Hansard, Wednesday, 1 March 2017

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 fiscal year (FY) 2017/2018 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 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 3 to 9 March 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 Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Defence (a) whether the Ministry has determined (i) how the used SAF uniforms came into the possession of the smugglers who were caught unloading them near Batam in November 2016 and (ii) the motive for smuggling the uniforms to Batam; and (b) how does the Ministry intend to prevent such incidents from happening again.

Mdm Speaker, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) has an established system for disposing of its used and unwanted equipment. SAF Servicemen who need to dispose of their used uniforms can do so via collection points at all SAF eMarts. Our contractors for uniform disposal collect the used uniforms and send them to the incinerators. The used uniforms are then incinerated under witness by an SAF personnel.

Following the incident, SAF has reminded our contractors to ensure that all uniform disposals are done in accordance with established procedures. SAF will also be putting up more disposal bins at SAF eMarts and will establish used uniform collection points at entrances of selected camps near populated areas in the next two to three months to reinforce the system. National Servicemen (NSmen) will be reminded to dispose of their old uniforms only via authorised collection points. These measures will reduce opportunities for unauthorised vendors to obtain and then sell used SAF uniforms.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Could I please ask him to answer part (a) of my question? I also have a few supplementary questions. Does SAF carry out any regular audits or spot checks to ensure that proper disposal is always carried out by the contractors? What actions will be taken to improve the current disposal process? What actions will be taken against the persons found responsible for causing or contributing to the uniforms being sold or smuggled into Indonesia?

Mdm Speaker, the handling and disposal of used SAF uniforms, we suspect, is due to actions of unauthorised parties. Our investigations have found that our authorised contractors have disposed of uniforms in accordance with established procedures. As mentioned earlier, the collection points are all available at all SAF eMarts. To enhance the convenience of our Servicemen, SAF will be putting the disposal bins with a one-way non-return valve at the entrance of selected camps near populated areas.

So, the point is, we will continue to engage and remind our Servicemen and NSmen on where they should dispose of their used uniforms. We take this matter very seriously. We will ensure that should there be any individuals who have been found to have violated some of these regulations or procedures, they will be taken to task.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. Could I ask again what actions will be taken against the persons found responsible for causing or contributing to the uniforms being sold or smuggled into Indonesia? Another supplementary question, given the answers that the Senior Minister of State has given, is or will Singapore be working with the Indonesian authorities to identify the persons who have been arrested or detained in Indonesia in connection with the investigation for the smuggling of these uniforms?

It was reported by the media that the Indonesian Navy is investigating. We are waiting for the outcome of their investigation and, should there be any need for us to work together with them, we will certainly work with them. I think it is premature to even discuss what actions we will take. We will look at the situation as it emerges.

One final short clarification, Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Could the Senior Minister of State please share with the House what would be the likely or expected timeline for the investigation to complete such that the Ministry of Defence would be able to consider whether actions will be taken against the persons responsible?

Madam, as mentioned, it was reported by the media that the Indonesian Navy is the one that is conducting the investigation. I think I am not in a position to set any timeline because, ideally, it is up to the Indonesian authorities, and we will leave it to them. When they complete the investigation and they share the information with us, then we will take the action accordingly.

2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will implement a ban on the domestic trade in ivory; (b) if so, what is the timeframe for implementing the ban; and (c) if not, what factors does the Ministry take into account in not banning the domestic trade.

Mdm Speaker, the Government is looking into implementing a domestic ban on the sale of ivory. This is part of Singapore's broader commitment to tackle the illegal ivory trade and to support elephant conservation. The implementation details, including an engagement process with relevant stakeholders, are currently being worked out.

Mr Louis Ng.

Mdm Speaker, can I check if there is a timeframe for implementing this ban? Secondly, if we do implement the ban, can I check with the Minister of State what will they do with the ivory that is currently on sale in our shops? Would we be requiring the shop owners to surrender them or will we allow them to keep it? My fear of allowing them to keep it is that it may enter into the black market.

Madam, we will announce the timeframe when we have sufficient time to engage with the local stakeholders and we will notify the public accordingly. In terms of local ivory trade, the commercial import and export of ivory have been prohibited since 1990. Non-commercial import and export of ivory, for example, for museum display and for research, are still permitted with the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore's (AVA's) approval and documentation. Within Singapore, buying and selling of ivory is permitted until such a ban is in place.

3 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider conducting a study to quantify the savings in healthcare costs that can be obtained from various possible levels of incremental improvements in air quality in the short, mid and long term.

There have been several studies estimating costs associated with air pollution. The World Bank and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation published a study in 2016 which estimated the economic costs attributable to air pollution across various countries. Locally, a study was published in 2013 by Prof Euston Quah and Assoc Prof Chia Wai-Mun to estimate the economic cost of particulate air pollution (PM10) on public health in Singapore.

While the exact figures may differ as they depend on the assumptions and methodologies in each study, it is clear that air pollution has a direct impact on public health. To address this public health concern, my Ministry included in the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 2015 a set of Air Quality Targets which we aim to achieve by 2020. These standards are based on the World Health Organization's (WHO's) Air Quality Guidelines.

To date, we have already initiated several measures to reduce the emission of pollutants. We have recently tightened the emission standards for industries. We have also introduced measures to manage the emissions from vehicles. These include stricter standards for fuel quality and emissions standards for new vehicles, as well as incentive schemes to encourage the purchase of new and cleaner vehicle models. We will continue to review these measures as we work towards our 2020 Air Quality Targets.

Mr Leon Pereira.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. Going forward, when the Government presents measures in the Budget or through other platforms in relation to air quality, will the Government also consider providing an estimate of the positive impact on healthcare costs, MediShield Life and other components of healthcare costs, so that a better assessment can be made about the investments that we are putting into air quality and the likely savings that may result in healthcare costs on the other side of the equation?

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. As I have noted, we have many local and international studies that seek to establish the impact of air pollution on health as well as healthcare costs. Depending on the methodologies and the assumptions used, the figures may vary. What we have done to inform policy review and formulation is to gather these various studies and have a holistic picture of the economic costs to health and healthcare and then determine our policies.

As I have said, we have set air quality targets based on WHO Air Quality Guidelines in our Sustainable Singapore Blueprint (SSB) 2015. WHO has established a set of air quality guidelines where health risk is largely reduced because every reduction obviously matters. WHO also acknowledges that when we set guidelines, we have to take into account local constraints, such as mitigation costs, for instance, accessibility, affordability and availability of the technologies.

Hence, when we regularly review our policies as well as develop new policies in order to reduce air pollution and improve air quality, we take these into account as part of the cost-benefit analysis. But as I said, the figures can vary significantly and we have to look at it holistically.

4 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the current purchase limits of Singapore Savings Bonds can be raised; and (b) whether Singaporeans can be allowed to use monies in their Supplementary Retirement Scheme Account to purchase the Singapore Savings Bonds.

More than 40,000 individuals now hold over $1.1 billion of Singapore Savings Bonds in aggregate. The Savings Bond is a good alternative to cash held in savings and fixed deposit accounts. Our efforts have, therefore, focused on making it convenient for individuals to apply for Savings Bonds through automated teller machines and Internet banking channels.

Mr Patrick Tay has asked if Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) monies can be used to purchase Savings Bonds. This is an idea we are open to and have been studying. There is, of course, a cost involved in making this channel available and we have to assess whether it can benefit a sufficiently broad segment of people. As of now, the additional benefits are not clear since SRS monies can already be invested in Singapore Government Securities, which offer the same returns as Savings Bonds, if held to maturity.

Mr Patrick Tay has also suggested raising the individual limits on purchasing Savings Bonds. Currently, the maximum investment amount for each Savings Bond issue, or "issue limit", is $50,000 and the maximum individual holding, or "overall limit", is $100,000. These limits ensure that Savings Bonds can be available to more individuals.

The current limits are not cast in stone. However, so far, only a small minority of Savings Bond investors have reached the boundaries of these limits. Only one in five applicants, on average, requests for the maximum of $50,000 of a given issue. Less than 7% of investors are near or have reached the $100,000 overall limit. We will monitor the take-up for some time before considering whether raising the limits would benefit a broad proportion of savers.

5 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Communications and Information what criteria are used to determine the selection of falsehoods corrected on the Gov Factually website.

Factually aims to clarify widespread or common misperceptions of Government policy or incorrect assertions on matters of public concern that can harm Singapore's social fabric.

Over the years, the site has addressed inaccurate assertions about various matters, such as housing, the economy and finance. During the Zika outbreak, we allayed public misperceptions about the virus. This is part of the Government's efforts to ensure Singaporeans have access to accurate information on important matters.

Factually, as its name suggests, concerns itself with facts, not opinions.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Just one supplementary question; maybe this is just a confirmation. The process that Factually follows to decide which issues to talk about, is that process fundamentally about collecting feedback from various Ministries, Government agencies and Statutory Boards? Or has Factually in the past and will it in the future, be open to feedback from other non-government organisations to address on the website?

Madam, the Member is correct that we do source the information and the claims from various sources within the Government and also from outside the Government. In fact, periodically, we do public engagement exercises and sessions, and during these sessions, some concerns may be raised by members of the public and we will look into them. If we think there is enough of interest in that subject matter that has purveyed some misperceptions, we will clarify.

6 Ms K Thanaletchimi asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what kind of financial and emotional support is given to single fathers who are from low- and middle-income families, some of whom also care for elderly family members; (b) how can the Ministry better engage the community and single-parent families so that the support can also come from the community at large; and (c) how can proactive assistance be given to such families instead of them resorting to borrowing money from moneylenders to make ends meet.

Madam, the Government recognises that single parents, especially those who are from low- or middle-income families, face additional challenges in caring for their children and elderly parents. Apart from shouldering the cost of caring for their family members alone, they also have to balance work and family commitments. Such challenges are faced by single fathers and mothers alike. Correspondingly, the Government provides similar levels of support for both.

Government benefits that support the growth and development of children are given to all children, regardless of the marital status of their parents. Children of single parents are eligible for MediSave Grant for Newborns and MediShield Life coverage, Child Development Account (CDA) benefits, child and infant care subsidies, child and infant care leave, the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Concession and other education and healthcare subsidies.

On top of basic child and infant care subsidies, low- and middle-income families with working mothers or single fathers can enjoy additional subsidies for centre-based care for their children. Depending on their household income, families receiving the highest tier of subsidies can pay as little as $3 per month for full-day childcare services. For half-day kindergarten run by the Ministry of Education and Anchor Operators, lower-income families can pay as little as $1 a month after subsidies.

The Government has also put in place a range of initiatives to support caregivers of elderly family members, including single parents. These include home- and centre-based care services, respite care services, training grants and subsidies to help defray the costs of care.

Both single fathers and single mothers who require financial assistance to meet their basic needs can approach the Social Service Offices for help. If they need help with socio-emotional issues, they can approach a Family Service Centre.

My Ministry has also appointed four Divorce Support Specialist Agencies (DSSAs) to support divorcing and divorced parents and enhance child-centricity. Apart from participating in evidence-based programmes designed to help parents better understand the impact of divorce on children, parents who require additional emotional support can receive counselling and casework services at these DSSAs.

To further strengthen the system of support, my Ministry also started to implement the KidSTART pilot programme in July last year. This programme will proactively identify low-income and vulnerable children aged six and below, and these may include children of single fathers. KidSTART will help to provide them with early access to health, learning and development support, and monitor their progress during their early years.

Aside from the Government, community agencies, such as the Centre for Fathering and Focus on the Family, also provide support to parents, including single-parent families. Self-help groups have developed programmes and schemes for single parents, especially low-income single-parent families. Such programmes may include workshops, personal coaching, counselling and family bonding activities. Through peer support programmes, single-parent families are also roped in to support others going through similar challenges.

In terms of financial support for the low-income, society at large has also been contributing actively. One example is the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC) Starter Scheme, where OCBC directly contributes funds into the child's CDA when parents save. The Government then matches the combined amount, thereby helping low-income parents to multiply their child's CDA savings. Another example is the close partnership between all the five Community Development Councils and the National Trades Union Congress' FairPrice to help low-income families with the purchase of milk powder for their children.

Providing support for the vulnerable in society is a priority for the Government. We will continue to work at improving the delivery of social assistance and services to build a stronger social safety net for Singaporeans, including single parents.

7 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will review the eligibility criteria for rental housing so that the income criterion is either a total household income or a per capita income; and (b) whether the per capita can be set at $650, similar to the ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance criterion.

Madam, as we have stated before, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) reviews the eligibility criteria for HDB rental flats from time to time and will continue to do so, taking this suggestion and others into account. Whether the criteria are based on household income or per capita income, there will always be a few deserving cases that do not meet the cut-off. That is why HDB already exercises flexibility so that families which do not meet the eligibility criteria can still get a rental flat, if they have no other housing options or family support. This includes bigger families, even if their household income exceeds the income ceiling.

Mr Louis Ng.

I thank the Minister for the reply. Can I just check if the HDB officers actively or proactively offer this information that we do allow waivers on a case-by-case basis and assist the applicants in applying for the waivers?

Secondly, I do understand there is a shortage of rental flats. So, I would like to ask the Ministry of National Development to consider pegging future supply to projections based on the demand of those on the ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance scheme, because they are the people who usually reside in the rental flats. And while there is shortage now, in future, we should project based on those numbers.

Madam, the fact that there is an appeals channel and the fact that HDB already exercises flexibility for cases that do not meet the income criterion, this is public information, and we do already receive many appeals on that basis. So, anyone who has an application for a rental flat and their application is rejected on an income basis can freely put up an appeal, either through their Member of Parliament or to HDB directly.

On the supply of rental flats, that is, indeed, being stepped up and there are more rental flats coming into the market.

Order. End of Question Time.

[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [20 February 2017], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018." ‒ [Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]

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

Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

Mdm Speaker, like many of my colleagues in this House, I sought and received feedback and comments from residents and many others about the Budget. There are concerns about rising costs of living and great discomfort with the uncertain times ahead and the changes that Singaporeans are expecting to go through.

I think it is clear to Singaporeans that it is not business as usual. People are more aware of the deep shifts in the world with the advances in technology and the disruptions to traditional businesses and jobs.

The shopkeepers in my estate know that business is dwindling partly because people now buy online. Most of them are old and their children are generally not interested in taking over the business. They are not sure whether to continue to invest in the business, especially as they are uncertain as to how long more they can sustain the lease. Some shopkeepers are concerned about future income.

A resident I met recently sought help to re-enter a course he signed up for to upgrade himself. He failed to meet the grades required of the school and was terminated a few months into the course. He knows he has to work hard to keep up, but picking up a new skill and studying while still working are challenging.

I also know of a young couple with seven young children. The husband is the sole-breadwinner. He is keen to find a better paying job and his wife is also keen to work to supplement the family's income. However, they are saddled with bills and debts and have no alternative options for childcare. They are, therefore, struggling to survive and have difficulties making the time to upskill so that they can participate actively in the future economy.

These are some real day-to-day concerns and struggles faced by our fellow Singaporeans. I do not intend to paint a gloomy picture. In the cases I mentioned, some guidance and support are being given to the individuals and families. I also know of a lot of people who have overcome difficulties and I believe that people do need to take personal responsibility to improve their circumstances. But the point I would like to make is that we will always have to keep in mind the day-to-day issues people face and ensure that the translation of our policies can alleviate these concerns.

Budget 2017 sets out a broad roadmap for the way forward as a nation. It has been described by some as a Budget for the Uncertain Future. In his speech, the Minister for Finance, Mr Heng Swee Keat, said that Budget 2017 outlines how we can thrive in an uncertain and rapidly changing world. It is a call for all of us to pull together − the Government, firms, unions, community organisations and individuals ‒ with everyone doing his part. He added that our bonds will help us develop greater resilience in the face of unexpected shifts and improve our ability to adapt.

There are gems within the Budget with regard to the plans to re-energise the economy. I have faith that the efforts in industry transformation, internationalisation, improving capabilities of businesses and workers will go a long way in building a stronger economy. However, the Budget is not just about the economy and fiscal needs but should also be a roadmap on society's values and support network.

I am happy to note that the Budget had also covered plans on building a caring and inclusive society. I feel that it is important that we give a little more attention to this aspect and consider the development of our social policies in light of the changing trends in the world.

In this regard, there are three main areas I wish to address.

One, how do we help the vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community survive in the competitive economy?

Two, how do we rally people to care about one another and the environment while they face their own challenges?

Three, how can we harness existing resources within the community, in particular, amongst the young, to work together to build Singapore's future?

My first point relates to those who may be vulnerable or disadvantaged in our community. It is important for us to ensure that they do not get left behind in our race to develop our economy. This may sound cliche, but it is real.

Who will be disadvantaged? I am referring to the elderly who have to struggle with the technological and digital developments; the children from low-income families whose parents may not have the time and money to send them to enrichment classes; persons with disabilities which may inhibit them from participating actively in the competitive job market; caregivers of the elderly who have to stay home to care for their loved ones. There is a whole spectrum of people with varying needs. The Government needs to ensure that it does not lose sight of them in crafting policies and programmes.

The reality though is that it is unrealistic to expect the Government to extend help to every single individual. A more feasible way is to encourage the growth of a community network of support, with organised voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) as well as organic groups. These groups or people can help fill in the gaps by looking out for those who need support and provide the help when needed. I, therefore, support the plans in strengthening community bonds by enhancing the funding and development of capabilities to VWOs, charities and self-help groups. It is important to extend the support and funding to organic groups as well. Last year, there was mention of Our Singapore Fund. I would like to hear about the usage of this fund and whether there are plans to develop it further.

This leads me to my second point, about rallying people to help one another. It is very easy for people to forget about others when they are caught up with their own issues and difficulties. Most times though, people can support one another and there are always avenues to pay it forward. There should be efforts to create and promote a culture of giving back to the community through education and conversations with people in the community.

I laud efforts like SGCares and hope it gains stronger momentum amongst Singaporeans.

On the ground, we can continue to develop platforms for people to give a little time and support to others. For example, at Bukit Batok East, we have Project Giveaway Gateway initiated by the Youth Executive Committee. It is basically a platform for residents to make Requests and Offers and the Community Club will assist to match the needs and offers of support. At the end of last year, the team organised a Back-to-School edition and many residents came forward to purchase vouchers for school shoes which are then donated to children from needy families.

People should also be encouraged to continue taking care of the environment. In keeping with the theme of a Budget for the future, I am happy to see the initiatives which pave the way towards a greener Singapore. I trust there will be further efforts introduced to continue encouraging environmental consciousness. At this juncture, I declare that I am a board member of the Singapore Environmental Council. I am of the view that any future efforts need to be realistic and sustainable. The programmes need to connect with the people on the ground.

Two issues that have been raised in the past few years can be revived or rolled out in a more sustainable manner: (a) dealing with food wastage and (b) the over-use of plastic bags. I would like to hear more about the Government's plans in these areas and any future efforts to sustain environmental awareness in Singapore.

My third point relates to harnessing our existing resources in the community. In the past one and a half years as a Member of Parliament, I have been approached by several young people, some of them living in my estate and who are looking to do projects to help the community. This is heartening and such enthusiasm should be nurtured and encouraged. I note there are many existing programmes for youths and platforms for them to express their views and obtain grants to carry out community projects. At the local level, more can be done. Grassroots organisations, VWOs and charities can work together with youths within the neighbourhood to create solutions that can benefit the local community. Mdm Speaker, allow me to say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Over the past year, I had the chance to chat with and engage many people, including students, grassroots leaders, professionals, volunteers and housewives from the Malay-Muslim community. Initially, I was worried because I observed a lack of concern or sense of urgency about the ever-changing economic situation and the need to upskill to tackle the new economy.

However, recently, I have seen a change in the mindsets and attitudes of our community. Many of them frequently asked about opportunities to upgrade themselves and many have taken the step to acquire new skills.

This awareness should be increased and guidelines to understand and use the available resources should be made clear. In this regard, I feel that the Malay-Muslim bodies can play an important role in providing the assistance and platform for our community to prepare themselves in acquiring the knowledge and skills to face the new economy.

There are, indeed, efforts being done. For instance, the establishment of the Future Ready Unit at Majlis Pendidikan Anak-Anak Islam (MENDAKI) and the SkillsFuture Service Touchpoint at the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP). These efforts must be continued and expanded. My view is that every Malay-Muslim body needs to be aware of our nation's development and direction at the national level. Programme planning and framework structuring must be in line with the direction that our country is heading to, so that we can help our community progress and be able to compete together with the other communities in this large family that we call Singapore.

Another issue that I think is important for us to think about is the social changes sweeping across the world today. There are events happening in other countries that may have an impact on the lives of Singaporeans, for instance, and in particular, the spread of Islamophobia. Singapore is unlike other countries because our society is different. As a society, we treasure the harmony among the different races and religions. Nonetheless, we cannot take this sense of comfort for granted. Constant effort is required to foster inter-racial relations. We must always maintain a good relationship with our neighbours and colleagues so that we can rely on the strong bond that we built when we are faced with challenges.

(In English): I note that Minister Heng had said that we will take a learning and adaptive approach, try new methods, continue with them when they work well, cut losses when they do not and draw on feedback and experience to adjust and refine our plans. I believe this would also refer to our social policies as well. This is a practical approach and it is important in ensuring that we keep pace with the uncertain and changing world. I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mdm Speaker, I rise to thank the Minister for Finance for delivering a good Budget that can spur long-term growth in our economy during this challenging time. I am grateful to be given the opportunity to serve on the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE), whose recommendations are broadly reflected in this year's Budget.

This era is marked by rapid changes in technology, which is exciting because this presents many new possibilities for productivity. Indeed, this bright spot is, unfortunately, slightly clouded by the growing push from globalisation. It was the emblem of the United States (US) Presidential Elections. We may see more of it when other European countries go to the polls later this year. Concerns were raised of their impact on an already dull economic forecast. For Singapore, the policies of the Trump Administration may contribute to a slowdown in foreign direct investments from the US. Thus, it is good that we look at other areas for growth. CFE has rightly shifted its focus from just productivity to healthy sustainable growth by looking at new opportunities.

CFE identified seven strategies to achieve growth. Charting our route ahead will enable us to steer our ship clear of the reefs. It is imperative that we develop and implement the Industry Transformation Maps (ITM) for important industries in Singapore. I am pleased to note that 23 industries, and about 80% of the economy, are set to benefit from these maps. I would now like to discuss three areas where we can add to these maps, particularly from a social point of view.

First, inclusive and sustainable growth. Equality is key to promoting inclusive and sustainable growth. The political lessons from the US and United Kingdom elections point to a failure to reconcile the vast differences between the voters. Globally, policymakers will be hampered by widening chasms, how to meet the needs and aspirations of the middle class and the rise of populism. It is vital that we recognise and prioritise the need to reduce gaps in living standards.

In order to sustain public confidence in the various Government schemes, like the SkillsFuture Credit, that promote upscaling skills and continuing education, as well as various technological advancements, we must assure everyday Singaporeans that the Government is working to support the aspirations of all Singaporeans to have higher living standards and no erosion in social mobility.

The World Economic Forum commends Singapore for faring well in many areas. But we ranked low in gender equality in the workforce. We are still struggling to improve female participation in the labour force and narrowing the gender pay gap. Measures were introduced to encourage men to play a more active role in fatherhood, through paternity leave, for example. However, parenthood does not stop at the baby stage. More needs to be done in this area. Tax reliefs for working mothers are well and good but, ultimately, the root problem must be solved − in my view − by creating a family-friendly working environment, without compromising overall productivity and growth. We should lift some of the load off the mother's shoulders, so that she does not feel the need to resign or compromise her work to care for the child.

Other forms of assistance to alleviate childcare costs and measures to encourage enhanced flexible work arrangements in the corporate and public sectors for all mothers, including working single mothers with children, will go a long way to alleviate childcare concerns as they struggle to also bring food to the table.

My next point in this area is with regard to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP). Even as we talk about help for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) over the past one day − SkillsFuture training, job matching and others − I believe one basic bedrock and core business of Government that we need to enhance further is TAFEP.

As it is, most of us in Singapore or Singaporeans are employed, and not business owners. I am an active advocate for a stronger TAFEP. I believe it has greater potential to further eliminate workplace discrimination. In order to do this, TAFEP must be equipped with more teeth. Due to the changing social and global labour trends, we have a few groups of people vulnerable to workplace discrimination. They include expectant mothers, older workers aged 45 and above, blue-collar low-income workers and Singaporeans working for foreign companies.

I raised this last year and I reiterate my call to Government again to please give TAFEP more investigative and authoritative powers to keep errant employers in check, especially so in this current global labour market, and also one where the gig economy is taking form where we have a rising freelance and contract workforce of experienced specialised talents supporting businesses.

We need to ensure that these contract or part-time staff are treated fairly and are not exploited by employers. Eventually, this rising number of contract staff should enjoy mandatory employment benefits, such as annual and medical leave and other medical benefits, if possible. We also need to introduce wider laws to make discriminatory hiring and workplace practices illegal and punishable by law. Also, as we raise the retirement age for the older workers, we must also look into how in this age of digital transformation, they can be retrained to stay relevant to the workforce. We are a country that thrives on meritocracy, and this must be reflected in our labour market and labour laws, which is one of our most crucial propellers for growth for Singapore.

The next point I want to talk about is on helping employees − still within inclusive growth. Minister Iswaran has elaborated at length yesterday that SMEs are our central focus in transforming our economy. Minister Iswaran's speech yesterday has reassured SMEs, in my view. Indeed, some of the short-term relief and targeted help for some sectors were made in this Budget. However, broad social transfers to businesses are taking a backseat this year, as we all know, but I hope more can be introduced.

Over a decade ago, one of the measures included helping businesses to cope with various structural shifts and changes to key policies. This includes the SME Rebate Scheme, a two-year assistance to help registered SMEs to adjust to rising business costs due to − at that point in time − an increase in employer CPF contribution rate. I hope that, in the future, some of these one-off measures can be rolled out to help SMEs.

In the past year, social transfer to SMEs has also been generous. Some SMEs are still struggling to make sense of the schemes though, and some do not have the prerequisites to qualify for the schemes. For example, a lack of SME cash-flow visibility forces some of the banks and financial institutions to place greater emphasis on collateral requirements when assessing SME credit risk, but very often, SMEs are not able to provide such collateral, leading to their loan applications being rejected.

I applaud the new International Partnership Fund to help SMEs scale up and internationalise, which is good. But the concern is that it would tend to invest in more established or initial public offering-ready firms. It may not benefit smaller, less-established SMEs which are capable of going into the region as well.

I hope the relevant authorities can work closely with SMEs to help them realise their full potential. One direct area of help would be to defer the construction levy hike, and in the scheme of the working capital, to raise the SME loan minimum to $500,000 for Government co-funding, as I feel that the $300,000 amount is quite small for working capital these days.

The next point is about the tax system. It has been a while since we last reviewed our tax system. In fact, one of the CFE's recommendations is to review and reshape our tax system to keep in step with the changing times. Tax incentives should perhaps be given to the sectors that are favourable for our growth.

One question I have in relation to the tax review is the concern whether we are taxing the current generation disproportionately, relative to the savings set aside for future generations. The tax review mentioned in this Budget is timely as our funding for social spending is expected to continue to rise. In that sense, I hope the tax review will incorporate all options on the table. Also, the review should broadly not just include more taxes but also Reserves accumulation and formulation of the net investment income. For example, how much flow or revenue is going into Reserves each year and whether it is falling sharply?

For example, the possibility of considering a proportion of land sales and recurrent revenue from extension of leases of leasehold land into operating revenue rather than into Reserves, a situation we are seeing now.

I also hope there will be a similar Manpower Transformation Map II for our Singaporean workers to get guidance and help. I note that CFE has identified six favourable sectors that promote high growth − the digital cluster, advanced manufacturing, hub services, logistics, urban solutions and infrastructure and healthcare. Will more jobs be generated in these sectors, especially for the younger generation? How about the older employees who are not technology- or computer-savvy, but wish to do a mid-career switch? How will they be helped?

The second area is professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMET) stress. Moving on to the next topic, there have been a number of high-profile cases these couple of years whereby large companies have had to retrench some of their staff. Undoubtedly, there must have been more in smaller companies that flew under the radar. These are certainly tough times for businesses, but even more so for the retrenched employees. Our tax filing season is just around the corner, and this brings to mind that those who have just lost a reasonably well-paying job due to retrenchment may find it tough paying for the income tax and other forms of taxes. I would like to suggest tax relief of, say, 20% to 30%, for those who are in such a situation. Alternatively, allow the period for tax payments to be spread out over a longer period of time and allow for income tax payments to be deferred for unique circumstances.

My final area of focus is on overcoming global protectionist tides and having diversity in policies. With the more advanced western countries coping with problems of their own and turning inwards, I am, hence, pleased to note that the economic focus is shifting back to our immediate neighbourhood − countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. Now that the cards have been shuffled, we need to examine our approach and explore enhancing our various language policy options to make us the true global trader that we are in Singapore.

If we look at the protectionist rhetoric coming out of Washington, then the Indonesian economy is likely to be the least affected in the region, as they are not heavily dependent on the US. As such, I would urge the Government to bring back some element of the Malay connection in the primary and secondary school education system. The Malay connection as in the context of reinforcing the relationship with our neighbours, through language and cultural ties, by learning the Malay language.

Compared to the older generation, the younger generation are also becoming less adept at the Malay language and understanding the culture as an extra option. As for India, if we tap on the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, we could do well to also expose our students to learning Tamil and Hindi as a third language. Madam, in Malay please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For Singapore to remain adaptable and competitive, diversity in education and proficiency in three languages may be necessary.

And starting the learning process from a young age is one of the keys to proficiency. I hope the Government will encourage the availability of more language options in schools. Sharing a common language or lingo will go a long way in managing bilateral economic and people-to-people relations.

I would also like to suggest that the current work pass schemes for foreigners be reviewed, with a goal of facilitating the entry of more startups to relocate or to anchor their businesses in Singapore. With a growing number of technology startups, and with the US currently making it more difficult for foreigners to enter their country for work purposes, it is an opportune time to attract talent and investments, particularly in the technology sector. It would have a positive impact on our employment rates and upgrading efforts.

I am also encouraged to see the launch of the Global Innovation Alliance to help Singaporeans gain overseas experience, build networks and collaborate with others abroad. The Innovators Academy would allow our tertiary students to build networks and capabilities overseas.

I hope that within the next five years, we can also include students from our polytechnics and even our Institutes of Technical Education in this scheme. Society is at the stage where we increasingly recognise and encourage many different pathways to success and many students who select these institutions have high aspirations and career paths that they would like to pursue.

Some are even more confident and clear about their future compared to their GCE "A" level counterparts from the same cohort, for instance. Those who have studied abroad would appreciate that through our interactions overseas, we would benefit from cultural diversity and this would help to open our minds as a community.

We are all aware that if we want to broaden and deepen our perspectives on a particular topic, there is value in reading books by different authors on the same subject, and the same thing also applies in terms of policy.

(In English): Madam, we are expecting difficult, unpredictable times ahead. If we do not make changes now, many workers may find a bee in their bonnet, worrying about having a job tomorrow. By diversifying our economy, policies, supporting homegrown businesses and keeping the people's morale up, I believe that we will become more adaptable and resilient than ever. We have a bright future and this Budget puts us in good stead.

Mr Png Eng Huat.

Madam, the geopolitical uncertainty and shifts in policy impacting the international economy, balance of power around the region and free trade may not have fully sunk in yet for the man in the street. But in time to come, it will become a worrying concern in the minds of all Singaporeans, young and old.

What the future holds for our jobs, careers and cost of living upon retirement are questions that will creep up eventually. Budget 2017 is a reflection of the uncertain times we are living in today.

Although this Budget attempts to address some of the concerns and outlines measures for our economy and society to weather the uncertainties, there is just no certainty in dealing with uncertainties. Some measures may work and some may not. Some measures are judgement calls, calculated at best, clutching at straws at worst, all in the hope that some of them will bear fruits for the economy.

Some of the previous Budget measures have gone on to become permanent features of the fiscal policy. Some were given a makeover, hoping that the result will work better this time. But at the heart of all these measures, we must remain focused on what we want to achieve at the end.

This year's Budget introduces the SMEs Go Digital programme. The main push is to get SMEs on to the digital bandwagon to improve productivity. The target sectors are retail, food services, wholesale trades, logistics, cleaning and security. What does the Government hope to see at the end of this initiative? We have seen this initiative introduced in the past under different packaging. What did the Government learn from the results of the past initiative? Why are the targeted SMEs not embracing the digital revolution, despite the many opportunities to do so in the past? Does the Government want every SME to go digital? And is it even necessary to do so?

One of the measures introduced in 2010, the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme, has impacted the food services sector positively. The tablet computer has replaced the hardcopy menu in many restaurants. Customers no longer need to wait to be served to place their orders. The use of technology in this instance is motivated and meaningful.

In 2006, then Second Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, highlighted an example of a local businessman who had embraced infocomm to improve his business. He shared that the dessert stall owner has invested in the touchscreen system to allow customers to place their dining in or take-out orders at the Peoples' Park Complex Food Centre. He cited that the use of technology had brought the owner new business and improved productivity in tracking the stock of the dessert sold and the amount of ingredients left.

I visited the dessert shop at the old food centre to see for myself why the shop was worthy of a mention by the Minister at the Opening of 10th InfoComm Commerce Conference in 2006.

The dessert shop was manned by two persons: a lady at the counter and a gentleman to prepare the dessert right behind her. Both of them could easily take orders from customers, as the shop was very small. For those who have been to Peoples' Park Complex, you will know what I mean. I proceeded to order via the touchscreen and waited. The lady looked at me in anticipation. I looked back at her and tried to hint with my eyes that I have just ordered my dessert at the touchscreen system. There was a queue forming and she snapped suddenly and said, "Ai see mi", which means "What do you want?" So, the touchscreen system was not broken but it was not much of a use.

A decade on, and the use of the touchscreen technology in hawker centres has not caught on. It was more of a novelty than an enterprising productivity tool, as highlighted by the Minister. Madam, there is a lesson to be learnt in what the lady at the dessert shop asked me that day, "What do I want?" What does the Government want from the targeted sectors under the SMEs Go Digital Programme? Technology can cut both ways. It can be a productivity tool or a glorified novelty. This Government should not waste public fund on the latter. The fact of the matter is, for some sectors, going digital may not be the sole solution to improving productivity. Beyond automation and going digital, the cleaning sector, for example, needs a redesign in the way refuse and waste are being collected. The design of old HDB estates needs a serious relook because it takes too long to clear the many bin chutes for just one block of flats.

Going digital alone is not going to help the cleaning sector. It also needs the whole-of-Government (WoG) approach to educate or incentivise the public to generate less waste, because no amount of productivity improvements is going to help if we keep on generating waste at the current rate. It is important to embrace the digital economy, but going digital alone is not going to resolve the productivity issue. The digital economy needs "brick and mortar" support. It may need the Government to relook into all the compliance processes and to remove them if necessary. Getting SMEs to go digital is only one part of the equation. It needs a collective effort for the digital economy to function and flourish.

Next, most of the measures introduced under the objective to sustain a quality environment for the future will impact Singaporeans and the aggregate of their impact will add to the cost of living. The carbon tax, although scheduled to start in 2019, will hit households with an increase in electricity prices when the time comes. The volume-based diesel tax will impact the earnings of commercial vehicles when the rebate runs out in three years' time.

Madam, it is logical to harmonise the tax structure for all motor fuels, including diesel, to be based on how much it is used. Since the Government has taken the approach to incentivise users to reduce consumption and manufacturers to develop more energy-efficient vehicles, the special tax on diesel cars and taxis should be scrapped completely upon the implementation of the volume-based diesel tax.

Likewise, now that the tax structure for all motor fuels is harmonised, the road tax for vehicles should also be scrapped in favour of the more equitable volume-based usage tax, which was already in place for the longest time. Road usage is tied to the consumption of fuel. The more road you travel, the more fuel you burn and the more tax you will pay, be it petrol duty or diesel tax. So, why are motorists being slapped with a road tax that is based on the engine capacity of the vehicles? What has engine capacity got to do with road usage? The current road tax regime is beyond a misnomer to begin with. Let us compare two cars of the same engine capacity. If one owner uses his vehicle seven days a week while the other utilises his vehicle three times a week, why are both drivers paying the same road tax when one is obviously contributing more to road congestion and pollution? What is the relevance and purpose of keeping an engine capacity-based road tax which has no relation to road usage, on top of the volume-based fuel duty which, in my opinion, is the actual and fairer road tax?

Last, the quantum of the water price hike is perhaps the most puzzling measure in the Budget. Can the authority share how much losses it has made supplying water to Singaporeans since 2000 to warrant such a hefty increase? Minister Masagos has stated in his reply to my Parliamentary Question that the current national average water consumption has dropped about 11% as compared to 10 years ago. The number of households that consume more water than the national average today remains stable in the past decade at 40%. If we look at the per capita usage, water consumption in Singapore is about 5% to 70% lower than that of London, Melbourne, Tokyo, Hong Kong and New York.

What do all these numbers say? They basically say Singaporeans understand the scarcity of water and we have been doing our part to conserve this precious element all this while. The Minister also acknowledged that and he cautioned Singaporeans not to be complacent and to save more water wherever possible. Singaporeans have done that before and I am quietly confident Singaporeans will do just that going forward.

It was reported in the news that the cost of developing and operating Singapore's water supply system has more than doubled from $500 million in 2000 to $1.3 billion in 2015. The Public Utilities Board (PUB) said this cost included water treatment, reservoir operation, NEWater production, desalination, used water collection and treatment, and the maintenance of water pipelines. So, in short, it is the entire cost of supplying water to the masses. It was also reported that homes account for 45% of water use daily. Using simple ratio, the share of the cost of supplying water to households should be 45% of $1.3 billion or $585 million. This will roughly translate to an average cost of about $40 per month to supply water to each household in 2015. This is well below the average monthly water bill paid by households of 4-room flats and above and, I am sure, for most private housing as well, before the proposed price hike.

As highlighted by the Government, water prices have remained unchanged since 2000. What that means is that the margin of supplying water to households could be even higher in 2000 than what I have estimated for 2015. Using the same assumption, it costs about $21 per month to supply water to each household in 2000, since water consumption per household was fairly stable the past decade and water prices have not changed since 2000 and, based on available data, the Government could not have lost money supplying water to households for the past 15 years.

Madam, this Government needs to be more transparent with the justification for the 30% hike in water prices. Resident households are already facing price pressure in carpark charges, transportation to food. From the proposed carbon tax, volume-based diesel tax and the 30% hike in water prices, the knock-on effect will be felt by Singaporeans eventually one way or another.

No time is a good time to increase prices but if this Government is bent on raising the price of an essential commodity by 30%, it is certainly the right time to open the books to Singaporeans to justify the increase. Madam, I do not support the 30% price hike.

Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Budget, which takes into account very large issues for Singapore going forward − water, environment, climate change adaptation.

I would like to speak on water first, making two points. First, why I think the revised water tariffs are a fairer mechanism than our current pricing system and should, therefore, be supported; and, second, why I think water pricing is a limited instrument in reflecting the true value of water, especially in the high uncertain future which lies ahead.

After 17 years, the PUB has finally recommended an increase in water price. In the past 10 years alone, the price of electricity has increased by 22%. The price of water has, in fact, fallen by 25% in real terms since 2000. In the meantime, the cost of supplying water has more than doubled.

The last time we raised the water price, it was against the background of an intense price negotiation with Malaysia over the price of water. At the time, it was truly an existential issue.

But I would argue it has been so since our Independence and will be so as long as Singapore remains a small island of no more than 700-plus square kilometres with not enough land for the graves of our ancestors, the training of our armed forces, and, yes, the large catchment areas needed to store water.

In 1963, we were dependent on Malaysia for three-quarters of our water supply. In that year, in his Fullerton Rally speech before the General Elections, then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew spoke of water. He had to because it was a hot issue during the elections, which were held in the middle of a drought. His opponents at the time accused him of not doing enough to provide for water and promised to solve the problem by quickly expanding pipelines to run more water from Johor − disregarding the fact that it takes years to build pipes and that thirst kills in those days. Of course, the fact that we live in the tropics also means that rains are likely to come before the pipes were completed.

During the speech, Mr Lee also spoke about engineering works, reservoirs and the need to ensure a long-term supply of water by negotiating water agreements. It was only after the agreements had been signed, he said, that works on expanding the pipelines began.

Water was, and remains, a long-term engineering and infrastructural public good but its impact can be felt in the very short term and is, in fact, a highly political good. In the time since the announcement of the water price, detractors have lost no time in politicising the issue.

I will address the two myths that have come up in the past two weeks, show how they are false and state my support for raising the water price, with the corresponding help extended to various households through the U-Save and Goods and Services Tax (GST) vouchers.

First, there have been accusations that the Government is making money off water. Some of us may have received messages that PUB is making $166 million of profits a year. Nothing can be further from the truth.

In 2012, the then-Environment Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan had said that the Government pays $1.3 billion a year to run the system but collects only about $1 billion in water tariffs − marginal charges − and water borne and sanitary fees − these are fixed charges. In simple terms, we could say that water is thus subsidised by at least 30%. At least 30% because prices charged do not reflect the capital costs of the water and the wastewater system. PUB has said that it will be spending $4 billion from 2017 to 2021 on water infrastructure.

The second objection is tied to the first − that raising the water price will hit the poor heavily while the rich will still be able to use as much water as they want. First, raising the price of water to reflect its true cost, I believe, is a fairer system than subsidising it willy-nilly. But we can and should raise tariffs without burdening the poor. In this case, the Government has proposed increasing prices in such a way that ensures burdens fall lightest on the poorest. One- and 2-room HDB flat owners will, in fact, see no increase in their bills at all.

Last, I want to address the limits of water pricing. As policymakers, we use price for many things − we use it as an incentive, as a tax, as a signal on how much we value things. But water pricing is quite difficult. A household of five in Singapore pays $30 a month for water − 0.04% of the median income. Each month, for many of us, our handphone bill costs more than our water bill. Using price alone to motivate people to save water, I believe, is not going to work.

Water consumption per capita has stayed roughly the same since the last price increase. It was 165 litres in 2003 and it has gone down a little bit to 151 litres today. It may be that the increase in price may reduce water consumption but I believe we would need something else to bring home the value of water.

I started my speech by referring to the 1963 speech by Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The year after, in 1964, Singapore held a water rationing exercise. It was to be our last such exercise. Since then, we have had no water rationing, not because we have not had severe droughts but because our systems are now far more resilient.

But research at the Institute of Water Policy at the National University of Singapore (NUS) has shown that such "resilience" should be interpreted with care.

In 2014, Singapore experienced a two-month drought. It was more severe, in fact, than 1964. In fact, that month of February was the driest month since 1869, with near-zero rainfall. In neighbouring Malaysia, water rationing was implemented in Johor, Selangor, Negri Sembilan, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya. In nearby Thailand, 20 provinces were declared drought disaster areas. In Singapore, there was no rationing and, in fact, water consumption increased by 5%.

The researchers found that this has crucial implications for the city's water security. Extreme weather events, including heavy rainfall and exceptionally dry periods, are projected to occur more frequently for the Southeast Asia region as a whole. Droughts will become more likely.

Historical data has shown that Malaysia and Singapore, as a region, has experienced severe droughts in 19 of the past 150 years. The probability of any year being part of such an event is 13%.

We need, therefore, not just to prepare for everyday scenarios, but to ensure that our people are psychologically strong. Resilience, therefore, not just in systems but in our people. Singaporeans born after 1964 have never experienced water rationing. I think there are a few Members of Parliament who have not gone through that experience. They do not know the experience of having to go without water or bear the weight of 130 litres of water that we would need if we take a long shower of 15 minutes.

Mdm Speaker, these things are not learnt by increasing water bills from $30 a month to $35 or even $40. They are learnt by personal experience and emotions. I, therefore, ask the Government, the Minister, to consider introducing periodic water rationing. It is not a new suggestion but one that has a special salience in the light of this year's Budget. I suggest we do this, not during droughts, but during "peace time" as it were, following the footsteps of countries, such as Australia, where they are called "water restrictions". This is an inoculation against the environmental realities that are to come.

This brings me to my second point. In 2016, Singapore joined more than 120 countries to ratify the Paris Agreement. It was a formal commitment to combat global warming and reduce climate change. Singapore pledged to cut emission intensity by 36%, that is, below 2005 levels, by 2030 and to stabilise emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030.

In this Budget, the carbon tax can be seen as part of a larger movement towards addressing the effects of climate change and other environmental challenges. Being densely populated and urbanised, Singapore is highly vulnerable to abrupt changes in the environment.

The carbon tax brings Singapore in line with other countries as well as our regulatory environment for businesses. But I urge the Finance Minister to think also of the impact of mass human behaviour in this and bring into play the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint two years ago.

The Blueprint takes a long-term approach to greening Singapore by committing $1.5 billion over the next five years, in support of the several programmes under the Blueprint. These include embedding towns and homes with smart technology and eco-friendly features, reducing reliance on cars by building up the public transport system and encouraging cycling, encouraging sustainable business practices and achieving zero-waste by encouraging recycling and reducing consumption.

Many countries have had to balance a trade-off between development and environmental sustainability. In China, decades of rapid growth have been accompanied by severe air pollution. Singapore appears to have achieved both economic development and environmental sustainability at the same time. But as our Prime Minister noted during its launch, a large part of the Blueprint's success will depend on the collective action among individuals to adopt green practices in their daily lives, as well as build up new norms of sustainability within their communities.

The environment is a common pool enjoyed by everyone. It can only be protected through the efforts of everyone. Environmental sustainability is truly a collective effort that begins with the individual but has important implications for our collective future as a community. There is no going round it. We must take the first steps in order to ensure a cleaner, greener and more comfortable living environment for ourselves.

Water can be priced, but clean air cannot. Clean gardens cannot. Trees cannot. Wild roosters cannot.

We cannot expect our children to grow up respecting nature and being willing to pay for clean air, clean water, to live together with trees and wild animals and insects if we do not, in our policy decisions, underline the importance of these voiceless stakeholders in the use of our public spaces and financial resources.

The Finance Minister has said that he will set aside funds for "diverse social spaces where people can come together, create shared experiences and forge stronger bonds." In that, money must go towards large projects, such as Jurong Lake Gardens. But I suggest that we also think of small spaces, of giving support to community green clubs, of allowing social groups and civil societies to flourish within their own homes, towns and districts, and to educate residents on the need to make room for trees, birds and wildlife within our urban environment.

In the age of the Anthropocene, where human activity can be seen as the dominant influence on climate and the environment, we need to grow even greener, to keep our waters even bluer. The alternative is to be breathing in more polluted air, greenery around us turning to brown dirt, and sweating in the heat of global warming. We should be ready to pay the price for our industrial actions, whether it be in the form of increased water tariffs or by changing the way we live and behave. Madam, I support the Budget.

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this Debate.

Madam, I strongly support the current Budget proposals. They address ongoing challenges in the economic restructuring process and, despite the changes the last year has brought, reiterate the vision of a secure future that Minister Heng has set out from last year's Budget.

The circumstances we face are undoubtedly unique, but there are important lessons from the experience of other countries that we only ignore at our peril. We could just as easily become trapped in our own lost decade, exhausting our limited resources on a dispersed agenda without heed to strengthening our economic foundations. Our priority, therefore, should be to provide a footing for future generations that is even more secure than the one we now have.

Madam, to me, this Budget is about seeing beyond the uncertainty, taking leadership responsibility on issues that matter, and possessing the courage of our conviction to complete the restructuring task at hand.

This Budget takes a strong lead in shaping the environmental agenda. We have enjoyed our entitlements of clean air and clean water for as long as we remember. But the unwelcome reality brought about by changes in our world is that not only are both in short supply, the two are growing sources of contention in an increasingly fractious world. Singapore has developed a lead in clean water technology and we can do the same with green technologies in general. A fundamental element in managing the competing access to clean water and air is to correctly price their availability. The long-term consequences of mispricing water and pollution are severe and incompatible with the direction we intend to take for our future economy, as well as for our society. We should not leave future generations unprepared to confront a problem that is developing now.

The issue is not how much clean water we still have or where the current threats to our environmental air quality lie. The issue is much broader and has to do with our collective responsibility for the environment and societal development. Hence, I would like to urge the Minister to consider price corrections in other areas in urgent need of attention as well. Areas, such as electronic waste generation, should be incorporated into a comprehensive strategy for responsible environmental advocacy. By ensuring that pricing is imposed on both water and pollution, Singapore is not just taking a responsible leadership role in pushing forward the agenda for dealing with climate change, we will also be putting in place incentives for nurturing the development of technologies whose global economic potential is rapidly expanding. These lie in the path of our future economy.

Madam, there are some areas, however, where I feel that further clarification on how the long-term vision could be achieved would be useful. The first of these is our manpower policy. We should strengthen the connection between our manpower policy and our skills framework.

Foreign workforce growth has been slowing since 2011. Although the recent weakening in demand has been partly due to economic conditions, there is little doubt that the primary mechanism bringing about this shift is the system of levies and dependency ratio ceilings (DRCs).

Our policy on foreign manpower should not just be about restrictions. It should be about promoting long-term economic competitiveness for the benefit of our overall workforce. In order to realise this objective, we must be open to the type of skills we lack and incorporate foreign manpower contributions into a comprehensive strategy for filling our skills gaps.

The indications are that we have made promising improvements in this direction. In the third quarter of 2016, the number of Work Permit holders in manufacturing and construction declined, contributing to a rare quarterly contraction in total employment in Singapore. As a result, preliminary statistics from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) show foreign employment, excluding foreign domestic workers, shrinking over the course of 2016 as a whole, the first time this has occurred since the global financial crisis for the whole year. At the same time, labour productivity measures depict improving performance. Full year 2016 figures show real value-added per worker hitting 1%, after having remained stubbornly negative in the preceding two years. And the quarterly statistics show the improvement was sustained throughout, with fourth quarter real value-added per worker hitting 2.4%. What is reassuring is that these changes occurred gradually, despite the fluid environment and turbulent global backdrop.

The work is far from done and the productivity challenge is an ongoing one. The delicate balance of maintaining robust domestic employment, ensuring global standards of openness to deep and diverse skills, and injecting momentum into the productivity drive is a challenge that all countries face.

Given the limitations of our domestic labour market, the magnitude of the challenge we face in Singapore is far greater. That is why robust yet flexible policy instruments are so important. There is no doubt that our foreign manpower management policy has encountered enormous challenges. This should not detract from the tremendous success it represents as well. Compared to many other countries, we have taken a lead in this area and we should recognise its effectiveness.

Going forward, we should reorientate our policy to move away from restricting inflows and focus on growing skills sets that our domestic workforce alone will be too slow to achieve on its own. This idea is not new. The "triple weak" system promulgated by the Minister for Manpower for monitoring companies' with poor hiring practices already contains essentially the same key ingredients, which is that companies should be assessed on a multi-dimensional metric, rather than a single-dimensional measure.

The predecessor to CFE, the Economic Strategies Committee, originally proposed the system of levies and DRCs. CFE has developed the principle further. In its report, it recognises the need for foreign talent with specialised skillsets and calls to develop a more differentiated foreign workforce policy. To achieve this differentiation, instead of using the number of workers as the basic unit of measure, we should measure skills instead, and determine levies based on the extent of the skills gap that an employer encounters within the existing domestic workforce, as well as the changes in the gap over time.

The measurement of skillsets and skills levels should be carried out in coordination with the skills framework constructs being developed by SkillsFuture Singapore. The resulting system should be validated by the needs of the ITMs, merged with the current levels of foreign workforce passes, and used to assess the extent to which gaps at the company as well as sectoral level can or cannot be filled by the existing local workforce supply. Such a system can also be used to track whether the gaps are effectively closed over time through training, and how fast this is occurring.

The system of foreign manpower levies and DRCs forms a clear set of rules for managing foreign manpower participation. In recent years, including the current Budget proposal, the system has been used to moderate the impact of manpower cost pressures when economic conditions are poor. As a counter-cyclical tool, the system of levies and DRCs can be adjusted by sector. On this basis, levy rises in the marine and process sectors have been frozen, while those in construction have been allowed to proceed as earlier announced. And compared to alternatives, such as the Central Provident Fund (CPF) cuts that were used in the past, this approach is much more amenable to finetuning.

My second concern is about the challenges of scale that we, in Singapore, almost uniquely in world, face. Whether we are prepared for the reality of competing against countries much larger than us, this is something that we will have to deal with as a result of the proposals set out in this Budget. This Budget makes a significant push for internationalisation. This will increase the companies and local talent being given greater exposure to global competition and will serve us well in the long run. While programmes, such as the Global Innovation Alliance (GIA), can help Singaporeans gain a foothold in overseas markets, as well as a better appreciation of our global competition, there are adjustments that individuals have to make. Hence, the transformative impact of the GIA will take some years to become visible.

The issue of scale has always been something of a challenge for Singapore's economy. We have pushed near to saturation point in many of our efforts, but the competition can harness vastly larger numbers without batting an eyelid. This fact is visible in every aspect in which we compete internationally, from trade figures to our workforce composition, to even our robot density.

In 1984, China's share of manufacturing exports in the world's total, 1.1%, equalled ours. In 2015, as the world's leading exporter, China's share had grown 16 times, to almost twice that of its nearest rival, Germany. Our share, of course, has also grown, more than doubling to 2.3%. Between 1984 and 2015, the share of the US in world manufacturing exports fell by a third. These developments have redefined the global economic balance. They have also brought about the tremendous groundswell of reaction that ranges from the Brexit vote outcome to the repudiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

In 2015, world manufacturing exports shrank more than 8% in nominal terms. Singapore's trade performance suffered as a result.

The options we have in reacting to these changes are determined not just by our preference, but also by the choices made by the countries we compete against.

China is also the world leader in high-technology manufacturing exports. However, Singapore's share of global high-technology exports is about a quarter of China's, which makes this sector more important to us than general manufacturing.

Across all regions of the world and in many countries, the proportion of manufacturing classified as high technological activity is on the rise. A comparison across countries reveals a visible correlation between this rise and the increasing use of robotics.

As the Minister for Finance Mr Heng had already pointed out last year, China is the world's largest buyer of robots. And other countries are keeping pace, including Singapore. According to a recent update from the International Federation of Robotics, between 2010 and 2015, the operational stock of industrial robots in Asia rose 70%. The same report placed Singapore within the top ranks of countries in the world, in terms of robotics density, just behind South Korea, and nearly five times ahead of the average global density.

Robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) are just two of the things that are often mentioned in the same breath as Uber and Grab when discussing technological changes and disruption. These two groups are obviously very different. However, what concerns those who cite them as examples in the same breath is not necessarily their economic or technological novelty but the loss of control workers feel in facing the rise of these innovations. This fear of loss of control is the most important reason why ordinary workers today identify with the notion of being caught up in an industrial revolution beyond their control, no different from the original one.

Research supported by the International Federation of Robotics argues that while there have been job losses, their magnitudes are small, compared to the increase in employment over the same period.

Regardless of whether one believes in net gain or loss of jobs due to the introduction of new technologies, such as robotics, there is little doubt that existing jobs will have to give way to new ones and the workforce must, therefore, be prepared to adjust to this reality.

Although we cannot be certain about the precise rate and impact of the change on all jobs, the pattern of change and the nature of jobs of the future are becoming increasingly evident. Job creation is increasingly concentrated in domains requiring high intensity of knowledge and skills. In research and development (R&D), for instance, across countries and with very few exceptions, the number of personnel has seen strong upward trends. This is true both in absolute terms and as a ratio of the population.

Singapore, of course, as usual, faces the limitation of size that our competitors do not. Between 1996 and 2012, the number of persons employed in R&D in Singapore rose 265%, way ahead of the 50% gain in the US, 160% gain in China, and even 216% gain in South Korea.

But as a result of our population limitations, our R&D personnel numbers are already among the highest in the world on a ratio basis. China's ratio is only one sixth of ours, despite boasting the largest number of R&D personnel globally today. This means that in Singapore, we have a far smaller pool of workers from which to draw, and if we continue to grow the numbers in order to keep up with global competition, domestic sectors in need of skilled manpower will be squeezed further. The only solution is for our workforce to push beyond the existing frontiers of skills acquisition that other countries take for granted. To remain competitive despite our limitations, our workforce must be prepared for a continuing process of advancement and workplace transformation.

Madam, Budget 2017's push to develop Singaporean workers into regional and global leaders will take us out of our comfort zones. Singaporean workers, many of whom juggle their regular jobs with important roles, such as family caregivers, will have to add regular overseas postings to the list. This is what we have to do as an innovation in order to overcome the limits of scale.

Given our size, we are already at the boundaries of what we can reasonably achieve if we go by norms. Both in R&D personnel and in robot density, we are already at the limits. Countries whose sizes are multiples of ours have a lot more scope for expansion in absolute terms and will reap further economies of scale. Internationalisation will, therefore, expand the potential space within which our companies and workers operate, but not completely overcome the fundamental disadvantage of scale that Singapore has always faced.

It is not just workers who will be challenged. SMEs will also feel the discomfort in operating outside of their comfort zones. The question I am trying to ask is: are the internationalisation initiatives a realistic option for local companies which do not have the basic capacity to scale up beyond their setup in Singapore?

Madam, my last concern is about the timeline for restructuring. The timeline this time around will, I believe, turn out to be the greatest challenge. Many of the past restructuring efforts had tangible endpoints, such as the challenge of a recession, that it could take reference from.

This particular restructuring is a long drawn-out process and it is going to be challenging to focus minds on the intangible aspects of the strategy. Although the restructuring is aimed at addressing the challenges caused by disruption, as the timeline for restructuring lengthens, it will heighten uncertainty among companies and workers. For some, the distinction between restructuring and disruption could begin to blur.

The completion of this restructuring will not be readily marked by new buildings or highways. Instead, it is a process of transformation. Success will probably mean not just an endpoint but an ongoing process of change.

Hence, in closing, I would like to thank Finance Minister Heng for staying the course in this restructuring journey as well as for providing a personal model of resilience through adversity.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Mdm Speaker, technological advancement has changed the work environment that we are in quicker than before and it will continue to be so in the future. While it improves the way work is done and alleviates the issue of manpower shortage, it will have implications on our workers and they could become tomorrow's unemployed. The challenge is whether we can help tomorrow's unemployed today.

How technology impacts our work can be broken down into three broad categories: "Known-Known", "Known-Unknown" and "Unknown-Unknown".

The first refers to a situation where we know the technology and know its impact. One such example is the self-checkout kiosks found in supermarkets today. Just within NTUC FairPrice, almost half of its 130 outlets have self-checkout counters. Other supermarkets, such as Cold Storage and Sheng Siong, have also implemented such "do-it-yourself" services. The job of the traditional cashier is slowly replaced by new technology.

The next category is where we know the technology, but we are not sure when and how it will impact our current work. As we speak, trials of autonomous vehicles, like cars, buses and even trucks, are ongoing at different parts of Singapore. While we know that such driverless technology exists and is developing at a rapid pace, what we are uncertain of is when it can be adopted and how extensive will the adoption be. This will certainly change the modus operandi within the transport industry and have a direct downstream impact on our workers who depend on driving as a livelihood.

Another example is additive manufacturing, commonly known as 3D printing. With the rapid development of 3D printing technology in recent years, many applications have been developed in the food, medical, fast-moving consumer goods and other industries. With 3D printing, if our child outgrows his or her shoes, we can simply print out a brand new pair in a larger size! The potential disruption that 3D printing may have on our industries is significant. How and which industries would be affected by 3D printing? Your guess is as good as mine.

The last category refers to an unknown technology that may change our work in the future. Here, we could take reference and learn from the past "Unknown-Unknown", such as Uber and Grab. Today, Uber and Grab are providing new transport options to commuters but have disrupted the traditional taxi business. Did we expect Uber and Grab, which are mobile applications, to enter, disrupt and even revolutionise the transport industry?

The three situations above illustrate the challenges we face in the current economic landscape. Be it "Known-Known", "Known-Unknown" or even "Unknown-Unknown", there is an urgent need for both our workers and companies to brace themselves for the next wave of disruption, as business cycles get shorter and changes happen more rapidly.

First, our workers need to remain competitive amidst the changes. We need to embrace the concept of lifelong learning, continuously train and upskill ourselves and start preparing for future jobs even before the current one becomes obsolete.

To do so, companies, unions and Government agencies need to get together to identify future jobs, determine skills gaps and establish structured training programmes for workers. Industry partners can collaborate and develop sectoral level training to collectively raise standards across the industry.

The Singapore Bus Academy is a good example of a collaborative tripartite effort by the Land Transport Authority (LTA), the then Singapore Workforce Development Agency, NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2I), the National Transport Workers' Union and the public bus operators. Today, the Academy standardises basic training programmes for bus captains across the industry. But the Academy has the potential to provide continuous training for all bus captains, keep them updated with industry and technological changes, help existing drivers multiskill and be better prepared for tomorrow's driverless world.

We should explore setting up centralised training centres to promote training through the respective Sectoral Tripartite Committees even beyond the transport industry, like the lift, aviation and precision engineering sectors.

The Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) is another useful training platform for mid-career switchers looking to move into emerging and future jobs. Fifty-two-year-old Wayne Lin is one such example. He left the infocomm technology (IT) sector amid the global recession in 2009 and enrolled himself into a PCP to join the early childhood education sector. Although the transition was tough as he sought to overcome job challenges in a female-dominated industry, Wayne persevered through his traineeship, took up a diploma and subsequently completed his Masters in Early Childhood. Wayne did well and is now the acting principal of My First Skool preschool centre in Sengkang.

Hopefully, with the newly announced Attach and Train programme, we can look forward to hear more of such stories of success.

Employers, too, must change their mindset. If employers proclaim that their employees are the company's most valuable assets, they should step up training investments to upskill their workers and not view manpower as simply a cost. While some companies are afraid that workers might leave after acquiring new skills, other companies have established training centres, set aside dedicated training hours and sponsored training courses to support their employees in their upgrading efforts. For example, the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC) is one such company that is pro-training. OCBC topped up their employees' SkillsFuture credit and provided employees time off to attend shortlisted training courses. By grooming a competitive workforce can our companies remain competitive, productive and prepared for the next wave of change.

To boost productivity, centralisation and pooling of resources are avenues that companies can explore to raise their productivity levels. Centralisation of resources, in the form of kitchen facilities, warehousing or even training, can help reduce wastage and duplication of resources and help companies gain economies of scale.

Due to their small scale of business, SMEs sometimes find it onerous to go through the process of applying for productivity grants. For SMEs with similar products or services within or across industries, pooling of resources to apply for such grants could help them achieve productivity gains and cost savings. Multinational corporations (MNCs) or larger SMEs could help to champion sectoral productivity initiatives which other smaller-sized companies in the same sector can leverage upon. With the labour market expected to tighten further, businesses need to be supported in their efforts to raise productivity while adopting less labour-intensive practices.

The Sectoral Tripartite Committees can play an important role in identifying jobs to be redesigned and developing the necessary training roadmaps for each industry. In a fast-changing world, we can no longer depend on "one-size-fits-all" solutions. Industry-based roadmaps are very much needed to provide clarity to both our workers and companies on the new jobs and the direction in which the specific industry is moving towards.

Mdm Speaker, we cannot ignore nor escape disruptions, but we can learn to ride the waves of disruptions together. In Japan, 58-year-old Mr Kenji Takemura harnessed a wearable robot technology to help him lift 40-kilogramme boxes with ease. Like Mr Takemura, we need to learn to work with technology, collectively leverage new technologies, upskill ourselves and be forward thinking.

The success of the CFE report lies in its implementation and I am confident that with our strong tripartite partnership, we can overcome current and future challenges just as how we have done so in the past decades. Through tripartism at the national and sectoral levels, we must help our workers upskill ahead of time as our economy and our industries transform. We need to help tomorrow's unemployed today and ensure that no one would be left behind. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of this Budget. Madam, I am often inspired and moved by my residents and their stories. One of our young couples in Clementi had a baby girl at home. A beautiful baby with a proud mommy and daddy. But when it was time for the HDB's Home Improvement Programme − upgrading within the home − the parents were worried about noise and dust during the construction. The next-door neighbours opened their home, offered their own home as a place to babysit the baby girl. Today, the renovations are done. Baby is happy and the neighbours have grown closer together.

I am also moved, during times of sadness, when I meet with my residents at funeral wakes at the void deck, whether it is a breadwinner who passed away and the family is wondering what to do in economic challenge or whether it is an old parent who has passed on after a long illness. But I also see neighbours coming together in this moment looking out for one and another, supporting one another in this time of need.

Madam, each of these stories tells us a very deep truth: that there can be a special strength in a community and society, a strength that comes from a sense of fellowship, of being together, of being near to one another in life's journey. But I also hear stories from residents about how society is changing and how newer HDB estates seem to make it harder to meet neighbours and new friends.

Today, I will speak on how we build a stronger society and a stronger economy through stronger social cohesion and updating our social compact to keep pace with the future of jobs.

Madam, we must never take our social cohesion for granted. Our multiracial society is very special, very precious. It also helps us, as a country, connect economically to the West and to many parts of Asia.

But in many societies around the world, social cohesion is being eroded. Social media has made society more atomised: in some countries, people living in their own little world and not learning to see through the eyes of fellow citizens; watching only one side of a social media feed; becoming more vulnerable to "fake news" that sharpens prejudices while blunting human understanding; echo chambers, not just in politics, but in values and social mores, too.

Smaller family sizes are shaping societies. A child growing up in a one-child family has a different experience and may not learn the same social skills to get on with others until preschool or school begins.

So, if we lose our cohesion, Mdm Speaker, we are finished. Because we will not be able to organise to meet challenges, we will not be able to move as one, we will be less than the sum of our parts. Without social cohesion, we are less than a dot.

Even as we transform for the future economy and watch our bottom line, our fiscal sustainability, we need to keep on paying attention to social cohesion in all our policies across the whole-of-Government.

Mdm Speaker, let me speak a little on public housing. It is an important issue because design changes in public housing can be revenue-neutral, but they shape an entire generation of society and our heartlands.

We have the Ethnic Integration Policy today. But in the modern era of globalisation and wealth inequality, our Ministries should also look at closer integration of Singaporeans from different economic backgrounds within the same block.

For example, what if new HDB blocks were designed to have a certain proportion of units designated for rental within the same block? The design, proportion and distribution can be studied by the agencies, so that the effect is salubrious rather than divisive. It is something that I believe the Ministries should look into.

Or void decks, Mdm Speaker. Some of my residents feel sad that newer estates are devoid of void decks. Or the void deck is shaped such that people do not meet one another as naturally as before. I suggest, Mdm Speaker, that HDB should revive the older-style void decks or at least think of ways to channel people together, so that people meet naturally, grow to know one another, build friendships.

Likewise, the shape of our HDB blocks matters, too. Some of my residents said that our blocks today are not shaped the way they used to be. In some precincts, including award-winning precincts, the common corridors branch off. Little alcoves, little corners. It means fewer lines of sight for neighbours to meet one another, look at one another, start that conversation in the morning on the way to the lift; fewer chances for people to get to know one another spontaneously, day by day.

This is something our agencies should look at, Mdm Speaker. Urban design shapes who we live with; who we know; who we meet. How we build our homes, how we build our heartlands affect our social cohesion. Our estates are our home today, but they shape our society tomorrow.

Madam, I also want to speak about work, how work is changing and how that is affecting our social compact as well. We have seen many legal innovations in recent years. Temporary jobs becoming permanent temporary jobs where workers keep on rolling over new temporary contracts in what we call "perma-temps". Micro-jobs as well.

Today, people can do independent work for multiple hirers, using online marketplaces to match supply and demand. It is sometimes called "the gig economy". Many of us have spoken about this. I have raised it in this House and elsewhere.

There are opportunities in this brave new world. The gig economy can unlock skills and experience not yet tapped from the labour market. This is important, given our ageing population, demographic constraints and smaller families.

Madam, many of our older workers have a lifetime of wisdom and experience. I remember a retired nurse I met on my home visit in Clementi. She is 65 years old, or rather 65 years young, full of energy, still wants to make use of her skills. But because her husband is sick, she needs to spend extra time looking after him, which makes it harder for her to work a full shift or even a partial shift.

The gig economy can help our seniors and young families who have caregiver commitments. Singaporeans with caregiving duties can also work more flexible hours − a retired nurse can keep active, does not have to work a full shift, maybe helping at a clinic near her home or as a private nurse to fellow residents in the neighbourhood, changing a catheter, changing a wound dressing. Micro-jobs, but they add up to skills that can be tapped. Additional income, helping people who receive the service, helping the person who is earning.

It also helps SMEs which may not be able to afford a full-time department, whether it is a legal department, graphic design department, copywriting department. It helps people, it helps SMEs.

But, Madam, there are also big challenges when the nature of work changes. For decades, the relationship has been very much between the employer and the employee at the workplace. For a long time, this has been a focus for legislation, sick leave benefits, healthcare coverage or CPF. All these things have been coming together through that relationship between employer and employee and at the workplace.

But today, we see that being disrupted. It is possible for an employer to redefine the job at the stroke of a pen. A delivery driver may be doing the same work as before. But instead of being a payroll employee, he is now called to be doing a contract for service.

But Madam, this shifts responsibility and risk to the worker. Who pays the CPF contribution? Who covers the insurance? Who is responsible if an accident happens on the job while on duty? And these developments could have very profound implications for Singapore, because so many of our social and labour policies today are tied to that nexus − the employer-employee relationship or the workplace.

For example, the employer CPF contribution. If the CPF system is undermined by the gig economy, there are knock-on effects as well. Home ownership, healthcare because of MediSave, retirement adequacy. And all these, if they come to a head, will affect our fiscal policies as well.

Madam, we see employers shifting these labour practices because an employer may see economic advantage: privatising the benefits of having a worker but socialising the responsibilities of looking after the worker. Some have said that the market alone is enough. But Madam, I believe the market is not enough to impose discipline. Even in the tightest of labour markets, there can be segmentation. Some workers having a more difficult time than others. Some workers needing a job more urgently. And it is the vulnerable workers who are not able to find a job in the regular labour market who will have the least bargaining power in the gig economy.

Madam, this is happening to Singaporeans today. At my Meet-the-People Session, I met a resident in his 50s. He works as a delivery driver. He used to be on an employment contract. But recently, his employer called him in and said, "We are changing you to a new contract". So, he asked what is this new contract about? His employer said, "You are no longer going to be a payroll employee, you are now going to be a contractor, a solo contractor providing contract for service". He was not given much of a choice − sign the new contract or be terminated. Same work, different contract; less benefits, more vulnerable.

So, this is a real issue affecting our workers, especially vulnerable workers. And as more jobs become part of the gig economy, I worry more Singaporeans will be affected.

Madam, it is a serious issue, in my opinion. And I believe we need to address this sooner rather than later, before the labour market norms reach a tipping point as more companies join the gig and there is a race to the bottom. Otherwise, we risk having a cohort of gig workers who have been disadvantaged by this market failure. Our policies must keep up, so that our workers are not left behind.

But Mdm Speaker, there is hope. Singapore is small enough, nimble enough and organised enough that we can reinvent our policies for a new century.

We can build a better understanding of the job market to improve opportunities for all our workers. Imagine if our Ministries apply big data analytics to the job market, pulling data from multiple databases, getting data on how training leads to jobs. Who finds work fastest? Which course helps to find work fastest and best? How many people are using the skills they were trained for? Was the training provider selling hope or helping our workers to gain skills and opportunities? This can also help us understand how underemployment arises and how to prevent it.

Our Ministries can also pull big data to have better sensing of market trends. Are people from some backgrounds having more difficulty than others? Are there areas which need to be looked into through deep dives, drilling down to understand where and how best to intervene?

Better data, Mdm Speaker, also opens the door to new policy responses. I would like to suggest, Madam, that we testbed new ways to assess the CPF contribution responsibilities for an employer. This could be done on a testbed basis in sandboxed sectors of the gig economy where you can clearly define the nature of the firm and how the workers are being contracted.

We could have a formula that looks at the total wages from the gig employer or the number of hours spent on gig jobs.

We could find new ways to measure a unit of labour. The same online platforms that create an Uber, Deliveroo, Foodpanda, all these can provide new ways to measure and ensure that workers have the same protection and benefits they did in the traditional economy.

Together, the Ministries could develop an operating system to specify employers' responsibilities. For example, a minimum CPF contribution might be pegged per hour, task or unit of labour. Or even risk pooling among the gig employers so that the worker has insurance coverage for health benefits or sick leave, rather than falling between the cracks.

Mdm Speaker, every national economy exists within the fabric of that nation's society. Singapore is the same. A strong society is a prerequisite for sustainable economic development. It gives us the resolve and courage needed to overcome uncertainty, instead of waiting and seeing, and stepping forward, moving ahead, making a difference, moving faster than the competition.

A strong society also gives us the social consensus for fiscal redistribution, for broad centrist policies, for a fair and equitable society. It binds us as one in times of challenge and creative destruction, so that we can pull together and renew and be stronger after that.

So, Madam, even as we create the future economy, we must also ready our social policies for the future, strengthening our social cohesion with a whole-of-Government ethos, strengthening our social compact to stay ahead of disruptive innovation and strengthening our labour markets so that every worker can find their full potential throughout life. Mdm Speaker, may we always continue growing, growing stronger and growing stronger together.

Mr Faisal Manap.

Madam, in 2016, we witnessed two major events that surprised many: Brexit and the American Presidential election. Many expressed concerns on the possibility of a major global impact these two events may pose, especially on the economic front. Many see a future with uncertainties.

Madam, moving into an uncertain global situation, each nation must analyse and evaluate its own strengths and resources and find ways to strive and strengthen its utilisation of resources in a more prudent and most effective manner.

In this year's Budget, the two main themes or objectives are: one, a compassionate and inclusive society; and two, an innovative and connected economy.

Madam, Singapore is an island city state and only has human resource at our disposal. We rely heavily on our human resource to generate a strong and robust economy. However, we are also very aware that human resource is a challenging factor in the near future due to the drop in our total fertility rate (TFR) in a rapidly ageing population.

Apart from making efforts to increase our TFR, we should also find ways to empower Singaporeans, in particular, our workforce. With an empowered nation only can we achieve our objective of, one, a compassionate and inclusive society and, two, an innovative and connected economy.

Madam, in this year's as well as previous years' Budgets, many initiatives have been rolled out and implemented, such as SkillsFuture, to enable the Singaporean workforce to upgrade their skills so as to remain relevant and ready to face the challenges in an uncertain global situation. In addition to improving individual skills of the workforce through training, schemes, such as Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) and others, have also been introduced to equip companies and employers with technologies to further enhance innovation and productivity.

Madam, the introduction of technologies or hardware is, indeed, good and necessary. However, enhancement is also very much needed in the aspect of software or heartware. Technology, by itself, is not able to achieve better innovation and productivity. Its effectiveness relies on employees who use the technology. Only with a motivated workforce can we work towards enhancing our innovation and productivity.

Madam, a happy employee equates to a motivated employee. A motivated employee is obviously more innovative and productive and many studies have proven this. A study conducted by the University of Warwick in 2014 found that happiness led to an increase in productivity by 12%. The same study also found that workers who are otherwise unhappy show a decline of 10% in their productivity level. The Harvard Business Review, a magazine published by Harvard University, also produced analyses of several studies that showed an average increase of 31% in productivity level for happy employees.

Madam, the organisational and work culture has a very great impact on the level of happiness of our workforce. Many internationally renowned companies and corporations practise employee-centric work culture. Mr Richard Branson, Founder of Virgin Group, in an interview in 2014, mentioned that one business strategy that he used is employee-centric management, giving priority to employees. He said, and I quote, "It should go without saying if a person who works at your company is 100% proud of the brand, and you give them the tools to do a good job and they are treated well, they are going to be happy." In the same interview, Mr Branson also said, and I quote, "If a person who works at your company is not appreciated, they are not going to do things with a smile." Mr Branson further shared that the first priority is his employees, customers second and shareholders third.

Google, a giant Internet company, emphasises on organisational and work culture that focuses on satisfaction and happiness of employees. As a result, Google has consistently received the top spot in the list of Fortune's Best Companies to work for. Google believes that, on average, a person spends most of his time in the workplace and, hence, it is important to feel happy and calm. They believe, with joy and peace, it will spark innovation and productivity.

Amongst Google's initiatives are: one, their offices are designed with an open concept that allows the employees to interact openly in order to stimulate the mind and spark innovation; two, to provide facilities, such as gymnasium, fitness centre and games room. Google believes that a healthy workplace produces joy and happiness and, hence, this will further spark innovation and productivity. Google's office in Malaysia houses a cafe© that provides free food to employees. Google believes that spending on such is part of their investment cost because everyone knows that good food can boost employees' morale.

Madam, the questions are: what is the state of our workforce today? Is it a happy or unhappy one? What is the situation of our organisational and work culture in Singapore? Do employees feel happier while on assignment? Do they feel their employer cares for them? Are our employers making the employees as their top priority? To answer these questions, I will cite findings of a couple of studies conducted, addressing the issues of Singapore's employees' level of happiness.

Madam, in 2014, the Singapore Human Resources Institute (SHRI) and Align Group, a consulting firm, conducted a study, an overview of workplace happiness index. Their findings indicated that employees in Singapore are not so happy with their workplace. The index obtained is 59 out of 100 fell in the category under "happy". The study used a scientific method that contains 20 factors which were categorised into four main categories ‒ satisfaction, alignment, engagement and well-being.

The survey also found that happiness is related to employees' perception of their work and experience in the workplace. The report also stated that the ability of companies or employers in promoting pride, positive emotions, a sense of accomplishment and enhancing work culture will affect how happy their employees may feel.

In September 2016, JobStreet issued a report on a survey, Job Happiness Index, which was conducted in seven ASEAN countries. The result of the survey showed Singapore employees ranked the lowest amongst their ASEAN counterparts. Singapore only gained 5.09 out of 10. In the same report, it was said that the job happiness index for Singapore will continue to fall to the level of 4.93 in the next six months. The report further mentioned that, given such circumstances, employers have been advised to revisit and review their human resource (HR) practices and address the factors that caused employees to feel less satisfaction.

Overall, if we look at the studies and surveys conducted on Singapore's workforce for the last couple of years, our workers are unhappy. Arguably, the main cause is our organisational and work culture that does not give job satisfaction. The consequences of not being able to provide job satisfaction are hampering our productivity and innovation.

Madam, efforts to change our organisational and work culture must be made a top priority if we want to see positive changes in our nation's level of innovation and productivity. Changing a culture is not easy. It is a process that needs collective and continuous effort and participation of the Government, employers and employees, spanning over a period of time.

The Government must take the lead in changing the organisational and work cultures through programmes, its schemes and other initiatives. Programmes should be conducted for employers to enhance their knowledge on how to establish a conducive work culture that can make employees feel appreciated and, thus, feel more motivated to innovate and be more productive. In addition to these programmes, schemes, such as PIC, should be extended to the cost expended in transforming our organisational and work culture to be more conducive and employee-centric.

Employers have an important task in ensuring that the Government's schemes and initiatives are being implemented and practised in the most extensive manner to bring about an employee-centric culture. As for employees, they must strive to manifest the best work values. One way of doing so is to attend more programmes and training to improve both the hard and soft skills.

Madam, I am convinced that employees equipped with both hard and soft skills are the ones who are more motivated and display good work attitudes. I am of the view that we need to cater more programmes and training focusing on the development of soft skills. I would like to suggest that the learning on the topic of human psychology should be made the main thrust in programmes and training syllabuses. The reason is that self-awareness, as well as awareness and a better understanding of others around us, will allow the development of more positive and effective intra- and interpersonal skills.

Madam, I would also like to suggest that the learning of psychology be introduced in our lower secondary school curriculum to develop soft skills, both intra- and interpersonal, in our younger generation. We need not teach the whole spectrum on the subject of psychology. My suggestion is to include the following three components: one, personality; two, perception; and three, social psychology. It can be included as part of the Science subject, alongside Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

The learning of these three components will allow our younger generation to develop better awareness of themselves, family members, friends and others in our society. With such better awareness, our young ones will be able to establish good social and community values. And with such good values, and equipped together with skills and knowledge, our young Singaporeans will be more empowered when entering our workforce. Madam, I will switch to Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam, the organisational and work culture has an impact on the level of happiness of our workforce. Many internationally renowned companies like Google and Virgin Group and corporations, practise employee-centric work culture that gives priority to workers.

Madam, the question is: what is the reality of organisational and work culture in Singapore? Are our workers happy when they perform their tasks? Do they feel that their employers care or give priority to them?

Madam, if we look at the results of surveys done on Singapore workers in the past years, as a whole, Singapore workers are not happy workers and the main reason can be said that the organisational and work culture is less than satisfactory. Due to the absence of job satisfaction, the level of productivity and innovation cannot be improved.

Madam, efforts to change organisational and work culture must be given priority if we wish to see positive changes to our country's innovation and productivity. It is not easy to change culture. It is a process that will take a long time as well as a collective, comprehensive and continuous effort. It will need the participation of all parties: the Government, employers and workers.

Madam, touching on the issue of unhappiness, many people have voiced their displeasure, particularly via social media, about the 30% increase in the price of water as announced by the Government. Although the Government has provided additional assistance through U-save rebates, the increase in the price of water does not only comprise domestic users or consumption at home, but it also involves all aspects of water consumption like industries and businesses. The increase in the price of water, compounded with the increase in diesel prices, will result in increases in the cost of operations and doing business. I believe that this additional cost will, in turn, be channeled towards consumers.

For instance, the increase in the price of water will likely result in an increase in prices at coffee shops as well as hawker centres. The increase in the price of diesel will likely cause an increase in bus and taxi fares. Can the Government give an assurance that consumers will not experience price increases?

(In English): Madam, I will conclude my speech in English. Our nation's goals are to achieve: one, a caring and inclusive society; and two, an innovative and connected economy relies heavily on both components ‒ hardware, that is, technologies, and heartware, our values. Comparing both, the latter is more crucial and requires a tremendous and continuous effort as well as commitment. Mindset and culture need to evolve and be developed.

Madam, I am confident that empowered with the right and sincere hearts, followed by a determined, collective and consolidated effort, we can achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

Mdm Speaker, the global landscape is changing dynamically. As a small country, Singapore cannot afford to ignore the progression and challenges around us. The external environment will not slow down or stop in its tracks for us while we try to keep pace or reinvent ourselves.

I see three key trends that are here to stay and will continue to shape the world. To some extent, Singapore, as a country, we may have little influence on these global trends, but we must take actions to remain relevant. We must recognise the presence of these trends, be willing to change, adapt and always prepared to ride the wave.

First, the global political situations have altered significantly over the past two years. More of these changes are likely to follow. There is potential shift of economies towards protectionism and mercantilism. All these will create new challenges to global free trade and globalisation.

Second, disruptive technologies. Disruptive technologies have always been present. The key difference between today's disruptive technologies is the frequency and nature in which the disruption presents itself. Intensive emergence of the new technologies renders less predictability in our future markets, but it is also able to bring about new economies and business opportunities for us. With digitalisation, the impact and reach of any new technology will be much larger as the market can react more responsively. New technologies that constantly emerge begin to dominate the market spaces within a short span of months, not years, unlike in the past. Thus, time is of the essence in the process of us restructuring any industry as the clock speed of economic changes has accelerated.

Third, structural changes within industries and how our companies operate. A key topic to adaptation and change is: can we be competitive? Competitiveness has been and remains critical to all businesses. In current times, it becomes even more prevalent. Only those with the ability to differentiate and create value out of the basic solutions that address needs and generate demand will survive.

I believe a key question on many minds is: can Singapore transform and continue to create future economic opportunities and employment? I feel that we need to be realistic and not expect there is a silver bullet that can provide this possibility.

In this Budget, it does address some short-term needs where assistance is provided to those in need and who may be temporarily unemployed and for our vulnerable groups. But more importantly, we must seek to have longer-term directions; where we must get our fundamentals right on diverse education pathways for our future generations, readiness of our workforce, adaptability to new variation in economic models and sustainable approach to our social safety net.

Moving forward, I see the role of our Government shifting to one that facilitates and enables, instead of prescribing an end solution to everything. This does not mean our Government should stop forward-thinking, planning or putting elements in place for the future. Instead, with increasing dynamism of our economy, we need all the stakeholders as active contributors, be involved and play a part in shaping the requirements that we need to make things work for Singapore.

While it is widely discussed and we know that changes have to take place, but I believe we must focus on three areas to make a difference in the future. Let me explain the three areas.

First, innovate for growth. To me, innovation is a culture. It has to be reflected through our education system, the social environment and our workplace. It is not an object or a target that we create for a specified period of time. We have been investing in the past decade in R&D, creating more platforms to innovate. We have seen an increase in the number of innovative ideas, as evident by the 1,469 patents that were filed by Singaporean residents in 2015. That is a 12.7% year-on-year increase on the patents that are registered. But the corresponding number of ideas and patents from earlier batches that have borne tangible achievements, as in business returns, pales in comparison. I think the reason is that we still lack innovation and value creation deeply entrenched as a culture in Singapore.

If we review where this stems from, I think it begins from our education. I definitely agree that it is important to have an adequate foundation and understanding of fundamentals in all that we learn. But often, rigorous practice to manage examinations is not indicators that we have learnt. Usually, the most effective results are seen in our ability to actively learn and apply the knowledge that is learnt to real-life situations and challenges. Also, to create value out of limitations. Being adaptive, thinking out-of-the-box, accepting different ideas and challenges are all part of a process to innovate. We need to allow our younger generation to do so. There is no short cut to this. The challenge is: do we have the appetite to experiment and will the society accept different pathways in our education?

Our education and societal norms will eventually shape the workers in our workforce. The ability to continue learning and take risks reflect the will of our individuals. Without the culture, can we see the jewel in the rocks? Take, for example, we often claim that technologies have replaced and made humans redundant or made businesses sunset industries. Looking deeper, does the issue lie with a person's inability to transform with time or the emergence of improvements in the world?

In the most traditional industries, like the automotive industry, it has not disappeared and continues to bring about growth opportunities. With technology evolvement, the processes involved and the product variety that is available certainly has changed our views of possibilities in traditional forms of manufacturing. Producing different car components can now be done using additive or what we call 3D manufacturing, and less of moulding, welding and casting as in the past. The industry does not go away, but the technology involved has advanced. Likewise, if we cannot foresee, innovate and integrate new pathways in our economy, it is unlikely for growth to be sustained or even for new jobs to be created.

The second area, develop T-skills in lifelong learning. As the industries and economy undergo restructuring, workers who have skills mismatch due to inexperience or lack of training opportunities must now try to pick up new skills. It is not easy to learn new skills, especially when one is used to some level of comfort or in the way of how we do things. SkillsFuture is a good starting point for people to embrace the need to learn, but that cannot be the only reason why we are learning. Everyone must recognise the need to continuously learn as they study and work. This is the only way to remain relevant throughout our changing environment.

Realistically, it is impossible for everyone to learn and shift to every new industry as a new industry emerges. I do not think that is what we are trying to achieve with SkillsFuture. In my opinion, every individual worker has core capabilities and basic skills. Through our lifetime, it is critical for us to develop two sets of skills: (a) to deepen our core capabilities that further enable our expertise or develop fortes; (b) to develop broad-based skills that are transferable regardless of industry. Only with these T-skills will we be able to add on incrementally at each stage of our career and capture the new opportunities.

On the part of the Government, I would ask that moving forward, more focus be put on internships, encourage our public sector and our private companies to develop a learning culture, have more on-the-job training and for schemes to support the companies to enable job rotations. It is heartening to see this Budget enhancing the Adapt and Grow initiative and providing more accessibility for training. These resources would eventually be valuable to facilitate their staff to broaden and deepen their skills.

The third area, partnerships in employability. The term "iron rice bowl", does it still exist? The fact of the matter is that there is no job guarantee in today's world. Real jobs are what we make the best of it when it is available. The Minister for Finance has called for more partnerships in the workplace and I fully support that. This is absolutely necessary for the long haul, where especially the impact it has on the generation of our older workers. With time, our older workers will face different sets of challenges. Before the Baby Boomers become seniors, something has to be done now.

The challenges that the older workers face are: (a) preconceived mindset of our employers; (b) learning new skills over a short timeframe and adapting to the changing business landscape; and (c) accepting the new concept of productivity where less is more and being different is to value-add.

To effect any change, I feel that it has to take place at all levels, employers, employees and the Government, and in partnerships. Employers must be open and ready to accept helping our older workers through training, refitting their job and scope, and value each worker for their abilities. Employees have to keep learning and upskilling through their career and not only when the need arises. They must be participative and not hope to be valued due to seniority. I hope the Government can streamline their processes and review some existing exceptions with certain flexibility and enable new rules to adapt to the new economy. Mdm Speaker, I will do the next section in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Apart from our culture and economy, I am encouraged that this Budget continues to look at strengthening our social safety net, in particular, persons with disabilities (PWDs). Mental health awareness is an area that we cannot neglect in urban cities. Dementia is one category of such mental health issues and the most common being Alzheimer's disease. As dementia has no cure, this has long-term implications on the caregivers and our society as well.

In Singapore, the prevalence of dementia is about 10% amongst seniors aged 60 and above. The number of seniors with dementia is set to rise, especially with a rapidly ageing population. Countries like Japan and Taiwan have shown that dementia-friendly communities where PWDs living in their homes have resulted in lower cost to healthcare. Therefore, it is imperative to raise awareness and put in place initiatives that support persons with dementia to age in place.

I support this initiative and would like to ask the Ministry about the outcome of the first pilot trial of community-based dementia care efforts in Yishun. What are the lessons learnt from this trial and how long will it take to train resources to cope with the existing situation of 10% dementia patients?

(In English): Mdm Speaker, it is inevitable that Singapore will continue to face different challenges amidst the dynamic global landscape. The willingness to change, adapt and be always prepared has to take place across generations. We must get our younger and the future generations ready to think and act for themselves. In the short term, we have to address the needs to assist our existing workforce to make sure that they remain employable. But on the long run, we have to consider: do we take bolder measures to evolve a new culture or do we continue to move ahead to reinvent through incremental changes? On this note, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Minister Masagos Zulkifli.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for giving me the chance to speak. I would like to respond to the points raised by Members, particularly on the issue of the water price revision.

In Singapore, water is unlike any other ordinary commodity. We subsidise housing, healthcare, education, but not water consumption. Water is a strategic issue. It is a national security. We must price water fully. Even as we give targeted assistance to households, such as U-Save vouchers, to help them pay for their utilities bills, we must price water correctly. The consumer must feel the price of water. Consumers must realise how valuable water is to us in Singapore, every time he or she turns on the tap, right from the first drop.

Let me take us back to the time when the Government last revised the price of water, which was in 1997. We had not revised water prices for some time then. Elements in Malaysia were threatening to block our water supply from Johor. We were embarking on desalination to secure our water supply. We needed to register with Singaporeans the strategic importance of water and the importance of saving every drop possible.

The Government, therefore, decided to revise the water price substantially, to reflect water's true scarcity value. If we needed any additional water, where would it come from? How much would that additional litre cost? That is what we call LRMC. That is the cost which consumers must see.

At that time and even today, the Johor supply was fixed. Local reservoirs had been almost fully developed, maybe except for Marina Reservoir. NEWater was not even invented in 1997. It came way later in 2002. Apart from conventional methods of collecting water or rainwater, the only proven technology then was to produce water through desalination. But desalination then was very expensive, $3 to $3.50, through what we call multi-stage flash (MSF) distillation. This number did not even include the cost of pipelines.

There was no way for the Government then to move the water price to the true cost of the next litre, the price of desalination. So, it moved instead in steps, over the period of 1997 to 2000, to today's water price.

Since then, water technology has progressed steadily. The Public Utilities Board (PUB) itself invested in R&D. This resulted in NEWater, which was much cheaper than desalination. Desalination technology has improved from MSF to membranes. As a result, we have been able to keep our costs down, the cost of water, and hold water prices unchanged for 17 years.

But costs have gone up gradually over the years. At some point, a price revision became essential. Let me give a few examples of how costs have risen in the recent review.

Firstly, LRMC is a mix of NEWater and desalination costs. In the blend with NEWater and desalination, we have depended more on desalination for the next litre as water demand increases. There is also a limit to recycling used water in our NEWater plants. Therefore, to increase our water supply further, we must build more desalination plants. Indeed, we are building three desalination plants within the next three years.

Secondly, as we increase the proportion of water reclaimed for NEWater, effluent becomes more concentrated and, indeed, more difficult and more costly to process.

Thirdly, Singapore is becoming more urbanised, so it is costing us more to build new and replacement pipes to deliver water.

Here are some figures from our recent expenditures which can give an indication of how it will be in the future. Looking at the first year of desalination, for instance, while the first-year price for our first plant, SingSpring Desalination Plant, was $0.78 per cubic metre, the first-year price of our latest plant at Marina East was $1.08 per cubic metre, some 40% increase.

For conveyance costs, we now tunnel below the road to lay pipelines. This minimises inconvenience to road users and the public, but it costs two-and-a-half times as much as conventional pipe laying techniques. As our pipelines age, PUB will have to more than double the rate of renewal of old pipelines from the current 20 kilometres per year to 50 kilometres per year to minimise pipe leaks and disruptions.

All these point to the need to update LRMC which the 30% price increase has reflected. We are unable to provide details of its computation because of commercial sensitivities. We still need to build more desalination plants and NEWater plants; and as more desalination, NEWater and water reclamation plants are yet to be built or expanded, revealing the specifics of LRMC could prejudice future bids. But rest assured that LRMC reflects the best the market can offer.

Mr Pritam Singh asked whether technology is taken into account in the computation of LRMC. My answer is a definite yes. It has always been and is also the case for this review. Technologically, we have squeezed everything we can from the current water processing technology. It will take several more years to achieve the next breakthrough and bring it to a deployable scale.

I also thank Members for reminding the House that we have had a serious problem in the depletion of the Linggiu Reservoir in recent years. It is not clear whether the current situation is due to climate change, but we cannot discount the possibility of the dry weather to persist. And in the future, when climate change effects become more pronounced, it would be more severe. As Members are also aware, Johor is also drawing water from the Johor River, and Singapore is discussing this with Malaysia to ensure that Johor's actions do not compromise our ability to draw the 250 million gallons per day that Singapore is entitled to from the Johor River under the 1962 Water Agreement. What is clear is that Linggiu is operating today at a level way below what we are comfortable with and it will take years to build up to a reliable capacity again.

Taking all these together, there is, therefore, urgency to have our policies, including right pricing, in place so that we can moderate demand by both businesses and households while also building the infrastructure we need to have a secure water supply.

It is the job of my Ministry and PUB to plan and build the infrastructure, which we will do. But it is only through right pricing that we can have everyone valuing water as a strategic resource and consciously conserving it. With the 30% increase that we have announced, the price will be close to, though slightly lower than, the price of the next drop, or LRMC, today. This is the best way to emphasise the scarcity value of water.

Members have expressed concerns over the magnitude of 30%. Clearly, this 30% increase has generated a lot of discussion on water. I hope it also raises awareness of its scarcity, its strategic value where water is concerned. But in reality, what does 30% translate to?

For businesses, 75% will see an increase of less than $25 per month in their water bills. This is less than a dollar a day. Indeed, I am heartened that some businesses have taken this increase in context and have explicitly said that they would not increase prices. For households, the Government has provided additional U-Save rebates. One- and 2-room HDB households will not experience any increase in their bills. For other HDB flat types, monthly water bills will go up by $2 to $11 per month. Overall, water will still be affordable because it will remain at about 1% of household income. So, that is what 30% price revision translates to, $1 a day for 75% of our businesses, and still within 1% of household income for water expenses. Mdm Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] It is clear that people were taken aback by the 30% water price hike. This has caused a lot of discussion on the price of water and, at the same time, the importance of water in the context of its scarcity in Singapore.

The issue of water is highly crucial. It is a very strategic issue. Therefore, this discussion about the increase in the price of water is good because it raises people's awareness about the price and value of water to us.

But eventually, what is the real impact of the 30% increase? Do we need to scare people about the impact of the 30% increase?

For businesses, 75% of them will be seeing an increase of less than $25 a month, which is less than $1 a day. I am happy that many businesses have come forward to assure the people that they would not raise their sale prices just because of this water price hike.

I had coffee at Al-Azhar just now. I called up Al-Azhar's owner, "Have the prices of beverages gone up? Will the price of beverages go up?" He said, "It won't increase." So, if there are coffee shops that increase the price of beverages, have your drink at Al-Azhar.

For households living in 1- to 2-room flats, they would not be experiencing an increase, on average. The rest would experience an increase of between $2 to $11 per month. But this is still within 1% of their monthly household income.

So, we should see this 30% increase in the right context, which is to raise the awareness of the importance of water to Singaporeans, to our country. But we should also see the context in terms of the increase and its impact towards our daily expenditure.

(In English): Despite our investments in desalination and NEWater plants, the truth is this: we are still a water-stressed nation. Singapore was ranked first among countries with the greatest risk of water stress in 2040, according to the World Resources Institute. It is not a description of what we do. It is a description of who we are. We hope that through right pricing, everyone will cultivate the habit of water saving as part of our deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), Singapore's DNA, whether we are a household or business.

Just this morning, I attended a water rationing exercise at Woodgrove Secondary School. Many schools are participating this year to raise awareness of the value of water and the importance of water conservation among our young ones. Even during the prolonged dry spell in 2014, we did not face serious shortages because we had NEWater and desalination plants. There was no water rationing. But water conservation was something earlier generations of Singaporeans had imbibed. Singaporeans back then knew that every now and then, elements in Malaysia were threatening to turn off the taps. So, they bore with water rationing, supported water saving campaigns and even paid the cost of cleaning up rivers and their catchment areas.

Indeed, it is because of our obsessive focus on water and the collective determination of the earlier generations and, of course, our PUB officers, that we were able to manage our vulnerabilities. If we take this same approach, we will secure our water future for ourselves and our children, and that, I think Members will agree, is well worth doing. [Applause.]

Mr Pritam Singh, do you have a clarification?

Yes, Mdm Speaker. I have a few clarifications for the Minister. I thank him for the detailed speech that he gave. Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister how does PUB assess when to increase the price of water because, according to the PUB's Annual Report, the net income of PUB − after Government grants and contributions to the Consolidated Fund and tax − was actually higher between the years 2013 and 2015, compared to between 2010 and 2012. Between 2013 and 2015, it was about $550 million and between 2010 and 2012, it was $339 million. Notwithstanding the improvements that are required for the transmission networks and so forth, some clarity on that would be appreciated.

The second question pertains to a point that the Minister made in his speech, which was about the choice of building more desalination plants. How does PUB make that determination whether it should construct more NEWater plants, as opposed to desalination plants, because NEWater is obviously cheaper. Some understanding on that will be helpful as well.

And to that end, two follow-up clarifications: is PUB considering a proposal which has been discussed in public before, which is to deepen local reservoirs to increase our own local catchment and the possibility of directly supplying NEWater which, I understand, some years ago was raised in this House and the then-Minister clarified that only one country − I believe it was Namibia − which transmits such water directly? The reason is it would save costs by just having NEWater supplied directly, as opposed to going through another processing exercise through the reservoirs.

A few more quick clarifications, and I beg your indulgence. With regard to the Linggiu Reservoir, assuming that it does fail, can we anticipate a rise in water conservation tax? With regard to my suggestion about a differentiated tax regime to encourage savings among Singaporeans, in addition to water rationing that the Minister mentioned, would the Government reconsider how it prices water so as to encourage people to achieve real savings by conserving water?

I thank the Member for asking these questions. On the issue of the books in PUB, I think it is very complicated for me to attempt to simplify what the numbers really mean. Our books are in accruals and our budget is in cash, and we have to reconcile them. What we will do is I will ask the Minister for Finance to look at the whole-of-Government approach in funding our water infrastructure. I think that makes more sense. Because there are some parts which are Government-funded and some parts which are PUB-funded, and it does not add up, if we look at each book separately.

On the desalination plant, why do we choose NEWater versus desalination? Desalination, as I have mentioned just now, is more costly than NEWater. But as you reclaim more of this used water to be processed, the concentration, as I have mentioned to you, becomes even more difficult to process and, therefore, more costly. There is a tipping point between when it is better to have a desalination plant, which is easier to convey the sea water to, and a NEWater plant where we have to convey the used water to. So, all these cost considerations give us a way to basically evaluate the best cost-effective model and also to spread our risks across technologies.

There was a question on whether we can deepen our reservoirs. In fact, that was the first question I asked when I joined the Ministry. It is very intuitive. Why can we not just deepen our reservoirs? Unfortunately, the answer is not as simple as the question. We have done studies and, currently, the studies show that there is a particular yield from the reservoir if you leave it as it is, and there is a risk this yield can be reduced if you start disturbing the bottom of the reservoir. So, we do not want to do something adversely affecting our yield of the reservoir by doing something which looks intuitive. I have asked our experts to study this further. They are still in the midst of studying this, but, right now, the prospect is not fantastic, unfortunately.

The fourth question which the Member asked is about whether we can directly send NEWater to our homes. Theoretically, we can, but we do not have to right now. Certainly, when we need to, we will have to put the right processes to ensure this can be done, because we must ensure that it is safe for our house to drink from end to end.

There was also a question on Linggiu Reservoir. May I clarify, is it "if Linggiu fails"?

Mr Pritam Singh.

Yes, Minister. If the Linggiu Reservoir fails and we cannot draw from the reservoir, would the water conservation tax go up because it is associated with not over-consuming water?

The price of water, as it stands today, that we have proposed to increase, is LRMC, which is the price of producing the next drop of water. And, therefore, for whatever reason, the next drop of water that we need to draw will be coming from desalination as well as NEWater. So, it is already priced in. The problem is not the price. The problem is what will we do, what can we do, to prevent that from happening. Because it is not just an issue of supply; it is a very complicated issue should that situation ever occur to us.

Finally, on savings and water rationing, whether we can give a rebate to people who save water, it is a bit counter-intuitive because, in the first place, we want to make sure people pay for the cost of producing the water, which is LRMC. And to give back that cost means we are subsidising the use of water. Any way we change the structure of water that we have today either involves cost or will be counter-intuitive to trying to promote conservation of water. I think what we have today is achieving its objectives, and I am glad that everywhere I go, water is one of the things that Singaporeans are very aware of. In fact, during the 93.8Live discussion on water, there was a caller who was very upset because one of his colleagues was using water in the shower after work. It was given for free for, I do not know, half an hour, or for a very long time. And he got very upset because you do not do this at home, why you do this over here? Because it is free? This is the right DNA for Singaporeans − even though it is free, we cannot bear to see water wasted. And I think that is how we should move forward. Continue to price it properly to reflect the scarcity value of water and, with that, hopefully, we achieve a DNA of always wanting to conserve the use of water.

Mr Png Eng Huat. Please keep it short.

Thank you, Madam. Just a quick question to the Minister. The Minister said that water was never subsidised. Is it a Day 1 policy or only starting in 2000?

If I recall correctly, it was in 1997 when we decided to price water correctly. At that time, it was not only not priced correctly, the structure of the tariff was also very difficult to encourage conservation, conserving of water, to charge water according to its value. It was only in 1997 when we looked at really what we need to do to get that next drop of water, given the situation we were facing with our neighbours, given the expiry of the water agreement by 2060, that we consciously decided that we have to start thinking around how to make sure people understand the value of water. So, from 1997 onwards, we revised the water tariff and structure to reflect the cost of producing that water, LRMC, and, therefore, to make sure users know the price of what they use.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.

Madam, many in this House would recall the tagline: "You push the button, we do the rest". And also the song, "Do you remember? − Times of Your life". It was for "Kodak". By 1976, Kodak held more than 90% of film sales and 85% of camera sales in the US alone. They were the leaders globally. But when Steve Sassoon invented the digital camera and showed it to Kodak, he was told to keep quiet about it as it would kill the company's crucial film industry, Kodak's golden egg.

By 2012, we recall how Kodak filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. It is likely if you ask your grandchildren and members of Generation Y and beyond, they may never have heard of Kodak.

Fuji, on the other hand, realised the world was going digital. With a long-term vision and survival instincts, it invested in digital technology; diversified into new areas; started an in-house expertise development programme; participated in joint ventures, such as Fuji-Xerox; explored and actively innovated in new areas, such as nanotechnology, placing chemicals onto films, which was even later carried into the cosmetic industry till today, and medical imaging technology and equipment.

There is really no magic wand but effort, hard work and strategy, with a touch of flexibility and adaptability that is needed. Discovery is really seeing what everybody else has seen and thinking what everybody else has not.

As one of the smallest nations on the globe, that is how we need to be − changing, transforming, and change has to really be our only constant and it keeps us up there. This mindset must be our value and our gift from one generation to the next generation, just as this quote is from Warren Buffet. He said: "Someone sitting in the shade of a tree today is because someone planted a tree (with a vision) a long time ago."

Budget 2017 must leave us thinking about this, about our survival together, about Singapore's survival. If one reviews our Budget the last few years, you will notice it is a continuum of change and development, through new schemes, enabling us to adapt to the new world order that is upon us all. It comes from a combination of two elements: firstly, good and in-depth sensing of the changes and the external environment which have impact on our economy, politics and foreign policies, besides other factors. And, secondly, our internal "conversations that matter", heart-to-heart, Singaporean conversations and feedback, which were weighted and considered to effect policies and schemes.

It is not just about wait and see. It is really what I would call the five "Ps" − to predict, to have projection, to plan, and then, of course, to progress together. And, finally, it is practical − the fifth "P". It works and it is not viewed through rose-tinted glasses. It must also make us realise the hard facts and our challenges, and water is one of them, as we have just heard from the Minister, with only people as our resource.

In the words of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, I quote: "To survive, we need to be exceptional". Our biggest threat is really our mindset and complacency. Together, as one Singapore, putting our heads and hearts together, we have the ability to create choice by deepening and altering our interpretation of the world today, as it moves along so quickly. We have to keep shining, shimmering and glowing as the Little Red Dot.

Madam, we also need to strike a balance, an equilibrium. Thomas Friedman, in his book, Lexus and The Olive Tree, talks of two countervailing factors in globalisation. The "Lexus" stands for modernisation and "The Olive Tree" represents our need for identity and belonging. Whilst we stay open to trade, talent, ideas and inculcate deep intrinsic and global capabilities, our racial, religious values and cultural identity are just as important. We must learn to balance the two, just as the book states that Lexus has, indeed, provided a means to growing stronger and bigger olive trees. The future of our Singapore identity depends on the right mix that we choose together. In Malay, Madam.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to share the following scenarios. Uncle A is 70 years old. When I visited his home, I met him and we had a chat. Since retirement, he is usually at home by himself during the day, waiting for his eldest child to return around 8.00 pm.

When asked whether he does any other activities, Uncle A told me that one of his friends will drop by each evening around 7.00 pm and have a chat with him. After speaking to him for a while, I moved on to his neighbour's home. His neighbour informed me that every evening, Uncle A will stand outside his corridor and speak to himself.

We assisted Uncle A with the help of the Silver Ribbon team that collaborated with me in the Geylang Serai area. Together, we diagnosed and brought Uncle A for counselling and treatment and he is better now.

There is also a family of four who lived in an HDB flat, and when I visited them, the wife and mother of that family, who is in her 40s, sorrowfully and tearfully told me about her breast cancer, the pressures that she faces and many other things that are weighing her down. We spoke for a long while and I did referral for her in terms of counselling, assistance and other activities, and her depression improved.

The issue of mental health is becoming more noticeable and prominent. Balancing physical and mental as well as social health is very crucial in creating an individual who wants to function and mingle optimally in society.

Budget 2017 has presented ways to further strengthen the circle of treatment, counselling and the network for mental health, especially at the community level. $160 million will be channeled towards the mental health fund and new programmes and initiatives, including the dementia-friendly communities programme. With this increase in funding, all 10 organisations, which are part of my mental health Taskforce in Geylang Serai, are pleased with its announcement. They have commenced new initiatives and ideas that they will feature.

Mental illness in a multi-ethnic and plural country like Singapore is more diverse and there are different interpretations as to why someone is afflicted with mental illness. It should be handled sensitively and tactfully to avoid hurting the feelings of the community. In fact, in Geylang Serai, we always have open dialogues on mental health and sharing is done by people of all races.

We also implement cross-over referrals, which means that anyone who receives treatment and assistance from the Silver Support team, will also be directed to receive traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) treatment at Sian Chay Medical Association to learn how to use herbs, how to relax their minds and also about acupuncture. So far, this has proven to be very popular and effective.

(In English): In October last year, when Geylang Serai partnered Silver Ribbon to organise the Asia Pacific Mental Wellness Conference with the theme of advocacy, it was attended by many international participants and speakers. And during that meeting, I launched the Global Mental Health Alliance as well. With our Budget announcement recently, I would like to share with the House some of the comments from the global mental health fraternity and leaders.

Filipa Palha from Portugal, the World Federation of Mental Health Regional Vice President for Europe said, "In Portugal, we had similar promises from the government, but it never came through."

Another person, Hugo Cohen from Argentina, World Federation of Mental Health Regional Vice President for Latin America, said, "Bravo! Good example for our own governments."

Ellen R Mercer, from the US, President for Government Affairs said, "Fabulous news…an example for other countries."

Robert van Voren, World Federation of Mental Health, Vice President for Constituency Development in the Netherlands, said, "Congrats, great news indeed. Wish we could have this back home." And similar comments came from people from South Africa, Taiwan, Pakistan and the Mediterranean countries.

Madam, even as we are a tiny red dot, we can, indeed, set the example for others. Back in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Malay/Muslim community and organisations have organised many dialogue sessions and I find that they have benefited greatly from the schemes under our previous Budgets. They are more confident, reassured and understand our Government's strategies better. Many methods, programmes and schemes were implemented to help the community improve themselves, their abilities and the status of their families.

This Budget also allocates $6 million more for self-help groups like MENDAKI and this is also good news for our community.

If we look around, many countries are unable to come up with this kind of Budget, especially in the midst of a dreary and gloomy economic situation. We are thankful for this vision as well as for the firm, vigilant and prudent approach in the national expenditure, where all activities, projects and enhancements are progressing as announced earlier.

In fact, the Government has brought forward building and construction projects that were supposed to be done in 2019, to this year and the following year, in order to help our construction industry.

Change and transformation will always happen. Similarly, our mindset must also change, renew and adapt in order to move with the times.

If previously, we were told about this saying "Acquire knowledge everywhere we go", now we can acquire knowledge from laptops, smartphones and SkillsFuture easily from our own homes.

(In English): To end, Madam, in the Budget, let us look beyond "just asking what is in it for me". It is really beyond that. It is beyond just handouts, although there still are. It is really about us together as a nation, Singaporeans and Singapore, moving together. It is about our future, survival and sustainability. Madam, I support Budget 2017.

Ms Thanaletchimi.

Mdm Speaker, I welcome this year's forward-looking Budget.

It contains several initiatives to support and assist the growth of our economy by strengthening the industry sectors under the ITMs for 23 industry sectors through the tripartite alliance and partnership. The aim is to identify jobs of the future and preparing and equipping our workforce in deepening their skills, improving productivity with technology and automation, embracing innovation for better business opportunities and business sustainability, and providing market opportunities for internationalisation of businesses, especially for SMEs.

This is understandable as SMEs employ two-thirds of the workforce today. However, with targeted budget allocation and the introduction of both existing and new schemes, how do we ensure that these SMEs create better jobs for our Singaporeans? How many of such jobs are future-ready? To what extent will they succeed in improving productivity and, if so, where is the check and balance that SMEs will share the gains with the workers that thereafter translates into sustainable wage increases or profit sharing?

Some SMEs or companies are barely keeping themselves afloat with the funding support provided by the Government. Should these SMEs continue to suffer and prolong its losses, their workers will be adversely affected. With this in mind, the Government can perhaps work with the Labour Movement to explore ways to assist these potentially affected workers leverage programmes, such as the Adapt and Grow programme, and transit into new employment before the company winds down. These workers can plan and start to upskill and reskill to enhance their employability.

I also welcome the SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative to develop 800 potential Singaporeans for exposure to international jobs that are well-paying. As we welcome this, to avoid the situation of talent shortage, the Government could work with companies on job redesigning and rebranding of industries and jobs to attract more locals and Singaporeans working abroad to come back and work at home.

It was also announced that all Ministries would have a 2% cut and that the Health, Home Affairs and Defence Ministries will have a 2% cut in phases. Which part of the expenditure will the 2% cut come from? As manpower is often the big ticket expenditure of any organisation, will this cut affect the workers' jobs and salaries? Is it the right time to cut the budget for all Ministries, especially for Health, while we are confronted with challenges of an ageing society; and for Home Affairs and Defence with the increasing threat of terrorism globally? Will there be a fee increase passed down to Singaporeans consequently?

I wish to now touch on cost of living. It is notable that for both the diesel cost increase and 30% increase in water conservation tax, the Government has put in place mitigating measures for low-income families. It is, indeed, heartening to see several schemes made available to families to cope with the cost of living. However, Singaporeans, especially the middle-class families, will feel the brunt of these increases. Therefore, short-term help for such families would be welcomed, especially when companies are expected to be prudent with wage increases and bonuses. In fact, more should be done to help these middle-income families.

Some Singaporeans questioned the sudden huge increase in water price. I think the Minister has explained earlier. Should there be a gradual increase over a period instead? Can there be a systematic way or formula for increasing water price so that it is less painful for Singaporeans? Moreover, the increase would mean some sellers or outlets may take advantage of the circumstances by increasing food and drink prices, amongst many others.

I would strongly urge the Consumers Association of Singapore to help keep tab on this and act swiftly to normalise such behaviour. As for social enterprises of the Labour Movement, I believe that they will, as always, act to moderate the price increases to safeguard consumers from being exploited by those who often cite a compounded cost increase in the supply chain as an excuse.

One other industry that would see such impact is the healthcare sector. Will such increase result in an increase in the cost of healthcare services to Singaporeans? Because in healthcare, we use a lot of water for every step of the procedure. I hope the respective Ministries will not pass on the cost increases to its consumers. Also, with the increase in water price, will employers use this as a reason to reduce wage increases as well as bonus payouts?

With regard to U-Save rebates, perhaps the Government can consider having different subsidies for multi-generation flats and executive flats, instead of grouping them together and providing them with the same amount of assistance. This is because people living in multi-generation flats get the least U-Save rebates amongst other flat types when many are living as three-generation family units with elderly parents or grandparents and may require more assistance and support from the Government.

Enhancement of the CPF Housing Grant for resale flats encourages young families to buy resale flats. Are there enhancements extended to existing CPF Housing Grant for couples buying Build-To-Order flats?

Lastly, I applaud the Government's Budget inclusion for the expansion of infant care centres. Such support will enable younger women to stay in the labour market after childbirth and, for those who had stopped working, a reason to return to work. This is where the employers, those working alongside with them and the entire nation can show better understanding and support to these groups of women who often face challenges raising children.

Madam, notwithstanding the above, I support the Budget that is promising and exciting, to build a formidable economy and create good jobs for Singaporeans.

Mr Ang Hin Kee.

Mdm Speaker, this year's Budget is set to prepare us for the future and build an innovative and connected economy. To this end, there is support for both businesses and workers. I will touch on SMEs and their workers, as well as freelance workers and how Budget 2017 will impact them.

Organised by the unit for SMEs at NTUC, I met with SME owners from different sectors at forums and learning journeys. Some shared with me their challenges how to migrate into the digital space and needing a one-stop solution, among other concerns.

Thus, it is timely that there will be the SMEs Go Digital Programme and Technology Hub which can help SMEs tap on digital solutions, build capabilities and boost productivity.

Connecting the Technology Hub to the existing network of SME Centres, including USME at NTUC, will also help more businesses to receive advisory, access grant and get step-by-step aid on technology adoption and solutions.

Trade associations and chambers have also been identified as multipliers to lead industry-level initiatives and can support SMEs scale up and be more competitive. For example, recently, the Early Childhood and Education sector announced a centralised meal catering project. Meals for childcare centres are now prepared in a central kitchen and delivered to participating centres. The centres benefit from time and cost savings, properly prepared nutritious meals and, I am quite sure, healthy and less sugar and no fried food, and the jobs of cooks can also be redesigned.

This Lean Enterprise Development Scheme project is one good example of how industry can take the lead. In this particular instance, the Association of Early Childhood and Training Services worked in collaboration with the NTUC's e2I, Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) and Workforce Singapore.

Some SMEs may be members of informal groups. Can we also allow these groups to be eligible to receive the support if they have an innovative idea that can move and transform their sector?

In 2015, for example, the Earn and Learn Scheme was rolled out to attract more graduates to join SMEs. The coverage of industries was fairly small with limited places. I hope more sectors can be included and more vacancies generated for SMEs to attract more fresh graduates. Recently, I received feedback about the Earn and Learn Scheme for the logistics sector and the results for the polytechnic students have been more than encouraging.

So, with more millennials entering the workforce, some SME employers also express the need to be better prepared to guide and communicate with them. These young workers' perception of work and aspirations vary very differently from their older colleagues.

I hope SkillsFuture Singapore can provide training support to help line managers to do a better job at helping the workers assimilate into the workplace. Equally important is to help existing staff learn to effectively communicate and work alongside these young workers. We heard from many SMEs that they want to do more for training and have asked for some more support. They hope to see more being done for targeted in-house training programmes with bite-size modules. This will cater to their shortage of time and sometimes inability to release their staff for training at a particular centre.

Many SMEs which were early adopters of different Government schemes have benefited. The next challenge is to reach out to and extend assistance to many other SMEs to help them transform their businesses, innovate and scale up so that their staff at their workplace can also benefit. I will now move on to speak about how we can better support a new and emerging group of working people.

There are over 180,000 freelancers and the self-employed and, this figure, by many accounts, is expected to climb. Very often, individuals opt for freelance work to pursue their own passion and interests, or simply that is how some of the industries today operate.

With the rise of the gig economy, it is timely that we address challenges faced by those who choose freelance work, either on a full-time, part-time or project basis. This is especially relevant with some of them making it as a career choice. Some graduates I met even consider starting it as their first career, instead of going on the traditional employee/employer model. We have also heard of how traditional sectors, such as transport and services, are also impacted with the convenience of online apps and the sharing economy.

The way services are delivered is now transformed, with the likes of private hire services, cleaning, grocery shopping or food delivery services gaining traction. For some of these workers, they may hold the title of freelancer or self-employed in name. However, they have little control and/or bargaining power over their work. Some even have to put on uniforms of the buyers that they serve while on duty and carry the brand on their bikes or bicycles for the services that they render.

Very often than not, the payment structure and work arrangement are heavily controlled by the service buyers. Unlike that of a freelancer who can decide to pick up projects or do it anytime, this particular group find that they are strictly controlled by the service buyers. However, the onus lies entirely on the workers to ensure that they receive timely payment, manage their own medical and insurance, and contribute to their own CPF savings.

Unlike employed workers, freelancers do not earn a fixed salary and are also, therefore, not entitled to various statutory protections, such as annual leave, medical leave and so on. Common challenges faced by freelancers include payment, late or sometimes none at all; the need to have intellectual property protection; income instability and running the risk of not saving enough for medical and retirement needs.

Mdm Speaker, freelancers are working people who also deserve to enjoy protection. As we gear up for the future economy, our employment practices and laws need to be robust, inclusive and cover all groups of working people and to ensure that no one is left behind.

We can perhaps take a leaf from how the taxi industry has evolved. Taxi drivers who are self-employed are not covered under any Employment Act, although recently we have just announced that there is a group of them who can opt to take on the employee model with the new taxi operator HDT.

Together with LTA, the taxi operator works with the National Taxi Association to start up a mediation centre back in 2014. This allows the self-employed, such as taxi drivers, to come together to have disputes and issues resolved through mediation rather than through civil suits and other platforms. This is a good move by this taxi operator with the other stakeholders.

The union also work with the taxi operators to facilitate training, offer hardship grant and funds to aid taxi drivers in need. Moreover, taxi operators also co-contribute to their hirers' MediSave contribution on this drive-and-save scheme. This level of support, while not very extensive and comprehensive, still shows a stark contrast to what other freelancers in the market enjoy. We hope other sectors can at least take the first step and follow suit.

In fact, various Government agencies work closely with freelancers in their respective industry development plans. We hope that the Government can also take the lead and work with the freelancers and the various buyers in that community to ensure that measures can be rolled out to better protect and give support to the freelancers.

Recently, the Manpower Minister shared that his Ministry has started to gather information on the changing freelancing landscape in Singapore. The purpose is to better understand the profiles of these freelancers, to find out if freelancing is their primary or secondary source of income, as well as the various sectors and occupations they are in.

This information will be very helpful because, today, many people are drawing anecdotes and examples they hear and, therefore, we need to rely on official sets of information to guide us. We hope that the data will help us to monitor the workforce trends, study the needs and issues faced by freelancers, and thereafter effectively put in place appropriate measures to safeguard the interests of freelancers.

Madam, Budget 2017 is a budget for the future, and brings Singapore and our businesses and workers towards the next phase of growth. I hope we can continue to render targeted support for SMEs and their workers as well as freelancers to help them operate and thrive in the future economy. I am very confident that our SMEs, our SMEs' workers and freelancers can do their part to stay resilient, adaptable and be bold to experiment with new ideas. Madam, I support the Budget.

Mr Ong Teng Koon.

Mdm Speaker, I support the prudent Budget put forward by the Finance Minister. Today, I would like to focus on issues that have not been directly addressed in this Budget but which are, nonetheless, top of mind for many Singaporean workers.

From my interactions with residents and their industry, I hear a rising concern about their livelihood. At the policy level, I am confident that the Government is doing what it can to protect the welfare of our workers for the long term.

However, from my discussions, the man on the street has a different perception. The question is how do we communicate the meticulous efforts in this regard by the Government to the public? How do we assure the worker that his welfare is front and centre of the Government's priority? There is a perception on the ground that the Government is not as worried as it should be, that there is a disconnect between the fear that workers are feeling and the optimistic, forward-looking messages that they are hearing.

In my view, the Government needs to calibrate the message so that it is empathetic and realistic, that people can relate to, and to also serve as a rallying cry so that people can take the steps to prepare themselves for this future. It is not difficult to understand why people are worried about their livelihoods. Globally, 2016 was a year filled with surprises and, very often, not pleasant ones.

This has created a cloud of uncertainty over global economic growth. There has been a marked rise in protectionist and anti-trade rhetoric, and this discussion has alarmed Singaporeans who are acutely aware that their prosperity is intricately linked to global trade and economic growth.

Global uncertainty is not the only thing on their minds. Other local trends are also causing concerns. For years, we have been trying to raise productivity in Singapore companies. This is the critical step towards building resilience and robust businesses to try to allow businesses to thrive in tough times. However, for many workers, this can sound ominous. They think that they will be replaced by robots or do double duty as their teams are "downsized".

Looking ahead, technology will threaten other jobs further up the value chain, and at a much faster pace than anticipated. Autonomous vehicles will displace drivers, and that we know. But increasingly, trading algorithms have started to displace trading professionals, many armed with Masters and PhDs. And in the future, artificial intelligence might replace human lawyers, doctors, accountants and even civil servants. No one is immune.

According to one research, 50% of the jobs could be lost to automation within 30 years. Of course, history shows us that as old jobs disappear, new ones will rise to take their place. But this is cold comfort for each individual worker who worries about his job being replaced by robots. There is a parallel to the rise of protectionism here. Free trade benefits the economy as a whole, but specific workers lose their jobs, as they see their wages being depressed. To them, "the greater good" is mere words, whereas their own pain is immediate and tangible.

Given these concerns, it is not surprising that many are turning to what we now term as the gig economy, doing freelance or part-time work to supplement their income. There are even full-time part-timers who do a portfolio of different jobs. Already, in the US, 33% of workers are freelancers, and are expected to rise to 40% in 2020. Singapore is not there yet, but we are certainly moving in the same direction. There are some local part-time job portals like Freeboh or MyWorkSG that are gaining a lot of traction, as even more workers report their willingness to partake in the gig economy.

While the gig economy increases our resilience of the workforce as a whole by matching workers with new opportunities, there are some concerns. And we hear Deputy Prime Minister Tharman saying that he is not yet a fan of the gig economy.

For me, there are two concerns. The first is that these freelancers may not develop and grow their skills and end up doing the same role forever. There is nothing to incentivise them or there is nobody looking out for the freelancers in terms of their career progression. The other concern that I have is that the gig economy essentially transfers the risk from company to individuals. Freelancers do not enjoy statutory benefits like the full-time work people do, such as annual leave, maternity benefits, In-camp Training reimbursements or paid medical leave.

They also lack group medical insurance that most full-timers enjoy. Although MediShield Life provides hospitalisation coverage, freelancers still lack accident, life and especially outpatient benefits that many companies currently provide. The trend towards part-time and freelance work is gaining momentum. The gig economy will allow workers to work in a variety of roles and pick up new skills. This supplements or bolsters training or retraining like what we are trying to do in the SkillsFuture. But instead of the classroom, the gig economy will let them try and learn in real life.

Let me begin to draw my remarks to a close. The role of the Government here is to ensure that worker welfare is sufficiently protected in this brave new world. As The Straits Times recently argued, we need a future-ready social safety net for the future economy. Berkeley Prof Laura Tyson has described such a system as portable, attached to the individual worker instead of the employer, universal and prorated. Heading in this direction will hopefully also dispel some of the cognitive dissonance that we currently perceive on the ground. Madam, I support the Budget.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as I am also a staff of ComfortDelgro, a holding company with subsidiaries in Singapore that employ more than 12,000 staff in Singapore, as I talk about how to help retrenched workers better.

Last year, 4,738 workers were retrenched, 100% more compared to the year 2015. Many of the retrenched Singaporeans are PMETs. As the economy slows down and as we restructure our economy, more Singaporeans will be out of a job and be retrenched in the coming years before we can finally see light at the end of the tunnel. This is a concern. It is alarming and it is worrying.

I understand that MOM, the Workforce Developoment Agency (WDA) and e2i are of the view that they have tried their best to retrain and redeploy displaced workers. But the perception on the ground, however, paints a different picture. When companies move out of Singapore, it can be very challenging to retrain displaced workers. When factories close down and production line managers lose their jobs, it can be very difficult for them to switch from supervising processes to supervising people. Some workers are still falling through the cracks and, despite their best efforts, they cannot find jobs.

This happened to one of my volunteers, Ross. She had a high-flying career as a Systems Applications and Products (SAP) specialist, working with Apple in Singapore and the US for about 10 years and she also worked for IBM as a managing consultant. Her work was valued by big clients like British Petroleum, American International Group and even in the US State Department.

She returned home to Singapore in 2011 at the age of 48. She believed that there were many jobs in Singapore available for her. However, she only managed to find a part-time contract job as a project lead security consultant with Jemena. It was owned by Singapore Power. Her contract, unfortunately, ended in 2014 as Jemena was sold off.

Since then, she has been jobless. But this is not due to a lack of effort. She has spent the last three years applying for jobs without success. When she approached WDA and e2i for help, she was told by both organisations that they organise job fairs but do not offer job search or job matching for individuals like her. In the few job interviews that she was granted, she felt that she was discriminated against due to her age and race.

In an effort to keep up with change, Ross diligently used her SkillsFuture credits to attend classes and upgrade her IT skills. She is now 54 and is still holding on to the hope to find a full-time job. I have come across many similar, heart-wrenching stories on the ground. We need to do more to help these people.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to recommend that the Government consider setting up a cross-Ministry working committee comprising representatives from agencies like MOM, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and the Head of Civil Service, which represents various Government agencies and their departments, as they are collectively the largest employer in Singapore. This committee should catch those falling through the cracks.

With a holistic overview of job demand and supply, we would be able to better address the anguish, disappointment and needs of the displaced workers, so as to give them hope, help and a new lease of working life. Madam, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In my English speech earlier, I said that Singapore is restructuring its economy and many companies are facing the issue of survival. Amidst the economic slowdown, the number of workers who were retrenched last year had doubled, compared to 2015. However, there are still many growth sectors, such as healthcare, social services and transport. Every year, these sectors need to hire a few thousand staff. Let me cite public transport as an example. As the demand for public bus services increases, the gross monthly pay of bus captains has improved dramatically from $2,000 per month in 2011 to more than $3,000 per month now. This is even higher than the $2,500 starting monthly pay of polytechnic graduates and $2,700 starting pay of private universities' graduates. The $3,000 gross monthly pay of a new bus captain is comparable to graduates from local public funded universities with a median starting pay of $3,400. While a new bus captain's gross monthly pay is $3,000, the chief bus captain's gross monthly pay can be as high as $6,000. This is a perfect example of "every trade has its master". Hence, I urge those who are retrenched to seriously consider taking up jobs in the services sectors.

(In English): Next, I would like to move on to the sports scene, Mdm Speaker. Before I proceed, I would like to declare my interest as the President of the Volleyball Association of Singapore. As a president of a National Sports Association (NSA), I welcome the news that $50 million will be set aside to match sports donations dollar-for-dollar.

Every year, in the past, many NSAs have to raise hundreds of thousands to promote our respective sports. Currently, all of us have to compete for the limited funds from Sports Singapore for the dollar-for-dollar matching grant which is capped at $40,000 per NSA on a first-come-first-serve basis. Last year, the fund dried up as early as September, barely six months from the start of the financial year in April. So, I hope that with the new allocation of $50 million, more NSAs can benefit from the matching grant.

However, having a higher quantum for the matching grant is not sufficient. We need Sports Singapore to work with various agencies to make available more training venues for national players and amateur players alike as interest in sports grows. Take volleyball, for instance. The Volleyball Association has groomed our indoor women's team to win a Southeast Asia (SEA) Games bronze medal in 2015 after a 32-year break. And last year, our combined school boys' team won a bronze medal during the Association of Southeast Asian (ASEAN) Schools' Competition for the first time in Singapore's history. And our beach volleyball Men's and Women's youth teams were invited to participate in the World Beach Volleyball Competition in Switzerland last year, again the first time in our history. During the Singapore National Games in 2014, prior to the SEA Games, the most number of teams that participated in a team-based competition was for volleyball. This shows the growing popularity of volleyball in Singapore.

Despite these efforts and our plea to Sports Singapore, many amateur volleyball players cannot find courts to train and to play. I hope that Sports Singapore can work with schools to make available more indoor volleyball courts during weekday nights and weekends. In addition, I hope that Sports Singapore can work with the National Parks Board to designate more segments of the beaches at East Coast, Pasir Ris and so on for beach volleyball.

These possible collaborations with Sports Singapore and other Government agencies will go a long way towards making Singapore a sporting nation, promoting healthy living, teamwork and better resilience among Singaporeans. With this, I support the Budget.

Mr Zainal Sapari.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on the Budget. In the Budget, $2.4 billion will be spent over the next four years to implement the CFE strategies, in addition to the S$4.5 billion allocated last year for the ITM programmes. Without a doubt, a lot of effort has been put in to help workers in this transition for them to be future-ready, future-proof and future-forward.

Mdm Speaker, yet, I am still worried our low-wage workers may not be able to reap the full benefits of our relentless drive to be future-ready. This may hamper our efforts to narrow the income gap between workers in the bottom 20th percentile and those of the median percentile.

When I talk to low-wage workers, all of them would like to have better pay, better jobs, better working conditions and hope for better job security.

Over the years, the Labour Movement, together with our tripartite partners, advocated and pushed for Progressive Wage Model (PWM), Best Sourcing Initiative (BSI), Inclusive Growth Programme (IGP), Workfare and National Wages Council recommendations to ensure sustainable wage growth for our low-income earners and these are some efforts that have given a hand in helping our workers to future-proof themselves through better training opportunities.

However, these efforts are compromised by issues, such as cheap sourcing, wage resetting and high turnover rates. Unless we attempt to tackle these issues as well, we would take one step forward and two steps back. The low-wage workers will find themselves at the mercy of things beyond their control.

Mdm Speaker, my other Labour Members of Parliament have put forward various proposals to help different segments of workers to be future-proof and future-ready based on the Labour Movement's 4P framework: Placement, Progression, Productivity and Protection.

In my speech, I will be covering my proposals surrounding protection for our workers. As we continue to provide opportunities to train our workers for the future, it is also important that we provide protection for their livelihoods.

Firstly, I would like to urge the Government to encourage better and fairer procurement practices which could set the benchmark for the private sector to follow as well. While many contracts are typically independent of Government influence, the Government itself may want to take the higher moral ground to ensure that all of its contracts are reasonable and fair, based on the principles of proportionality and best sourcing.

The outsourced sectors have long been plagued by low productivity and stagnating wages as a result of irresponsible outsourcing by businesses. Cheap sourcing and the imposition of high liquidated damages which do not commensurate with the non-delivery of specific service have resulted in the industry being caught in a vicious cycle. Here, service providers find it challenging to embark on productivity efforts, given that their operating margins are very low. Service buyers are on the receiving end of cheap yet less than ideal service outcomes, and workers' wages are depressed as service providers find ways to cope with the increased cost by compromising on workers' welfare.

In one of my blogs, I have shared about contracts with one-sided clauses. Such contracts will impact the workers as the service providers find ways to cut corners, such as not giving workers their 13th month bonus, paying low basic salaries and, in the process, minimising any overtime payments as well. Some of them also deny workers their medical benefits outside the scope of the Employment Act. Moreover, it could also be challenging for service providers to embark on productivity efforts, given that their operating margins are very low.

Our Government procurement guidelines generally ensure strong financial governance. They are open and transparent to encourage competitive bids to ensure value for money, but it can be improved upon to ensure outsourced workers' welfare are not compromised by the competitive bids.

I am heartened to share that the Ministry of Finance (MOF) has been very proactive to engage the Labour Movement to improve procurement practices on the ground to promote authentic best sourcing and ensuring fairer contract clauses based on the principle of proportionality to create an environment that will benefit all parties, including workers who can enjoy better terms and conditions. With the Government taking the lead, other companies, including Temasek-linked companies, would be encouraged to follow their example and this trend will better the lives of our low-wage workers.

Mdm Speaker, the second area that I would like to touch on is ensuring PWM continues to be relevant as we transform the various industries and helping low-wage workers future-proof themselves.

I am involved in the sectoral ITM committees for the cleaning, landscape and security sectors. A common challenge identified is the difficulty to attract local workers to join these industries. In my engagement with the industry players, one of the things we can do is to improve the wages in these sectors. NTUC, with the strong support from the Government and the industry stakeholders, made significant progress in this aspect through PWM. I would like to thank the Government and our tripartite partners for their unwavering support to see through the implementation of PWM in the cleaning, security and green sectors.

PWM is a good start to give some protection to the workers to ensure their salaries are commensurate with the workers' training, productivity and responsibilities. However, moving forward, if PWM is to make a real positive change in the livelihoods of our low-wage workers, we need to be bolder.

Last year, the tripartite committee for cleaners recommended annual increases and bonuses to be part of the mandatory wage model. It was an unprecedented move that required a lot of determination from all the stakeholders involved to see it through.

I hope the tripartite committees in the security and landscape industries would demonstrate the same tenacity to ensure the same for the security and landscape industries. I also hope the Government will continue giving its strong support for the future recommendations to improve PWM.

Mdm Speaker, the third area of protection that low-wage workers need is when they are injured in the course of their work. In 1978, the Special Relief Fund (SRF) was set up by the Singapore Labour Foundation in response to the 1978 Spyros accident. I would also like to propose that the Government consider reviewing the criteria of the existing SRF to provide immediate relief to affected workers suffering from serious workplace injuries pending the outcome from Workmen's Compensation. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In the future, it is possible that many jobs will disappear due to disruptive technologies. For instance, the presence of driverless cars will definitely affect the livelihood of many drivers. Self-help kiosks to make payments at supermarkets and to perform check-ins at the airports will mean that fewer customer service officers will be needed.

There are many more examples about the impact of technologies that will create disruptions to the point that there will be no difference between PMETs and rank-and-file workers. But I reckon that low-wage workers will be affected more and experience a greater impact from these disruptive technologies. And the best chance for low-wage workers to adapt to these disruptive technologies is by obtaining new skills.

Unfortunately, some employers are hesitant to send their workers for training, due to concerns that their attrition rate will be high if the worker completes the training and decides to join another company.

While employers are given incentives to send their workers for training, some incentives should also be given to the workers after they complete their training so that they will remain in their jobs. This is something that is necessary and should be studied if the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme is being reviewed in the future, so as to encourage workers to stay on with their employers who have sent them for training.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, we have made steps towards brightening the future for the Singaporean workforce. However, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels because we have to think beyond tomorrow and ensure all workers have their fair share from gains of our economic growth.

I want our outsourced and vulnerable workers in their silver years to look back and not remember their helplessness but remember how they have contributed in their own special way to the development of the nation and the efforts we have, collectively, put in to better their welfare. I want them to remember that as they have helped Singapore, Singapore has thought about them, too. I hope they will no longer be called vulnerable workers but regarded as workers who have played a role as we chart our growth forward. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Kok Heng Leun.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to first thank the Minister for Finance and the various Ministries for preparing this Budget for 2017.

I recall my experience last year, the first time I stood before the House to speak and about the Budget. That time, I had noted that culture was not mentioned much in the speech, but this year, I am thankful and happy that the arts and culture are mentioned, although in only one small paragraph. But it is good news about a boost for the Cultural Matching Fund.

So, for the next few minutes, before maybe we go for our break, I would make arts and culture my subject: upheavals, displacements and the art of resilience.

We are all acutely aware that we live in a complex world today. We have been forewarned that the times ahead will be difficult. There will be displacements to our seemingly orderly lives.

Last month, I attended a seminar organised by the Salzburg Global Seminar. This organisation was set up 70 years ago after World War II, gathering thinkers, practitioners and policymakers to consider world issues, articulate problems and propose broad strategies to deal with these problems. For the 2017 iteration that I went to, 40 fellows from various part of the world participated in the seminar, which was held in a beautiful palace, the Schloss Leopoldskron. I cannot speak German, but this palace is famous because it is the location site for one of the beloved musical films, "The Sound of Music".

During the seminar, while overlooking the idyllic lake, we shared and listened to stories and experiences that were at times harrowing, heart-breaking and deeply disturbing.

One fellow from Uganda shared that her brother was abducted by rebels, and how her family had to keep silent, despite knowing that he would become a child soldier. Another participant shared about the unbearable lightness of existence − the result of her experience of war and bloodshed.

Our American friends said they feared waking up to another executive order that would bring the US closer to isolation. Yet, within the same country, we heard about another crisis, this time from a Native American, through songs and rituals, demonstrated the solidarity of her relatives in their bid to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline at Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

There were also stories about other urgent global issues, from climate change to social and income inequality. So many issues, so many crises and so many stories of upheavals, which resulted in a huge sense of loss and displacement.

As I listened to all these sharing, I realised that back in sunny Singapore, although we are cushioned from the immediacy of these crises, we cannot deny that they will undoubtedly impact us. For many Singaporeans, myself included, the Rohingya crisis seems far away when, in actual fact, it is really close − refugees in Johor needing help and support.

A community that is hurt and injured is a world that is not at peace.

Let us also not be complacent and imagine that such upheavals are too far away or will never happen to us.

For now, while we may not experience such gut-wrenching upheavals, we have our own issues of displacement. Migrant workers who have come to Singapore to make a living despite their personal sense of dislocation; single parents and their children who do not enjoy the same benefits of other traditional family units and who struggle to make ends meet; workers who feel that their jobs are at risk because technological advancements and artificial intelligence might make their roles obsolete and losing their sense of place at home, in the society and with themselves.

Displacements come with change. In physics, displacement maps out the relative change of the position of an object, moving from one point to another. But it does not reflect the total distance travelled and the time taken to reach there, which is just like real life.

For some, it is a straight line, quick and fast. But for others, it is a path with a lot of derailments, ups and downs, and some of them may not even reach there.

Naturally, we want the change that we experience to be good, that it brings us forward and upwards, in a straight line − in other words, positive displacement. But most of the time, negative displacement within our society is real and undeniable. With the widening income gap, the lower- to middle-income groups constantly feel the squeeze as they try to keep up with change.

At the same time, their lack of resources has resulted in derailment. When they are reminded to catch up or be left behind, it sounds as if the problem is that of a personal failing in their lack of trying, rather than a systemic one.

Change favours the privileged. Privilege comes in all different forms. All of us here are privileged because we have the power to effect change. Or so I would like to believe. You can be privileged in terms of wealth or education, or even as a race. It is thus the responsibility of those who are privileged to speak up for those who are not − those who do not earn as much, those who are not as educated, those who are sidelined by our system.

In a society that celebrates achievement and progress, no one wants to be seen as a failure. Failure results in alienation. People who feel alienated, who feel helpless, become angry. We see the outcomes of such unhappiness on social media, often resulting in an echo chamber effect, reinforcing collective discontentment.

The frustration that stems from material, emotional and psychological insecurity creates a further polarisation of society. We begin to fear the other. This pervasive sense of threat is dangerous. It not only prevents us from being empathetic and compassionate, but encourages selfishness, which can even make violence and brutality justifiable in extreme situations.

This Government is aware of these concerns and addresses them through pro-business policies and enhancing the safety net. In the immediate term, pro-business policies retain and create jobs, but it might not ensure a trickle-down effect on the economy to individuals. Standards of living may still stagnate. But the Government's extended social safety net will help. But with no substantial increase in income, the reliance on social support may be protracted. Self-esteem is directly related to self-reliance. Rather than hoping the safety net is wide enough to catch them, people would generally prefer to lead a self-sustainable, dignified life, earning a respectable wage that ensures their independence.

The late British sociologist, Peter Townsend, once said, "It may be worth reflecting, if indeed a little sadly, that possibly the ultimate test of the quality of a free, democratic and prosperous society is to be found in the standards of freedom, democracy and prosperity enjoyed by its weakest members."

I and many others believe this to be true. And in difficult times, we must be even more attentive to those amongst us who fall through the cracks.

As such, I wish to hear more from the Minister on how the real wages of the middle income and lower income can be raised. And this brings me to the next point.

While CFE focused on economic strategies, it is essential that a study on the cultural impact of these economic strategies be made. Every economic structural change affects individuals, family, society, politics, infrastructure, economy, environment, the tangible and intangible heritage, and the arts, in other words, the culture of our society and the city state as a whole.

We must take a proactive approach to anticipate the impact of these structural changes, rather than react to them when they arise. To give an example: technological advancement has progressed so rapidly beyond our imaginations that we, as humans, are trying to grasp hold of the changes and manage them well without falling behind. Another example will be the impact of the expansionary immigration policy of the 1990s to early 2000s, which could be mitigated if we had done a cultural impact study earlier. Studies of cultural impact of economic strategies will, therefore, put us in good stead to manage changes and their effects on society.

I would like now to unpack a term I have heard numerous times in the House since our Debate began, "deep skills". But what is "deep skills" without deep thinking?

What is crucial here is a culture of creative and critical thinking. Such a culture cannot be manifested overnight through new state funding schemes. There is no better time than now to scrutinise our current education system, incorporate opportunities for creative and critical thinking within it, develop our next generation and generations to come. The Government can create scaffolds and support structures for innovation, but the root source of innovation lies in the people.

We often talk about software or heartware, as opposed to hardware. Software is not just about skills, but it is about human interactions. How lacking are we these days in the art of conversations? We have reduced our exchanges to monosyllables: "Can", "Want", "K". I am not talking about language. I am talking about connecting.

How do employers and employees connect? How do strangers converse? How do we settle a public disagreement in a multiracial and multi-religious society? How do we manage the increasing moral panic? How do we not see ourselves as helpless individuals, alienated or a powerless observer to surrounding injustice? How do we see ourselves as active change agents for our society and the world?

This leads me to my next point on resilience. To manage change and displacement, we, as a society, must become stronger. We must develop the art of resilience. In trying times, resilience in individuals is key in helping us to repulse fear, resist and reject the injustice and oppressive status quo. Resilience embraces difficult yet transformative change. It takes courage and conviction; it encourages objective and critical thinking. At the same time, it enables empathy, compassion and a greater sense of hope.

I have attended a number of forums last year and there was always this call for artists to respond to these trying times.

In the Salzburg Global Seminar, policymakers, thinkers, non-government organisations (NGOs) and representatives from C40 Cities and so on, made the call for arts to be the active change agent and in building resilience. In Weimar, a conference on sharing and exchange, political scientists, economists, philosophers stressed the importance of collaboration and intercultural exchanges. In Malta, NGOs, chief executive officers of Arts Councils around the world made the call for resilience and more arts to heal, repair and imagine.

As an arts practitioner, I can attest to the fact that the arts can develop resilience because it opens up our critical thinking processes, be it as a spectator or audience, participant or creator.

To give an example: Mr Ong, an audience member of my community forum theatre play, once shared, and I quote, "I used to be a very impatient person. But after watching your forum theatre play, when I get into a disagreement with my spouse, I will remember you, Heng Leun. I remember you conducting a forum theatre play and, when a crisis happens, you will say, "Stop! Take a moment to think, to reflect." So, now, if I am going to quarrel with my staff, I stop. I think and I reflect. It makes me less impatient and, of course, with that, there are fewer arguments and more discussions."

For creators, the arts is a means for articulating difficulties otherwise left unvoiced and seething beneath the surface. Take, for instance, my friend from Uganda, Beatrice Lamwaka, who wrote stories that helped her heal from her pain and trauma of living through arduous times. I urge you to read her award-winning work "Butterfly Dream", which can be found on the Internet.

At home, we have witnessed the lyrical poetry of our migrant workers in Singapore, who have given us an unflinching glimpse into their lives here. Take Bikas Nath from Bangladesh, a poet and shipyard worker who won first prize at the 2016 Migrant Workers Poetry Competition. He shared that when he is lonely, I quote, "the pen and paper are my friends. So, when I have the time, I try to write down my feelings." And now, I quote from his award-winning poem, "Why Migrant?":

"I long to run back to the warm embrace of my homeland

Among loved ones

Laugh over a steaming cup of homemade tea to the sound of the impatient strumming of a guitar somewhere

Wearing my blue uniform

I want to lose myself

Back into my childhood

Like a stubborn child on a rainy monsoon day

Hiding under the safety of taro leaves in the swamp."

The arts offer a world of imagination and, in that, the seed of hope. In art making, an individual encounters the power of art to heal, repair and bring hope in difficult times.

Aside from individual resilience, we need to build on community resilience. By that, I mean a community that comes together to listen to differences, mediate and recognise that each differing point of view deserves respect and understanding. This resilient community will never neglect the individual voice within the sea of voices. Again, the arts compel us to be engaged through active listening and collaboration, which are essential building blocks that inform creation. Active listening allows us to develop empathy and to experience views beyond our comfort zone and echo chambers. I, therefore, urge the House that we continue to listen and give with respect. More communication, more openness. Less group think, less judgement.

Beyond our own communities, we must also build on inter-community resilience, so that we do not become insular and self-serving. We live in an interconnected world and we, therefore, need to look out for others because their circumstances will have an effect on us. To develop inter-community resilience, we must create platforms for active engagement among communities that allow for good, honest and deep dialogues. The arts are one such platform that not only entertains but also educates. It presents scenarios within safe spaces for the public, making us aware of narratives that are often concealed in our midst, and inspiring us to be the change we want to see in society.

Similarly, in building inter-community resilience, we need to build such safe spaces where rules of engagement are adhered to, to ensure that our dialogues remain respectful yet robust, critical yet compassionate, passionate yet measured and non-violent.

It cannot be stressed enough that leadership plays an important role in motivating and inspiring citizens to take greater responsibility for our shared growth, instead of just focusing on individual success stories. This means being politically motivated to gain a better distribution of wealth and success. It cannot be achieved merely through business-oriented measures or short-term handouts. Rather, in developing long-term strategies to reduce the income gap, our leaders can reignite self-belief, meaningfulness and dignity in the people.

Likewise, an enlightened leadership must respect the differences that exist within our society, not tolerating, not co-existing, but embracing and celebrating diversity and plurality of views, lifestyles and people. In an era where there is increased polarisation sparked off by religion, politics and class, our leaders have ever more important roles as beacons of reason and mediation. To be resilient is to never allow communities to splinter into us versus them ideologies but, rather, to make people see that there is a "u" in "us". We are in this together.

As our nation moves forward with the proposals by CFE, let us remember to become positive forces of change, to find new ways of seeing and listening, and to always be resilient and compassionate to those who fall through the cracks of the system.

If we are to become a community of hope in these difficult times, we cannot merely focus on straightforward success stories but must engage with those who feel most sidelined and marginalised, so that we can become more robust and resilient together, and never alone. In Pig Earth, part of the trilogy written by the late John Berger, about peasants trying to survive under capitalism, there is a scene of an old peasant training a mouth organ in his mountain while he was trying to save an old cow. And John Berger wrote, "All music is about survival, addressed to survivors." Hence, by extension, all arts are about surviving, addressed to survivors. And with that, I support the Budget.