Hansard, Tuesday, 5 April 2016

Order. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of Standing Order 92, I have fixed the times for the conclusion of consideration of the heads of expenditure in the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2016/2017 in the Committee of Supply (COS).

In fixing these times, I have taken into account the reduction of Question Time to 30 minutes on the days allotted for the COS debates, and that the Sitting times of the COS be extended for each of the allotted days which are subject to the approval of the House.

Additionally, I have notified Members that the Sittings on the allotted days of 7 to 14 April will commence at 11.30 am.

The "guillotine" times I have fixed have been notified to hon Members. Order. Questions for Oral Answer.

1 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many Government and Statutory Board car parks as a proportion of the total number of these car parks provide free parking on Sundays; (b) how has this proportion varied from 2005 to 2010; and (c) whether the Ministry has plans to change this proportion in the years ahead.

Madam, Government and Statutory Board car parks are provided by agencies like the Housing and Development Board (HDB), JTC, the National Parks Board (NParks), Sport Singapore and the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA). The vast majority of these are HDB residential car parks.

In 2005 and 2010, around 70% of the Government and Statutory Board car parks offered free parking on Sundays. Currently, the proportion is lower at around 55%.

In assessing whether to provide free parking on Sundays, agencies have to balance the specific needs and parking demands of the area. For example, it may not be feasible to have free parking on Sundays in HDB car parks where there is high demand for parking from the local residents. This is also the reason why the proportion of car parks with free parking on Sundays has come down over these years.

Madam, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the detailed answer. I would just like to ask a supplementary question. Would the Government consider setting a goal for the non-HDB car parks to offer free parking on Sundays, given the benefits in terms of family bonding as well as possible stimulus to small businesses and heartland businesses that may benefit from such a move?

I thank the Member for his question. In planning for the parking charges for specific car parks, whether HDB or, as the Member had asked, for non-HDB car parks, we look at it not just at the macro level but also at the micro level. Certainly, we want to encourage as much free parking on Sundays as possible for the reasons the Member has stated. But if we look at car parks in specific areas, we need to manage the demand. And there are different stakeholders that need to use the car parks. For example, season parking ticket holders may find it difficult to find car park lots in specific areas and we need to make sure that we provide and accommodate them.

2 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there are guidelines on the installation of barriers in void decks, walkways and other common spaces in terms of accessibility for the disabled, elderly and community activities; and (b) what is the Ministry's position on the installation of such barriers in common spaces in HDB estates.

Madam, Town Councils manage and maintain common property in the Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates and may make improvements to these areas to meet the needs of residents within the town. In doing so, they have to comply with the Building and Construction Authority's (BCA) Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment, which sets out the requirements for barrier-free accessibility (BFA) in public spaces.

When considering whether to install barriers in void decks, walkways and other common property, Town Councils must also abide by the Building Control Act, which stipulates that any barrier-free access must not be obstructed, removed, altered or made unusable.

If barriers are put up such that they unduly obstruct a walkway intended as an accessible route, the Commissioner of Building Control may require the Town Council to remove them.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. What are the avenues for the public if they have complaints about such barriers? Who can they turn to, to make the complaints?

They can let the Town Council know. They can let BCA know.

3 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will consider (i) putting a speed counter on heavy vehicles that are allowed to ferry passengers which will register each time the vehicle exceeds the speed limit for a prolonged period (ii) establishing a fine and demerit system for drivers caught speeding through these speed counters.

Madam, currently, all heavy vehicles with maximum laden weight exceeding 12 tonnes for goods vehicles and 10 tonnes for public service vehicles are required by law to be installed with speed limiters, which restrict their maximum speed to 60 kilometres per hour. This includes vehicles such as public or private buses, which ferry passengers. Such vehicle owners are required to send their vehicles for annual inspections at registered vehicle inspection centres to ensure that the speed limiters are in working condition. Heavy vehicles with speed limiters are also required to undergo additional speed limiter inspections, if these vehicles were caught speeding. Those caught tampering with their speed limiters can be fined up to $1,000 or imprisoned up to three months, while repeat offenders can be fined up to $2,000 or imprisoned up to six months.

Heavy vehicle drivers caught exceeding the speed limit by up to 40 kilometres per hour will be given composition fines ranging from $160 to $200 and four to eight demerit points. Heavy vehicle drivers caught exceeding the speed limit by more than 40 kilometres per hour will be charged in court and given 12 to 24 demerit points.

The Traffic Police (TP) and the Land and Transport Authority (LTA) are reviewing measures to curb heavy vehicle speeding and will announce the changes later this year.

I just wish to clarify that what I am suggesting is what we already put in our military vehicles. You would realise that for the military vehicles, nobody is speeding, but most of us on the ground would see that a lot of the heavy vehicles are speeding, especially those carrying a lot of passengers in the back. If an accident happens, it is the loss of a lot of lives, including other commuters on the road. I am hopeful that this can be implemented or at least, a review will take place to make sure that we can curb this problem.

I thank the Member. We will take that onboard when we review.

4 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) what is the current number of students studying in international schools in Singapore; (b) how many of them are foreigners; and (c) whether the Government is promoting the private education industry as one of the key engines of economic growth, and if so, whether there are plans to increase the number of international schools and the student numbers.

Mdm Speaker, international schools form an important part of the infrastructure that supports Singapore's attractiveness as a place for international companies to invest and do business. They cater primarily to the children of international executives based in Singapore. The Economic Development Board (EDB) annually reviews the current and projected demand for international school places to ensure sufficient capacity to meet the needs of international families.

As of January 2016, there were around 46,500 students enrolled in international schools. Of these, 36,900 or 79% were foreigners, with the remainder comprising permanent residents or 16%, and Singapore Citizens or 5%.

Besides international schools, other commercial players also offer private education to Singaporeans and foreigners. The private education landscape is diverse, with varying quality in courses and providers. The private education industry is subject to the market forces of demand and supply and has been consolidating since the raising of minimum standards and higher quality.

For private education companies that are keen to internationalise, IE Singapore has been facilitating their efforts to expand into overseas markets, for example, for Crestar and EtonHouse.

I would like to follow up with a question on whether the Ministry will consider developing a Singaporean Core among the private education institutions for the academic and the non-academic staff, so that other than being a facility that will cater to mostly foreign students, we will also develop our Singaporean worker working in this industry.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member Mr Ang for the supplementary question. I want to take this opportunity to assure Members in the House that the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) is mindful of the role that international schools play in supporting our ecosystem to strengthen Singapore's attractiveness as a business and investment destination, thereby creating good jobs for Singaporeans. The original Parliamentary Question was about international schools, as an engine of economic growth, with respect to how they support the international companies and their families.

So, if Members would like to delve deeper into the private education sector or the development of the faculty of these institutions, and so on, can I invite the Member to file a separate Parliamentary Question directed at the Ministry of Education (MOE), so that we can respond comprehensively and accordingly?

5 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Acting Minister for Education (Schools) in view of the forthcoming merger of Bedok North Secondary School with Damai Secondary School in January 2018, whether the Ministry will consider locating the merged school at the premises of Bedok North Secondary School in view of better transportation links at the location of this school.

Mdm Speaker, due to falling cohort sizes of secondary school students, there has been a corresponding decline in the overall demand for school places leading to a significant excess of Secondary school places. In March this year, the Ministry of Education (MOE) announced that 11 pairs of secondary schools will be merged in 2017 and 2018.

Bedok North Secondary School and Damai Secondary School will merge in 2018. The decision was to locate the merged school at the Damai Secondary School site for the following reasons.

Firstly, the Damai Secondary School site is bounded by Bedok Reservoir Park and Bedok Reservoir on one side and residential estates on the other. On the other hand, the Bedok North Secondary School site is located at the edge of the Kaki Bukit industrial estate.

Secondly, both school sites will be well-served by the future Downtown Line and will be within comfortable walking distance of MRT stations. In addition, the Damai Secondary School site is served by more bus services compared to the Bedok North Secondary site.

Finally, we also looked at the quality of infrastructure for the two sites. Damai Secondary School would be equipped with new facilities such as an indoor sports hall and synthetic field when the upgrading is completed by end 2018. After the upgrading, the Damai Secondary site would have better and newer facilities compared to Bedok North Secondary.

MOE will work with both schools to ensure a smooth merger and provide the best learning outcomes for its students and at the same time, forge a strong school identity for the school community.

Mdm Speaker, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister of State. Firstly, in view of the opening of the Kaki Bukit Downtown Line station in 2017 directly outside Bedok North Secondary School, would it not make the school easier to access for students and teachers, notwithstanding the larger number of bus services, which is not significant, rather than to have the school at Damai Secondary.

Secondly, does the current Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) masterplan envisage a different use of the land at Bedok North Secondary School, and if not, what plan does the Ministry have for the school compound after 2018? I understand that it is still classified as an area reserved for educational facilities.

Thirdly, how important a factor is the convenience of students and teachers, when MOE decides on the location of merged schools?

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. If I can take the first and the last ones together? The transport accessibility and convenience are factors, but they are not the only factors, as I have explained in the first response. I do appreciate the difference in the walking time from the two schools to the MRT station, but it is still fairly comfortable. There are a number of considerations and distance to the MRT station is not the only one. Convenience is a factor and there are a number of components other than convenience.

With respect to the URA masterplan, MOE will have a look at site and make an assessment about the need within MOE for the site in terms of MOE initiatives and plans going forward. If MOE has no particular use for the site, the site will be returned to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) who will then make an assessment of what happens downstream.

Another supplementary question, Mdm Speaker. And I thank the Minister of State for answering the questions.

In view of the fact that upgrading is going to be carried out at Damai Secondary School, to be completed by the end of 2018, is there any prospect of a change of decision to move it back to Bedok North Secondary and what is the likelihood of that eventuality, since the Minister of State does recognise that there are advantages to have the merged school at the present location of Bedok North Secondary School?

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. I am not sure I said that there was an advantage to the merged school being at Bedok North Secondary. I do not quite understand – is the Member suggesting that the upgrading should not happen at Damai Secondary?

I am suggesting that if the upgrading has not started, is there a prospect of locating the merged school at the Bedok North Secondary site because there is also a football field there? If I remember correctly, I believe it is an artificial turf, it is already turfed, and there is an indoor badminton hall. So, a number of facilities are already available for the community also to use. There could be savings accrued, rather than upgrading a school when the advantages are already pre-located at Bedok North Secondary School.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the clarification. There are a number of factors that are taken into account in terms of where to locate a merged school and how the pairs should be chosen, and of the pairs, where the final location should be. Transport and convenience, we have talked about; the ability of the facilities to be upgraded, disruption to the school, and so forth. The school will be relocated to Damai Secondary School and the final merged school will have significantly better and newer facilities than are available at Bedok North Secondary.

6 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Acting Minister for Education (Schools) (a) how many ex-teachers have rejoined the education service last year; (b) how many of these teachers have resigned as employees of independent schools to rejoin the service; and (c) how are the teachers' experience and skills that are developed in the time after the teachers left service recognised when they rejoin the service.

Mdm Speaker, there were 49 former teachers who rejoined the Education Service in 2015. Seven of these officers had joined the Ministry after resigning from independent schools. Beyond these numbers, there were also other former teachers appointed on an adjunct capacity and who may subsequently be re-appointed to the Education Service.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) recognises the work experience and skills developed by teachers who leave the Education Service and rejoin thereafter. In determining the remuneration package of these former teachers, we take into consideration their relevant work experience after leaving service, as well as parity with their peers who had remained in service.

I thank the Minister of State. Is there an existing policy to welcome the ex-teachers to rejoin the Education Service, rather than the ad hoc kind of re-application by the teachers? And would the Ministry formulate a clear framework to recognise the ex-teachers' experience and skills, developed in the time they have left the Service? Would the Ministry then publicise this framework so that ex-teachers with developed experience could be attracted back to teaching?

Mdm Speaker, the re-appointment of Education Service Officers is primarily to replace attrition, which is fairly low, at about 3%. The current approach is effective at attracting teachers and maintaining capabilities. There are subject areas of greater need, specifically, Art, Music, Humanities, Physical Education and Tamil. I am not so sure whether I could address the Member's question in terms of a policy to welcome ex-teachers. I mean, the applications are certainly welcomed and the skills are certainly valued. The ability for these officers to apply for those jobs is certainly well known. But I welcome any suggestions you might have about how we might do that better.

In terms of a framework to recognise the skills of the officers, the work experience, the personal qualities, the content mastery, the track records of these officers when in service are all taken into account. So, there is a process by which their relevant skills and work experience are recognised and valued as they come back into the Education Service.

7 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health (a) how many places for home care and centre-based care services for the elderly are there currently; (b) how many referrals for each of these services have been received by the Agency for Integrated Care in 2015; and (c) how many of these referrals have been turned down and what are the main reasons for turning them down.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) has been working to expand home and centre-based care capacity to better support our seniors to age-in-place among their family and friends. We currently have a capacity of 6,900 home care and 3,500 centre-based day care places. This is an increase of 80% from the 3,800 home care places, and a 67% increase from the 2,100 daycare places, in 2011. We are on track to meet our target of 10,000 home care places and 6,200 daycare places by 2020.

We have also been working to increase awareness of home- and centre-based care so that seniors and their families can consider these services for their care arrangements. In 2015, the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) received home care referrals for about 8,500 seniors, and day care referrals for about 7,800 seniors.

AIC does not turn down referrals. Its role is to facilitate the placement of seniors needing home or community care services or other appropriate aged care services. Once a referral is received, AIC works with the seniors and their families to find the most appropriate service to meet their needs. Not all referrals for home or centre-based care services translate into actual take-up for a variety of reasons. Of the referrals that did not result in services being taken up, about half were because families opted for alternative care arrangements such as hiring a domestic helper. Another reason for not taking up the service is seniors being readmitted to the hospital as their conditions were not stable.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the detailed answer. Is there a waiting list, therefore, for those people who are not going to change the referral, because the spaces and the type of care that they want are not available? Is there a waiting list and is there a criterion in which those put on the waiting list can be bumped up if there is an urgent need?

I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Let me explain that the capacity required, which I have noted in my earlier answer, is smaller than the referral numbers for three reasons. First, not all referrals, as I have said, eventually choose to take up the service. Some could be because they have got alternative care arrangements, domestic helpers; some because the seniors are re-admitted to hospitals; in fact, there are also some where the seniors are concurrently referred to multiple services, both home and community care service, while they actually only need one.

In 2015, of the referrals received, about 5,600 home care referrals and slightly more than 3,000 daycare referrals were admitted into service.

Secondly, the difference in numbers is also because whilst we have a flow of referrals during the year, we also have a flow of discharges. During the year, there may be patients who are discharged from home care or day care because they no longer need the service, because the conditions have improved, they have alternative care arrangements, or they have passed away.

In 2015, about 3,800 home care clients and 1,200 daycare clients did not continue with the service, which frees up capacity for others who need the places.

Thirdly, for day care services, seniors may not need to have the service every day. They may take up the service three days a week. Therefore, one day care place can serve more than one senior.

Taking all these into consideration as well as the fact that we have been ramping up capacity, there is no wait time for home care. We have sufficient capacity for home care. There is some wait time for day care. The median waiting time is about 20 days. The reason, really, is because of geographical imbalance between supply and demand. In some places – for instance, the Central region, mature estates, ageing profile – it is not easy to find sites for new senior care centres.

Sometimes, it is also because of patients' preferences. For instance, they want a day care centre in a certain location for convenience's sake. So, there is some wait time. Of course, there has also been increasing demand for day care places.

But let me assure Members that we are working very hard to ramp up our supply of home and day care places, and we are on track to meet our target for 2020.

In the meantime, for those who are waiting for day care places, AIC works with the patient as well as the families for interim care arrangements. They can get on either to the home care services available or they can avail themselves of the Interim Caregiver Service (ICS). When the senior is discharged from hospital, we can offer ICS whilst they are waiting for longer-term care arrangements. ICS can be for a period of two weeks, in the first instance, and up to three months while they are waiting for longer-term care arrangements.

8 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many engineers are there currently working in Singapore; and (b) how many of these are Singaporeans and permanent residents, and foreigners respectively.

Mdm Speaker, as of June 2015, a total of 122,500 professionals were employed as engineers, of which six in 10 were locals.

Engineers play a crucial role in Singapore, and are needed to improve our infrastructure, grow key sectors such as manufacturing and telecommunications and drive the Smart Nation initiative. Sectoral Tripartite Committees (STCs) for sectors such as construction, manufacturing, transport and infocomm technology (ICT) are formulating their respective Sectoral Manpower Plans to enhance sectoral competitiveness and strengthen the Singaporean Core. By developing more attractive career pathways and strengthening the professional recognition and accreditation of engineering skills and expertise, we aim to attract more locals to join the engineering profession.

Engineering will remain a meaningful and respectable profession as we strive for economic and social progress in our next phase of development. The tripartite partners will reach out to more Singaporeans to take up engineering as their career of choice.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions. Since engineers are so important, I would like to ask how many engineers and engineering positions in Government agencies and Statutory Boards, are filled by foreigners? Is there a plan to just employ Singaporeans in Government agencies and Statutory Boards?

Employment of engineers will be based on skill sets. Some skill sets are, for example, software skill sets. Some are specialised skill sets which may not be readily available here. But in the public sector, majority of our engineers are locals. We will also do our best to make sure that our local engineers are given a fair chance and opportunity to take up positions.

Engineers have skills that are functional. Their skills are applicable broadly across different sectors. Most of the engineers, if they go to the technical field, they can find job opportunities. Services as well. Many of these jobs are covered by engineers, even including the non-functional skills too. We respect the engineering profession, and we feel that engineering skills and engineers themselves need to be recognised and rewarded. It has to be based on two fronts: to make sure that engineers continue to stay in their sector and to have the technical skills.

From the enterprise perspective, they need to have good human resources (HR) practices. These HR practices could mean identifying these engineers as human capital to be invested in and also to make sure that they can continue to deliver value. They need to have career paths, wage ladders, and good salary and progression plans for them.

Industry as a whole will depend on the Sectoral Manpower Plan and the tripartite committee to look at the skills sets and the skills of the future to cover the skills gaps, so that we can build up the pipeline between schools and institutions with the industry. We need to build up more engineers for the sectors. That is exactly how we have been approaching it.

I think the Minister of State did not answer my first question. How many engineering positions in Government agencies and Statutory Boards are filled by foreigners? Will the Government lead by example? Employ just Singaporeans in Government agencies and Statutory Boards.

There are many positions with engineering graduates filling up the positions, both engineering jobs and non-engineering jobs. Majority of them are filled by locals. We will do our best, wherever we can, based on merit to give our local engineers and local graduates to be employed in Civil Service.

Mr Desmond Choo. Keep it short, please.

I just want to ask if the Ministry has any plans to bring back engineers who have left the profession. And what are the incentives and programmes that will attract these engineers back into the profession again?

Short reply, please.

Yes, we encourage engineers who are not in their profession to come back. There is today, based on feedback from the enterprises and the sector, a lack of engineers in the sectors. We encourage them and through different programmes of support. There are already current programmes in career support to bring them back, especially the matured engineers.

Order. End of Question Time.

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

[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [24 March 2016], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017." – [Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]

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

Madam, I rise in support of Budget 2016. Budget 2016 has stayed on course to fulfil the Government's mission to build both a future-ready economy and a caring and resilient Singapore beyond SG50.

Analysts have acknowledged that it is a far-sighted Budget, with resources committed to support businesses to scale up automation, create high-value jobs and internationalise.

SkillsFuture, a big piece to secure Singapore's place in the new economy, is another key feature. Work is underway to develop more than 20 Sectoral Manpower Plans to identify the skills required in each sector and to develop a Singapore core. At the individual level, the first tranche of training dollars was already credited to Singaporeans to encourage lifelong learning.

The people's voice through the Our Singapore Conversations can still be heard in this Budget. Anxieties over high healthcare and financial worries of the ageing are addressed with several key moves. Our national safety net is now visibly stronger by the additional pieces in the form of higher Public Assistance quantum – the Pioneer Generation package, Silver Support and MediShield Life for all. This is a significant task that not many Singaporeans fully appreciate but is nonetheless critical for their future.

On concerns – as we confront the brave new world, I cannot help but still be alarmed at the speed and the disruption of change in the new economy. The 2016 World Economic Forum report on "The Future of Jobs" indicates that over the next five years, about seven million jobs could be lost through redundancy, automation or disintermediation, meaning the removal of the middleman in business processes. This loss is predicted to be only partially offset by about two million new jobs and mostly in the more specialised families such as Computer Engineering.

In the logistics industry, for instance, both overseas and in Singapore, where large warehouses have been major employers of workers, robots now replace warehouse workers in jobs such as picking and packaging. Fully automated production processes from design to delivery, with very little manpower needs, is not far from reality.

Even our radio journalists in the local radio stations have had their jobs re-scoped. I was working with a lady, Lu-Ann from 938LIVE, and she now video-records her interviews with us, Members of Parliament, and presents reports in voice, video and other online writings as well. Such is the change.

Yes, as they say, embrace the digital economy or be left behind. Go digital or go home.

Groups at risk – there is indeed cause for concern for businesses and people who are at risk of being left behind in the future economy. They include our small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), our Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) and the lesser-skilled and unskilled employees amongst us. They are, after all, our own and are here to stay.

First up, is our SMEs which make up 99% of enterprises in Singapore and contributing more than 50% of our gross domestic product (GDP). By sheer size and presence, they cannot be ignored, and they have to drive our growth. Granted, many of them have moved up the league and are a lot more conscious and open to the need to upgrade, but even more of them are stuck. Remodel their business; fend off disruptive technology; move from value-adding to value-creation; use big data, use cloud computing, get into the Internet of Things – these are calls that are easier said than done for many of them.

Many SMEs are still concerned about the here and now – rental and manpower challenges. While they bemoan, the shake-outs continue. In the retail industry, brick and mortar stores are fast and furiously replaced by online stores. In the travel industry, tour operators continue to fold as travellers make their bookings online. Shake-outs are inevitable, but how can we reduce the numbers and how do we support those who finally exit?

The PMETS – at the individual level, there are still PMETs who are unsure of their place in the new economy. Many were not formerly exposed to the changes that are taking place.

A The Straits Times article in March 2016 reported that the group that was hardest hit by layoffs last year was our highly skilled and middle-aged employees who were seen by firms as too costly for their previous firms to retain and supposedly too old for prospective employees to hire. The days when PMETs who lost their jobs turned easily to the real estate, financial planning, insurance and even taxi-driving, are over.

Low-skilled and unskilled – it is a known fact that unskilled or low-skilled jobs will disappear. In my effort to find jobs for my low-skilled, lowly-paid elderly residents in the Central District as a Mayor, I was informed that even makers of the 手工包, or handmade buns, are replaced by machines in South China, for instance.

Our SMEs, PMETs and lower-skilled Singaporeans are at risk of being left behind. Do we give up easily? Do we tell them go digital, or go home, although we all know that there is nowhere else to go for many of them because this is where home is?

Madam, I have a few suggestions for consideration in this Budget.

First, on segmentation by ability, attitude and altitude. The first suggestion I have has to do with segmentation or adopting a less of a cookie-cutter approach when working with the groups of vulnerable SMEs, partners and individuals.

Madam, I fully understand the perspective that in the realm of business, the Government should meddle less and not interfere with the free market mechanism – shape up or ship out. My colleague, Assoc Prof Randolph Tan, said in Parliament yesterday that this is a matter of the head, and not the heart. However, because so many of our enterprises and people are involved, I would urge that one more layer of intervention be considered. Other than industry segmentation and partnering with trade associations, another dimension of segmentation must be considered. We must be even less cookie-cutter in our approach.

Profile the SMEs, PMETs, the lower-skilled workers and even the volunteer welfare organisations (VWOs) by three "A"s: one, the ability – current and potential ability, knowledge, skills and tools; two, their attitude – their willingness to update, upgrade; and three, their altitude – the vision, the ability to rise above themselves in the industry in the current terrain.

For the stars who possess all three "A"s – ability, attitude and altitude – the Government's key engagement strategy should be to facilitate and to open doors, so they can scale and soar. These stars may or may not be leading trade associations. They could be outliers. They may not toe the line or fall in place nicely with the rest of the industry. They may be trailblazers. They could be the Ubers in their own industry, disrupting current business models. We need to find a way to identity them so they could reach their peak.

Link them up with research and development (R&D) resources, angel investors or even global mentors; remove the barriers to performance which are within Government's circle of influence; create more Block 71 clusters to reduce the cost of business in rental and other shared corporate services such as in finance, legal and audit; develop even more mini Innovative Parks beyond the mega Jurong Innovation Park.

If they do not wish to be led by their trade associations, give them the creative licence and space to soar on their own. Invite them to join industry panels.

The second group – those with the Attitude and Ability but lack the vision at the moment and are at risk of being displaced, quickly guide and direct them to schemes and grants that can help them land firm and scale.

As for those with a willing Attitude, but lack the Ability, then, training comes into play.

For those who have the Ability but lack the willingness to change the Attitude, invest in counselling them, nudge them into action before giving up on them.

And then for those who have neither the Ability, Attitude nor the potential for Altitude, help them develop an exit strategy. They should not have been in the business in the first place.

Madam, my next suggestion is to make SkillsFuture the mantra for every Singaporean. I believe SkillsFuture is one of the best answers to prepare our businesses and people for our future. There is, however, an urgency to move the whole nation more quickly into the SkillsFuture mindset and action. Whilst the $500 SkillsFuture credit to every Singaporean is a great welcome, it serves as a nudge at best, and is no guarantee that it will lead to an innate desire to learn or to learn lifelong. The SkillsFuture must be more than active ageing training programmes. It must be more than meeting only the current sectoral manpower needs of businesses, although that is important.

While the Council works on the bigger pieces such as the Sectoral Manpower Plans, we need to convince the man in the street that Singapore's future jobs and the funding of our social safety nets depends on how future-proof each one of us is. We need to transform the mindsets and skillsets of as many Singaporeans as possible before it is too late.

Here are some suggestions.

First, beyond intellectual rationalisation, we need to develop a SkillsFuture Communication Matrix for communication strategies to reach Singaporeans from different backgrounds. We need to outreach with more everyday applications to show the importance and impact of SkillsFuture.

A Hokkien-speaking aunty running a fashion accessory shop in one of the markets in my division, told me recently when we were discussing about re-modelling and reducing the cost of business, she said "MP, we are already buying stock from the Internet" in Hokkien. This morning, I heard Love 97.2 radio deejay, Chen Jianbin, sharing that he now has to find ways for the audience to not just listen to his jokes, or 听他的笑话 , but also "see him making jokes" or 看他的笑话. So, these are applications, our SkillsFuture is already happening and we need to get the message out to the streets.

Second, from the thousands of choices in the SkillsFuture galore of courses, we need to be able to appoint coordinators, SkillsFuture Ambassadors who can identify, help curate and communicate the list of competencies that will enhance the Future-Readiness Quotient of businesses and especially people on the streets.

Third, we need to encourage and incentivise as many Singaporeans as possible from young to each own their personal Individual Future-Proof Development Plan with a Future-Ready Toolkit.

Fourth, we must make pervasive, freely accessible Future-Readiness Self-Assessment Toolkit and bite-sized tasters at convenient neighbourhood sites, the community centres or online, with courses such as:

Using video and voice applications such as Skype;

Taking great digital photos;

Setting up online stores from scratch;

Construct our own website;

Learn to Code;

Create simple Apps on the smartphone;

Make objects through customised 3-D printing;

Write for the Internet.

There is no end to what one can learn, regardless of age and language. We need to spread the message of the new economy more urgently to the man in the streets.

And, finally, let me move on to the subject of partnership. Typical of Minister Heng Swee Keat's style to listen and engage the ground, the theme of the Budget is termed "Partnership for the Future". And indeed, in a landscape that is featured by structural changes, disruptive technologies that can displace jobs easily and manpower constraints, the former top-down problem-solving approach by the Government can no longer suffice. While I truly appreciate the importance of partnership, I fear that unless we move towards a more enlightened form of partnership, the outcomes of the Budget may not be as effective as desired.

There are two things I would like to highlight.

First is the application of the enlightened form of partnership in the business arena. Whilst it makes sense to engage Trade or Clan Associations to take the lead in selected industries, we must not be overly rigid with this strategy. Trade associations, like other organisations, comprise of us mortals who may not all share the same vision or agree on the same tactics, and may be distracted by politics and personalities. It would be useful, as we pour more resources into industry-led transformations, to also set some targets that are co-shared by all the partners. We must allow space for SMEs with the ability, attitude and altitude to charter their paths – without insisting that they must toe the line of their industry associations.

Public officers who are supposed to be sent to assist the industries should preferably be senior enough to impact policy making. We should invite or even pay for successful global industry leaders to sit as advisors to industry panels which comprise the trade associations and the other member players.

In the Social Service sector, where Minister Heng has kindly created the Business and IPC Partnership Scheme (BIPS) to incentivise businesses to donate services in kind to IPCs and charities, I would caution against behaviour that may be counterproductive. Volunteering is, after all, about giving something back and not getting something back. Already, business consultants have started to issue advice to businesses to start reviewing their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategies or plans, so that they can enjoy greater tax deductions under this new scheme.

There is also a worry that if we are not careful, the BIPS would cannibalise what charities are currently receiving in much-needed cash donations. Those who used to donate in cash may now decide that service or volunteering is more pocket-friendly.

To this end, I would recommend a more targeted approach to direct corporations and donors to the known pain areas or the growth areas in the social service sector, areas such as:

Redesigning jobs for the elderly, the lower-skilled or even the unskilled.

Helping children with rare diseases and their families. I have seen many of them. Try visiting some of the families. Some of the young parents are really under a lot of stress and need a lot of help.

Others old and young who are severely disabled.

The homeless.

Those who are isolated elderly residents in many of our estates.

Need for pro bono accounting, audit and legal services.

Fundraising and marketing and even e-learning modules or curricular development for these special schools.

Do not limit the BIPS donations to only $50,000 for each VWO. For outfits that serve the very severely disabled, their needs are way beyond $50,000.

So, in summary, my suggestions are, first, on the triple "A" − the need to identify those with the ability, attitude and altitude − and help these potential trailblazers to trailblaze and soar; second, to make SkillsFuture a more pervasive phenomenon to the man-in-the-street; and third, for more enlightened partnerships.

In conclusion, Madam, I would like to thank the Minister for Finance, Mr Heng, for his inaugural Budget. This is a considered Budget that I know is the outcome of much of the Minister's style of listening to the ground. It is a balanced and sensible Budget that will play a large part in securing the future of our country and our people. Madam, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the Debate. Today, I would like to speak on four issues: first, the need for vigilance and heightened security in Singapore; second, the importance of providing flexible work arrangements for employees, especially for working mothers; third, reviewing existing property cooling measures for Singaporeans; and lastly, growing our total fertility rate (TFR) organically by promoting the process of adoption in Singapore.

Before delving into those four topics, I would like to share a few broad views about this Budget.

The Budget is significant. It is the second major announcement in this House post-GE 2015, following the President's Address earlier in January. The Budget displays a confident, clear and deliberate charting of fiscal policy for Singapore. That the Government, the Minister for Finance, is able to plan so methodically what Singapore's people and economy need is itself a major advantage, which so many other economies in the globe, unfortunately, do not possess. And that these fiscal policies have the financial fuel, that is, the money they require to be implemented and implemented well, that is indeed a rarity regionally, possibly even globally. We must never take such an eloquent and hard-earned fiscal position for granted. We should preserve tough-minded prudence in our Budget and fiscal planning.

Let me now address the four issues that I would like to speak on today.

First, the need for vigilance and heightened security in Singapore. In a recent poll done by The Sunday Times, it was found that three in four Singaporeans believe that it is only a matter of time before Singapore faces a terrorist attack. This echoes the sentiments of our Minister for Home Affairs and Law, who also acknowledged that it is, "no longer a question of whether an attack will take place but when an attack is going to take place in Singapore".

This is, indeed, illustrative of the climate of heightened security that we are presently experiencing. Singapore no longer faces the same conventional threats that she faced some 10, 20 years ago. Instead, we now face threats from non-state actors like ISIS, who spread fear and discord through domestic terrorism. We also face the self-radicalisation of individuals through social media and the Internet. This has made the threat of terrorism more insidious than other threats that we have faced in the past.

I believe that the best way to address these threats effectively is to have both hard and soft measures in place. On the one hand, we need to have the wherewithal of a good military and Home Team to detect and deter any threats beyond our shores, and to ensure that we have a safe and secure Singapore. On the other, we need to win the hearts and minds of Singaporeans so that should the threat of terrorism materialise here, we will be ready to stand united as a nation.

The aim of terrorists is often to inflict maximum fear and to divide society. Given Singapore's multi-ethnic, multiracial and multi-religious make-up, it is particularly important that any potential instance of domestic terrorism does not sow discord or distrust between our different communities. To achieve this, consistent efforts must be taken to build strong bonds between the different ethnic communities, and the strengthening of our multiracial national fabric must be made a priority.

In light of this, has the Government considered whether there are areas where more needs to be done to beef up our internal security to deal with the threat of terrorism? What is being done to plug any gaps in our internal security framework?

Ultimately, our ability to deal with the threat of terrorism effectively will depend on how we choose to respond as a country in the aftermath of an attack. We cannot take our peace for granted. Singaporeans, the Government and local authorities must work hand-in-hand to keep Singapore safe, and to prepare ourselves for the possibility of an attack happening here. If we get our security right, that base plate right, then we can talk about the economy.

This leads me to the second part of my speech: providing flexible work arrangements (FWAs) for employees, especially for working mothers. In recent years, the Government has worked closely with the tripartite partners, through the Tripartite Committee (TriCom) on Work-Life Strategy, to promote the adoption of FWAs in the workplace.

And it is heartening to know that we are starting to see the results of these efforts. In January this year, the Minister for Manpower shared that the proportion of employers providing at least one form of FWA for their employees has steadily increased from 28% in 2008 to 47% in 2014. I see this as a positive indication that employers are starting to recognise the value of providing flexibility to their employees.

However, I would like to highlight the importance of these FWAs for working mothers. As the labour force participation rate for women continues to increase every year, employers need to understand and appreciate the importance of adopting good workplace practices that help working mothers to balance family and work commitments.

In particular, mothers with newborns need help to adjust back to working life after their maternity leave, and it may take time for them to strike the right balance between their responsibilities at work and at home. As such, in the interim, employers need to be compassionate to these working mothers as they learn to cope with work and added family responsibilities.

Besides reducing time spent at work or their workload, flexibility can also be applied in terms of working time, for example, allowing for staggered hours and shorter work weeks, and work location, for example, allowing working mothers to telecommute. By doing so, more mothers can return to the workforce and increase their family income without compromising on their family life.

In his speech during the Debate on the President's Address, Mr Desmond Choo proposed that the Government consider providing working mothers with the legislated right for an additional eight weeks of FWAs. I support this proposal. In fact, I believe that the Government should consider taking it one step further.

I am proposing that working mothers be given the option to choose between either taking an additional eight weeks of flexi-work or an additional eight weeks of no-pay leave. This will give mothers more time at home to bond with their newborn and would also allow them to breastfeed for at least six months, which is the recommended period according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Further, under this proposal, employers will not be financially disadvantaged as they would not have to pay them during the eight-week period of unpaid leave. In fact, some employers may prefer to give these working mothers the eight weeks of unpaid leave because it makes it easier for them to forecast manpower needs.

In light of this, would the Government consider legislating this option for working mothers to choose between either having eight weeks of unpaid leave or having eight weeks of FWAs after the current 16 weeks of maternity leave?

These measures can go a long way towards helping working mothers integrate their work with their personal and family life. It is my hope that employers will continue to show compassion and understanding to their employees, especially working mothers, and will work towards exploring innovative ways to provide FWAs for their employees.

Third, the need for a timely review of existing property cooling measures. While the Government has been successful in stabilising the property market through the introduction of the Additional Buyers Stamp Duty (ABSD) and the Total Debt Service Ratio (TDSR), the lacklustre property market that we see today is rather different from the overheated property market back in 2012 and 2013, when these measures were first introduced.

In light of this change in circumstances, I believe that it is time for the Government to seriously consider reviewing and easing some of the existing property cooling measures.

However, I understand and appreciate that the Government will want to be cautious and will be keen to adopt a calibrated approach in reviewing the property cooling measures that are currently in place. As such, would the Government consider the gradual and calibrated approach of removing ABSDs for Singaporean buyers, while still retaining the TDSR for Singaporeans and retaining the ABSDs for foreigners?

Let me explain why I believe this should be done. First, by retaining the TDSR, a Singaporean is only going to be allowed a credit line that is within his means. This should allay any concerns that easing the property cooling measures will cause a surge in Singaporeans purchasing second or third properties when they may not be able to do so.

Further, if a Singaporean is able to afford a second or third property through the TDSR regime, why should he be taxed with an ABSD? Lastly, by retaining the ABSD for foreigners, we ensure that the foreigners will not enter the Singaporean property market in an overly speculative way.

If the Government is concerned that removing the existing property cooling measures may cause the market to surge upward exponentially, perhaps the Government would also consider adapting the Australian model in Singapore, which I have raised in this House before.

The benefits of this model are that it discourages foreigners from engaging in an overly speculative way as foreigners are only allowed to buy new property, and are only able to sell that property back to domestic buyers. This discourages speculation by foreigners because they will not buy property at a price that they would not be able to sell it back to a local for.

As such, adapting the Australian model to Singapore could help to deter speculative or overly speculative behaviour by foreigners in the market while the property market starts to pick up after the review of the existing property cooling measures, which review should contemplate the suggested removal of ABSDs for Singaporean buyers, in my view.

So far, Madam, I have raised Defence – the need for heightened vigilance; Manpower – the need to tap on the immense potential of our working mothers; and Homes – the need to safeguard against overly speculative behaviour of foreigners in our property market. But to do all this, we need to grow our TFR, so that we will have a Singaporean core who will be able to staff and push for key initiatives for Singapore.

This leads me to the next point – inculcating a culture of adoption in Singapore. In recent years, our TFR has been much lower than it has needed to be. As Singapore's population continues to age, the effects of having such a low TFR will continue to affect our economy in the years to come. Therefore, I would like to speak about how we can promote the loving, nurturing and voluntary alternative of adoption to pregnant mothers who might be thinking about terminating their pregnancies.

Many of these women may not be aware of, or might not have thought about, the option of adoption. I believe that the option of adoption could be publicised more widely, and greater efforts can be made to provide pregnant women with information about the wonderful and voluntary alternative of adoption.

Currently, it is mandatory for all women, regardless of nationality, educational status and number of children, seeking to terminate their pregnancy in Singapore to undergo pre-abortion counselling. It is my hope that these pre-abortion counselling sessions can be an avenue to provide pregnant mothers with further information about adoption. By understanding the process and the benefits of adoption better, pregnant mothers will be able to make an informed decision when considering an abortion.

I strongly believe that if adoption is more widely publicised as a comforting, loving, nurturing and voluntary alternative, there will be a reduced number of abortions in Singapore. Therefore, would the Government consider promoting adoption as a voluntary alternative for a mother who is thinking of abortion?

The promotion of adoption could also have the happy result of increasing our TFR organically. I have heard stories of Singaporean couples trying for a baby for many years and are open to adopting a child. I have heard also of stories of Singaporean couples who have children who are also open to adopting a child. If the option of adoption were to be publicised more extensively, then these couples would be able adopt and raise the child as one of their own.

More than that, adoption does not only help couples who are unable to conceive, as there are many couples who already have birth children of their own who are open to adopting another child. Indeed, there are many wholesome, loving and beautiful traits in adoption, not just for the family seeking to adopt, but also for the adopted child who can grow and be nurtured in a loving family environment. After all, the choice of an adoption is a voluntary choice that a pregnant mother has to make, and we must do all that we can to support her as she makes an informed choice.

In conclusion, Madam, the initiatives introduced in this year's Budget are timely and forward-looking. This year's Budget strikes a good balance between initiatives that boost the economy, like the introduction of the SME Working Capital Loan scheme and the Automation Support Package, and also includes measures to strengthen our social safety nets like the enhancements to the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme and the implementation of the Silver Support Scheme.

All of these initiatives require prudent fiscal planning and a healthy Budget. I hope due consideration can be given to proposals that I have raised in my speech when the Ministries are planning and rolling out their programmes in the coming year. I believe that with good fiscal, economic and social policies in place, we will be well placed to chart our future together as a nation – Government partnering Singaporeans; Singaporeans partnering Government. I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I will speak first in my mother tongue and official vernacular, Tamil.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, may I first of all extend my salutations to you and to the respected Members of this House.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to read the words from a poem during the Sangam period by great Tamil poet, philosopher and humanist Avvaiyar. She said, "ஒப்புர வொழுகு", which means that "one should change one's goals and oneself to adapt to the changing world". Her work called Aathichoodi contains 108 single-lined quotations. I read the words "ஒப்புர வொழுகு" in line 10 earlier.

The Budget debate stands on the footing of this principle that was written thousands of years ago. Based on this principle, we should focus on the importance of education, resilience and innovation.

Mdm Speaker, let me continue to speak in English. Thank you.

(In English): Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat has put forward a Budget which seeks to address near-term cyclical weaknesses and guard against medium-term structural challenges. I think the Committee on the Future Economy, Ministries and agencies have their work cut out for them. He said that we should "muster resources, to innovate, scale up and internationalise". I commend the Minister and the Ministry. It is a call which we and the stakeholders and constituents whom we may represent must heed as members of Singapore's business, professions, Government and society.

The call for productivity is not new nor are well-founded fears that we live in decidedly challenging times. We are accustomed to our inherent limitations as a small, low-lying island State. We are also aware of heightened security threats. The hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza reminded us just moments ago – natural disasters of historic proportions in Asia and the re-emergence of geopolitical turmoil in Eastern Europe and the Middle East highlight the need for collective action.

But I would like to focus on the acknowledgment that the Minister has made in his Budget speech. He acknowledged that our economic transformation is not a choice, but a means for our survival. That is a very significant acknowledgment and I would say it is a relatively new acknowledgment as well.

At this point, I would like to perhaps depart slightly from the learned hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza who earlier said that before we can have the economy, the first thing we have to get right is security. I would add that, unfortunately for Singapore, we do not have the luxury of seeing them separately; both need to be met at the same time. Our base plate places three things on equal par. First, of course, the economy; second, security; and third, I would say, compassion for our people. All three are equally important.

Yesterday, the hon Member Ms Foo Mee Har rightly drew our attention to the consecutive deficits we have experienced in the past four financial years. It is something that gives us pause for thought as we decide to increase our expenditure even further. Other Members yesterday have highlighted the plight of those of us who may be inadvertently left behind, or perhaps "sandwiched". I think we have to think carefully as we go forward. It is time for our economic strategy, which we have exported for a very long time as the "Singapore Model" to be transformed, as Minister Heng puts it, to be re-calibrated, forged afresh in light of the new and fresh projected developments and changes we now face.

In response to the transformative spirit of Minister Heng's speech, I would like to focus on two aspects: the reference to innovation and the one to resilience as imperatives for Singaporeans, going forward. I agree they are crucial, but would like to note that these two ideas or principles are not precise science; there is an art about them.

In an increasingly fast-changing and interconnected world, fostering resilience to withstand unexpected shocks is becoming more important. The effects of financial crisis still linger, as do prospects of further financial seismic shifts to come.

I want to consider what resilience means and why it must be instilled in the education process from an early age and at all levels. In the discipline of psychology, resilience is defined as "that ineffable quality that allows some people to be knocked down by life and to come back stronger than ever". Rather than letting failure overcome them and drain their resolve, they find a way to rise up from their woes.

Resilience forsakes grand narratives. It requires flexibility to thrive and to be kept alive. Productivity and resilience have some things in common. Box-ticking exercises; rehashing old routines; staying in the office past 10.00 pm just for the sake of appearance, for example, are not resilience and they will not yield productivity.

In short, resilience means we have to have grit. It means having Paralympics gold medalist Yip Pin Xiu's courage to never give up. It means having mountain climber and pro bono medical surgeon Dr Kumaran Rasappan's verve to scale new heights. And to me, resilience means being a lifetime supporter of Liverpool Football Club. It teaches you never to give up.

On a serious note, Singapore has been recognised as only one of 100 resilient cities throughout the world. This recognition was by the Rockefeller Foundation in New York. This initiative of having 100 resilient cities supports the adoption and incorporation of a view of resilience that includes not just the ability to respond to the usual shocks – earthquakes, fires, floods and so on – but also the stresses that may weaken the fabric of a city on a daily or cyclical basis.

Singapore has to be able to brace for shocks and stresses as a nation. They can take and have taken several forms – transboundary haze pollution, infrastructural failure, civil disturbances, cyber-attacks and economic crises. Building resilience – the ability to bounce back quickly and effectively – is an urgent social and economic issue and one that unites many countries and cities all throughout the world. I support the Budget speech's emphasis on resilience.

I have a few suggestions though and these pertain to education. The first point would be, as we build new facilities, for example, the Outward Bound Singapore (OBS) campus at Coney Island – which I support – I think we have to look beyond. Having an OBS campus at Coney Island is all well and good, but why do we not send our youth beyond Singapore or beyond Singapore's Sisters' Islands? Send them to other countries in the Asia Pacific to cut their teeth.

Minister Heng has noted in his speech that "we are in the center of the Asian growth story: China, India and ASEAN are expected to grow" exponentially. I would say more about this in my cut for the Committee of Supply (COS) debate in time to come, but I think this also is a clarion call for other agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and societal organisations in our country.

Surely, the Singapore International Foundation has a role to play towards ensuring that our youth are toughened up through real-life challenges, so they are strong by OBS, but they have to be intellectually rigorous as well and they have to think out of the box. I commend going beyond adventure training, and having adventures safe in the knowledge that this spirit of adventure will build character for our young and will create future leaders of business, science, government and society.

Singaporeans, particularly our youth, need to be given a chance to show how rigorous they can be, intellectually and physically. The SkillsFuture programme is one means to do this, as is the Adapt and Grow initiative. I commend the Jurong Innovation District which the Minister had suggested as a "space for entrepreneurs, researchers and students to design, prototype, and test-bed their new ideas". I would add though, that when we have a new space, we should take a step back before ploughing forward.

I point here first to hon Member Mr Leon Perera who spoke about why benchmarking is important for SMEs. SkillsFuture is good. Having a district of their own is very important, but what benchmark do we say to show which businesses could thrive, which may fail, and what we can do for them?

He makes good points worthy of our consideration, as does hon Member Ms Denise Phua who very succinctly talked about ability, agility and altitude. At this point, can I just say on the point of altitude – as lawmakers and policymakers in the House, it is often a suggestion from people in Singapore, including SMEs and businesses, that we may fly at a high altitude. We are not quite on the same ground level to receive their concerns. Perhaps this should be borne in mind as we plough forward.

Focusing on this exciting new idea of a Jurong Innovation District, it looks set to be Singapore's Silicon Valley, a Mecca for talented entrepreneurs looking to make their mark. It is marvellous. But I add that as it is in Silicon Valley, research and planning is just one part of the enterprise. In Silicon Valley, there is, increasingly, a concentrated business cycle that requires all the companies there to be nimble, calculated and quick in their judgement and execution. There is a very fast turnaround in Silicon Valley.

Can I just say a few words by Stanford University Economics Professor Yossi Feinberg? He says this, "The best entrepreneurs prove the value of being able to set clear, long-term objectives and weigh up risk effectively against these objectives. That is no mean feat. For this reason, beneath the skin of the typical entrepreneur is often a stressed individual under intense pressure to pluck the right choices from a plethora of information. Just like the rest of us, these people have no innate intellectual ability that allows them to glide through work or life."

I would fully agree with the sentiment. The Jurong Innovation District aims to give our entrepreneurs, our Silicon Valley professionals, some guidance. I think this guidance is very, very important. Innovation cannot be induced by "intense pressure". You cannot tell someone, "Please be innovative". To truly support and equip innovators, we cannot just provide seed funding or pair them up with venture capitalists alone, as much as they would like that. We must focus on ensuring education and skills development by giving them the room to find inspiration in the company of like-minded individuals.

Significantly, they should be able to have a grasp of, among other things, corporate ethics and corporate responsibility; the value and basics of intellectual property rights and patents; and, as many of us in this House have agreed in the past couple of days, proper action-oriented tutelage from experts, other businessmen and technocrat entrepreneurs who can guide them.

All of this should begin in secondary school and junior college or, perhaps, even at a younger level. But they must obviously continue through polytechnic and tertiary or university education. The change we need to usher in this education process is for more action-oriented research projects, not just writing but doing. I would say that while ICT is an important sector to begin, it must look beyond the ICT sector. Having a clear business model with a route to profitability is the norm for most successful new enterprises and business ventures. This should be developed and strengthened from the get-go.

A can-do attitude is a trait that is observed obviously in all entrepreneurs. But it is just a beginning or a seedling of innovation. It cannot, by itself, give rise to innovative projects and products.

As we create new agencies, bodies and spaces, let us remember that we must also actualise our current and traditional nodes of education and skills development – our higher level education and tertiary institutions. All the universities in Singapore have enterprise and innovation hubs or laboratories for companies and organisations to collaborate with technology experts and students in industry projects. My fellow Nominated Member, Ms Chia Yong Yong, has put forward a compelling suggestion for greater synergy between research institutes and business. I would fully agree with this.

Remarkable projects are being beta-tested at every level in Singapore and more should be known about this. These projects come from a variety of disciplines as diverse as architecture, engineering, business, political science and law. Innovation should pervade all these sectors. If I may, I would suggest to the Ministry and to the Minister, as we look at SG Innovate as a point or a node for ourselves, to look at other entities such as the Royal Society of Science and the British Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences.

I look at these as examples because they are not universities per se. They are research institutes that traverse all universities in the UK. The best ideas are housed, developed and fertilised there. That could be a role that SG Innovate plays − to inculcate, develop and hot-house some of the best ideas from all universities.

Closer to home, I would also add that perhaps we should look at the Young Outstanding Singaporeans who have been awarded over the years for the past 40 years. I note, for example, that the hon Member Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef is one such example of a Young Outstanding Singaporean, who represented Singapore at the World Congress. My point is that we have had innovators for a long time, it is not new to Singapore, and these innovators who are in our midst must be engaged with. SG Innovate will be that node, hopefully, to link thought leaders, innovators and liaise with our existing professional academies, businesses and universities.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, Minister Heng made reference to an interesting metaphor in his speech. He said that "everyone has a role, and together, we are weaving a rich tapestry – each thread a different colour and texture, but woven together to give strength and resilience to our economy and our society".

This metaphor is apt. But I would caution against assuming the tapestry is ordained or static. Tapestry is art, not science. The artisan's craft of weaving rich texture and producing a masterpiece cannot be overshadowed by our administration's focus on the mapping of professional or business standards to produce a good short-term product. It must have the long term in view, always. It cannot be exciting today, gone tomorrow. We must understand that tapestry will have its fair share of artistic blocks, changing perspectives, agendas and unanticipated outcomes.

Many Members have spoken about the importance of a Singaporean Core everywhere − in business and in society. To remain relevant, our art must been seen as a batik. It cannot be seen as something from another country. There is no transplant for us. We must adapt it; it can never be perfect.

As I began with a Tamil poem, let me end with a few words from a poem we might recognise.

Asst Prof, you have run out of time.

Thank you very much, Mdm Speaker. Obliged.

Mdm Speaker, I welcome this Budget. I am glad that the Government has decided to opt for an expansionary fiscal policy this year with 7.3% higher total spending over last year. We are indeed fortunate that we can afford such an increase due to increases in both Operating Revenue and higher Net Investment Returns Contributions (NIRC).

Can the Government provide more details of the projects to be launched this year with the fiscal expansion and how many of them are likely to benefit our local SMEs? I hope the Government will look into launching proportional higher number of projects that can be undertaken by SMEs which employ about 70% of Singaporean workforce.

I am looking forward to the changes the Industry Transformation Programme can bring to our business landscape. It aims to offer a more targeted and sector-focused approach to restructure our companies and drive their growth through productivity gains and innovation. I certainly hope that our SMEs will be proactive in their approach to these new measures and work with the Government agencies to take their business to the next level. Many companies are so focused on their day-to-day operations or meeting deadlines that they fail to take advantage of the benefits of the various schemes the Government has launched due to their circumstances. It is also challenging for them to make the short-term adjustments which are inconvenient but necessary for them to progress.

The present economic environment presents a good opportunity for many companies to leverage on the low commodity prices and work on projects with reduced costs of production. However, while their businesses benefit, they risk having lower revenues, too, in view of aggravated downward pressure due to lower material prices while faced with high capital outlay made in the last few years.

Hence, we have to be careful when we measure productivity based on revenue or by its face value. Companies may have to work doubly hard to obtain the same revenue. Hence, our enterprises have to move to secure higher value jobs to compensate for the downward pressure of costs. At the same time, companies still have to tackle significant business costs, like rent which can be reduced further. For example, JTC can set the lead to bring down the cost component as it is a major player in the market.

Great efforts by Government agencies with strong support from Singaporeans continue to be warranted to attract and bring in quality investment that can give Singaporeans the five "C"s – namely, comparative advantages, competitive edges, competencies, capabilities and capacities that can generate quality and well-paying jobs for Singaporeans. Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I welcome the move by the Government to raise the income ceiling of the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) from $1,900 to $2,000, benefiting about 460,000 Singaporeans. In addition, the Government will also start paying WIS on a monthly basis instead of quarterly. This measure is welcomed by workers as they can receive WIS more quickly. Another welcome measure is that workers now only need to work for one month to qualify. Raising the income ceiling and simplifying the qualifying criteria will provide financial support for workers, and helping more workers to keep their jobs. Amid the current economic uncertainties, these measures are very timely. It is like "sending charcoal in a snowy day".

I also support the measures to enable persons with disabilities who is above 13 years old to be eligible for the Workfare Training Support (WTS) Scheme. Through working, persons with disabilities also hope to have a career, live a meaningful life and contribute to the family and the country. We therefore should give them more support.

(In English): Next, on the subject of levy increases for S Pass holders in every sector and work permit holders in the construction and services sectors. While I can understand the rationale behind this decision, I feel that we must be cautious towards over-reliance on foreign workers. The impact on business costs is substantial and comes during a time when businesses are facing more difficult and challenging conditions. I feel strongly that we should rethink and keep in view the levy increases for all the businesses for this year. Higher levies just add onto the business cost burden without necessarily resulting in the desired productivity gains.

This brings me to the next subject of improvements in productivity. There are various Government assistance schemes to help our companies work towards gains in productivity. However, there are cases when a company just does not know how to go about improving its productivity, let alone access the appropriate schemes. Also, different sectors have different problems, and within each sector, companies serve different niches which present their own unique problems.

I appeal to the Government to provide expertise to our local enterprises to help improve their productivity as part of an entire ecosystem overhaul. This will be a much more proactive approach and will underscore how seriously we view the problem of low productivity gains and our collective determination to overcome this challenge.

Another issue which we have to address urgently is the growing number of PMETs who have been retrenched. The middle and older PMETs are particularly hard hit, and this is a group usually with mortgages to service and still supporting children in school and elderly parents – the typical sandwiched class. I am deeply concerned with the re-employability of these middle aged or older PMETs as they tend to be vulnerable in an economic downturn, becoming the easy choice of the company's cost-cutting restructuring measures rather than exhausting other alternatives, such as collective wage freeze and adjustment.

I urge the Government to explore incentivising employers instead to keep the jobs for all these experienced PMETs.

Mdm Speaker; the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) runs a Professional Conversion Programme to help jobseekers re-skill themselves and to gain the necessary knowledge and competencies to take on new skills. Unfortunately, this programme does not guarantee the same pay for the workers.

Perhaps, we should allocate more funds to the Career Support Programme (CSP) which offers more opportunities to mature Singaporean PMETs for mid-level and above jobs. The CSP has a wage support component and makes it attractive for employers to hire such individuals in any job that pays a gross salary of at least $4,000 a month.

With business cycles getting shorter, skills can become obsolete very quickly. SkillsFuture will come in very useful, not just for our PMETs, but all Singaporean workers. SkillsFuture will keep our workforce updated and versatile and well-equipped to meet the evolving demands of the job market. The quality of our workforce will play an essential role in attracting investments to Singapore. And, of course, the Government must continue to work hard to bring in good quality investments which will provide good jobs with attractive salaries or wages for Singaporeans.

While we could possibly equip Singaporeans with skill mastery, multi-skill sets as well as lifelong skills learning in meeting the dynamism and rapid changing economic challenges, it may be necessary for all of us to rethink of our pursuits in life. This may mean it warrants a further review of our long-term commitment in life, such as HDB and private property prices. It may be prudent to reduce the property loan tenure to not more than 20 years in meeting shorter skill life with the advent of technological advancement and stiff market competition.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciation for the various measures which support families with children. The Child Development Account (CDA) First Step grant, the KidSTART initiative and the Fresh Start Housing Scheme are thus useful and helpful. However, we would probably not see any significant increase in the number of babies next year.

For our fertility rate to improve, we would need to invest more in building up our infant care and childcare infrastructure and system. While it is relatively easy to hire foreign domestic workers to look after babies, there is also a demand for good infant care. Finding such services in convenient locations and with well-trained staff is not easy.

When I was a child, I recall that it was quite common to find homemakers who are also nannies. Today, there are far fewer women doing this work. The main reason is that women are better educated and have better opportunities in their careers. Parents have shared with me that sometimes, both husband and wife need to work late or travel overseas, and it would be ideal if they can leave their young children in their usual infant or childcare centres beyond the current operating hours. Nannies, compared to centres, are usually more flexible. Would the Government look into possible solutions for this problem? Twenty-four-hour care services will also be helpful for workers who work shift work.

Alternatively, some parents leave their children in the care of their elderly parents. As a token of recognition for their contribution, the Government may wish to consider allowing them to claim the subsidies which would have been claimed by infant or childcare centres. I do not consider this to be monetising something which many grandparents do for the young in their families. Rather, the money would help to ease the burden of the young parents in raising a family. With this, I conclude with my support for the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, I welcome the Budget as it is an inclusive Budget and seeks to bring Singapore beyond SG50. It calls upon the partnership of all Singaporeans to work together in new ways to transform our economy and build a caring and resilient society.

Let me now touch on the vulnerable workforce – the workers in transition.

As our economy transforms, we will have to transform ourselves. During this period, the vulnerable group needs the most help. This group includes low-wage workers, women workers and mid-career individuals who take on new jobs, and more needs to be done to ensure that they are taken care of.

Retirement adequacy continues to be a challenge for the low-wage workers, and more so for the women. Statistically speaking, women are expected to live longer than men. This means more retirement savings is needed so that we can age gracefully with peace of mind and with dignity and vitality.

For the older or senior women in Singapore today, many have not worked in the formal economy or have suffered from a gender wage gap in their earlier working years. For this group, the Silver Support Scheme that will begin in July will serve as a good supplement to their retirement income in addition to the existing support schemes, such as MediShield Life and Pioneer Generation Package.

For the women workers, it is important that they are given fair opportunities at the workplace, while continuing to care for their families at home. The family unit is the basic building block of a thriving nation. Our families give us support and keep us grounded, and women continue to play a larger role in the families. However, striking a balance is not easy and more needs to be done for the women workers to ensure equal opportunities in placement and career progression.

Women should be given stronger support to be able to pursue our different definitions of success. Women should not be fearful of "sacrificing their careers" for a family if they are given the right to request for flexible work arrangements (FWAs) or given equal opportunities when back to work.

Against the backdrop of a slowing economy, will this vulnerable group be faced with more challenges?

The Workforce Development Agency's (WDA) Professional Conversion Programme (PCP), which helps jobseekers re-skill themselves to take on new jobs has helped many to switch career pathways. However, more support can be given to not just companies but also individuals as many often suffer pay cuts when they change career paths, voluntarily or not.

For example, a 58-year-old union member, who was a Senior Clinic Supervisor took up a nursing diploma course but was only given training allowance of $1,000. While she can look forward to better career progression, as the sole breadwinner of the family, it is challenging having to cope with daily expenses for the family and, at the same time, upgrade herself to make sure there is retirement adequacy towards her silver age.

More can be done to strengthen the PCP by making sure that there is close collaboration amongst all the stakeholders. A concerted tripartite effort can create a stronger support network for this group of people. A hands-on approach from the agency to offer not just training grants but also psychological support and guidance can help acclimatise workers quicker in different workplace environments. They can also be paired with mentors to share insights before, during and after the programme. Unions can also complement such efforts. Also, to ensure that drop-out rates are low, the selection process of such programmes must take into consideration an individual's capability and aptitude levels.

Allow me to share another example of how psychological support, guidance and help by all parties – union, management, family and friends, and society at large – had helped an accountant in his 50s to have successfully completed PCP many years back. In the past, it is called "SMCP". This achievement was not without a challenge. He did well in his academic programme which included a hospital attachment. However, after commencing work, he was not able to cope and adapt in a fast-paced ward environment. There was a constant struggle to the extent that he was in a state of depression and did not know who to turn to until he met up with the union. He needed a pillar of support to lean on and a listening ear to hear his struggles. With much discussion with the management, he was then given another opportunity to show his ability in a smaller ward that was less demanding, in terms of workload. He was then able to cope and subsequently shone to take on higher responsibility. He is a living example of how age is not a barrier and resilience is the key to success. Now, he has been successful to the extent that he was further given the opportunity to take up advanced diploma in nursing and he was glad that he stayed on in this meaningful career to care for the patients. Mdm Speaker, I would like to now speak in Tamil.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Like this accountant, there are many workers who face changes in their workplaces. Some endure because of their passion, some may return to their previous industries when opportunities are made available, and some may give up. They have a common quality. They have made the first step to learn a new skill. They can only succeed with the help and cooperation of all stakeholders, such as the workers, workers' union and the Government.

Every worker's story can be a success story. For this, it is necessary to have the support of the tripartite partners.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, I would like to now switch over to English. I would be talking about inculcating the culture of lifelong learning.

Change is a constant. The economy will continue to transform itself and our jobs will constantly evolve. Learning must never stop.

Our education system has brought us this far, but in the era of rapid changes, we need to have a certain level of nimbleness and agility. We need to inculcate a culture of lifelong learning so that we can be future-ready with future skills. So, how can we be the catalyst of this mindset change? Does our ecosystem allow our people to be independent; to plan for our career; to adapt to changes; to take on new skills every few years; and to constantly learn, unlearn and relearn?

What better way can one do this then tapping on the slew of grants offered under the SkillsFuture initiatives, beginning with the SkillsFuture Credit. Perhaps, to better support the workers in their endeavour to learn new skill, both the Government and employers too, are encouraged to top up the individual's SkillsFuture Credit account. With this, workers especially those who wish to take up courses on their own to upgrade or even switch industries can use this to pay for their courses.

There are others who may not be forthcoming to attend courses or learning as a whole due to long hours of work and the need to work overtime almost daily. For such workers, bite-sized programmes can be another approach to keeping them relevant to the needs of the current skills as well as future skills.

We need to be open and accept that individuals are different and therefore we need to employ different strokes for different folks.

Let me touch on SMEs – building the Singaporean Core. The initiatives announced at this year's Budget to help and support the SMEs is much welcomed. This will help many SMEs to transform to grow together with our economy. However, such measures, while prolonging the survival of some enterprises, may lull workers working in such enterprises from understanding the need to upgrade them to be future-ready with future skills as they get complacent in their current job.

What is alarming is, workers working in SMEs are largely Singaporeans. Hence, how can we ensure that workers in these enterprises are upskilled through the slew of programmes and initiatives offered by WDA, especially the SkillsFuture initiative, so that SMEs can continue to have an effective Singapore core in their workforce? How can we advise and guide such enterprises? How can we render early help and better assist the workers working in such enterprises?

Let me now turn to the plight of the middle-income earners. On middle-income earners who are in vulnerable situations, there must be some safety net in dire times should our economy become more sluggish. More needs to be done to assist them in between jobs, especially if the job search takes more than six months to a year, or even more. Many middle-income earners, commonly known as the sandwich class, whom I have interacted with, had expected tax rebate this year. Of the many with families, there are singles that support the aged parents and, in some cases, those who support the siblings who are physically challenged. Why is there no tax rebate for the middle-income earners this year?

This is the question that ponders in the mind of the sandwich class as they strongly believe that with the tax rebate, such workers can then have something for their savings and help in their family financial chaos. Thank you, Mdm Speaker. With this, I support the Motion.

Mdm Speaker, this is the first Budget that allows the Government to tap on Temasek's Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) alongside the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and GIC, presenting the Government with a cumulative total of $14.7 billion. This is a substantial increase of about 48% from the NIRC of $9.9 billion at the Government's disposal last year and has given this Government more leeway and flexibility to implement its plans, with the $3.4 billion surplus as well.

Mdm Speaker, the focus of my speech is to persuade the Government to consider a deeper discussion of fiscal prudence and the trade-offs in determining our Budget priorities. By doing so, we can have a richer discussion on the Budget and my speech will seek to provide some suggestions on the contours of such a discussion.

As with almost all Budget announcements made over the last few years in particular, it is usually followed by a discussion in some quarters, especially in commentaries and forum pages, about whether the Government is turning populist, if welfare is taking root in Singapore, or a combination of similar themes. Very seldom are fears of welfare accompanied by a look at the overall fiscal state of affairs and both in the short and long term.

The additional details in this Budget about the Silver Support package exemplify a recognition by the Government that there are many Singaporeans – more than 140,000 of them, in fact – who are not adequately equipped for retirement and live precarious lives, perhaps, not only physically, but more significantly, even mentally.

The total expenditure for this year's Budget comes up to $73 billion. The $330 million expended on the Silver Support Package will rise in the years to come because of our demographic profile. To put things in some perspective, the State collects $2.2 billion a year in gaming revenue. Our vulnerable elderly deserve to retire with dignity. This must be a central social objective of the Singapore system.

No discussion of financial prudence can escape the important behavioural question of ensuring our society retains a positive work ethic with permanent schemes like Silver Support and Workfare. However, this question should be posed with a sense of not just perspective, but also proportion, in view of the demographic transition in Singapore and the structural changes that come with economic transformation, both of which will become more apparent in the years to come.

How can we better approach a discussion on the Budget going forward?

Firstly, the evolution of technology and data analytics ought to make discussions on Budget projection generate more light rather than heat. In the same way, the Ministry of Defense (MINDEF) human resource planners can project with sufficient granularity the number of men that will serve National Service (NS) in about 20 years' time, and as a consequence, determine the force size and structure to a reasonable degree, a richer public debate on permanent schemes like Silver Support can take shape if we assess the sustainability of such schemes with a long-term perspective in mind. This would help the public better understand the overall costs and sustainability of such schemes rather than leave it to conjecture.

For example, a more coherent and holistic public debate on the pros and cons of potentially expanding Workfare can also take place if the public is presented with tools to better understand how much such permanent initiatives are likely to cost years down the road. Many Singaporeans have in the past suggested tweaking Workfare to raise the cash component. Currently, a 50-year-old employee earning $1,800 on Workfare gets an additional $9 in cash and $13 in CPF contributions every month, with the amount payable every quarter, subject to the number of months he or she remains employed.

However, an important consideration in the context of fiscal prudence, and understanding such permanent schemes better could be, for example, an exercise that compares raising the WIS payout amounts as compared against the initiative announced in this year's budget which increases the income eligibility threshold from $1,900 to $2,000. How many additional Singaporeans would benefit by this threshold rise and is there scope to further raise the payouts under WIS, and if so, what would be the specific impact on the Budget, and would it be wise? Such enquiries will make the public better appreciate the trade-offs and operationalise the meaning of fiscal prudence.

A second trend that often repeats itself prior to the Budget debate is the wishes of specific industries or industry leaders who call for more reliefs or taxpayer support. What we do not see much of is the debate about whether some companies have grown to expect the equivalence of constant assistance or "welfare" from the State, without the same scrutiny extended to permanent schemes for the needy or less well-off.

Like permanent schemes that help individual Singaporeans, a fuller public discussion on fiscal prudence should also extend to companies and industries, and enquire whether Budget initiatives indeed achieve the policy outcomes that they were intended for. For example, it would be helpful for the Government to set out how much the Productivity and Innovation Credit scheme (PIC) has actually improved productivity numbers or even spurred innovation, even as this year's Budget heralds a reduction of PIC payouts going forward. This is relevant, as even the Government has acknowledged that some companies have used their PIC credits to buy equipment they do not need. Fiscal sustainability would also require accounting for the extent of such leakage and unintended consequences as well.

The lessons learnt from the shortcomings of the PIC scheme should be transferred to the Budget's announcement of the three-year $400 million Automation Support Package, specifically with regard to grants, which assist in the roll-out of new automation projects and investment allowances. This would ensure that the technologies introduced actually improve productivity as envisaged.

Moving forward, and specifically on the Budget's announcement of the $4.5 billion Industry Transformation Programme with more than 20 sectors earmarked for development, it would be worthwhile to consider how companies and sectors that do the most to raise productivity, improve skills and innovation as well as promoting internationalisation can benefit more from taxpayer dollars than those who do not.

One way to effect this differentiation is to consider a higher cap on corporate income tax rebates than the current $20,000 cap for companies that record real productivity gains. For example, the cap can be progressively lowered or even removed completely for companies that do not meet the policy objectives of the scheme.

It would also be important for any exercise in fiscal prudence to distinguish and incentivise activities that actually create something tangible that have a real trickle-down effect as opposed to economic initiatives that just "rotate around the high-finance microcosm enriching the 1% as they buy and sell existing assets to one another, bidding up their value, while failing to invest in research, products, jobs or innovation" – an apt descriptive which I read in a recent TIME magazine article that reviewed a new US primetime television show, titled "Billions".

Mdm Speaker, even as our businesses are incentivised to transform, they must keep Singaporeans at the centre of their efforts. To this end, the Industry Transformation Programme should identify and thereafter even prejudice firms that are what the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) calls "double-weak firms" – weak in having a Singaporean Core and weak in their commitment to fair hiring practices and the development of Singaporeans. Likewise, these companies should be restricted from benefiting from corporate income tax rebates or tapping on the grants that go up on the business grants portal that is to be established in the fourth quarter of this year. An inclusive Singapore must be underwritten by Singapore-based companies that support the employment prospects of Singaporeans.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, in a recent book titled, "Industries of the Future" by Alec Ross, the former innovation adviser to Hilary Clinton, portends a future where medical technology, robotics, coding, big data and so forth, will make many jobs redundant, amongst other interesting predictions. In this context, a deeper and more sophisticated public discussion on fiscal prudence, sustainability and accountability of Budget expenditure in a more ambiguous future becomes more and not less urgent. It would also, I hazard, have the parallel effect of engendering a more inclusive citizenry that is rooted to Singapore's long-term success. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, let me first start by joining the House in thanking the Minister for Finance for a positive Budget that was filled with positive stories. It is a Budget Statement about how everyone has a role to play and together, we will write the next chapters of the Singapore story.

This is a Budget which helps everyone but with a stronger focus on SMEs, our young, our low-wage workers, persons with disabilities (PwDs), our seniors and Institutions of Public Characters (IPCs). It is a Budget that tells us that change is on the horizon and we must take this journey of change together.

I initially wanted to focus this speech on the issues I filed cuts on; issues that I care about deeply and issues that fellow Singaporeans and residents have raised to me.

I filed 20 cuts altogether, raising concerns on how we can help single parents, young parents, the elderly, low-income families, micro-SMEs, drug offenders in their rehabilitation process, foreign workers, fighting climate change, the transboundary haze issue, improving flood management, moving towards a car-lite city, beefing up our Home Team, improving electronic waste recycling, expanding the Active, Beautiful, Clean (ABC) Waters Programme, extending the smoking prohibition, improving animal welfare, fighting wildlife trafficking and lastly, improving the OneService App.

It would have been a speech about a few main issues from the above cuts, but I scrapped that speech and decided instead to focus on something more fundamental and what the President had asked us to do in his Address to us in January this year. And that is to "engage and partner with Singaporeans in nation building", the fifth of the five key aims this Government aims to fulfil.

I see this Budget debate as one of the last few chapters of this "Budget" journey. In fact, we are nearing our destination. I do feel that we perhaps need to take a few steps back and add a few more chapters in this journey.

This Budget is one huge item in our agenda that affects everyone in Singapore. It is something that everyone has a stake in and everyone should have a voice in. I strongly believe that we should use this opportunity to engage and partner Singaporeans in nation building. This is our best opportunity to do so in each financial year.

In this journey, we have asked fellow Singaporeans for their feedback through a public consultation exercise which started on 1 February and ended on 26 February. In less than a month, the Budget Statement was announced and many have asked if we can effectively digest all the feedback from the public within a month.

Minister Heng had mentioned that we received over 1,000 feedback but, of course, I understand that not every feedback was received on the last day. But the question here is whether we can make this journey less rushed. I am not advocating for us to delay the Budget Statement but rather, I hope we can start the process earlier.

For a financial year that starts in April, I suggest that we start the first public consultation in November the previous year for a period of one month.

So, we start the consultation in November rather than February, and this consultation is similar to what we are already doing. It gathers general ideas from the public about what they want to see in the Budget and members of the public provide this feedback without knowing what the Government has in mind or the general direction it is heading.

We then take two months to digest all the feedback, which is from December until January. In February, we release a draft Budget Statement similar to what we released on March 24. We then have another round of public consultation about that Budget Statement for a month.

This second round of public consultation is a good opportunity for Members of this House to obtain feedback from the ground and work towards incorporating them into the final Budget Statement. And the feedback obtained from this consultation will likely be more specific, since members of the public now know what the Government has in mind based on their previous feedback and it is now about finetuning the ideas.

This final Budget Statement is then read towards the end of March, after digesting the feedback from the second round of public consultation for a month.

Is this process more tedious? The answer, without a doubt, is yes. But will people feel more engaged, more empowered and will this strengthen our partnership with fellow Singaporeans? The answer is, without a doubt, also yes.

We need to change the narrative and I accept that it is changing. It has gone from the Government organising sessions to tell people what the new policies are, to sessions now asking for feedback before we draft the new policies. But I think we can, we should and we must go one step further.

The destination is important but I feel the journey is even more crucial. Communication has to be two ways and after we obtain feedback from the public, we should incorporate as many of them as possible into policies, show people the draft policies and then get feedback again.

This will show that public consultation is not just an exercise for us to put a tick in the box but that we are truly listening, and that their views and feedback are being looked into, worked on, perhaps even expanded and then incorporated into the final product.

Do not get me wrong; this Budget 2016 is a good Budget for Singapore and Singaporeans but it can be better. I feel there are more ideas out there that can be explored.

There is no doubt that there has been a lot of public feedback about this Budget. I am sure we have all seen the feedback about the Budget Statement both online and in the print media and on the ground, during our house visits and during our coffee shop visits. As always, there is praise and there are criticisms. There will always be negative feedback, but these may also be ideas we have not thought of, and they may be worth exploring.

The most feedback I have received is from the parents of the 93 babies born each day before 24 March 2016 when the new First Step Grant kicked in. Some have even come to my Meet the People Sessions.

But there are questions on why 24 March, why not 1 January 2016, since the babies born from 1 January until 23 March 2016 missed out on the SG50 Baby Jubilee Gift and now the First Step Grant? And so, I hope we can backdate it and provide the grant to babies born from 1st January 2016.

There are concerns about whether the cap on the tax relief will hit working mothers hardest, is 1% but I met that 1% on Sunday. There are concerns on whether the development of Coney Island will affect the environment there. There are concerns on why we are lowering the cash payout rate for the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme and proceeding with increasing the foreign worker levies for the services and construction sectors.

I believe these are all valid concerns that we should look into and it is for that reason that I hope that for next year, we will include a public consultation phase after the Budget Statement is read and before the announcement of a final Budget.

Mdm Speaker, in my maiden speech, I spoke about how we can mobilise our most important and valuable resource in Singapore – our people. To engage people, we need to listen more than we speak. And I quoted, "The most basic of all human needs is the need to understand and be understood. The best way to understand people is to listen to them."

And how we are not there just to explain policies to people and to throw them facts and figures, but we are there to truly listen and understand.

I held my town hall last Saturday and spent close to two hours just listening to the feedback from residents about the Budget and many other issues. They spoke of their hopes, their aspirations and their dreams for Singapore. For me, it was a powerful session and there are ideas and suggestions there that we need work on and perhaps incorporate into the next Budget.

This Budget is about partnerships and about starting our journey together for the next 50 years. And I agree with Minister Heng that there is no doubt that we need to grow our economy and invest collectively for the long term – in our people, our home and our security.

And with a population that is engaged, empowered, inspired and mobilised, this journey will be even more amazing, the Singapore story even more powerful and this red dot will shine even brighter. Mdm Speaker, I support this Budget.

Mdm Speaker, year after year I sit in this august Chamber listening to our Finance Minister deliver the Budget for Singapore. Always well-planned, always structured, always comprehensive addressing the issues of the day; current, prudent and practical. The question I then asked myself is, how do we ensure that we grab all the opportunities that are available, whether from the Budget or from any other platforms to empower ourselves, to uplift ourselves, our families, our companies and businesses and of course our nation. The question is also, Madam, are we as hungry as we should be? Let me narrate a story.

Once, a young man approached Socrates and asked how he could achieve success and even greater success? Socrates took the young man out to the sea and they walked on until the water level reached the shoulders of the young man. Socrates then grabbed the young man's head and pushed it under the water. The young man struggled but Socrates was a big man and, of course, stronger. Then slowly he lightened the grasp on the young man's head and allowed him to surface, gasping for air. Socrates then said to him, "When you want something so bad, as you had wanted air a moment ago, you would naturally achieve success."

Every Budget, every National Day Rally, many would ask, "What goodies are we getting?" Is this the appropriate question we should be asking?

The late Minister Mentor said in an interview with the National Geographic Magazine: "Singaporeans are not as hard driving and high striving as they ought to be."

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong himself said at one of the National Day Rally speeches, "Singaporeans are not as hungry as the Vietnamese."

Our forefathers worked really hard, showcasing sheer grit and discipline. But are we hungry enough to carry on? We are a first-world nation. We can build all the best facilities for training sportsmen for example. But facilities alone do not make champions. Discipline, dedication, sheer grit, sweat, blood, tears and toil does.

With this Budget, the Automation Support Package, for example, has a Capability Development Grant, which can support up to 50% of qualifying costs for automation projects. The equipment loan is enhanced from 50% to 70% and the Investment Allowance is rather generous as well. Are we hungry enough to utilise these as appropriate? For those involved in business, can we think out of the box to make this relevant? If the box is small enough, are we brave enough to enlarge it? And even with that, if it is still restrictive, do we dare, are we hungry enough to break that box, but do not break any laws of the nation.

Are we hungry enough to also perhaps pre-book our lot at the Jurong Innovation District? The stronger our desire for achievement and the hungrier we are, chances are we will strive hard to get whatever we want. So, what is our Hunger Index? Can we peak our expectations? Can we keep our motivation wave riding high?

Are we ready to not peg grades to our self-worth? Are we ready for education beyond textbooks and the four walls of our classroom that can enrich us, and widen our mindsets and empower us? Our communities, the world, the Internet, virtual learning and simulation are all our newer platforms for learning. In all these, we can instil discipline in the approach and gauge the desired outcome in order to reap the maximum benefits.

Are we hungry enough for jobs, coming in at the appropriate level and working ourselves up? Are we hungry enough to maintain or even further our competitiveness, knowing the rest of Southeast Asia, China and India are up and coming?

The extension of the non-taxation of gain from equity is a good example. This will enable SMEs to explore new businesses and models, and help restructuring and even streamline their company's investments. This will reduce their worry about any incidental tax costs that can be incurred. For those venturing overseas, the Double Tax Deduction (DTD) for the Internationalisation Scheme is an option to help jump start initiatives as well.

Are we hungry enough to better what others know and even to do better than they have done?

In this context the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme has been a booster for many companies. It will be extended till 2018 and beyond that, there will some changes. Such broad-based schemes will be replaced by more targeted ones. This may throw off some companies and pose challenges for some SMEs at first, but I would urge businesses, especially the smaller ones, to view this with a broader perspective, plan early and assess financial commitments and capabilities appropriately. Balance this also with another new initiative that has been announced, that is the SME Working Capital Loan to help maximise benefits.

Are we hungry enough to further the frontiers of research, in the various disciplines?

The flexibility to claim writing-down allowances on the acquisition costs of intellectual property (IP) over a longer time frame can help relevant companies and institutions. As we become a research hub, we must continue to encourage companies to bring in more IPs to Singapore.

Can we come out of our comfort zone and choose to be extraordinary? Get the greatness and the mastery that we want? Parents have been presented with a blank canvas in their children. How ready are we to be creative and expressive with this canvas?

Failure need not always be paralysing. Can we remove constraints on our thinking? Can we ride the tide of change and transformation and be willing to take the beating as we strive?

Can we take ownership of our learning and growth? I have met many young people who have interacted with me and said, "I do not really know what my interests are, nor my passion", or "I do not know what I am good at".

Well, knowing ourselves and understanding what we like is really a function of two things. Firstly, external action such as the work you have been doing, the projects you have been involved in, the travels, and the experiences that you have bought along the way.

The second point is really about internalisation and adequate introspectionary reflection. So, if you can put the two together and work on it a bit, you will realise your strengths.

We can choose to sit in a café or by the beach and watch the world go by or wait for inspirations to strike us or we can get up and do something about it, and tame that hunger.

On a cautionary note, as we enhance our drive and get more hungry, remember to think of others and appreciate people. As we grow and develop ourselves, people like our parents and grandparents and the less abled are growing older and need to be treated with respect, patience, and love, even as they become slower than they used to be.

As we pursue to fulfil our hunger, let us not trample over others or venture into non ethical territories. We always want a clean, upright, caring, nurturing and stimulating environment with a long-term goal of building resilience.

Remember work-life and family balance as well. And also remember philanthropy.

In the end, it is about being balanced, well-equilibrated, successful and happy in our lives together. It is about the sustainability of Singapore. Madam, our Hunger Index is well as that of our future generations will determine how sustainable we are as a global brand name, how our journey would be towards SG100. In Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Malay community has attained so much success and achievement including in the new fields, and if we look closely, those who succeed, as well as their families, they possess certain traits that lead to their success.

But there are a few who are still stuck in challenging situations. In my experience in interacting with and assisting them, there are a number of issues that need to be dealt with.

And these are the five issues. First of all is mindset. Many are still not exposed to or are unaware of available assistance schemes. They only go to nearby places such as mosques and Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS). I would like to propose that mosque volunteers work with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) or the Community Development Councils (CDCs) in a joint effort to help them and point them in the right direction.

In Geylang Serai, for instance, I worked with these institutions so that they can refer cases to me. Another way will be for MSF to work with mosques to reach out to these families. I hope that those in this group would speak to us so that we can help them and formulate an action plan that will assist them for the sake of their future.

The second factor is self-confidence. They have to be open-minded enough to see the bigger picture and look far ahead. If others can achieve success, they can do it too. We will help them and motivate them. But they have to develop a mindset that is inspired, motivated and have a strong desire to achieve something.

The third factor is prioritising family expenses. Attend courses such as the "Spending Wisely" course which is held near your place. Do not give up. If you need personal counselling, we can do it too. The mindset where you "work hard first and enjoy later" is the right way.

The fourth factor is debt. This is the source of financial problems for certain families, spending beyond their means, buying things on instalment plans and so on. Change this habit. There are those who still have credit card issues. Some even have eight to 10 credit cards. Some are forced to sell their homes because of debt and how they handled their finances.

The fifth issue refers to health issues. There are those in this group who prefer not to undergo health screening or early screening. If they are diagnosed with an illness, they find it hard to accept and sometimes refuse treatment. Sometimes, this is due to financial reasons, but in other cases, it is because of their mindset. Some have just reached the age of 40 years and think that they are already old and they are less motivated to take care of their health. Your health is in your hands. Do what is necessary for your future and your families' future.

Despite these issues, many of our Malay/Muslims have managed to turn their lives around and are more positive and self-reliant. I find that those who are able to overcome these five factors are able to progress with the available assistance schemes. Their children's generation can succeed because they are focused on education, which is the most important factor in transforming the lives of their families.

We are now facing a new world with new challenges. We need a new mindset; to be more proactive, to be more global and to be more reliable. Every individual in our Malay/Muslim community, together with other communities, must undergo this transformation together as one for the sake of our future and the future of Singapore.

(In English): With ourselves being described as a wonderful tapestry, interwoven and interlaced, a piece of batik art, but let me add my piece. A wonderful, healthy, nutritious bowl of salad. Consider the salad bowl. Different pieces of vegetables, fruits, nuts, raisins cut up into small pieces but, at the same time, always maintaining the character, the flavour, the taste, the colour and whatever they have individually. But they coexist in that salad bowl; happily together, loosely held by a salad dressing. Hopefully, it is a healthy dressing. Not mayonnaise, but a vinaigrette dressing or a lemon dressing would be much healthier for us. And, co-existing in that salad bowl, sharing that common space, limited as it may be, but together cohesive, and when you take a spoonful of this salad, and put it into your mouth, the flavour is wonderful.

The explosion of flavour is just indescribable! That is how we must be like – the salad bowl where we are all together in it, together for the future for Singapore. I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, I shall deliver my speech in English and Malay. I will cover three areas. First, the plight of the middle-income group; second, innovation and the culture of inquisitiveness; and lastly, Malay SMEs.

First, let me express my appreciation to Minister Heng Swee Keat for the delivery of Budget 2016. I am highly impressed by the clarity and simplicity with which the nation's strategic goals were presented. However, I must say, I have some concerns which I would like to highlight.

First, the plight of the middle-income group. Through my involvement in community issues over the last 13 years, I have become impassioned over the welfare and well-being of the sandwiched class, or as they say, the middle-income group.

There were rigorous discussions on the middle-income group during the run-up to last year's Budget Statement delivered by then-Finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. The Government was astute in recognising the problem and announced a slew of measures to help them.

It is interesting to note, however, that the Budget Statement this year made no mention of further enhancing or expanding the schemes targeted for the middle-income announced last year, let alone introduce new ones. I get the impression and sincerely hope that this is because existing initiatives are making substantial headways in alleviating the plight of the middle income.

As Singapore progresses amidst the global and at times uncertain economic backdrop, our economy will have to adapt and adjust. Both local and multinational corporations (MNCs) would be continuously re-inventing and restructuring themselves while trying to cope with the changing economic landscape.

As new economies replace old ones, the possibilities of jobs redundancy and obsolescence are inevitable. I sincerely believe our progress equation will have to include these unwanted elements. It is a systemic constraint that we are confronted with, which we have to manage. I also appreciate the Government's effort in trying to circumvent this by introducing proactive and constructive measures on our workers through re-training and skills upgrading.

With the middle-income group constituting a major proportion of our workforce, it is imperative that we place safeguards to ensure robustness in the times of adverse economic conditions. As recent as last month, the Singapore Economic Society discussed the idea of cushioning workers in the event of involuntary unemployment. Former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP), Dr Kanwaljit Soin, suggested unemployment insurance through the usage of Central Provident Fund's (CPF) Medisave, which seems to be an idea that is worth exploring. Other Members of Parliament had also expressed similar proposals on workers' safety net in the past.

Perhaps it is timely that we should revisit this with the purpose to ensure the worker's and his or her family's well-being, should the unwanted event occur. Mdm Speaker, I shall proceed with the next part in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Good afternoon. First, let me express my appreciation to Minister Heng Swee Keat for the delivery of Budget 2016. Although it is very interesting and comprehensive, I would like, however, to register some concerns.

Throughout my involvement in dealing with community issues over the last 13 years, I have been very concerned with the welfare and well-being of middle-class Singaporeans or the group often termed as the sandwich class.

I concur that the Government has already identified and discussed this issue at length, and has already provided various assistance schemes for the middle-class in the 2015 Budget.

Unfortunately, I find that this year's Budget Statement did not touch deeply on, and did not state, whether there will be further enhancements or expansions to the schemes announced last year, let alone introduce new schemes.

As Singapore progresses amidst an uncertain global and economic environment, our economy will have to adapt. Both local companies and MNCs will continue to re-invent and restructure their businesses and operations, while they also try to cope with a rapidly changing economic landscape.

As the new economy replaces the old economy, several jobs will very possibly become redundant and obsolete. I believe that our progress equation will have to include these unwanted elements. We have to accept that this is the systemic constraint that confronts us and we have to manage it well.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the Government for working hard to overcome this issue by introducing proactive and constructive measures, through the skills upgrading and retraining schemes made available to our workers.

With the middle-income group making up a large proportion of our labour force, it is important that we provide this protective and safety net to ensure that we stay strong during the times when the economy is bad.

Moreover, just last month, the Singapore Economic Society discussed ideas about measures that can be implemented to help minimise the impact on our workers if they are retrenched.

In fact, former NMP, Dr Kanwaljit Soin, proposed the idea of an unemployment insurance using the CPF Medisave account. This is an idea that we can explore and discuss further. Other past MPs have also expressed similar proposals to provide such a social safety net.

The time may have come for us to re-examine this idea with the aim of ensuring that the welfare and well-being of workers and their families are cared for, in case anything unfortunate happens.

(In English): I shall touch on innovation and culture of inquisitiveness.

I have been involved in innovation and R&D since I started my career in 1986. Through the 30 years, it is evidenced for me that successful companies invest significantly in R&D and innovation activities. The value creation and the unique value proposition that these companies offered through innovation kept them ahead of their competitors. It was also a primary factor which enabled these successful companies to be able to tread through difficult times. Innovation was clearly one of the key drivers towards success and sustainability.

I heartily laud Budget 2016's key thrust in placing innovation as one of the strategic pieces. I am convinced that this is the right element for enterprises to embark on if they are to forge into the future successfully. It can also mean life and death. However, going forward, I support wholeheartedly towards this initiative which will enable us to transform our economy and bring us into the future that we desire.

However, innovation is neither a product nor it is a material item. It is an intangible capability and competence which need to be nurtured with time. For innovation to be successfully and sustainably applied, it has to be deep-rooted in the way we do things and the way we run our business. Innovation calls for the intelligent application of knowledge which ultimately creates value. And it is this purpose of continuous value creation that elevates enterprises from one level to the next, thus transforming themselves.

Having worked for large MNCs in my many years of employment, I frequently met and dealt with local enterprises. Unfortunately, I must admit that my impression on most local enterprises that I met was not encouraging if I were to assess them on their involvement in R&D. Somehow, investing in R&D and innovation activities is not an important and top-of-the-list item on their agenda. As such, it is apparent and noticeable that they are unable to provide that special value which is needed to differentiate them from their global competitors.

If we want innovators to create and create value, we have to start by creating innovators and nurture them. And to achieve this, we have to start from young. Here, I mean we have to start as early as primary schools. I am of the opinion that it would have been too late if we start later than this. Here, I would like to share with you my personal experience on how I ended up being involved in the R&D domain.

When I was a young boy, I used to sit next to my father on weekends while he would start dismantling parts of his Vespa motor scooter. He would then hand me pieces and items of the motor scooter engine – screws, bolts, piston ring, piston, engine blade, brake clutches, spark plug, you name it, and he would then ask me to start cleaning them on a pan filled with kerosene. A bit dangerous though, but I did it.

Though the odour from the kerosene can be challenging, I enjoyed it and felt intrigued. While doing all these, I became fascinated. What ran through my mind was – how can all these small parts, when put together, be able to make the motor scooter run, whereby each part itself is almost useless, just a mere piece of metal. And that was the time where I started to develop a sense of inquisitiveness. It is this inquisitive attribute which I gained and later on in life propelled me to become an R&D engineer upon my graduation after completing university education. And I never regretted it. R&D and innovation is still my passion to this day.

Mdm Speaker, the message which I want to deliver here is about creating innovators from a very young age. We have to start as early as possible if we want our young to have that inquisitive attribute and to make it second nature. I believe it is an important prerequisite if one is to be an innovator.

Herewith, I would like to request for the following if we are to create a continuous supply of innovators who can fit the strategic pieces: first, include innovation subject as part of the curriculum in primary schools up to tertiary institutions; second, nationwide and national level or cluster level innovation competition in schools, by the chambers of commerce, community organisations, and so on; third, mass media involvement to elevate these initiatives so as to create awareness and high-level interest in innovation; fourth, top level and Ministerial stewardship towards this innovation initiative; and, lastly, funds must be allocated for the above initiatives. I hope the relevant Ministries will pick up the suggestions and steer the way.

Mdm Speaker, I shall touch on the topic of Malay small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Our SMEs play an important role in our economy. The Industry Transformation Programme is apt and timely to bring us into the future. The slew of support schemes and incentives offered by the Budget 2016 are again laudable.

However, I would like to highlight that there are gaps with varying degrees of capabilities and competencies among our SMEs. Without doubt, generally, Malay SMEs are very far behind other ethnic SMEs in almost all areas. It is against this backdrop that I would like to raise my concerns.

I wish I have all the statistics to share and understand where the Malay SMEs are. Even if we have it, it would still be a cause of concern. Malay SMEs need much more help if they are to move and meet the call in support of the nation's long-term strategic goals. Herewith, I would like to request to the relevant Ministries to render special attention to the plight of the Malay SMEs.

Amongst the few examples of two aspiring Malay SMEs that I know of which deserve and need all the support they can get are, first, Vector ScoreCard Pte Ltd run by Mr Nazri Muhamad; and, second, Enercon Asia Pte Ltd run by Mr Azhar Othman.

They are young and aspiring entrepreneurs whose aim is to expand and become a global enterprise one day. I believe there are more SMEs like them that have similar aspirations. What they need is proper guidance.

It is my hope to see SMEs like the above rise and become successful enterprises in the future with sales value of at least $220 million annually. They need to be guided and tap the professional expertise from experienced mentors who have the credentials of transforming SMEs into MNCs.

Mdm Speaker, through my experience working in various MNCs, I began to value the support and services rendered by top level and professional business consultants, like McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, and so on. The outcome of their work, without a doubt, justifies the standing they are accorded with.

Again, with this backdrop, I would like to propose the following: form a special business council within the Malay community to oversee and steer the progress of transforming possible Malay SMEs to reach a target annual revenue, to be determined and agreed upon, in support of the nation's strategic goal; providing the needed professional support so as to help the identified SMEs to meet its defined objectives; seek the assistance from the relevant Ministries if targeted SMEs could be given the support to have access and to be coached by top-level business consultants with the objective to grow our SMEs into MNCs; and, of course, lastly, financial support, which has already been outlined. Mdm Speaker, with all being said and elaborated, I support Budget 2016.

Madam, I will deliver my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam, one of the main themes for this year's Budget is the Spirit of Partnership. In his speech, Minister Heng Swee Keat emphasised the importance of this factor in transforming our nation's economy and in strengthening Singapore towards being an inclusive and caring society. I agree and concur that emphasis and focus should be given to this Spirit of Partnership because, in our present lives that are full of trials and tribulations, efforts that require cooperation or collaborations between different groups and entities, are the best way to cope with an uncertain living environment. As the Malay saying goes, "Whether the burden is light or heavy, we will carry it together". The value of the Spirit of Partnership is the main theme of my speech for this year's Budget debates.

Madam, the Government's plans and efforts that focus more on the business sector are a welcome move. This is to be expected, especially with the gloomy overall economic outlook in the near future. The support given to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) is important because SMEs form 99% of all local businesses, creating 70% of the nation's labour force and contributing 50% towards Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP). If something unfortunate happens to our SMEs, the whole of Singapore will be affected. For instance, the winding down of an SME will result in job losses for Singaporeans. I feel that the main objective is to gain a collective benefit and not for only certain groups. The collective benefit is gained by Singaporeans through the jobs made available when small and medium enterprises continue to grow and progress. This collective benefit is a main factor in achieving an inclusive and caring society.

For this Budget, one of the main emphasis is the effort to increase systems automation and encourage mergers and acquisitions. The Government has provided grants to support SMEs to achieve this. In terms of economy of business, any increase in automation will be viewed as something positive because it is closely linked to an increase in productivity. However, the next question will be, what will be the impact of automation on the economy of employment?

Economic experts have different views on the impact of automation on jobs. The moderate view is that, while automation will make jobs disappear, at the same time, it will create new jobs. A study by George Graetz from the Uppsala University and Guy Michaels from the London School of Economics in 2015 showed some evidence that automation will result in job loss to low-skilled workers and to certain moderately skilled workers. Retrenchments and job losses cannot be avoided when mergers and acquisitions occur. In this decade, mergers and acquisitions occurred rapidly in many industries, like banking, logistics, manufacturing and others.

Madam, one of the main concerns of Singaporeans is the loss of income. The main aim of the Government in supporting the increase in automation, and encouraging mergers and acquisitions, is that Singaporeans can reap the collective benefits, and that it will not only benefit certain groups. Many hope that the Government will pay close attention and monitor it closely, so that this aim of reaping collective benefits can be realised. We certainly do not want a situation where automation and technological development result in certain segments of society feeling that they are left behind, and sink amidst the tide of modernity and progress, resulting in negative feelings, as the saying goes, "being discarded after they are no longer useful." If this happens, it will weaken our efforts to build an inclusive and caring society.

As one way to manage the impact of retrenchment that will certainly occur in the effort to achieve progress, I support my colleague Ms Sylvia Lim's suggestion that the Government consider introducing a Redundancy Insurance. This is an insurance scheme where employers and workers each contribute a small portion of the worker's monthly salary into a fund. The objective of this fund is to help workers who are facing unemployment due to involuntary retrenchment, including those who were served notice. This fund can perhaps provide payouts over a period of six months, whereby the payout amount can be based on a small proportion of the last salary received by the worker, within the range of 40%, but at the same time, have a limit that is based on the median income. This simple scheme can give an indication that the help provided is short-term in nature, but at the same time, it can give some relief and financial assistance while these individuals strive to look for new jobs.

Madam, in addition, I would like to convey the wishes of many people to increase the amount allocated for the SkillsFuture credit. The people welcome the SkillsFuture scheme, especially amongst the low-skilled and low-wage community members, who wish to upskill so that they will not sink amidst the tide of technological development and automation. However, their intent to upskill will be affected due to cost issues. On the basis of inclusiveness and caring for one another, I hope that the Government can seriously consider the suggestions mentioned as part of the Spirit of Partnership between the Government and the people to help Singaporeans cope with the challenges that will emerge in our nation's pursuit of progress.

Madam, I would now like to touch on the social aspect of the 2016 Budget. In his speech, the Finance Minister said that we will like Singapore to be a great place to raise a family, where we bring out the best in every Singaporean, and a society that takes care of those who have special needs, and who are less well off. The Minister once again emphasised the Spirit of Partnership between individuals, society and the Government in order to achieve this objective.

For this year's Budget, in an effort to aid early childhood development, a new initiative KidSTART was introduced. The KidSTART scheme aims to help the early development of children's physical, cognitive and social skills. The present Child Development Account scheme (CDA) has been enhanced with an additional First Step grant of $3,000 as an initial assistance. As mentioned, these schemes provide support for Singaporean children in order to give them the best start possible in life.

On the basis of this noble aim, I appeal to the Government to extend these schemes to every Singaporean child including those born out of wedlock. Presently, Government schemes exclude this group of children. I do understand that the Government provides these schemes only to children who are born to married couples in an effort to strengthen the institution of the family. As a family and household counsellor, I agree with this approach. But I also feel that we should assess this from another angle.

Firstly, children born out of wedlock are also Singaporean children who will contribute to the development of this nation when they become adults. Secondly, these children are just like other children, born the same way and have the same needs, in terms of physical, cognitive and social development. Thirdly, these children should not be treated differently because of something that their parents did.

I would like to reiterate that, while I agree with the Government's efforts to strengthen the institution of the family, nonetheless I believe that there are better ways, in the form of early prevention that can be taken to deal with this issue. The Government's approach in this issue should be changed so that when these children grow up, they will not feel marginalised, left out and angry, because society seems to blame them for something that their parents did. I believe that the Government's support towards the development of every Singaporean child, regardless of their status, will be welcomed by Singaporeans.

Madam, I would like to now touch on the development of the Outward Bound School (OBS) which aims to build resilience. The development of resilience among our students is important in preparing them for the various challenges in life and giving them self-confidence. I support the plan to build the OBS in Coney Island, which will be able to accommodate more participants. In order to build one's resilience, we need to have a holistic approach, whereby every aspect of the human brain, that is, Intelligence Quotient (IQ), Emotional Quotient (EQ) and Spiritual Quotient (SQ), must be developed and nurtured.

SQ first came to the attention of academics, especially in the field of psychology, early last decade. According to academics, SQ is closely linked to awareness towards the meaning of life, being responsible in life and the need for humility in life. By possessing SQ, it will point an individual towards having a personal vision and work towards it, with the objective that every benefit gained is not meant just for him, but also for society and the world in general; in other words, achieve collective good. In short, he turns himself into a blessing for all.

I am of the view that a combination of these three quotients will not only result in resilience, but it will also build other positive human traits. Here, I would like to repeat a suggestion that I gave previously in this House, that is, the reintroduction of Religious Knowledge subjects in secondary schools. I feel that schools are the best place to develop a holistic person that should combine IQ, EQ and SQ. I would like to share that I have one child who is studying in a full-time madrasah, one in a public school and one more in a Mission school. I had the opportunity to examine how these three schools nurture good values and good traits. The advantage that Mission schools and madrasahs have over public schools is that they also focus on developing SQ.

Madam, I mentioned earlier that one of the efforts that the Government does to strengthen the institution of the family is by excluding children born out of wedlock from enjoying the support schemes provided by the Government. Following that, I said that it is better to undertake early preventive measures so that this situation, where a child is born out of wedlock, can be lessened or prevented. I am confident that this can be achieved through the development of the Intellectual, Emotional and Spiritual Quotients in each person. A partnership, which combines the Intellectual, Emotional and Spiritual Quotients, can result in individuals who are highly resilient and gives priority to the collective need. These are the Singaporeans that we need in our effort towards building an inclusive and caring society.

The final issue that I will touch on is the Government's move to encourage Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and other ground-up initiatives, by providing more support. Here, I would like to suggest that we establish a more effective link or cooperation between corporate entities and individuals, with the Social Service Office (SSO). I do understand that the main role of the SSO is to coordinate and increase cooperation between voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) within their respective jurisdictions, so that the local communities can receive the maximum benefit. This is done by monitoring the demography and needs of the local community. For example, monitoring is done to see if there is a duplication of services, whether the service provided currently is sufficient and so on. The partnership between the SSO and programme organisers, be it corporate entities or interested individuals, can help to fill in the service gaps within a certain area. This partnership not only benefits the needy, but it also helps organisations that provide assistance or that wish to implement community programmes, and hence creating a win-win situation for everyone.

Before I end my speech, I would like to state that the Spirit of Partnership is an important aspect of personal development, as well as the development of society and the nation. The Spirit of Partnership aims to combine resources and manpower so that it can give the best and maximum benefits possible to every member of society. But we must be careful so that this partnership does not lead to unwanted side effects and resulting in a segment of society feeling marginalised and neglected, because that will run against our country's mission to build an inclusive and caring society. Madam, I support this Budget.

Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of this Budget. I will speak on three areas today: why our economic restructuring is so important; pitfalls and opportunities; and how we must continue keeping our social system progressive.

Madam, a vibrant economy creates opportunities and jobs for Singaporeans. In the 21st century, this has to mean good quality jobs − Singaporeans moving up the value chain, climbing up the value tree, finding a branch of skills where they can specialise and find mastery. Sometimes, as circumstances change, jumping to a new branch on another tree, continuing to climb, climbing higher, and climbing better. It is a good approach, not just in the Year of the Monkey, but throughout life. And our startups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) provide opportunities too − the skills that come with running a business and the chance to build a successful enterprise.

Madam, when a society is low on opportunity, it is the rent-seekers and owners of old capital who extract profits, often without creating value for a broader economy and society. So, a thriving society with its jobs and enterprise, all these help our young Singaporeans to rise and grow, while adding dynamism and value to our society.

We also know that a strong economy gives us the means to support fiscal redistribution and the many social programmes that underpin an inclusive society. It also ensures we can maintain a credible defence deterrence through a strong Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), as well as a Home Team that is ready and equipped to face the challenges of this century. All these keep us relevant to the world and ensure that our voice can be heard, even though we are small.

In summary, Mdm Speaker, we must not forget that a strong economy secures our Independence, sovereignty and security, and is also key to building a fair and just society.

My second point, Mdm Speaker, is avoiding pitfalls while securing opportunities. And there are challenges amid our restructuring. We have evolved from a third-world to a first-world economy, and the low-hanging fruits have already been picked. But there are still lessons we can learn from the experience of other developed countries, the challenges they faced, the lessons they have learnt.

In February 2013, the Harvard Business School published its 2012 survey on US competitiveness led by Prof Michael Porter. It is useful to look at the observations and what we can learn that are applicable to Singapore. One observation by the Harvard study was on the importance of shared resources, for example, workers having relevant skills in the labour market; workers moving in between employers, between sectors, but having that base of skills; supply chain networks; and physical, technical infrastructure. Yet, the authors of the Harvard study found that there was a shortfall of investment by businesses in shared resources. Investment would have helped all companies in the long term. But at the level of individual companies in the US, it did not always make short-term business sense.

The Harvard study also observed that, with globalisation, it is quite possible for a company, especially a multinational corporation (MNC), to grow more competitive, even if the host nation loses its edge, partly because of this lack of investment in the host country.

So, Mdm Speaker, it is important that we provide incentives for businesses, especially MNCs, to continue investing in Singapore, and reinvesting in Singapore and Singaporeans. One way to do this is for companies to continue training up a strong Singaporean Core with skills and industry knowledge – not just the numbers, but people with skills and the tacit, implicit knowledge that comes from knowing an industry sector deeply and, especially, in business sectors of key importance where Singaporeans are still under-represented. Building up this local pool of talent also helps our SMEs because the more skills and talent are in the pool, the more there are who can forge on, start their own enterprises, and help fellow Singaporeans to grow and rise. Different industries, different ways, but it must always be an on-going effort.

In Singapore, because of our history of fiscal prudence, we are in a position to supplement this with Government investment as well. And I concur with fellow Members that SkillsFuture is an important step forward, because individual companies, sometimes because of their size, may not be willing to underwrite the cost of training, or they may fear that a worker is going to move to another company after upskilling. But when companies invest in workers, upskilled workers, it uplifts the entire sector of skills. It helps other companies in the sector, it helps the workers, it helps Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, at a broader level, research and start-up spin-offs should also continue receiving investment, especially in a way that socialises the gains when these companies turn profitable and especially when these companies become very successful. Mariana Mazzucato at Sussex University, who studies the economics of innovation, has proposed many ways to do this. For example, loan repayments that are adjusted based on profits of the enterprise, or allowing the state to retain equity, just as private venture capital firms do. It does not have to be a controlling stake, but the equity could be preferred stocks with priority in receiving dividends.

The Harvard study, Mdm Speaker, also observed that some American corporations were driven by short-term performance indicators – short-term shareholders driving short-term corporate behaviour. This led to extractive optimisation in the short term, rather than longer-term investments which add value and create sustainable innovation.

The lesson for Singapore, Mdm Speaker, is that even as we boost our productivity, we must continue pursuing both kinds of innovation. Some innovations add efficiency or reduce costs. This is important. It is part of competition – enhancing existing situations. But they can also easily be undercut by cheaper labour, cheaper economies and lower costs elsewhere.

Other innovations create new value and new markets, pathbreakers, game-changers. We need both kinds of innovation. They complement each other and help bring each other to greater heights, and it has to be continuous – a never-ending process of innovation. Each chapter having to be better than the previous one because that is how we write the story of tomorrow's enterprises.

Mdm Speaker, I now turn to my third topic: building a progressive social system – progressive in process, progressive in outcomes.

GDP growth is not pursued for its own sake. I have spoken earlier about how a strong economy is key to Singapore remaining independent and a pre-condition for a fair and just society. So, it is crucial that our socioeconomic system remains progressive – supporting social mobility and making sure every child has a fair start in life. Helping children who start with less, without pulling down those who were blessed enough to start with more. Furthermore, Mdm Speaker, when a child from a disadvantaged background does well, it uplifts the rest of the family. It uplifts a community. It uplifts our society.

A few years ago, Economics Nobel Laureate James Mirrlees led a team which reviewed the UK tax system. They issued a report. The review was called "Tax by Design". One key point was the system must be considered as a whole when deciding whether taxation is progressive or regressive. So, you can have individual flat consumption taxes which, on their own, may be regarded as regressive by some observers, but when the revenue is redistributed to those with less and when it is used to help those who are disadvantaged, the system becomes overall progressive.

This is how taxes like our Goods and Services Tax (GST) support progressive social programmes:

the GST Voucher Scheme, which helps families with less;

the upcoming Silver Support Scheme for elderly Singaporeans with fewer resources – sometimes just by accident of which era they were born in, they grew up earning third-world wages and retired in Singapore with often first-world costs; and

we see our Edusave Merit Bursaries, the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme.

Another very important part of redistribution, another very important progressive policy, Mdm Speaker, is our subsidies for first-time buyers of HDB homes because that first opportunity to get early access to home ownership is deeply important – that early opportunity to have an asset which can appreciate and accumulate value throughout life. And so, we must continue helping young couples have affordable home ownership early in life. These are just a few examples.

But Madam, progressive redistribution alone is not enough to build a strong, cohesive society. Our social norms and our social culture, they matter too.

This is why even though the Ministry of Finance (MOF) is introducing a cap on the total amount of personal income tax relief, it is very important that we do not put a cap on tax deductions for charitable donations. Tax relief and tax deductions help recognise behaviours which benefits the community, while keeping the system progressive. So, we must continue encouraging personal and corporate charity as they add something special to our society.

The new Business and IPC Partnership Scheme, Mdm Speaker, is an important step forward. It acknowledges that meaningful charity is not just about cash or tangible assets. MOF is now going to recognise employees giving their time, services and even secondments where they transfer their skills and knowledge. It empowers people to give in ways other than cash. These charitable deeds, Mdm Speaker, are an important part of our social fabric.

Of course, some may argue that fiscal transfer achieves the same numerical outcome. Perhaps on the balance sheet, the numbers might look the same, but there is a fundamental difference, because volunteerism and charity are transformative. It transforms the recipient, it transforms the donor and it transforms our society. Volunteering and voluntary giving uplift our spirits in a way that taxation and tax transfers can never do. And these are important externalities which transform the inner life of the people we serve, as well as the inner life of those who step forward to serve.

On another point related to this, Mdm Speaker, the Community Networks for Seniors are another big step forward.

Today, we have many helping hands. Many hands, and many channels of assistance – VWOs, volunteers, schools and businesses. But when it is complicated for the end-user to get access to help, the overall system can actually become regressive on the ground because of that complexity. Allow me to explain.

When the application process is complicated, when there is red tape and when there is bureaucracy, it becomes harder for those who are less well-informed, less IT-literate, or from more disadvantaged background, to seek help or to find out what avenues of assistance are available.

We are moving towards online e-government, but for residents who do not have a computer or a smartphone or who do not happen to be literate in English, e-government channels, instead of an open-door, can be a digital barrier.

Madam, the World Bank's 2015 World Development Report looked at "Mind, Society and Behaviour", through the lens of behavioural economics. One important insight in that report is the concept of bandwidth constraints. What it means is the idea that psychological stress and hardship can place a cost on people's mental resources.

Some economists call it a "cognitive tax" or "bandwidth tax". You have so much to worry and think about that it is harder to apply, harder to go about your daily life and harder to find your way, especially if there is bureaucracy. This can lead to a focus on the immediate present, to the detriment of the future and, as we have talked about, less time and energy available to navigate the different roads to help.

So, it is important, Mdm Speaker, that we continue doing our best to reduce complexity, especially at the frontline and on the ground for the end-user or recipients of help, because complexity has regressive effects on the most vulnerable among us. We must continue looking into how to make the journey simpler, improving access to helping hands. Many steps have been made earlier, even though we can do more.

MSF's Social Service Offices (SSOs) and their coordinating roles have been a key step forward in coordinating care and helping families, especially those with deep complex issues who need a lot of attention to uplift them and make sure the children can continue getting a good start in life.

Likewise, Mdm Speaker, for our Pioneer Generation ambassadors, who in many constituencies, have been helping pioneers understand policy better.

The SGfuture programme is another platform to help people, Government, and agencies see issues together, co-create a future and especially look at issues through the eyes of the people.

Madam, as governance grows more complex, the need for coordination will continue to grow. At our highest levels, we have our Coordinating Ministers looking after National Security, Economic and Social Policies, and Infrastructure. But at the ground level, Madam, coordination matters very deeply as well – whether it is your family doctor, or a patient navigator in the hospital helping an elderly Singaporean find their way through the healthcare system; whether it is public servants seeing issues through the eyes of the end-user, working across departmental and agency boundaries, like our Municipal Services Office; or our social workers at our SSOs and the staff at the upcoming Community Networks for Seniors.

So, Madam, in our policymaking and implementation, we must continue to recognise coordination as a valuable process and a valuable outcome, in and of itself. And we have to allocate resources and manpower to make sure coordination continues at the ground level and to keep things as simple as possible, especially for those starting with less and those who are disadvantaged.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, this Budget has many innovations, even as it continues the work of building a more fair and more equitable society. May we always innovate and coordinate well at all levels: achieving economic prosperity, supporting a system that is progressive in its progress, and helping all our people to lead a full and happy life.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I would like to focus on low-wage workers.

Last week, the CEO of a cleaning company shared with me that they lost their cleaning contract with a Statutory Board this year because they had bid for the contract based on current salaries of their workers and also factored a one-month bonus. Many of their 40 cleaners now working for the new company had not only their salaries reset to $1,000, but also all other employment benefits as well.

I also came across many workers during NTUC's employment seminars lamenting why their salaries were not increasing every year or why their employers were not giving them their 13-month bonus.

There are many Singaporeans who are working in the low-income sectors who are facing stagnating wages and have resigned to the fact that their situation cannot change.

In some countries, any wages below two-thirds of the median income are considered as low wages. In Singapore, the gross wage of workers at the 20th percentile is $1,800 while those at the 50th percentile is $3,460. This income gap is widening.

In the last five years, real wage increase for the 20th percentile was 2.1% compared to the higher percentage real wage increase for the 50th percentile at 3%. Perhaps, I would like to call for the Government to set a target for a higher percentage wage increase for workers at the 20th percentile compared to the 50th percentile to reduce the income gap. This would help us have a more objective assessment of the effectiveness of measures taken to help low-wage workers. We need to think out-of-the box and have a concerted effort to create better jobs and improve skills so that these workers can enjoy a higher percentage real wage increase.

In this Budget, the Labour Movement welcomes the changes made to the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) to enable more workers to qualify with a higher payout, but we need a longer-term solution to help low-wage workers.

I would like to make a call for the Government to work with our tripartite partners to explore making the payment of Annual Wage Supplements (AWS) and giving annual increments to workers as part of the licensing or registry conditions for the cleaning, security and landscape sectors. Potentially, we are looking at 85,000 local workers in these sectors benefiting from such a move. Moreover, it will create a level playing field for all service providers and service buyers to remain competitive while, at the same time, boost the income for the low-wage workers. More importantly, it will send a strong signal for other employers to follow as well.

The Labour Movement also welcomes this year's Budget to support industry transformation but for this to happen in the clean, green and safe sectors, we need changes in the four "M"s – Man, Machines, Mindset and Methods. This, perhaps, can make any wage increase in these sectors more sustainable in the long run.

Let me touch on the first two "M"s − Man and Machines. The Progressive Wage Model (PWM) is not the only key to help our workers earn better pay through higher productivity. Beyond PWM, SkillsFuture also promises a hope for a better future for our workers – the Man. Two areas must be looked into. First, SkillsFuture outreach efforts towards low-wage workers must be customised and targeted to suit the profile of low-wage workers who are mainly matured with limited education. This is an area that the Government can work on with its tripartite partners.

Second, the respective sectors need to ensure there are current jobs to match the higher skills the workers have acquired through SkillsFuture training where workers must be comfortable in using technology. This can be achieved through job redesign in the clean, green and safe sectors. Increasingly, more service providers would like to adopt greater technology to reduce manpower requirement and improve productivity. Their workers are also being trained to operate this equipment, but service buyers must be receptive to different ways of service providers delivering their service using technology.

The next "M" is Mindset. A change in mindset is required to ensure productivity can be achieved in a more sustainable manner. Earlier, I suggested job redesign to match SkillsFuture training to enhance productivity. For this to happen, service buyers must have a cooperative mindset to work more closely with the service providers during the procurement process to explore different possibilities. This involves giving service providers more time to suggest a solution to meet service buyers' needs. This is an area which I feel that the Government Ministries and statutory boards can lead by example to create success stories for others to adopt.

A mindset change is also required amongst service buyers in buying services. They need to have a performance-based mindset by doing more to adopt performance-based contracts. Despite best sourcing efforts, many contracts continue to be headcount based, and, hence, there is little incentive for service providers to explore other means of improving productivity. Moreover, headcount-based contracts will be very expensive and unproductive, given that labour supply will be tighter in the coming years.

Mdm Speaker, the Government must also encourage buildings to be designed with a "productive" mindset at the outset to enable a cost-effective approach in procuring cleaning, security and landscape services where less manpower would be needed.

The third "M" is Method. For industry transformation to happen, it also requires an accompanying change in methods. The latest manpower report has highlighted clearly that labour supply will continue to be tight. Based on the old method, unless there is a change in the method, there might not be enough people to be deployed to provide the services required. Concerted efforts must be made to explore the potential of aggregating demand for services.

There are also other methods that could be explored to help low-wage workers. I also want to make a call for procurement processes to be more worker centric. Being more worker-centric in procuring services means that service buyers need to pay more attention to or specify the employment benefits to be accorded to the outsourced workers. This would help the workers have better wages and benefits and would definitely motivate them to be more productive at work. I am sure if the statutory boards, as I said earlier, had a worker-centric mindset, the workers would have enjoyed the current higher salaries.

Service buyers can also look into having contracts of longer duration to incentivise the service providers to embark on greater adoption of technology that could lead to manpower savings and better productivity. This also ensures that outsourced workers do not always find themselves as the disadvantaged lot every two to three years when their salaries get reset again. Relevant to my call for procurement process for outsourced services to be more worker centric, I would also like to call for the Government to explore a Public Private Partnership (PPP) model in procuring essential services such as cleaning, security and maintenance services. This may be the next breakthrough in our policies for the outsourced sectors to help low-wage workers.

The next aspect of "method" we have to tackle, Mdm Speaker, is the issue of unfair contracts. Ultimately, such contracts will impact the workers as the service providers will find ways to cut corners. It could also be challenging for service providers to embark on productivity efforts given that their operating margins are very low. While I am calling for contracts to be of longer duration, I would like to discourage the practice of having an Option to Extend at the same terms and conditions. Unless a variation in contract price is allowed, it is usually the low-wage workers that will suffer from stagnating wages.

Mdm Speaker, fair contracts will create an environment that will benefit all parties, including workers who can enjoy better employment terms and conditions. I have written a blog on this and I am happy to note that MOF will play its part to encourage fair contract clauses. Perhaps, with the Government taking the lead to promote reasonable and fair contracts, it would play an instrumental role to shape the behaviour and practices in procuring outsourced services.

If stakeholders in the industry can change their "mindset" and '"methods", the transformation needed for "man" and "machines" would follow as a consequence. Workers, through SkillsFuture, can now be better trained to leverage on technology, making investments in training and machines less risky and with greater promise for higher productivity. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I welcome this year's Budget which aims to help the low-wage workers through changes made to the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme (WIS), and the Workfare Training Support (WTS) Scheme which will make more workers eligible. However, in order to enjoy better pay, Malay workers, particularly those in the lower income group, should focus their efforts to upskill themselves through Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) training. Malay workers who are working in the outsourced sectors, such as cleaning, security and landscape, can receive better pay based on the skills that they obtain after undergoing the WSQ courses.

In view of the $4.5 billion support provided under the Industry Transformation Programme, it is important that Malay workers, especially the low-wage workers, make use of SkillsFuture wisely to ensure that the new skills that they learn will be useful to industries and companies which will be undergoing transformation through automation and technology, which will improve their productivity and reduce the demand for labour. This will help workers to obtain better wages.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, I believe that unless we take bolder steps to negotiate the glaring disparities between our low-wage workers and the majority of the Singaporean workforce in matters like wages and employment benefits, low-wage workers will continue to feel marginalised and the income gap will continue to widen. As a nation, the onus is on us to ensure that when they look ahead, they see beyond the status quo. They should see positive change for themselves, their jobs and, more importantly, their families. With that Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, Budget 2016 is a Budget that covers a broad spectrum of support for individuals and industries with a targeted approach and some long-term investments on infrastructure. Like past Budgets, it is one where we get some disappointed sighs from those who do not stand to benefit while others heaved a sigh of relief as the much-needed safety support is provided.

Minister Heng noted that, in 2016, there are cyclical headwinds and challenges that exist, but there are also opportunities if we adapt and grow in preparation to capture those future opportunities. With this context, we clearly understand there cannot be generous packages annually. In the years ahead, we will inevitably encounter some years similar to 2016 where economic outlook is not at its best and yet we need the tenacity to weather the storm together as a nation. Central to this is the question, "How can we find a balance between state support and involvement of community to enhance our social safety net?"

As Singaporeans, we share a common wish deep in our hearts. We want Singapore to reach SG100 and beyond for many generations to come and in a much better position than today. As we progress towards SG100, there are a few social indicators that will continue to raise the bar of support requirement in our society. These indicators are an increasing ageing population, constant need to bridge the income disparity, a shrinking working population and the well-educated younger generation with higher aspirations and expectations of what basic livelihood entails in a developed nation.

It is apparent that to provide for such rising needs, we may reach a stage where there is an over-dependence on the Government for social programmes. To sustain an appropriate level of state support for social programmes, more revenue streams must be created, and this may increase the burden on our future generations. Being aware of what the potential outcome may be, it is prudent for us to take the necessary steps today to avert such an outcome. I believe we can do so by defining our new chapter together and creating options to strike a right balance between state support and partnerships with the community at large.

To begin, we must recognise that a social safety net must be present for some groups of individuals and those with lower likelihood of being able to be self-sufficient without external assistance. Typically, some of these groups are our seniors, the lower-income workers, people with disabilities (PwDs) and our younger families.

In order to supplement state support, we have further enhanced our social safety net for those more vulnerable through multiple schemes. However, the challenges that we face are: one, the state support system has become more complex over the years and it is harder to implement with ease so as to maximise the support for the intended beneficiaries; two, increasing funding requirements means a need for the public to cross-subsidise in different ways; and three, some groups, albeit small in quantity, may still not qualify for any available support schemes.

Let us take a closer look at each challenge and what could be done to address it.

First is the complexity of the public support system. An example is the support for our seniors. Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) began in 2015 and that was crucial to many seniors due to their age and also the lower preparedness to manage their healthcare costs as they started their lives during the difficult times of nation building. It was good that PGP covers all seniors who were 65 and above at the point of policy implementation regardless of their household income. Post-PGP, MediShield Life was introduced, and it provides further protection for those who do not have insurance coverage. It was critical for the lower income families and those with little savings to manage their hospital care needs. Now, there is the Silver Support Scheme providing quarterly payouts for the bottom 20% of seniors and, to some extent, 30% of them.

While all these are beneficial to our Pioneer Generation (PGs), their children who are the next generation of seniors will likely require the same types of support but at a much higher cost than our PGs today. Herein is a possibility of the successive generation of seniors not being able to support themselves at an earlier age, if income disparity and social support are not properly managed. This brings about the urgency for us to review and begin engaging them while they are still active income earners. As we begin charting the directions for the future, I feel that we need to take strategic and proactive approaches rather than time-based subventions specific for each generation.

And second is increasing funding and cross-subsidisation from public. To reduce the burden on subsequent generations, we must begin the planning right now and choosing the right paths for them.

On the same note of strategic and proactive approach, below are some suggestions of how we can involve our future seniors.

First, there is a need for earlier community involvement and collaboration with today's middle-aged group as they plan for both their family and retirement. Second, the people involved have to be aware and prepared with passive income and financial planning for old age beyond today's primary twin pillars – their property and CPF. Third, options have to be made available for them to balance the level of dependence and financial support on their family, bearing in mind the smaller family units and increasing trend of singles over time. These approaches, if taken in tandem, could be alternatives or will at least maintain cross-subsidisation at reasonable amounts or levels.

Third, groups that do not qualify for any state support. The reality of any system is it cannot provide coverage for all groups across the society, thus, the need to dispense support based on a targeted approach. However, if subsidies continue to be targeted only for specific groups, how can we be assured that those whom we believe are self-sufficient will indeed be able to manage on their own? For this group, I feel that some of their needs can be looked into through funding at different aspects instead of direct subsidies. One of the options is to supplement it by fostering care in our society. In doing so, we can broaden the support base for some groups that fall outside public support due to their household income or property value.

Knowing that state support will always be required, how then do we partner and involve the community at large to enhance our social safety net?

As a country, we need to ensure fostering care in society becomes an ingrained culture and paying it forward is a social value that Singaporeans are associated with. Such culture cannot be achieved overnight. Likewise, partnerships also require willing parties to step forward and the willingness to smoothen the creases together along the journey.

Earlier in my maiden speech, I spoke about the need for an Integrated Social Hub, or what I term the the 3G Village, where we can bring community networks together and reinforce social values through inter-generational sharing, thereby strengthening our social fabric. It is heartening to note that in Budget 2016, more focus is given to improve last mile delivery and social innovation to maximise impact of schemes. Some of the schemes that are encouraged include corporate social responsibility (CSR) as well as promoting the scale-up of ground activities and community networks.

To take the Budget's focus on partnerships a step further, I propose some areas for future considerations.

First, introduce the social culture and inculcate values at a young age. Today, some schools do conduct projects under the Community Engagement Programmes (CEP). However, there is a lack of emphasis on values learnt from these projects. I believe that these projects should go hand-in-hand with training and such emphasis begins from home. Parents should be given opportunities to be a part of the CEP experience with their children and not be restricted to giving back only through CSR organised events. Family role models and precious time spent as a family would be more effective benefits emerging from such programmes.

Second, there is a growing trend of self-organised groups for different causes that benefits the society at large. We applaud these efforts and should assist them in scaling up. It would be helpful to have platforms made available where the different self-organised groups can leverage resources, shorten their learning curve and enable volunteers to extend their contribution to other new areas which may interest them.

Third, many groups on the ground who receive help from community networks today are not registered or belong to any IPCs. This does not mean that corporations who are willing to support community networks cannot do so. Instead, I advocate that IPCs and VWOs extend their support and work closely with local communities in conjunction with these corporations. Likewise, social enterprises that assist in similar ways should be given consideration and concession under the framework. This way, more individuals and vulnerable families can benefit from the system.

Lastly, to expand on the SG Future Citizen Engagements that was launched in November 2015, I hope the various SG Future Ministries continue to partner the community in co-creating solutions and finding more effective methods of delivering their services in this digital age.

With close community involvement, tangible benefits can be achieved and more individuals with varying circumstances may also receive assistance. Unless we begin planning early, the right balance between state support and community involvement will not emerge.

To ensure that social support will be sustainable, it needs like a balloon to have more than one party adding their lung capacity to keep it afloat. State support coupled with individuals, family and community involvement is the way forward to ensure a basic decent standard of living for all Singaporeans, even as the cost of that invariably rises over time.

The Budget, to me, is more than the announcements of basic subsidies and handouts. We should view it over a longer horizon and chart directions for Singapore both socially and economically. Thus, there is urgency for us to act in the interest of our future generations and prevent any undesirable outcome.

Moving forward, I hope the Government and the public can jointly view subsidies and funding support packages or programmes more holistically and taking longer term perspectives. This way, we can continue our prudent spending approach with an aim to improve wealth distribution throughout our society and funding timely investments for the subsequent generations. Mdm Speaker, with this, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on Budget 2016. Budget 2016 is a new chapter for this term of Government and one that provides for Singaporeans for our current needs, and also prepares us for the future.

Let me begin with a topic close to heart for many Singaporeans – on feeling secure about our future needs and retiring comfortably. Budget 2016 provides for many measures that support our cost-of-living expenses such as the GST vouchers and other top-ups, support and subsidies for various schemes such as MediShield Life to prepare us for our long-term healthcare costs, and the Silver Support Scheme, for seniors who may need support in their retiring years.

Through my conversations with residents and many ordinary Singaporeans, many have serious concerns that their future is uncertain and they have question marks looming over several aspects of their future. Chief among these concerns is whether they can retire comfortably. Many young Singaporeans today are already looking ahead and have set expectations of their expected lifestyles in years to come, which also raises the issue of whether they see their future beyond their working lifetime, whether it is here in Singapore or somewhere else.

To give Singaporeans a sense of security about the future, we need to stabilise their future expectations for them. We have built mechanisms such as the CPF. But unlike ordinary savings, its use is rigid and does not do enough to provide stability amidst uncertainties. The reality is that most Singaporeans use a large part of their CPF for housing. When needed, most of their supposed savings are hard to access and of limited use. If they need to monetise their assets, these days, downgrading does not provide much benefit because the gains are also limited. This is also exacerbated because a large part of their savings had also gone into long-term interest payments and other indirect taxes such as housing levies.

I think we are too deep in after many years to reverse the use of the CPF for housing, but on the broader scale of our collective policies, the Government should consider an end-to-end review of our policies that affect retirement security and whether they are sufficient to give Singaporeans a strong sense of security in old age.

As a start, to provide stability in an uncertain future, the CPF itself must be certain. To the ordinary Singaporean, the goal posts have been shifting and that has created this uncertainty and insecurity among Singaporeans about their future. That has to be a clear definitive and firm end point that all Singaporeans can agree on and work towards. CPF LIFE is certainly a big improvement, but the Minimum Sum is still a moving target to many.

There has been a lot of recent progress with MediShield Life – a scheme I personally believe provides many benefits to citizens. However, these changes have not done enough to provide the assurance of a secure retirement. Even the standard integrated shield plans announced recently cannot guarantee that the premiums will remain at a fixed price after two years. So, many are worried about premium hikes in the years ahead.

Madam, I support the principle of means-testing, as it means that more help can be diverted to those in the lower income group or for targeted segments who need it most. However, we need to monitor all our schemes collectively, because each is often governed by individual agencies. If most of our schemes are means-tested the same way, then there is a possibility that our policies could end up skewed too much for the lower-income, with little going in the way to help the middle-income groups. This is the sentiment on the ground, and it may be time for the Ministry of Finance (MOF) to study the impact of our schemes holistically.

The Silver Support Scheme, for instance, was implemented with good intentions. However, leaving out senior citizens who are in 5-room flats or larger, does leave many retirees who were middle-income earners, unsupported. Many of my older residents have asked the Government to move away from using household types as a cut-off because it is no longer reflective of income and wealth. For example, a 5-room flat in Choa Chu Kang today sells for about $450,000 to $488,000, compared to a 3-room flat selling at $550,000 in Upper Cross Street or a 4-room flat selling at $900,000 at the Pinnacle.

Recently, I met Mr Ho, a resident in Choa Chu Kang, who has lived in his 5-room flat for the last 18 years. He had purchased the flat together with his son 18 years ago at $190,000. That was what he could afford then, and it reflected the wages he had accumulated over his working life. It does not mean that because the flat is worth $450,000 today, he is rich.

For him, not much can be monetised from his joint-asset because his son and his family still need a home. Downgrading to a 4-room or 3-room flat will not be practical for him because he has himself, his spouse, together with his son's family and grandchildren. In all likelihood, Mr Ho needs to find another flat if they downgrade and the total costs could be more than $450,000. So, is it worth it to make that shift?

Mr Ho explained he had purchased a 5-room flat with his son because they wanted to live together in a multi-generational setting. And I agree with him when he says that this disincentivises seniors who want to live with their children, because they will always lose out on Government benefits and rebates.

So, means-testing this way no longer makes sense as a reflection of wealth or income status. We accept means-testing in welfare schemes and hospital subsidies but let us also take a practical approach on other schemes such as Silver Support Scheme, especially in helping our retirees, as they are no longer working or earning an income.

The use of the lifetime CPF savings approach as an indicator of the Silver Support Scheme was indeed innovative and I was hopeful that it would serve to help many Singaporeans. The inclusion of the second criterion using household types is an archaic idea that diminishes the impact of the scheme.

Mdm Speaker, as I sat listening to Minister Heng's excellent delivery of Budget 2016, looking at the many tables and charts, one must realise that our schemes today are getting increasingly complex. Given the variable criteria for each scheme, how many Singaporeans actually do know what they are getting from Budget 2016 and all our Government policies?

So, it is important that the Government provides clarity to every citizen on the benefits that they receive. If they have visibility today, it will also help them plan for the future. It is important to ensure that there is clarity and greater transparency in our social compact. There is no point pouring millions of dollars into schemes that people do not know how to use or know that they can benefit from, or they can leverage.

I would like to propose that each year, the Government should consider sending a consolidated statement of accounts to each Singaporean – we do that for our income tax and CPF scheme – but a consolidated account for each Singaporean to inform them exactly how much rebates, vouchers and benefits they will receive for that year. At that point in time, it may also be useful, given their current state of CPF, CPF LIFE, Medisave and MediShield Life, and so forth, whether they are adequately covered for their future, compared to others of similar profile or certain pre-defined retirement benchmarks.

This is not a new idea in the sense that it is similar to the annual consolidated statement of accounts that banks, utilities or telecommunication service providers send to their customers. But this can be a first step in helping Singaporeans better understand how they are benefiting from the various schemes, so that they can better manage their finances today, and be assured of what they have in place for their future.

Madam, we also live in a time of unprecedented change. The Finance Minister and the Prime Minister in recent speeches have also spoken about technology developments that can create opportunities for businesses and jobs in Singapore. This would also mean that work requirements and the environment are likely to change for many Singaporeans.

I cannot help but think that while our taxi drivers worry about competition from Uber drivers, there is a larger concern ahead, which is the impact of driverless vehicles in the near future. The trend is already visible, and I think it is just a matter of time. What do we do with the thousands of taxi drivers, bus drivers, goods vehicle drivers in time to come? The same can be said of many other jobs that would be affected by this digital wave reaching our shores.

There are also many studies that predict that we are more likely to see some PMET segments lose their relevance due to automation and artificial intelligence, compared to skilled personnel such as engineers, technicians, even plumbers.

Job security for Singaporeans cannot be taken for granted and we must be prepared for this. As a responsible, far-sighted Government, we must prepare Singaporeans for this possibility, or if you must, eventuality. It will take us years to reinvent our workforce, but it must start today.

We must get better at re-inventing our workers. The key to countering unemployment and under-employment is how quickly we can transform our workers to be relevant to a new set of jobs. The key is not just about training or matching, it is about re-inventing the workforce.

SkillsFuture is a wonderful initiative, but it also leaves a lot to personal choice and therefore may not be able to shape the momentum and direction of our labour force. A clear and concerted industrial policy may be needed, given that the Government has been studying the development of these technologies and the jobs of the future. For the educated group, we must also start looking at the depth of our skills developments and focus on mastery in areas that are not so easily replaced by artificial intelligence or robots. Mdm Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This year's Budget represents a turning point, in terms of not only dealing with current needs, but also in reaffirming the paths that should be taken to preserve our prosperity, both socially and economically.

Some may perceive this Budget as one that provides a lot of help to businesses, but the fact remains that a significant investment is made towards the needy, as well other investments in young Singaporeans, for example, the new Outward Bound School (OBS) campus.

Looking at the economic challenges now, it is not surprising to see many Singaporeans feeling worried and concerned about, among others, job opportunities and job security, while for businessmen, it is about the challenging business prospects.

However, if there is something meaningful and important that can be derived from this Budget, it is that it gives hope that despite the dark clouds, there is a ray of hope and a huge opportunity for everyone, provided that we are ready to undergo a transformation, and the Government will always provide support.

Although several sectors are affected, there are many other sectors that offer many opportunities. Many companies and entrepreneurs have seized this opportunity. The same goes in terms of careers. For example, the fall in oil prices may have affected the oil and maritime sectors, but it is something positive for the aviation industry. It is also the same for industries like the halal food exports, where its global market continues to expand, and should be exploited by our local businessmen.

Technological development has created many business and career opportunities, and hence, our people must be prepared to take advantage of it through a mindset change and by obtaining relevant skills. I am confident that the foundation built through a culture of lifelong learning for a knowledge economy will help Singaporeans undergo this transformation, supported by industries and the Government.

Infocomm technology (ICT) is one field that is developing rapidly. It promises many business opportunities and careers like cyber security, analytics and application development, with high salaries, because it requires a lot of expertise.

However, apart from ICT, technology is also required in many other careers. For instance, the banking sector uses a lot of technology and needs capable talent. This digital wave is becoming more prevalent and will change how we work in many sectors.

Within this wave, certain workers, including the PMET segment, may become less relevant due to automation and the use of artificial intelligence. Hence, the Malay community must be ready for this change. For example, the way we shop or hail a taxi has also changed in this digital era through applications like Uber. In media, digital platforms like Netflix and Spotify also brings competition to current media platforms like MediaCorp, Singtel and Starhub, and all these affect us.

We need to reinvent ourselves, and make use of SkillsFuture to upskill or look for new skills. I hope that the Government can help by showing us the way and direction that will help the community to tread potential pathways, as well as motivate our youths in terms of giving career guidance, academic counselling and the training that is required. It should be done using better approaches and giving better information.

Here, I hope that Malay bodies like MUIS, Mendaki and the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) will play a part in implementing several programmes, and we should further enhance the efforts to help the community undergo this transformation to embrace technology in the digital era.

(In English): Madam, just as our forefathers rallied together for a common cause and vision to build Singapore into a developed economy over 50 years, we will need our current and future generations of Singaporeans to also find meaning in doing the same for our Singapore tomorrow. For that to happen, they will have to continue to see their future in Singapore so that they can build it to be the home that they want it to be.

Twenty years ago, our late founding father Mr Lee Kuan Yew made a famous quote, "To the young and the not so old, I say, look at the horizon, follow the rainbow and go ride it."

Madam, I believe in the rainbow, and it is important to give our people a sense of security for the future. They must feel that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is attainable. That the rainbow is real and is not a mirage. Only then can we be more confident to ride the rainbow of opportunities that come with this great nation that we call home. Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of Budget 2016.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget delivered by the Finance Minister. Every Budget is a balancing act, striking a balance between generosity and prudence. But this year's Budget has to balance another set of factors – helping Singaporean firms and families weather the economic storms ahead, while setting our long-term course for the right direction. This is definitely not an easy thing to do and I thank the Minister for largely accomplishing it.

First, let us talk about firms. In the short term, companies, especially SMEs, will be facing quite a lot of pain. Our growth last year of 2.1% was the slowest since 2009 and economists expect growth for the next few years to remain stuck at around 2%.

Manufacturing actually declined by 5.2% last year, again, the worst showing since the global financial crisis. At the same time, rental and wages remain high. Besides helping with wage credits and loans, is there more that we can do to help our companies weather the storm? I urge the Government to keep re-looking into the high rental cost issue. In fact, very often, I hear feedback because a lot of industrial buildings and shopping malls have been bought by REITS. Many of my residents told me that whenever the lease is up for renewal, if they make money, the rental will surely go up and this is one of the main concerns of those who are in businesses.

On the other hand, I have also seen many business owners who have not made any progress in reducing their reliance on foreign workers. Instead of relooking into their work processes, they ask their Members of Parliament (MPs) to appeal to delay the time they have to send their foreign workers back. In fact, I have a resident who came to see me and he told me, "MP, do you know that foreign workers are like a drug. The moment you give it to us, it is difficult to wean it off. You want to take it away from us; it is difficult for us to survive". I am sure my fellow colleagues also meet similar residents in their Meet-the-People Sessions asking for more help.

I would like to urge our businesses to embrace the spirit of our pioneer entrepreneurs and keep innovating even in economic downturns. One of our founding leaders Mr Lim Kim San was a perfect example of this.

After World War II, when Singapore's economy was still ravaged by war, he came up with a machine to produce sago pearls cheaply and made his first million. He did not wait around for the Government to give any research grants or Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) for machinery purchase!

Macro-economically, reports suggest that our push to increase productivity by 2% to 3% is not on track. This will hurt our economic growth and specifically the wages of locals. I suspect both Government and businesses will have to work harder on this.

To sum up, we need to strike a balance between helping companies and preventing a passive and reliant attitude. There is an old saying, "Give a man fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." In the short term, Singaporean firms might rightly expect some fish from Government to keep their workers fed. But ultimately, the whole country will run out of fish if they do not develop bigger, smarter and faster fishing ships to get better fishes from international waters.

That is why I fully support the idea of automation and internationalisation. It is not going to be easy but whichever companies embrace these longer-term plans will emerge stronger and survive better in this very competitive business climate.

I would also like to raise three specific points with regards to the economy: red tape, trade associations and retrenchment.

The first is red tape. I am delighted to see the Government provide a business grants portal so that companies can apply for grants easily. Beyond the portal, Government can also look into harmonising the different types of grants and simplifying rules, so that companies do not have to resort to consultants just to navigate the grants, and have their grants creamed off by these middle-men.

Over the last few months, I have met quite a lot of my residents who come to my Meet-the-People-Sessions for help. These are SME business owners. And why did they come to seek help? Actually, they were approached by consultants, or, for some, they appoint the consultant and the consultant promised them that there is some money to get from Government. At the end, when their PIC application was not successful, you know what the consultant did? Ask them to go and see their MP.

In the past few years, many companies put up websites, bought machineries, some of which are still lying at a corner of their office and collecting dust. How much more productive can it go? Hence, the transition from PIC grants to the Automation Support Package is the right way to go. But I am sure companies, especially SMEs, will need a lot of help as automation is much more complicated. I hope SPRING Singapore can play the role of facilitators or consultants, without creaming off their grants of course.

The idea of strengthening trade associations with grants and seconded Government officers is also a timely one, as trade associations are the ones who knows the needs and challenges of their respective industries.

Civil servants, trade associations and businesses should have more trust in each other and have common vision of transforming our businesses, with more automation and bringing our businesses to the world stage. Mdm Speaker, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This year's Budget is to help local businesses especially SMEs to transform and adapt to the new economy. However the economic outlook in the next few years is worrying. I hope the Government can further explore how to help SMEs to overcome the present difficulties. At the same time, local businesses should not develop a mindset of relying on the Government. They should be like our pioneer entrepreneurs who were self-reliant and made breakthroughs without the help from the Government.

Singapore companies now cannot be "kiasu" or "kiasi". Instead, they must bravely seek breakthroughs. I applaud the Government for simplifying the application process for grants and subsidies as well as strengthening the cooperation with trade associations to help more SMEs increase their efficiency.

There are two points worth noting. First, when the automation support package replaces PIC, the definition of automation should not be too narrow, because this will make application more difficult, or it may miss investments that could truly increase productivity. Second, the Government should encourage trade associations to organise more overseas study trips to look for new ideas and opportunities, helping our companies to go overseas.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, the third issue is retrenchment. We need to make sure companies try to retain as many Singaporeans as possible, including in high-income jobs. Do not cut the locals from management jobs, while retaining lower-paid locals to fulfil the quotas. Mdm Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would now like to highlight the issue of retrenchment. I would like to thank the Minister for deferring the increase in foreign worker levy, which will help businesses cope with the uncertain economic environment. With this deferment, we should ensure that Singaporeans do not lose their jobs, so please do not allow our people to be retrenched, like what happened recently, or more may lose their jobs.

I would like to urge businesses, when they have to retrench workers, to retain Singaporeans. I would also like to urge the Government to ensure that companies give priority to Singaporeans and not sacrifice them in order to save foreign workers. This includes reducing those who earn higher income, while retaining those with lower salaries to fulfil the quota.

I also hope that the Government can provide comprehensive assistance to retrenched workers, assistance from the point of training until they gain employment.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, the other major thrust of this Budget is families. I commend the Government for not overlooking the plight of the needy in our midst and of young couples who are starting families. The CDA First Step Grant, KidSTART and Fresh Start Housing Scheme will greatly help needy families with young children to ensure no child is left behind as our nation progresses. I urge more people to complement this effort by volunteering their time and expertise, to befriend and encourage such families.

I would like to share the stories of three residents whom I met at the coffeeshop, and they talked to me in Mandarin. Mdm Speaker, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] After the announcement of the Budget Statement, I went to the coffee shop on Sunday as usual to have breakfast and chat with my residents. One resident pulled me aside and said to me, "MP, I have something to tell you. I live in a five-room apartment. Before, I worked very hard to be able to afford this flat. Now, I am retired and have no income. Why does the Government not give me any money?" After a while, another resident came to tell me, "MP, I live in a HDB flat, but it is an Executive Apartment. I pinched and scraped in order to buy this flat. Now I have retired and have no income. Why does the Government not give me money?" Again, after a while, another resident came to me. She said she has a friend who lives in a bungalow. Her friend worked two jobs to buy this bungalow, which is rather run-down, not the modern type. Now, he has no job, no income, why is it that the Government does not give him any money?

What they are referring to is the Silver Support Scheme. What worries me is that none of these residents mentioned whether their children gave them money or not. Traditionally, we have the responsibility to maintain our parents – so-called "raised children to provide for old age". I hope we will not delegate the responsibility of looking after our parents to the Government. The purpose of this Scheme is to help those at the lowest 20% to 30% income percentile. If everyone asks for the Government for subsidies, then Government will not be able to help those who are truly needy. I hope this "He has, why I do not have?" mindset will not become a characteristic of Singaporeans.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, another change that I have heard a lot at the ground is the capping of tax reliefs, which will primarily affect high-income mothers with two or more children. One such mother told me that this will increase her tax burden by 20%.