important aspects of their lives. These include preparing for the future through skills upgrading and taking advantage of the subsidies and assistance provided.

Speaking of talents, the Malay community also has many potential talents among its youths that can be further upgraded. For example, we can see many Malays in the ITEs and the Polytechnics who are capable, not just in technical careers, but also in entrepreneurship.

I hope they can also take advantage of SkillsFuture, including participating in mentorship training offered by selected companies, to build up skills and expertise.

For example, jobs requiring general skills in retail and F&B are uncertain in nature. Workers would have more value in the job market if they have specialisation that is useful in a management career or if they become entrepreneurs. Basically, we must do our best to obtain specialisation training, to build our skills and upgrade ourselves.

Despite a rapidly changing and increasingly competitive environment, we are happy and proud to see many more Malays succeeding in their careers, including those in international companies.

In this regard, besides Government incentives and encouragement, community leaders and organisations must also enhance their efforts to further build up the talents in our community. These should not just come in the form of programmes and services, but also in terms of leadership that can provide a vision and the will to succeed.

In the business and entrepreneurship sectors, the business community should not just focus on enhancing productivity, but also on innovation, which is an important area that was also highlighted in this year's Budget. The old method that emphasised the burden of business costs must be put aside and we must continue to explore new ways to further improve our competitiveness, while reducing costs and enhancing our income.

Page: 48

This Budget provides opportunities for the business sector to build expertise in this area. Most Malay businesses are in the services sector and they must find ways to take full advantage of schemes, such as the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme and the Capability Development Grants (CDG) to implement innovation and to further improve their branding, as well as to expand their markets overseas.

The Government is investing in these areas and so the Malay businessmen and Chamber of Commerce must give consideration to further develop entrepreneurial talent with potential at that level and also promote growth and confidence within our community, in terms of business.

Overall, Budget 2015 does not just provide assistance and incentives, but it also opens the doors wider for every Singaporean to take advantage of all the opportunities and make meaningful contributions towards the prosperity of Singapore, for the present and for the future.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, in a momentous year when Singapore celebrates its jubilee year, the Government has marked this with a Budget that throws many sceptics off their tracks. Where some asked if Singapore would be around for another 50 years as if to cast a doubt on the viability of our country, the Government has given optimism and hope to Singaporeans that there is much more to aspire towards.

This is because, just like our founding fathers – like Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr S Rajaratnam, Mr Goh Keng Swee and others before us over the past 50 years – this Government is committed to building a democratic society based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. As long as the Government and the people of Singapore use these dreams as a compass, I have faith that Singapore will grow from strength to strength. Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of Budget 2015.

Mdm Speaker, since this is still within the Chinese New Year period, I want to take this opportunity to wish everyone in the House happiness, prosperity and good health.

I rise in support of the Budget. This will be our biggest Budget to date and it is almost 20% more than last year's. Yet, it is a prudent and inclusive one, investing in our future development and our most precious resources – our people. I have every confidence that these investments will bear good fruits and create even more opportunities for Singapore

Page: 49

and our future generations.

One of my favourite features of this year's Budget is the set of measures for building skills. The SkillsFuture Credits, more study awards, cost subsidies, internships and on-the-job-training are widely welcomed. I fully agree with Deputy Prime Minister Tharman that our country must become a meritocracy of skills. Our people should be valued for expertise and contributions at each stage of life.

If we are to remain competitive as a nation and as an economy, we have to update the way we motivate, incentivise and reward our workers. Learning and developing our potential throughout our lives is the way to go. If we do not change our mindsets, we will end up either being complacent or discouraged and the outlook for our next 50 years will be gloomy.

My constituents, friends and colleagues have also shared with me how appreciative they are of the measures to support families and the more vulnerable seniors. Some have even expressed concerns about the sustainability of these measures and urged prudence in our future expenditure, requesting not to burden taxpayers too much.

Everyone I spoke with welcomed the increase in CPF salary ceiling, saying that that will be helpful for middle-aged workers. They also appreciate the higher interest rates for workers aged above 50 to 65 which are much higher than the low market commercial interest rates one can get today. On this note, I would also like to ask the Government to do more to share this information with the public. I noticed this morning when I saw the Facebook post by our Speaker, when she met residents recently in a coffee shop, she also realised that some Singaporeans may not know this information. I share her thought.

I would like to appeal to the Minister to consider providing more incentives and tax reliefs to CPF members who top up the CPF accounts of their family members through their own CPF or in cash so that these loved ones, currently restricted to parents, parents-in-law, grandparents, grandparents-in-law, spouse and siblings, can also enjoy the security and higher returns of CPF savings.

Presently, CPF members can enjoy an additional tax relief of up to $7,000 per calendar year if they use cash to make top-ups for their loved ones. Would the Government consider removing this cap of $7,000? I am sure that more members will be encouraged to make more top-ups if every dollar's top-up can enjoy tax relief, just as higher tax deductions for donations have led to more donations, which is why the Government has increased tax deductions for donations made to IPC-registered charities this year from 250% to 300% – tripled.

Page: 50

Another welcomed measure is the Special Employment Credit to encourage employers to continue to extend employment to older workers. For those who can and want to continue to work, we must do our utmost to support them as their many years of experience and cumulative wisdom bring invaluable contributions to the workplace.

Not many countries have the luxury of implementing measures, such as ours. We are able to do so without debt or burdening future generations because of the surpluses from years of economic growth. It is absolutely critical to secure continued economic vibrance for sustained prosperity.

We must remain attractive to foreign investors even as we push ahead to develop our local enterprises and their overseas expansions. The confidence of investors, both local and foreign, is very important for us to be able to continue to develop our various sectors and provide good and quality jobs for all Singaporeans.

With a dynamic economy, we can keep our Singapore dollar strong and this will help keep our cost of living low since we import almost all our goods. Singaporeans love to travel. I am sure they have noticed how, in recent years, our strong Singapore dollar has stretched their purchases overseas. The strong Singapore dollar will help us to also check on the cost of living, since we import most of the goods into Singapore.

We must be mindful that with global competition, our workers face foreign competition even when they are not on our territory. The way of doing business and consumer behaviour have been changed tremendously by technology. Nowadays, people bid for jobs and take orders online. I believe most people in this House or their family members would have also made purchases online. Services can be delivered online and products via delivery. Borders are really coming down and competition can be from anywhere, everywhere. On the other hand, the world is our oyster. We can expand our business overseas through the same online channels as well.

Not everyone is ready to take advantage of this development and it is important that the Government educates more Singaporeans to embrace these changes and reap the benefits. Singapore is moving towards being a Smart Nation and the Government has to help our local businesses adjust.

Of course, there are implications for brick-and-mortar set-ups and rentals. Private residential, commercial, industrial property owners cannot keep on increasing rentals. Increasingly, businesses do not even need retail or office space because of the new technology.

Page: 51

On the other hand, I would like to take this opportunity to request the Government to help keep costs of business down by keeping the rental of industrial and commercial properties down.

As the price of oil has fallen significantly, the value of our workers' output may be affected. The productivity index may not reflect the full picture of the gain of workers' productivity and workers have to work even harder to get the same value of output. The value of work is impacted by non-labour components, such as rental and energy costs.

The deferment of foreign worker levy hikes is welcomed and businesses are requesting that the levy not be increased further.

There is a need to encourage employers to support their employees' needs. Often, employers are concerned that the staff will join their competitors after investments in training them. There are bigger challenges for SMEs to attract and train staff as they may not have the luxury of resources.

We also have to examine how to support employees to upgrade skills and acquire new technologies, especially those in mid-career. In a rapidly changing and competitive market, the lifespan of skills acquired may be shorter than expected.

What kind of support can be further extended to Singaporeans, especially as we need to continue to encourage procreation? Raising fertility remains one of our long-term economic priorities for continued economic vibrancy and sustainability.

Finally, I would like to share my concerns about the role of automation in raising productivity. I am sure that many of us have seen recent reports of how automation and the use of robots in various industries have helped with manpower shortage and raised productivity.

This is a global trend and will continue unabated. It is impossible for Singapore to fight this trend as the majority of the changes are taking place overseas beyond our jurisdiction, in countries with huge manufacturing capabilities and capacities, particularly the United States and China. In fact, China has recently overtaken the United States as the largest global market for robots.

The Wall Street Journal published a thought-provoking article "What clever robots mean for Jobs" on 26 February this year. The article highlights how automation reduces demand for certain jobs. Robots can now handle unpredictability and take on jobs that used to require human skills or judgement. And computer can even "read human facial

Page: 52

expressions, do legal research, write stock reports and news stories, as well as translate conversations. At car dealers, they generate online advertising. And, at banks, they churn out government-required documents to flag potential money laundering – all jobs done by human workers a short time ago".

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates said last year that "automation threatens all manners of workers, from drivers to waiters to nurses".

For us here, with our manpower shortage, this should sound like good news. However, we must be mindful that the profits from this increased productivity accrue to owners of the businesses which own the automated businesses, factories and companies. This has, in fact, likely escalated income inequality and resulted in stagnating wages overseas.

Hence, we must be careful not to let the flipside of this technological advancement hurt our workers, too. Instead, as a nation, we must strategise and concentrate on taking advantage of this trend, investing and taking stakes in these businesses as individuals, organisations, corporations and as a nation through our sovereign funds. Only then can we reap the profits for the benefit of our people.

The article also mentioned that even as some jobs become obsolete, new jobs are created. It gave the example of Rio Tinto's Australian mines. Automation has cut many driving jobs which are now mostly being done by robots. However, "the company now needs more network technicians and mechatronics engineers, a hybrid of electrical and mechanical engineering that hardly existed five years ago".

The restructuring of our education system, to tie in more closely with the needs of employers and industries, is a step in the right direction to stay relevant in this new market. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister has laid out the key thrusts for the Government in his Budget Statement. My speech will focus on retirement adequacy and the CPF scheme, in particular.

The CPF scheme has a long history in Singapore that pre-dates our Independence. The Central Provident Fund Bill was introduced by the Singapore Progressive Party in the Legislative Council in 1951, while Singapore was still a British colony. The CPF scheme provides a mandatory retirement savings plan for local workers. It is a "defined contribution"

Page: 53

scheme, whereby every member takes out only what he has contributed. This has helped the Government avoid the heavy burden of Budget-financed pension liabilities that many other countries face.

While CPF provides a basic payout for retirees, it does not assure full retirement adequacy, particularly for those in the lowest income groups, including home-makers and people with disabilities.

The Minimum Sum requirement, which has been renamed to "Retirement Sum" by the CPF Advisory Panel, was introduced in 1987. It prevents CPF members from withdrawing their entire CPF savings in one lump sum when they retire. They are only allowed to withdraw amounts in excess of the Minimum Sum, plus another $5,000, at age 55.

This has been deeply unpopular among many Singaporeans. Many feel that since the money in our CPF accounts belongs to us, why should the Government control when and how much we can withdraw? "We're not children after all," some would say. A recent poll by Channel NewsAsia found that the majority of respondents would like a choice to withdraw all of their CPF money at age 55.

I empathise and identify with these sentiments. I, too, would like to withdraw all my CPF when I turn 55. Apart from paying off day-to-day expenses, I feel confident of being able to manage my own money well and not squander it. However, the reality for me, and I think many other working Singaporeans, is that if not for the forced savings that CPF has imposed, we would probably have saved much less for retirement.

As pointed out by Mr Donald Low from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in a commentary in The Straits Times last week, faced with a choice between an immediate reward and a larger delayed benefit, people often choose the former.

Also, even if CPF members make an effort to invest their retirement savings after they are withdrawn, not many will have investment skills that are good enough to consistently beat the current 4% CPF Retirement Account interest rate in the long term.

We also have to be on guard against swindlers who will try to find ways to persuade vulnerable elderly folks to part with their CPF money if they withdraw the full amount at one go.

Therefore, while we understand Singaporeans' strong sentiments about the Minimum Sum "locking up" our CPF money, for the reasons I just mentioned, the Workers' Party will not be asking for CPF members to be allowed to withdraw all their CPF money in a lump sum,

Page: 54

except under special circumstances.

Having said that, there is still room for providing CPF members with more flexibility in determining when to start receiving monthly payouts from their CPF. Currently, members can start drawing down their CPF only upon reaching their DrawDown Age, now known as the Payout Eligibility Age, which will be 65 from 2018 onwards.

Some CPF members may have genuine reasons for needing monthly payouts to start earlier than age 65. For example, they may have been retrenched and because of a skills mismatch or age discrimination, may not be able to secure another job. Or they may be labourers who are simply too old to do manual work. When I observed the young men who helped me move the heavy furniture in my home recently, I wondered how long they would be able to continue in that role and what jobs they will be able to do once they are not strong enough to carry such heavy loads.

The Workers' Party, therefore, proposes lowering the Payout Eligibility Age to 60. This will give CPF members the flexibility to start receiving CPF monthly payouts earlier, if they need to, instead of having to wait until age 65. This was a call made by my colleague, the Member for Hougang, Mr Png Eng Huat, in May 2014.

I agree with the CPF Advisory Panel's recommendation to give members flexibility to defer their Payout Start Age to as late as 70, with a permanent 6% to 7% increase in monthly payouts for every year that they defer. In line with this, under the Workers' Party's proposal, there will be a permanent 6% to 7% decrease in payouts for every year that members choose to bring forward their Payout Start Age. Members must be made aware that their monthly payouts could be significantly less should they choose this early payout option.

Many Singaporeans have expressed frustration about the constantly increasing Payout Eligibility Age. It was 63 last year, 64 this year and will be 65 in 2018. It seems to be moving up together with the Re-employment Age. Perhaps, it is assumed that people are able to work until the Re-employment Age and do not need to draw down their CPF savings before that.

However, just because the Re-employment Age has been raised does not mean that everyone will be able to work until age 65, as I explained earlier. Furthermore, the statutory Retirement Age is now only 62. This leaves a gap of three years that a retiree will have to tide over, should his company not offer him re-employment until age 65.

I would like to reiterate the Workers' Party's earlier calls for the Payout Eligibility Age to be de-linked from either the Retirement Age or the Re-employment Age. Even if the

Page: 55

Retirement Age is increased, the Payout Eligibility Age should remain constant at 60. This will provide members with more assurance of when they are eligible to start drawing from their CPF, regardless of their employment status, instead of wondering when the target will move again.

Madam, I would like to touch on the public education aspects of the CPF scheme. The CPF scheme is not easy to understand, regardless of one's level of education. The large amount of technical jargon, acronyms, figures and different conditions that apply to people with different birth years, all add to the confusion.

There is a pressing need to increase and improve public education about the CPF scheme. The CPF Advisory Panel has also recommended that more public education on CPF is needed.

A recent poll by REACH, the Government feedback unit, found that only 13% of respondents under 55 were able to provide the estimated monthly payout under CPF LIFE if one met the Minimum Sum requirement. With greater choices provided in the CPF scheme, it is important that CPF members are fully aware of the implications of their choices, including the lower payouts if they choose to start withdrawals earlier or withdraw a lump sum.

I am aware that there are many ways in which CPF Board tries to get its message out, including pamphlets, public seminars and even advertisements on YouTube. However, none of these ensures that a CPF member is fully aware of the choices he has to make at critical junctures, like at age 55 or 65. A letter is sent to CPF members just one to two months before they turn 55, to inform them that they can apply to withdraw their CPF. This may not give them enough time or information to consider their choices carefully.

My observation is that the public education on CPF currently focuses a lot on how CPF benefits Singaporeans, or to clarify misunderstandings about CPF. The questions asked in the REACH poll are quite telling. They include questions like "If you do not meet your Minimum Sum requirement, do you need to top up the shortfall in cash?" and "Do you think you will receive a monthly payout from age 65 if you do not meet the full Minimum Sum?"

Public education on CPF should be more tailored to individual members, focusing on the information and numbers that are directly relevant to them and the choices they have to make. We should not confuse people with numbers that are irrelevant to them, like the different Minimum Sum amounts and Drawdown Ages for different age groups. While the CPF website has a number of useful calculators, not every retiree is technically savvy enough

Page: 56

to access or use them correctly.

Therefore, I would like to suggest that before reaching the age of 55, every CPF member should be invited to meet one-on-one with a CPF Board officer, who should explain the details of the scheme, including how much he has in his account, how much he can withdraw, when he can withdraw, the choices of CPF LIFE plans and what his monthly payouts would be. This should be conducted in a language or dialect that he is comfortable with and he should be allowed to bring a few family members to the meeting. It should be done at least three months before the member becomes eligible to withdraw his CPF.

This personalised meeting should be done, on top of the public seminars that are available to CPF members. It will provide a channel for important information to be explained personally to the member and to give him an opportunity to seek clarification from the officer.

The last matter I wish to raise concerns the Silver Support Scheme. While CPF payouts are usually enough to meet the retirement needs of seniors who have the Full Retirement Sum or more at retirement, there is a sizeable number of Singaporeans whose CPF payouts are insufficient to meet basic household expenditure.

The solution for these individuals cannot be to postpone their CPF withdrawals or place further restrictions on their use of CPF and Medisave. This will only exacerbate their difficult financial situation. I am glad that the Government has acknowledged that individual responsibility through the CPF system has its limits and that it is time to provide a form of old-age support for needy senior citizens.

While the details of the Silver Support Scheme are still being worked out, I would like to make some remarks on the scheme based on what the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister has announced.

First, the Silver Support quantum seems rather low, ranging from $100 to $250 per month. This is much lower than what even the poorest 20% of households spend each month on basic household necessities, which is $761 per month for all households and $317 per month for retiree households, according to last year's Household Expenditure Survey.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister share his basis for deriving the Silver Support quantum? Does it look at household expenditure and does it assume that all retirees receive additional forms of income, like children's contributions?

Page: 57

Given the increasing cost of living in Singapore, I urge the Government to ensure that Silver Support is enough to cover retirees' basic household expenses and that it also increases over time to account for inflation.

Second, while I agree that the Silver Support Scheme should provide targeted support, the evaluation criteria should take into account the current financial situation of the seniors and should not be so stringent that genuine cases end up being excluded. In particular, the "household support" criterion must not deny Silver Support to seniors whose children are unable to support them or whom they are estranged from. Needy seniors should not have to suffer for their children's inability or unwillingness to support them.

My third request on Silver Support is that it should be paid out monthly instead of quarterly. Silver Support recipients are not working and receiving a salary, unlike Workfare recipients, yet they still have to pay monthly household expenses like bills, food, transport and rental. A monthly payout would help seniors in their cash flow management.

Madam, in summary, I would like to reiterate the four main proposals in my speech.

First, more flexibility should be given to CPF members to start receiving CPF payouts, as early as age 60, if they need to, so as to help those who are not able to find work at that age.

Second, the CPF Payout Eligibility Age should be de-linked from the Retirement and Re-employment Age, to provide more certainty for seniors.

Third, personalised public education should be conducted for all CPF members, in their preferred language or dialect, well in advance of their 55th birthday, so as to give them more time to consider their options and discuss with family members.

And fourth, the basis for calculating the Silver Support quantum should be made public and it should take into account the current financial situation of seniors to ensure that the needy are not excluded. It should also be paid out monthly instead of quarterly.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for allowing me to join this debate. I strongly support this Budget. This is an expansionary Budget well worth celebrating. At the same time, these are challenging times.

Page: 58

I applaud the Budget's strong commitment to both the ongoing productivity effort and the recalibration of the foreign manpower policy. I also applaud the Budget's renewed emphasis on the importance of targeted social support. Just as I believe the tightening two years ago of the criteria for Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) payouts was the correct decision to take, I believe that the coverage of the Silver Support scheme should be kept narrow for better effect rather than diluted by too wide a spread. I also strongly support the continued application of such negative taxes to further enhance the progressivity of the tax system to the advantage of the lower income.

On the other hand, I am concerned by the fact that a key part of the Government's manpower policy is an overly heavy emphasis on using employment credits to tilt wage relativities in favour of local workers. Going forward, I urge the Government to conserve such schemes for times of real need and, instead, redirect these resources towards providing even more of a role for social support.

The surprise – but extremely welcome – raising of rates for top personal income tax brackets is a very important achievement of this Budget. Together with the advances in tax progressivity, conferred with negative taxes, they go a long way towards compensating for the regressive nature of broad-based indirect taxes we have in our system. While the rise in rates will not come into force for some time, I fully support the Deputy Prime Minister's point that they are a necessary feature going forward, if the calls from many quarters for more social safety nets are to be heeded.

The current Budget is able to run a projected deficit by drawing on the benefits of surpluses. These surpluses are likely to shrink with slower rates of economic growth. Hence the Budget has identified five growth clusters for the future. These new growth clusters offer hope for recovering our growth momentum, but may not necessarily be at a base less hectic than we had a decade ago.

Mdm Speaker, please allow me to elaborate on these points.

Despite having undergone five years of restructuring, I believe we should accept that it is not unreasonable for productivity improvements to be slow in showing up. This is because the economic transformation that is needed strikes at the very core of the way Singapore's society and its businesses think and operate. We are nostalgic for the past but, at the same time, impatient for the future. This is true not just in our personal lives but in the way business and workplace norms are structured. It becomes a question of which we consider more important in moving forward.

Page: 59

In the meantime, the productivity effort and the recalibration of foreign manpower have often been regarded as synonymous. They are actually distinct, I argue, and whether we like it or not, each must continue at as quick a pace as possible. There has been an unfortunate tendency to fault the manpower recalibration directly for the lack of progress in productivity improvements.

This is unfair. We should instead consider the magnitude of the restructuring task Singapore is embarked upon. Going by available data for the first half of 2014, we are only seeing the first non-recession year in a decade where foreign manpower growth will come in slower than local manpower growth. A change this huge will clearly impact work processes and more time should be allowed for work performance to reach its potential.

Mdm Speaker, given the scale of such a shift, the complexity of the manoeuvre – if I may borrow the analogy – is like steering a very large vessel. The sharper the turn, the wider the turning arc required. One of the greatest dangers is to begin acceleration without ensuring that the vessel is properly stabilised as it comes out of its turn. It is not unreasonable for the economy to require time to stabilise before it can accelerate to its full potential under the restructured regime.

In contrast to some suggestions that the productivity targets themselves should be modified in light of the performance to-date, I believe the targets are not unreasonable. Instead, it might be better to be patient and allow the timeframe for their achievement to extend beyond the current decade. There are signs of real progress on productivity overcoming the resistance to change and the Government should firmly commit itself to the validity of the target as a long-term goal.

With regard to the foreign manpower controls, I believe it is not too early to begin looking ahead to a future when foreign manpower growth will firmly come under control and the use of foreign manpower should then stabilise at a sustainable level. The Government has already made it clear that the levies are not a revenue stream. I support this stance, because dependence on such disincentive schemes for revenue would be a source of weakness to the fiscal system. For that reason and in line with the forward-looking nature of recent Budgets, I would urge the Government to begin considering how the system of levies can be modified for the future.

I do not agree, however, with those economists and business leaders who call for a reduction or refund of levies, to reward companies who have demonstrated improved productivity with less intensive foreign manpower utilisation. The reason for my disagreeing with this approach is that I believe the levies also serve another important role. It seeks to price in the social burden, such as to public infrastructure, of accommodating a large population of foreign manpower. But if the underlying implication is that such levies are

Page: 60

purely punitive without recognising effort at improving performance, then I would agree that the system would automatically lose its relevance if left in its current form.

Madam, the fundamental issue is, therefore, how to ensure that the recalibrated manpower policy continues to best serve the economy's needs. Instead of rewarding achievements in productivity and foreign manpower savings, the aim should be to adopt a formula which can secure such gains. Hence, one possibility in going forward could be to adopt levy holidays, not as entitlements awarded for past performance, but tied to sustained and ongoing improvements.

Madam, notwithstanding my support for the Budget, I believe there is at least one aspect of our restructuring policies which deserves serious reconsideration. Presently, there are three employment credit schemes in force: the Special Employment Credit (SEC), Temporary Employment Credit (TEC) and the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS).

Given that such programmes distort the labour market, their extended use is a serious cause of concern. Although they do have the effect of shifting relative wages in favour of local workers, they also end up delaying the adjustments that businesses should make in order to complete restructuring.

There is also a second problem with the extension of employment credits during times when employment growth is already healthy: it would limit the options available in times of real labour market weakness. Singapore's successful exit in 2010 from the recession was due in no small part to the innovation of the Jobs Credit Scheme (JCS). As we saw at that time, the policy timing was important, in both implementation and swift withdrawal.

During the downturn in 2009, concerns were raised about the sustainability of CPF cuts as a counter-recessionary policy. Blunt or not, it remains one of the very few instruments available to policymakers. Employment credits are another in this limited arsenal and their over-use now could render them impotent when the need arises.

The Jobs Credit Scheme was in effect for a mere 18 months, comprising S$4.3 billion spread out over six quarterly payouts, according to IRAS. In comparison, the Wage Credit Scheme, first announced in Budget 2013, will run much longer than that and – counting the Transition Support Package as a whole – will amount to an estimated S$9.1 billion by 2017, $7.3 billion of which will be expended in the first three years. The extent to which the total amount of these employment credits exceeds the Jobs Credit Scheme is too large to ignore.

A survey of the state of the global economy shows that the strengthening evidence of late recovery from the Great Recession is generally interspersed with fresh signs of a number

Page: 61

of political, financial, economic and conflict-driven risks. Given that the danger of a downturn is not negligible, we should conserve our policy options.

There is also a third concern with excessive use of employment credits and, that is, policy overreach. Apart from the Wage Credit Scheme, we also now have the Temporary Employment Credit and the Special Employment Credit schemes. The Temporary Employment Credit scheme is explicitly linked to rises in employer CPF contributions, and means that taxpayers temporarily take on the increased payments. Given this explicit link and the fact that it is allocated the smallest funding, we may leave it aside as the least problematic of the three.

That leaves the Special Employment Credit. The SEC is aimed at improving the employability of older workers; it was introduced in Budget 2011 as a one-off measure for three years. Just a year later, it was enhanced and extended for five years from 2012 to 2016. The payouts also leapt from the $100 million that had been estimated for 2011 to an estimated $497 million in each of the years of the extended period.

It has already been widely acknowledged that the participation rate of older workers has been increasing over the last few years. This is undoubtedly already a significant policy achievement. A comparison of the labour force participation rates (LFPR) of Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan reveals Singapore's rate among those aged 50 and above now to be the highest of this group. Singapore has also seen the largest increase in the labour force participation rate in this group over the last 10 years.

Hence, there are at least two important policy questions to consider. First, is there scope for further increase, and second, what are the consequences of pushing this participation rate up even further, especially for the consequences of alternative roles that older Singaporeans already play?

On the first question, we should note that the increase in the labour force participation rate of those aged 55 to 59 jumped 15 points over the decade from June 2004 to June 2014, while the one for those aged 60 to 64 jumped a staggering 26 points. This brings the labour force participation rate for these two groups very close to, although they are still lower than, those of Japan.

On the second point, Singapore is still the type of society where multi-generational family structures, with its accompanying system of support, have been traditionally valued. And that type of arrangement has spill-over economic benefits: for instance, when grandparents look after the kids, women in the prime of their life can continue to contribute

Page: 62

in the workforce.

My concern is that such rapid changes to the labour force participation rate of older workers will have significant consequences for our society and it may be better to allow these changes to develop slowly with an eye to their longer term benefits rather than to consider older worker participation as a goal in itself.

Finally, I would like to laud the Government for raising personal income tax rates for the top income brackets. Here, I do believe that a direct linkage with prioritising social support for those in greatest need is an important part of a social compact that is one answer to how to even out the unequal gains from rapid growth.

One way for the economy to find its footing through what I believe will be an extended duration of the current restructuring process is to ensure that the fruits of the growth that had been made possible through the earlier growth strategy are distributed more evenly.

Even as the Budgets over the last five years have concentrated on steering the economy through this wide arc of restructuring, there has also been substantial attention paid in these Budgets to uplifting the low-income and disadvantaged through schemes like Workfare. Budget 2015 continues to provide more secure and targeted redistribution that is focused on benefiting the low-income.

Despite the remarkable and welcome leap in targeted assistance represented by Silver Support, however, there are still many groups which will be left out. Those in the lowest quintile with young children or elderly dependents and, therefore, whose ability to hold down a job while performing challenging caregiving roles, are people who also deserve targeted assistance. Their needs should be met by ensuring their dependents are provided for. For instance, in areas, such as childcare, children's school fees and textbooks, the assistance should be enough so that the working members of the household can continue to function in the workforce effectively. As the latest household expenditure survey showed, the gap between average expenditure and average income for the lowest quintile is not small.

In view of this, I would respectfully disagree with those who ask for less stringent criteria for allocating Silver Support. Giving, say, a few hundred dollars to everyone of a certain demographic group would spread the amounts out too thin. It is better to give to those who need them in a structured and precise manner. It is also important to develop clear rules for withdrawal of support, to allow for the prospect that some recipients at least may in time to come no longer need them. This is because there are many others whom attention should be given to in the competition for assistance.

Page: 63

Despite the desire to have more social safety nets, this Budget is a reminder that they have to be funded through either surpluses or new avenues of tax.

In conclusion, I feel that it is timely to take stock of our vulnerabilities as a small economy, in light of the frequent calls for a less hectic pace of growth. A small dynamic economy like Singapore may not slow down "well". It is not something we fully understand.

The fiscal space to fund more social programmes ultimately comes from strong economic growth. Hence, we should continue to exploit the opportunities for better growth whenever they present themselves. That will require that we secure our footholds in new growth areas and this Budget is making a very good start on that.

Although rapid growth often stokes inequality, the solution should not be less growth, but a better formula for redistributing the benefits of growth. No formula is perfect, but Singapore has to be cautious and prepare for the possibility that – unlike resource-rich and larger economies – slower growth may not turn out to be the idyllic experience we imagine. By simultaneously drawing on surpluses, proposing a deficit and announcing a surprise rise in taxes on the high income, this Budget gives us a timely reminder of the stark realities we face. Mdm Speaker, I support this Budget.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on Budget 2015. This year's Budget is an ambitious Budget. It sets out bold goals on the changes required for the economy, society and even mindsets as it seeks to build the future for Singapore.

Budget 2015 covers many aspects from supporting individual capability building, support for lower income and middle class to boosting retirement adequacy, encouraging companies to innovate and internationalise, investing in infrastructure and strengthening future revenues.

While the focus is on transformation and building Singapore's future, I am glad that Deputy Prime Minister Tharman emphasised that our people continue to remain in the heart of Singapore's transformation. In the major steps on the four areas of Budget 2015 takes, people and the impact on and the support for continue and must be the focus.

In my speech, I would like to touch on the following areas: evolving our mindsets and culture; social mobility and opportunity, with specific focus on SkillsFuture; and the quality

Page: 64

and sustainability of the growth we are building for the future.

The Budget makes a fundamental shift in approach with significant spending on support initiatives to build for the future and strengthen social security for Singaporeans. There is also a move towards greater collective culture and responsibility.

We do, however, need to be cognisant that this year's Budget has a fiscal deficit of $6.7 billion or 1.7% of GDP, albeit that surpluses in current reserves accumulated since 2011 will be more than adequate to cover for this.

Total Government spending will go up significantly with increased operating expenditures. This is driven from the various support for Singaporean families and households to help them with the cost of living spanning education, work, housing and healthcare. There are permanent features with investments through SkillsFuture with over a $1 billion per year on average that will be spent from now till 2020 to support lifelong learning. Silver Support is also a permanent scheme that will cost about $350 million in the first full year and expected to rise as more Singaporeans turn 65 years of age. There is also significant increase in the development expenditures for Changi Airport Terminal 5, our healthcare and public transport infrastructure as outlined.

The question then is, "Must we spend more?" And I believe we must. With the growing income disparity and cost of living, this is the right and necessary thing to do to ensure that there is a better life for all Singaporeans, especially those who do face greater pressures, that is, the lower income and the "sandwiched class". This is to ensure a more cohesive society and, as the Deputy Prime Minister put it in a recent media interview a day after delivering the Budget, he emphasised that "we have to spend more in the next five years in the common interest."

While many have welcomed this fundamental shift in policy to building a future that gives all Singaporeans greater assurances, more opportunities and a better home, there is, also from feedback, a heightened concern that we may run the risk of a mindset of dependency and expectation for continued increased spending. Therefore, we must stay vigilant to managing the delicate balance on the part of the Government for fiscal prudence with continued judicious spending and revenue adequacy, together with a culture of preserving an ethic of work, personal effort and responsibility from all Singaporeans and a collective responsibility of the community. If we are to succeed in building a stronger Singapore, we must preserve this Singapore ethic.

I would like now to touch on social mobility and opportunity for all.

Page: 65

Budget 2015 has a wide spectrum of initiatives to support lower and middle-income Singaporeans and seniors. As mentioned, this is needed if we are to build a Fair and Just Society, to address the growing income gap and cost of living challenges faced by especially the lower and middle income.

While these initiatives are important for this Budget, I like to focus my discussion on SkillsFuture. SkillsFuture is a recognition of the need for continuous learning. Hence, it provides individuals the means to stay relevant and deepen their skills.

As part of SkillsFuture, the Government will be investing in new forms of industry collaboration to help uplift the large base of SMEs who face constraints in training capability and capacity as SMEs provide 70% of the workforce employment. Just as we have always emphasised Education as an important lever for social mobility and a means for everyone to have "a chance to move up regardless of where they start", then with the changes in the job market, SkillsFuture will "enable every Singaporean to own their own journey in life and gain fulfilment at work, even in their senior years."

The Budget's vision that "We must become a meritocracy of skills and not a hierarchy of grades earned early in life" is not made in a vacuum. What it does recognise is the realities of what is happening both in Singapore and in economies around the world driven by technological advances and the need – and I stress this – the need for differentiation to enable one to be able to take advantage of the opportunities presented. It is important to stress that the approach that we take to skills must not be one that is just about accumulation of training or knowledge but it must be one of learning and, most importantly, mastery of skills.

We are already witnessing that the way we work and the type of jobs or professions that are valued are changing. In a recent article this week in The Telegraph on 10 well-paid jobs of the future, futurologists make predictions on the lucrative careers for 2030. They predicted that based on trends, in 10 to 20 years' time, the chances are that our jobs – and the way we work – will be very different.

In the same article, Ian Pearson, a futurologist argued that the better technology gets, the more people will have to focus on their "human skills" to survive in the workforce. He said that "as computers get more intelligent, the work that will take over will require human skills like leadership, motivation and compassion."

Karen Moloney, another futurologist and business psychologist agreed and she said that, "The world will divide into those who understand technology and those who do not. Those who can programme will create the world we live in." And she advocates that we should

Page: 66

therefore get ourselves into the field of technology.

Today, many of us will agree that computational thinking and coding are skills that are recognised as skills required to "future proof" our students. Ms Moloney, however, also made a very interesting point to say that if technology is not what you are good at, then, she says, "Find yourself something to do that is hyper-human, which computers can't do, such as entertainment, sport, caring personal services" to differentiate oneself.

In my Budget speech last year, I also cited a Forbes article, which talked about the top 10 jobs in 2013 that did not exist 10 years ago. What this means is that we are preparing our students and workforce for jobs that do not yet exist. What I shared of the views in The Telegraph, trends are also showing that this transformation of work will continue. Many other reports on future jobs share the same view.

There are some who have expressed concerns about whether SkillsFuture will further drive amongst Singaporeans a mindset of entitlement and one of dependency on the Government. Is the Government doing too much such that we blunt the drive and the ownership of individuals and businesses? Should this not be driven by personal motivation to improve and upskill ourselves?

While there are good reasons to be concerned, this is in some way addressed by how SkillsFuture initiatives are mapped out. I believe that while there are investments made with SkillsFuture to provide career coaching, grants and full salary for graduates on the Earn and Learn programme; study awards for those who wish to determine their skills; as well as fellowship cash awards for those more senior in their fields to further master their skills; as well as skills credit for all Singaporeans 25 years and above; all these programmes – yes, they sound like a lot – but all these programmes will require individuals and businesses – not just individuals but businesses as well – to take joint accountability as it will require personal effort to learn, to take up these opportunities. For businesses, it will require commitment to provide employment over a period of 12 to 18 months for the Earn and Learn programme.

As Deputy Prime Minister Tharman said in his Budget speech, SkillsFuture will require different motivation in our society. It is driving a change in culture. Individuals will need to take ownership of learning and work towards mastery of skills to drive value and differentiation. Organisations on their part must recognise the value of people and more importantly, invest in developing their people while also giving opportunity to mid-career Singaporeans. Industry must also have a collaborative culture to join forces to develop skills for the industry. While the Government is providing the catalyst to drive the culture change with SkillsFuture, the success of SkillsFuture will lie in how individuals, businesses and

Page: 67

industry play their part.

I do want to touch on a point of the Skills Credit account and what it can do to enable those who are out of the workforce, for example, women who have taken some time off to take care of their family to be able to have the means to undergo training to stay relevant.

As outlined in the 10-point Response to the Government Announcements in Budget 2015, one of the areas that the PAP Women's Wing called on the Government is to make special efforts to help stay-home mothers take advantage of SkillsFuture initiatives. This will enable them to keep their skills updated and remain employable.

An example could be enhancing e-learning options to allow access to training from home while they are out of the workforce. This will enable women who have taken time off from work to take care of their families stay connected and keep their skills up-to-date. This will help women home-makers have confidence to return to the workforce should they wish to do so in the future.

And I would say to you that it may seem trivial to some, but this is a very important point because in my career, I have seen many women who have left the workforce for these purposes and it is a very good reason for leaving the workforce to take care of the family. But what happens, if they cannot stay connected and they cannot keep their skills updated, what happens is they lose the confidence to come back. And so it is such an important point that we must not forget.

According to MOM, Singapore's statistics show that Singapore women are more likely to drop out of the labour force after marriage and childbirth. In a recent online survey by Accenture, 74% of Singaporean women said they turned down jobs because of concerns about work-life balance. Singapore women participation rate in the workforce is lower than that of tradition-steeped countries, such as Japan and Korea. There are also fewer Singapore women aged 40-49 at work than compared to their counterparts in the United Kingdom and the United States.

Today, the explosion of collaboration technology and cloud services has made it possible to be productive anywhere and anytime, I do hope to see fewer women dropping out of the workforce and sacrificing their professional aspirations because they feel they have to choose. And I am speaking from personal experience because this is a bug-bear I have. I have seen many women with very strong aspirations feeling that they have to choose. And I think employers – and I am glad the Government is doing it – but I think employers, too, have to step up and ensure that this becomes a reality because it will benefit not just families, it will benefit the women themselves but, most importantly, the economy and

Page: 68

society.

The Women's Wing also sees families as having a role to play in creating a supportive ecosystem to encourage women homemakers to pursue lifelong learning. So, the ask is for the Government to consider allowing husbands and children to make partial transfers of their un-used SkillsFuture Credits in future to give more support to their homemaker wives and mothers to pursue training.

Now, I would like to touch on the quality and sustainability of growth. Is the increased spending sustainable? And the point I would like to ensure is that while we look at quality and sustainability of growth of Singapore, many will assume that this will just happen. And as MTI had said, economic growth is expected, with GDP growth expected to be between 2% and 4% next year which is fairly aligned with 2014.

But the key aspect of the Budget underlining all the support schemes is still about growth and the recognition that our people are at the centre of that to support that goal– the SkillsFuture that I have talked a lot about – creates that environment for lifelong learning. And there must also be growth to enable quality jobs because without the quality jobs, SkillsFuture and all the skills we build comes to nought.

The Budget has identified also five growth clusters for future where Singaporeans have the capacity to excel. While previous Budgets have focused on restructuring and productivity schemes to support businesses, Budget 2015 is looking to companies to make more significant breakthroughs in order to drive productivity improvements. Budget 2015 also sharpens support to business-making efforts to raise productivity by innovating and growing their businesses through internationalising.

With SkillsFuture and the focus on mastery of skills, there must be the ability for companies to drive their restructuring and growth strategies to absorb these Singaporean talents and skills. While there is a deferment for this year's levy increases, and the Deputy Prime Minister has been clear that it is to give more time for adjustments to business and it is not a change in the direction to the new normal of a permanently tight labour market.

Hence, the emphasis needs to be innovation and we need to reduce the reliance on manpower especially unskilled labour. Manpower is an area that businesses continue to feel the pain and I think we need to recognise this. It is especially so for those who have jobs that Singaporeans do not wish to do. We all will agree that we cannot completely do away with people even in those roles that could be mechanised, automated – even in those, the human element cannot go away. But what we need to do need is that we have to look at how to upskill and restructure these jobs to justify higher salaries so that we can change perception

Page: 69

and attract Singaporeans to want to do these jobs. And the point I emphasise is not about skills upgrading but the point about justifying the higher wages. While we can restructure jobs, we need to change mindsets of those jobs and businesses must be willing to pay more for these jobs.

The Budget does outline concrete actions to uplift the broad base of SMEs that provide employment for Singaporeans and to help Singaporeans develop their careers. I think this is a big shift. I am not sure many realise that. There will be investments in the new form of industry collaborations with initiatives like the Sectoral Manpower Plans (SMP). SMEs, given their size, lack the training capacity and are also not able to plan for the future. These new forms of collaboration that the Government is strengthening between training institutions, unions, trade associations and employers to develop the SMPs for key sectors, will be important. These sectors will have dedicated manpower plans, outlined to identify the skills required for these industries to grow. Working with industries partners, the Government will develop a shared pool of mentors with specialised and industry-relevant skills which SMEs can tap on.

It is a whole new capability and capacity.

Ms Tan, you will have to wrap up your speech. You are reaching your time limit.

All right. Thank you. The Earn and Learn Study Programme will also match graduates to employers to enable them to work and train towards industry-recognised certifications. This, too, is an important point to help graduates and match skills to jobs.

An area of SkillsFuture that I would like to see addressed is the support for workers who face mid-career changes, or women wanting to return to the workforce. Could this programme or similar programmes be extended to support and target this group as well to allow them to make adjustments back into the workforce?

Madam, Budget 2015 is a Budget that is focused on building for the future, anchored on people and giving Singaporeans hope with opportunities to succeed and to do better, no matter where we start from; and greater assurance at each stage of life, hence emphasising the kind of nation that we want to build. With that, Madam, I support the Budget.

Page: 70

Mdm Speaker, I am happy to open with the observation that even as we celebrate 50 years of nationhood, this year's Budget firmly looks forward to building our nation for the next 50 years. I do applaud the expansionary intent spelt out in the Budget Statement that was made last Monday.

I would like to just focus on three areas. The first concerns investing in future-proofing Singaporeans for the global workplace and investing in our workforce in SkillsFuture.

As I was listening to the Budget Statement last week, it came to this bit about the new SkillsFuture initiative. It brought to mind the fact that my father had just two jobs in his lifetime and for our first television set at home – which was a Citroen – we had to wait about one decade, about 10 years, before they came up with the next model and they promptly ran out of business after that. Perhaps, that is telling. If we look at the situation today, the average Singaporean that enters the workforce would have had probably two jobs or more, by the time he reaches the ripe old age of 30 and could have changed at least twice as many mobile phones over the same period. The point is that employment is no longer as constant as before, either by design or by volition and product cycles get shorter by the year. What we learn over the past few years may not be sufficient to keep us relevant over the next few years, in an increasingly fast-changing global economy.

It seems like a cliche, but the only constant thing in today's world seems to be change and Singapore has to be equipped for change. I support the moves by the Government to increase our investment in our people through the SkillsFuture initiatives. Some may question the prudence of spending so much on something so intangible, but it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that we have always prided ourselves on our people being our most valuable resource. If so, then, surely, there is no better sense than to grow our best asset.

Many successful businesses have acknowledged the value of being a learning business, a learning corporation. But it is also important to appreciate that being a learning organisation is not just about sending your staff or your employees for courses, one after the other. But it is also about developing the right learning culture and mindset among the employees. So, if we aspire to be a learning country, a learning nation, then beyond just being able to provide more support for our people to go to courses to upgrade themselves, I think effort must also be put into ensuring that we create the necessary mindset for a truly learning nation.

It is important that if we are to remain competitive globally with a robust knowledge-based economy, it is critical that we never stop learning and adapting.

Page: 71

Having said this, I would like to raise some concerns and ask for some clarifications on the SkillsFuture initiatives. First, what would be the selection framework for the recipients of the Awards and the Fellowships and how would the type of courses and fellowships be regulated? I am concerned that this might lead to the mushrooming of different courses or fellowships of widely varying merit, which may not necessarily translate into giving our workforce the right training for the right circumstances.

Let me now turn to the Silver Support Scheme. While I fully support its aim to strengthen our social support network, like other Members of this House, I do have some concerns about its long-term sustainability. I am happy that the eligibility criteria appear to be more flexible and take into account not just what is the housing type but also things like household support and an individual's lifetime wages. But it is important to note that unlike the Pioneer Generation Package, it is to be a permanent scheme for the seniors of today and also for every cohort thereafter.

Given the stark demographic reality of an ageing population, a shrinking tax base and a more sedate pace of economic growth, this would represent an increasing burden for Singapore. We already have a lot of other Government transfers, with Workfare, the permanent GST Voucher scheme and so on. Perhaps, we can look into how these other schemes could be better integrated into this Silver Support Scheme. It could help with reducing confusion among the population and even duplication.

My last concern regards the situation of the average Singaporean, perceptions about the cost of living and all the debate that surrounds these issues. We have done well to grow our economy and provide opportunities for all Singaporeans, but most of us will accept that this landscape cannot be one of absolute parity. It is not easy to address the unhappiness over the competitiveness of modern living and the perceived cost of living well in today's society, though some would argue that we would do well to harness such sentiments to create an even more vibrant Singapore.

But I say it is difficult to address such perceptions, partly because I think it is not easy to set up a good way of studying this problem.

Let me just move on to a proposal that has been brought up in this House before and for which I would like to take up again. I would like to suggest that perhaps it would be worthwhile to look at defining or at least discussing, what the living wage in Singapore would be like in greater detail. This would be helpful not only in guiding Government assistance schemes or wage recommendations, but also to provide a frame of reference whereby we can engage in a more considered debate on how well or how poorly we are faring in regard to coping with living costs, relative to our income. We do have a lot of statistics about median household income and median household expenditure and so on, but these should not be

Page: 72

taken as a surrogate of what is truly necessary to live decently in Singapore.

Let me end by saying that this year's Budget is what I believe to be a bold one; it is a pragmatic one in providing for the present while still building for the future. The increase in Government spending has raised some eyebrows, but I believe that we need to continue investing in ourselves while still keeping a watchful eye on the bottom line, or we risk all that we have built up over the past 50 years. I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of the Motion raised by Minister for Finance Mr Tharman Shanmugartanam.

I am most heartened by the announcement of the Silver Support Scheme. The concern and care for the needy seniors are most welcome indeed. This vulnerable group may have little or no savings due to lower wages during their working lives and they may have little or no family support for various reasons. This package speaks volumes that our Government has empathy to care for the needy seniors who had contributed to our nation building in the past. It also sends the right message that we can be a society that respects our elders and a nation that is grateful to our Pioneers; in much similar way to the Pioneer Package. These are desirable attributes that we can inculcate in our young. Coming from our Government, it is the best example to emulate and it will leave a lasting legacy.

I have been a long-time advocate of "lifelong learning" and have spoken on it five times since 2007 in this House. In 2009, I dedicated my main Budget Debate speech to suggest adopting "lifelong learning in a learning society" as the way forward. A society organised for learning has the crucial ingredient to cope with the fast changing world of today and tomorrow. I therefore whole-heartedly support the SkillsFuture Credit for every Singaporean to spend on future education. Our Government is charting the correct path; this augers well for us to continue succeeding as a progressive nation.

The title of the Budget Statement this year is "Building Our Future, Strengthening Social Security". I feel that building our future should begin with our Government Ministries. Thus for the rest of my speech, I would like to touch on the topic of how to better cater to the higher expectations of our present and future populace.

The better-educated and better-informed citizenry of Singapore today has higher expectations from our Government agencies. I would like our Government to consider better service delivery to residents to meet the changing needs of today's and tomorrow's populace.

Page: 73

Most times, our policies are well-intended for the greater good and benefit of the residents, but, the execution of policies, if badly delivered, will only bring unhappiness and even wrath upon those in-charge and the Government.

I would like to emphasise on the three service deliveries that we can further improve on. These are better responsiveness, personalisation of service and empathy. Empathy means better understanding of citizens' needs, seeing things from their perspectives and willingness to provide well-rounded solutions to their problems.

I shall illustrate with one example. A Mr Tan – not his real name – received a visit call from a Government agency officer after seeing his Member of Parliament three times at the Meet-the-People Sessions. One of the first things the officer told Mr Tan was that his complaint of water flooding into his kitchen every time it rained was his own responsibility to rectify. But in actual fact, Mr Tan could not rectify the problem even after calling his own contractor to do the repairs. This is because the problem was due to a structural defect of the building making it impossible to be solved from within the unit. In the meantime, the Member of Parliament in charge had received the same complaints from other units in the same block with no resolution to the matter. By now Mr Tan was angry and fed up with that Government agency, even with his Member of Parliament and was left with a bitter feeling due to that unpleasant experience and having to live with continued annoyance every time it rained.

Many Members in this House may be familiar with such scenarios. Many such incidents can only add to the groundswell of unhappiness and discontent. It is a pity considering that the intentions of our policies are well-planned and well-intended to bring benefits to residents. We need to change our style of service delivery and communication.

I would like our Government to consider the following suggestions that we can reflect on to achieve better service deliveries going forward: (a) effective leadership; (b) resident-centric; and (c) excellent service motto.

One, effective leadership. The heads of departments are the vital effectors to make changes and shift towards better service deliveries, better engagement and better responsiveness. They are the ones to set the right trends in service and service priorities. They have to consider the importance of outcome and support for staff in charting the change for the better.

A good initial directive would be to adopt appropriate openness and humility by accepting residents' views or suggestions. The essential goal of each agency or department

Page: 74

should be to achieve good public relationships.

Getting the right staff with the appropriate skills for the scope of duties is vital in good service deliveries. It is worthwhile to invest resources in having adequate numbers of personnel to prevent excessive workload, especially for frontline staff. It is also worthwhile to use resources in the provision of skills training, upgrading of skills and communication courses for all staff.

Workplace-specific scenarios can also be used to better equip officers on the ground to handle their tasks better. This calls for good judgement of the officers on their scope of work and expertise in matters at solving or facilitating to solve issues. Only with such service deliveries in place can we get trust and respect and, more importantly, goodwill from residents.

Investment in technology for data entry, feedback management and follow-up should be further expanded to better solve problems surfaced by residents. Customer feedback data and the use of IT is a good source for data analysis on service delivery outcomes.

Use of IT and automation of certain services will enable reduction on manpower and thus save on cost and at the same time facilitate effective delivery. Skills that are useful for staff to have are in logic interpretation and interpreting evidence and data. Ease of workload on the ground can also tap on technology such as mobile applications.

Two, resident-centric. Good communication is key to mitigating problematic issues on the ground. Many a time, even unfavourable news can be made more palatable through good communication. Officers that handle residents, especially frontline officers, should be equipped with good communication skills. It will be a good idea to send our staff who deal with residents, especially frontline staff, for communications courses. For instance, the Tanjong Pagar Town Council is sending its entire staff for the SQ Customer Management Course to better equip them to service residents. The Town Council also has a team of service ambassadors on the ground in every estate; their job being to seek out complaints and feedback and act on them proactively.

Skills required by staff include being able to listen empathetically, to stand on the side of residents, to find solutions, to solve the problems and to close the loops with satisfactory results.

In these times of more angst than gratitude, there is a need to change our handling of residents in terms of expanding communications and improving our engagement strategies.

Page: 75

I hope all Ministries can adopt and adapt strategies to this new landscape.

In any situation, there will always be areas that we cannot accede to and there will always be the minority of residents that can be unreasonable. The approach will still be for us to show that we have tried our best and hope we get better understanding from residents.

Three, excellent service motto. What is the yardstick for evaluating the performance of public service delivery presently? Is it based on the number of cases of complaints closed by each officer or by each department? Customer satisfaction should be used as an indicator of the achievement of a public sector organisation rather than the work or projects completed. I agree that customer satisfaction is a less tangible and quantifiable yardstick; but it is being used by the corporate world with good outcome.

From the top, leaders must set the right direction. Since there are many layers in our Ministries, this direction should be adopted at every level, especially at the level of managers and supervisors of every department, in order to effect change. Intervening at multiple levels is key towards transforming to achieve outcome.

Better communications should begin from the inside of each department of our Ministries. The feedback from the ground should be discussed and considered by the officers of the unit or department. This is when collective feedback can be more effectively sorted out. For instance, if there are more than several units of an HDB block with the same complaints received, then the department should take suggestions from the officers to proactively find the fault that can be rectified and taken in totality, solve the issues before similar complaints surface. By tackling the tasks en mass, the department can cut down on work-effort and save costs. In the end, the relevant department will get better goodwill and also lesser complaints. Such communications among staff will promote understanding, sharing of good practices and airing of grievances. The combined ideas and collective effort on solving complex cases are useful in finding new solutions.

An excellent service motto begins from each Ministry being able to recognise the excellence of service delivered by each and every staff in the Ministry. At Tanjong Pagar Town Council, staff that has received commendation letters or any other commendable mentions from residents is being recognised each month by the team of managers in a little ceremony where the staff is being presented with a gift token.

We have an efficient Civil Service that is well known in all over the world. Many countries have sent their government officers to study our local system. Our Civil Service has been deemed to be excellent in its execution of policies over the years. Let us now continue

Page: 76

to be also excellent in getting the public's understanding, support and trust.

In another area of importance for good service delivery by our Ministries, may I seek our Government to encourage all Ministries to be united and have a concerted picture of the whole Civil Service? The call is for all to adopt the larger resolve for collective contribution to overall priorities and not to focus on individual interests. I would like to elaborate on my point with these examples and I am not finger-pointing at any Ministry but just to illustrate my point. These examples illustrate how the decision of one Ministry concerned with only its own divisional stake can cause untoward repercussions further downstream. If the subsequent maintenance issues are not considered at the architectural or even building state of housing blocks, the project will pose tremendous burdens on the Town Councils when they take over after completion for maintenance.

Take, for example, a Town Council having to take over two housing blocks that have many inaccessibly high beams that collect litter which are in direct sight of residents just outside their windows. The Town Council staff cannot clean them off effectively due to the height constraints and inaccessibility. This brings angst to residents as they are irritated by the eyesore daily.

Another example concerns cost of maintenance. One Town Council had taken over a precinct of seven housing buildings that were painted with "cool" and "marine" paints. The cost is $8 million every five years for repairing and repainting (R&R) for these seven blocks. The whole budget for the R&R of this Town Council is $20 million per year. This Town Council has about 600 housing buildings to look after. How then can it justify maintaining these seven blocks for R&R at such high costs and needing to eat into the sinking fund unwisely?

This is my point on the importance of having a united team working as a single entity to achieve good service delivery to the residents.

Mdm Speaker, let us move towards improving the quality of our public engagement as a coordinated entity and meeting the higher public expectations in order to strengthen our public trust, support and confidence.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement said that the Government would enhance retirement savings and income through changes in the CPF system and the Silver Support Scheme.

Page: 77

As to the CPF system that was termed one of the four pillars of our social security system, we have the following suggestions.

The Workers' Party proposes that the CPF Payout Eligibility Age be delinked from Retirement Age. This was raised by the Workers' Party Member for Hougang, Mr Png Eng Huat, in Parliament last year. We recommend delinking the two ages as we hope more Singaporeans will, through their allocation of their lifetime savings, including their CPF savings, be able to have more choices relating to their work before the statutory retirement age. They would be better able to consider switching to a job with lower compensation – perhaps one with lighter workload, or one that is more personally meaningful.

The Workers' Party proposes lowering the CPF Payout Eligibility Age to 60 and allowing deferral of the commencement of payouts to an older age, with a concomitant increase in the size of payouts of several percentage points a year, till age 70.

Mdm Speaker, the Silver Support Scheme reflects the value of a more inclusive society. It is right to help our needy seniors: it reflects our caring for one another, it strengthens our social cohesion and it advances the traditional virtue among our different peoples of respect for our elders.

Under the Silver Support Scheme, the Government will distribute $300 to $750 every three months to low-income Singaporeans over 65 years old. The Scheme aims to help the bottom 20% of our seniors and the Government will take into consideration their housing type, lifelong income and family support in assessing their eligibility. Those who are eligible will be included automatically in the Scheme.

We suggest that the Government make monthly payouts instead of quarterly payouts so that needy seniors will be able to use the subsidy to help meet their periodic expenditures for basic needs. We also hope that the Government will exercise flexibility in determining eligibility for the Scheme based on a mix of the three enumerated factors so that those in need will receive the support they require.