Hansard, Wednesday, 14 October 2020

1 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the basis for the latest increase in electricity tariffs and gas prices; (b) whether the consumption of electricity and gas has increased as more residents work from home; and (c) whether increased development in alternative sources of energy has helped reduce the overall cost of electricity for consumers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, good afternoon. I thank the hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his question. I have circulated a chart which has been placed on Members' seats, so that it can show clearly my explanation. [Please refer to Annex 1.]

Sir, electricity tariffs and gas prices generally move in tandem with global fuel prices and they have averaged around 24.58 cents/kWh and 18.36 cents/kWh respectively, since January 2018. Since dipping to their lowest levels in the past 20 years in April 2020, fuel prices rose by 46.6% in the third quarter of 2020 – the quarter that has just passed – and this is in tandem with the resumption of global economic activity. So, the electricity and gas tariffs therefore rose to 22.93 cents/kWh and 17.19 cents/kWh in the fourth quarter this year, as fuel prices rebounded.

However, the electricity and gas tariffs in the third and fourth quarters of 2020 still remain lower than in the first quarter of 2020. And the prices, the tariffs are amongst the lowest since January 2018. So, the prices for this last quarter that has just passed, are still amongst the lowest since January 2018.

For electricity tariffs in particular, it is also worth pointing out that Q4 2020 tariffs still remain at 11.6% lower than Q1 2020 and 6.7% lower than the average electricity tariff between January 2018 and September 2020. May I request for all Members in this House to refer to the chart for more details; I think it will give a much clearer explanation.

Around 47% of all households will not be affected by the new tariff prices because they have already switched to the Open Electricity Market.

Alternative energy sources today constitute a small proportion of our power generation because of our natural geographical limitations. However, our Government is actively partnering industry partners and industry players to deploy more solar power to enhance our energy resilience, our competitiveness as well as longer term sustainability. We aim to increase our solar capacity by five-fold. Today, we are at 0.4 gigawatt-peak or GWp. We are trying to achieve at least 2 GWp by 2030 – in about 10 years' time. And we hope that that will contribute to around 3% of our energy consumption in 2030. Consumers who are interested to procure solar power can do so by engaging our local solar companies.

Moving on to households’ average monthly electricity and town gas consumption, and if we looked at the consumption from April to July 2020 – this is for the monthly average electricity and town gas consumption – it was 16% for electricity and 34% for town gas. So, 16% and 34% higher compared to the same period last year respectively. It is a difficult point to note on discussion, so, I want to repeat that: households' average monthly electricity and town gas consumption from April to July 2020, was 16% and 34% higher compared to the same period last year, respectively.

This is mainly due to the fact that Singaporeans spent more time at home during the circuit breaker period and during the early stages of our phased re-opening, as part of our national efforts to manage local community transmissions of COVID-19.

We have also provided Singaporean households with more support for their utility bills this year. Every household with at least one Singapore Citizen received a one-off $100 Solidarity Utilities Credit in their July or August SP Group utility bill. The GST Voucher – U-Save that eligible households receive has also been doubled this year through a one-off GST Voucher – U-Save Special Payment. Eligible HDB households with five or more members also received a first tranche of further GST Voucher – U-Save rebates of between $60 and $100 per household in October, with a second tranche to be disbursed in January 2021.

Before this year, the annual amount of GST Voucher – U-Save that households in 1- and 2-room HDB flats received was equivalent to about three to four months of their utilities bill. Those living in 3- and 4-room HDB flats received support equivalent to about one to two months of their utilities bills on average. And this is very targeted. We want to make sure that the support is given to families most in need and hence, the higher quantum in terms of the GST Voucher – U-Save that the households in 1- and 2-room HDB flats received compared to those in 3- and 4-room flats.

With the additional support this year, households in 1- and 2-room HDB flats will receive support equivalent to at least six to eight months of their utilities bills on average. And households living in 3- and 4-room HDB flats will receive support equivalent to at least two to four months of their utilities bills.

Mr Liang.

Thank you, Sir. Two questions, the first related to communications. When the tariff announcement was made, the headline that came up was that there was a 9.3% increase for the month of October to December. It came across from almost every media outlet. So, what the Minister just explained gave a lot of context and details that indeed, only a certain percentage of the population is affected – about 53%. So, such headlines do cause anxiety, especially during this period where the environment is really difficult and indeed, residents have consumed more electricity because of working from home, staying at home more often. So, I want to ask the Minister how we can better communicate this, so that we do not cause unnecessary alarm or concern when residents see the headline number of 9.3% increase.

The second question is, the Minister mentioned that the tariffs affected 53% of the households and the remaining 47% households are not affected. Given the unsettling effect of price changes quarter-to-quarter, would the Ministry perhaps use this opportunity to encourage more Singaporeans to go on the fixed price plan, so that there is some certainty; whether that can be pushed out to more residents to adopt and to sign up; whether there are other incentives that can encourage our Singaporeans to sign up as well?

I thank the hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his suggestion. In terms of the communications to the households, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you look at the breakdown of all of the utilities bills that SP and some of the retailer send out to the households, these are detailed breakdown in terms of the tariffs charged. At the same time, in terms of the rebates, many of the households in the 1-, 2-, 3-room and 4-room flats would have gotten their rebates. In terms of those rebates, as I have alluded to earlier on, in the 1- to 2-room flats, they get between six and eight months of rebates, and for the 3- and 4-room flats, they get between two and four months. We believe that that has been communicated quite adequately across. Of course, in terms of communications, we will find ways and means in which we can continue to improve and further fine-tune how to educate many of our households in terms of managing their utilities bills.

One of the key initiatives as a result of these fluctuations or volatility of prices, it is important for us to note that our tariffs are based on what is the prevalent crude oil price. It is benchmarked against that. Ninety-five percent of our electricity is generated by the generating companies or gencos using piped and liquified natural gas from overseas.

It is in the interest of many people to switch to the Open Market retailers, to switch onto some of these packaged price plans, as what was surmised by the hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa. If it is possible, most households should look at many of these plans that are available and move on to a more fixed price package for more certainty in electricity prices. Because I think in the ensuing quarters ahead, there will continue to be more volatility and fluctuations to happen.

2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry has plans to introduce the Development Support and Learning Support programmes to non-Anchor Operator preschools.

The number of pre-schools offering the Development Support or DS, and Learning Support or LS programme has increased by 60% from 350 pre-schools in 2017 to about 550 pre-schools today. Of these pre-schools offering the DS-LS programme, about 150 are non-Anchor Operator pre-schools.

Pre-school operators with a critical mass of centres, such as the Anchor Operators or AOPs, are DS-LS providers in their centres with their own in-house Learning Support Educators. Other pre-schools generally tap on regional DS-LS providers to deliver the DS-LS programme in their centres. There are currently three regional DS-LS providers namely, Asian Women's Welfare Association or AWWA, SPD and Thye Hua Kwan, providing the DS-LS programme at about 150 non-AOP pre-schools.

The Early Childhood Development Agency or ECDA is working closely with the regional DS-LS providers and pre-schools to expand outreach to more non-AOP pre-schools. Pre-schools that are interested to offer the DS-LS programme can contact the regional DS-LS providers to learn more about the DS-LS programme and for assistance to screen children with suspected developmental delays for early intervention support.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Could I just ask whether we are aware of what is the number and the percentage of children who are differently-abled or who are in pre-schools that do not offer this DS-LS programme.

The second point, I think that there are some that are out there, who are in these schools that do not offer the DS-LS programme. I am wondering whether ECDA is watching this space and seeing how we can support these children. Because I am worried that without the DS-LS programme, it really will be detrimental to their development.

I thank the Member for his question. The 550 pre-schools I had mentioned earlier form about 30% of pre-schools. I do not have the number or the exact breakdown of the number of children who do not have access to the DS-LS programme but I can come back at a later stage and provide those numbers to the Member.

I understand where the Member is coming from, and indeed, the early intervention teams at MSF are looking to work closely with the AOP and Partner Operator Scheme or POP providers to expand the LS-DS provision and also working with the regional therapy teams at the three regional DS-LS providers that I mentioned earlier, to expand their outreach and the provision of these services to the non-Anchor Operator pre-schools as well.

3 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education (a) of those who attended the SkillsFuture training programmes in the past year, how many have successfully procured work related to their course; and (b) what efforts does the Ministry take to measure the outcomes of these training programmes.

In 2019, almost 7,000 job placements were achieved through the Professional Conversion Programmes and Work-Study programmes provided by Workforce Singapore and SkillsFuture Singapore. These were Place-and-Train programmes where employment was secured before training. Another 2,400 placements were achieved through Train-and-Place programmes in 2019, where trainees received assistance from the training providers upon completion of the course.

As part of the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package to support jobseekers, we are significantly scaling up the training capacity of programmes with placement outcomes in mind. In 2020, we are offering up to 20,000 training places under the SGUnited Skills programme and another 10,000 places under the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways (Company Training) programme.

These are a subset of SkillsFuture programmes, which are designed to meet the diverse training needs of Singaporeans. There are also many shorter training courses which enable working adults to better equip themselves for their present and future jobs.

To measure the outcome of these training programmes, SkillsFuture Singapore conducts both post-course surveys on the course quality, as well as programme-specific surveys such as the Work-Study Programme Outcomes Survey. The latter collects data such as employment and retention rates, as well as wage outcomes of the graduates. In 2019, 87% of the surveyed graduates were employed in full-time jobs within six months after completing the Work-Study Programme.

Follow-up surveys are also conducted with trainees six months after completion of the SSG-funded courses to ascertain post-training outcomes. More than 80% of the trainees surveyed in 2019 indicated that they were able to perform better at work after undergoing SkillsFuture training.

We will continue to monitor the outcomes of SkillsFuture training and adapt these programmes to meet the upskilling and reskilling needs of Singaporeans.

Mr Yip.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister of State for her response. I am heartened to know that the Ministry is indeed tracking closely the outcome of the training programmes. Can I ask the Minister of State on some upcoming efforts by the Ministry to improve the awareness of such training programmes and how they have resulted in some positive job placements?

I thank the hon Member Mr Yip Hon Weng for the question. Indeed, I think awareness of the SkillsFuture programme is critical, so that Singaporeans who need these programmes know where to go and how to apply for these courses. More recently, we have started partnership with several agencies to build a pool of SkillsFuture Ambassadors.These ambassadors provide face-to-face and personal services and advisory to jobseekers who want to know where these SkillsFuture training opportunities are.

With the Community Development Councils or CDCs, we also have a programme that has lasted several years, where the SkillsFuture Ambassadors in the communities conduct courses, workshops and advisories to residents who want to find out more about SkillsFuture programmes.

4 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how long will the SGUnited Traineeship programme be available for; and (b) between ensuring adequate scrutiny and efficient processing of SGUnited Traineeship applications, how many full-time equivalent staff does the Singapore Business Federation currently have and is projecting to hire and train in the next six to 12 months so as to shorten processing time to help jobseekers and graduates start work sooner since they have found employers keen to hire them.

5 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower since the set-up of the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres (a) how many Singaporeans have sought assistance at the centres; (b) how many successful job and traineeship matches have been made; and (c) how many training and skills placements have been made.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Questions Nos 4 and 5 together?

Yes, please.

Thank you. The National Jobs Council is coordinating efforts to provide job, traineeship, attachment as well as training opportunities for jobseekers under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package.

The SGUnited Traineeships and SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programmes were introduced to provide company-hosted traineeship and attachment opportunities for recent graduates and mid-career jobseekers respectively. These programmes aim to help jobseekers who are unable to find permanent jobs in the current job market, gain industry-relevant skills and build professional networks so as to boost their employability.

The SGUnited Traineeships Programme was launched on 1 June 2020, and the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme, on 1 August 2020. Workforce Singapore and its programme manager, the Singapore Business Federation or SBF, have worked closely with host companies to open up earlier-approved traineeship positions as company attachments for mid-career individuals under the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme as well.

By now, over 20,500 traineeship and company attachment opportunities have been made available. The top five sectors which together account for more than half the openings are: financial services, infocomm technology and media, professional services, wholesale trade and electronics. More than 2,800 local jobseekers have been placed.

Although the focus must now be for the host companies to secure more successful placements, SBF continues to accept new applications by companies to host attachments for mid-career individuals that commence before 31 March 2021. The SBF has a dedicated team of 25, of which 80% are filled and will be reaching full strength by end-October.

I had earlier updated the House that SBF undertakes a rigorous screening process and scrutinises each application to ensure that host organisations structure their traineeships and attachments appropriately with clear development plans, so that participants can have a positive and meaningful experience. How quickly an employer's application is approved depends in part on the comprehensiveness of its submission. Factoring in time for SBF to seek clarifications and enhancement, most applications are approved within four weeks. This is, however, not a key bottleneck right now as there are already many existing openings available to jobseekers. After suitable matches are found and necessary supporting documents are submitted to SBF, the traineeship or company attachment can commence.

To help our local jobseekers access the available jobs and skills opportunities, we have brought career matching services closer to the heartlands. We have launched the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres in phases. Since early July and by end-August, one had been set up across all 24 HDB towns. Although all satellite career centres were only in operation from end-August, Career Ambassadors have advised about 4,200 jobseekers by now.

Jobseekers are reached through multiple channels and assisted through a variety of means. It is therefore more useful to consider their collective impact. Between January and August this year, we have provided career matching services to about 44,200 jobseekers through the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres as well as WSG and NTUC's e2i's five permanent career centres.

Since the launch of the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package in April 2020, we have placed 33,100 jobseekers into job, traineeship, attachment and training opportunities. This is in spite of a two-month lockdown and the deep economic recession.

We will continue to curate more opportunities while seeking to increase placements of jobseekers.

Ms Carrie Tan.

I thank the Minister for her reply to the question. My concern is about the resourcing to process the number of opportunities available. I think it is heartening that there are many opportunities available, but given the 25 staff at SBF right now, processing over a thousand host organisations base on the statistics, that is about 40 host organisations per SBF staff.

So, would the Minister not agree that for those who have lost their jobs and everyone in the family has lost their jobs, we would need to increase or a ramping up of resourcing and expedited channel to help them access these job opportunities as soon as possible? Would the Minister consider creating a priority or fast-track channel for trainee applicants under the traineeship programmes whose families have no other working or income earning individuals?

Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Carrie Tan for her concern. In the beginning, SBF did encounter quite a lot of difficulties because it had responded to the opportunity to curate, to manage the SGUnited Traineeship programmes. It wanted very much to be of service to their members – meaning the companies that potentially can host these opportunities – as well as to jobseekers.

So, I would acknowledge that in the earlier stages, it did take SBF quite a while to assemble the team and to process the applications from the host companies.

I would also say that because the programme was very new at the time, what constitutes a meaningful traineeship experience, was something that was still being worked out. But, I am glad to say that by now, all these kinks have been ironed out. SBF certainly expanded their team and, as I had mentioned earlier in my reply, it will be at full strength by the end of this month.

Right now, if you look at the total number of opportunities that have been made available, I think that period is past. Right now, the focus has to be on the companies making these opportunities available to jobseekers, letting the jobseekers know that they are interested to take in people as trainees or as mid-career attachments. Right now, the action is less on SBF and more on the companies to get this done. So, it is within the companies, their own HR teams that have to follow through with the approved positions, advertise the positions, collate the CVs, the interest that have been made known to them through various sources, and then, arrange for the interviews to take place as well as to make the selection and then follow through with SBF.

So, right now, a lot of the action has to be undertaken by the host companies, themselves.

I should also add another point to Ms Carrie Tan's concern. SBF is one of the many partners that we work with. It is not the only one that is involved in this whole network that is trying to bring together jobseekers as well as companies that still have openings. Other trade associations and chambers are involved. The whole network of Career Centres, including the 24 in the HDB Towns that I mentioned earlier in my reply, are also involved.

If you add all of them together, the resourcing has increased quite considerably. Today, if you look at the overall opportunities that have been curated, there are about 117,500. We have been able to place 33,000 or so. So, the opportunities are available. The next step as to whether the job matching can happen is no longer just a matter of facilitation. The jobseeker must feel that he wants the job; the employer must feel that he can give the jobseeker an opportunity. And that is not something that you bring about purely through more facilitation. Although, I will give the Member the assurance that if more resources are needed in that regard, certainly, we have no hesitation to enhance them.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply as well as commend MOM for a very good initiative – the traineeship programme. I just want to ask whether we are thinking ahead, now that many of them have secured traineeships; what is the next step for them? Are we also encouraging the companies to convert these traineeships into permanent jobs?

Would MOM also do some early survey to find out from companies how many of the trainees would be retained as permanent employees and how many may be released, so that they can better plan the next stage of helping the young graduates?

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his concern. Indeed, we are following up closely with the companies to have a sense of what they are thinking of for the future. I would say that if you look at the range of opportunities that have been made available, quite clearly, a lot of the companies are looking ahead into the future and seeing that this is a good time to expose more jobseekers to their industries or to the jobs that previously were perhaps less well sought after by the jobseekers. So, they do have that objective in mind.

As to whether they can follow through to offer the trainees a specific job, an opening, probably will depend on two things: one, whether they see a need to fulfil that position on a permanent basis and that will depend on their assessment of the business outlook; second, I think they will also assess the specific trainee, whether during this period, the trainee has exhibited good ability to gel with the team as well as to contribute to the organisation.

Some of the ways in which the Government is trying to be helpful and to nudge the employers in this direction is through the introduction of the Jobs Growth incentive. This Jobs Growth incentive, essentially, encourages employers to expand their hiring and if the wage support that is provided is able to provide that additional resourcing to the employers, they could also bring forward their hiring. That is what, we think, will potentially encourage the employers to think in that direction.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centres are focused mainly at helping PMETs or does it include non PMETs as well. I have quite a number of non PMET residents who are seeking jobs but find that most of the jobs matched by SGUnited's Jobs Programmes, including the traineeships, seem to be targeted more at PMETs. Is there another channel that non PMETs, and specifically unskilled jobseekers, should approach instead?

Mr Speaker, there are a variety of jobs that are being made available. I mentioned earlier that total opportunities that have been curated under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package is about 117,000. Of these, 70% are jobs and the jobs are of different nature – some are long-term jobs, some are short-term jobs; some of these jobs are suitable for PMETs, some of these jobs are suitable for non PMETs.

At the satellite Career Centres, as is the case for all the other touchpoints we have with jobseekers, all these jobs can be made available. For some of the non PMET jobseekers, we understand, for example, language may be a barrier. So, even in these career-resourcing centres, there are colleagues who speak Mandarin or speak other languages that will be of help to these jobseekers. So, there is a variety.

The Member is incorrect to think that most of the jobs that have been matched are for PMETs. Our experience is that matching people into PMET jobs takes longer. The reason is very simple: if you are a PMET, you see yourself as having a set of skills that you would like to find the best match for in an employer that recognises your experience and is also able to pay a premium for those skills that you have. It has actually been easier to match people in non PMET roles. I do not have the numbers offhand, but I can assure you that the matching for non PMET has actually been the majority of those under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package.

Ms Poh Li San.

6 Ms Poh Li San asked the Prime Minister in view of Singapore's population statistics for 2019 (a) whether the Government will review the long-term population targets given the increasing trend of outsourcing work overseas and reduction in the employment of foreign workers in Singapore; (b) whether the proportion of annual new citizens will remain at approximately 70% of citizens by birth; and (c) how will changes in Singapore's population demographics affect national infrastructure planning.

7 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Prime Minister (a) what are the projected trends of birth rates, life expectancy and immigration in the next decade; and (b) whether the Government has a long-term population target and what are the policy considerations.

Mr Speaker, may I take the question from Ms Poh Li San and the next question from Mr Liang Eng Hwa together.

Yes, please.

Sir, the Government has clarified via a media statement and Factually articles in March and July 2020 that it does not have a population target or seek to achieve any particular population size. Singapore’s population size is affected by many factors, including birth rates, life expectancy, as well as global developments affecting immigration and employment. In March 2018, we updated Parliament that given recent trends, Singapore’s total population size is likely to be significantly below 6.9 million by 2030. This outlook remains valid today.

Like most developed economies, Singapore’s resident total fertility rate or TFR is below replacement. Our most recent resident TFR, for 2019, was 1.14, unchanged from the year before.

To moderate the impact of ageing and our low birth rates, we take in a stable and measured number of new citizens and Permanent Residents or PRs every year.

To the Member’s question on annual new citizens, over the past five years, we granted an average of about 22,100 new Singapore Citizenships each year. This included about 1,600 children born overseas to Singaporean parents every year. We also granted about 31,700 new PRs on average each year, over the past five years. The total size of the PR population has remained at around half a million for many years now. New citizens either share family ties with Singaporeans, or have studied, worked or lived here for some time. They are drawn from the pool of qualified PRs who eventually make the serious commitment to take on citizenship. Citizenship and PR status are granted selectively to applicants who are committed to making Singapore their home, and who can integrate and contribute to Singapore.

Infrastructure planning is a long-term process guided by many factors, not only demographics. These include, among others, land use needs for economic growth, improving housing and transport for our people, socioeconomic and technological trends, as well as ensuring a good environment and resilience to climate change shocks. Our infrastructure planning process allows us to be flexible and responsive in catering to the changing needs of our residents, and ensure a good quality living environment in Singapore.

We will continue to monitor our population trends closely, and regularly review our population policies along with our infrastructure and social development needs. This will ensure that Singapore remains a cohesive society and a good home for all Singaporeans.

Ms Carrie Tan.

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister. First, before I put my question, I would like to declare my interest as the strategic advisor to local charity Daughters of Tomorrow which works with many low-income women, including Long-Term Visit Pass-holders who are married to Singaporeans and have Singaporean children.

Given our low fertility rate that the Minister had shared, would the Prime Minister's Office consider making the citizenship status more accessible to Long-Term Visit Pass-holders who already have Singaporean children in Singapore for the long-term viability of giving them better access to support and employment opportunities within Singapore, in order to provide more conducive environments to bring up their children?

I thank the Member for her question. There are various factors that we look at when we grant citizenship. We cannot only grant citizenship on the basis of giving access to benefits. That cannot be the sole criterion, so, we do look at many things. Importantly, we look at family ties, we look at contributions to Singapore, we look at the stability of the family unit. In short, we will assess each application holistically, but we will give priority to family ties and family support. And even if the parent may not be Singaporean, where the children are Singaporeans, we will also make sure that the Singaporean children are adequately supported and taken care of.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Sir, I thank the Minister for giving us the indication of the trends of our population. Clearly, the ageing population is expected to accelerate in the next decade. Can I ask the Minister how would that impact the tax burden of the working population then, and more importantly, how do we mitigate that kind of tax burden for that generation working population, going forward?

Mr Speaker, that is actually a very important question. I would like to thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for raising it.

You have seen from the figures that I have mentioned that our TFR is at 1.14, so it is not a replacement rate. At the same time, we do have an ageing population. Last year, about 15% of Singaporeans were aged 65 and above. By 2030, this will increase to around 25%. What this means is that we have a smaller proportion of the working population contributing for a population that is growing older. So, the ones who are not working, the numbers are going to expand, and if we do not have replacement, the numbers who can actually come into the economy and contribute is going to shrink. That is the scenario that we are looking at.

The question is, how are we going to manage this? There are several strategies. The first and most important, which is what this Government has been doing consistently over the years, is to put in place resilient systems and measures for each generation to save for its own retirement needs.

For example, the CPF helps Singaporeans to save for their old age, covers medical expenses and purchase basic health insurance. With the introduction of CareShield Life in 2018, we now have an enhanced system, which includes CareShield Life, CPF LIFE and MediShield Life. With this kind of national risk pooling schemes, we are better prepared to manage the uncertainties associated with ageing in a sustainable way. Then, the other thing that we have done is we have actually set aside funds. For example, for the Pioneer Generation Package and the Merdeka Generation Package. These are committed funds which you set aside because you know what the numbers are like roughly – the package or size – and it means that no matter what, these funds are available to help that group of ageing Singaporeans.

But there will be new requirements that will come along because as we know healthcare is not a sort of a gentle slope that increases. It actually increases exponentially as you get older. And you will need recurrent revenues for that, especially when we are ageing at a faster pace. For example, the average annual healthcare spending is expected to rise from 2.1% of GDP today to almost 3% of GDP over the next decade.

What this means is that aside from savings, you need revenue. You will need fresh revenue and you have to keep your revenue sources diversified. The share of personal income tax or PIT, of our tax revenue has remained at about 18% from FY2016 to FY2018. The other taxes which contribute to our revenue are corporate income tax, GST and asset related taxes.

When you have recurrent spending, you also need recurrent revenue. That was a key reason why we introduced GST in 1994 because we recognised then, that an ageing population structure would require us to reduce our reliance on personal income taxes. If we continue to rely principally on personal income taxes, the tax burden will weigh increasingly heavily on younger Singaporeans who are still working. You have to try and spread it out and make sure that you have some reliance on personal income taxes, but it is also necessary to have consumption taxes such as the GST. And GST lessens the problem by balancing the taxation more broadly among the population.

But that is not all. You save, you tax, but you can only tax if there is something to tax on, which means that you must grow the economy. So, transforming the economy is very important, which is why on every Budget, you hear Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat talking about economic restructuring and transformation – it is to grow the economy. We need to raise the productivity of workers and we need to also ensure that our resident labour force is able to support our economic development. That is why we supplement the local workforce with foreign skilled workers, especially in areas where we do not yet have the needed number of local skilled workers; although obviously we want to grow the local skilled workers to be able to do those jobs. And in the long run, raising birthrates. That remains the most sustainable solution to our demographic challenges.

8 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the pricing policy of HDB's BTO flats remains the same in using the average mean income of each income group as a reference and not the prevailing market price; (b) what is the pricing policy for BTO flats in mature estates and whether there is a difference; and (c) whether there is a plan to address the pent up demand as a result of record sale prices crossing a million dollars in mature estates.

Mr Speaker, when pricing new flats, HDB first establishes the market value of the flat by considering factors such as the price of comparable resale flats nearby, the individual attributes of the flat and prevailing market conditions. A subsidy is then applied, so that new flats are priced at a significant discount to the market. The pricing approach is the same for Build-To-Order or BTO flats in mature and non-mature estates.

On top of the subsidised price, HDB also offers first-time flat buyers, the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant or EHG, of up to $80,000, to give more help to lower to middle income households buying their first home. The EHG was introduced in September last year, with no restriction on the flat buyers' choice of flat type and location.

These significant subsidies keep HDB flats affordable. Today, HDB BTO flat prices remain at less than five times of median annual household income or less, compared to other major cities in the world, where the ratio can be nearly 10 or 20 times. The vast majority of first-timer families are able to buy BTO flats in the non-mature estates and service their monthly mortgage instalments using CPF, with zero or minimal cash outlay.

Apart from BTO flats, some buyers also look to the resale market, where there is a wide range of flat choices. While there have been several resale flats with attractive attributes that are transacted at headline prices of over a million dollars. These transactions are a small minority, representing less than 0.3% of the total resale transactions this year. So, in absolute figures, it is 38 out of more than 14,400 resale transactions so far this year.

The Government will continue to monitor the housing market closely and ensure that Singaporeans have access to affordable public housing.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

I thank Minister for the reply. The underlying concern is that because of the million-dollar transactions that we have seen recently, there is a concern that that might create anxiety. There might be a pent-up demand and as a result, anxiety. How would HDB review and manage that?

I thank the Member. Certainly, when there are these headline-grabbing articles which talk about HDB flats transacting at those prices, it may cause people to have the impression that overall there is a very, very high demand and that prices are escalating significantly. But I have said, it is 0.3% of total resale transactions each year that are in that category.

HDB, as I have said, continues to monitor closely housing affordability for both the BTO market as well as the resale market. For the BTO segment last year, we built 14,600 new flats; and this year, we are aiming to build 16,700 flats. And so, each year, we will calibrate the number based on demand.

9 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs whether there are studies on (i) the career trajectories of local madrasah graduates from previous and existing cohorts and (ii) what kind of jobs the graduates pursue and in which industries.

10 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) whether there are proportional statistics of those in the madrasah student cohorts who pursue the "secular" or non-religious academic pathways in their post-Secondary/tertiary education; (b) of these, how many successfully graduate from our local secular tertiary institutions; and (c) whether there are support structures for madrasah students who wish to transition from religious to secular schooling.

Mr Speaker, can I have your permission to take Question Nos 9 and 10 together, please?

Yes, please.

Thank you. Madrasahs play an important role in developing our future Islamic religious scholars and teachers, or what we call in our community, asatizah. Our asatizah provide leadership and religious guidance to our Muslim community, amidst an increasingly diverse and vibrant socio-religious landscape. Our madrasahs have produced key religious leaders such as our current Mufti and Deputy Muftis.

Madrasah students receive a comprehensive education in Islamic subjects that is complemented by a strong foundation in secular subjects. This dual education equips our madrasah students with the knowledge and skills to apply the practice of Islam to Singapore's contemporary and plural society, as well as to pursue tertiary Islamic studies later on.

In the past three years, around 35% of students in each madrasah cohort, pursue pre-university madrasah education. They form the steady pipeline of religious leaders for the community. Most of these students will further their tertiary education in the Islamic sciences, in areas such as Islamic Jurisprudence and Islamic Theology. They later return as asatizah and contribute to the religious sector as religious scholars and teachers and mosque religious officers. Some of these students may choose to use their Islamic training to pursue careers in adjacent sectors, such as social services, business and research, that complement the religious sector in serving the needs of the Muslim community and the larger Singapore society.

Madrasah education also enables students who want to pursue non-religious career paths. Some madrasah students move on to post-secondary education at Junior Colleges, Polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education or ITEs, after their GCE "O" level examinations. For this group, their career path may depend on the field of study that they opt for at these institutes of higher learning. Madrasah graduates in this group have ventured into a wide range of industries such as media, finance and the creative industries, sometimes adding value to these sectors through their trilingual language competencies.

MUIS will continue to work closely with our madrasahs to ensure the curriculum prepares the madrasah students well for future careers in the religious sector.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. With regard to the pathways and support structures that are in place for our madrasah students, I would like to know more about the dropouts; those who drop out from their studies midway through the madrasah. Are there any support system for them? And are there any support system for them to transition from, maybe, "N" level or "O" level to the Polytechnics and Universities?

I thank the Member for the supplementary question. MUIS' focus must be to produce the best religious teachers for our community, because otherwise, we will be importing them from all over the world and you would have seen the result it has produced in many parts of the world. Therefore, for now, we are quite satisfied with the number of students that are retained at the pre-University level that will move on to acquire professional, recognised degrees in religious studies that will help to guide our community.

For the rest of the students – that means about 70% of them – they pursue a secular educational pathways. Most of them – about two-thirds of these 70% – do it after their "O" level. Which means that they have accessed to the systems of support in the MOE system to choose the right career, to choose the right studies that may fit what they want to do.

In any case, MUIS will be also looking at the madrasah's system holistically, in line with the Committee on Future Asatizah or COFA that Dr Maliki Osman has concluded for us. With that, we also would want to look at the other students who will not be pursuing madrasah education for their career and the kind of support that may be lacking if the national system of support is not enough for them.

I thank the Minister for the clarifications. I would like to ask about the adjacent sectors for madrasah students, in particular, in my speech for the Motion of Thanks to the President, I did propose the expanded capability of the Syariah Court, in view of the increasingly complex Muslim inheritance and estate planning matters. Is MUIS exploring any collaborations with MinLaw, Law Society or even the Syariah Court to expand the capability and experience of the madrasah students in this regard?

Indeed, this was the discovery of the COFA that Dr Maliki chaired, that the landscape or the kind of careers that our asatizah get launched into are no longer quite simplistic. In fact, they have to deal with quite difficult circumstances, even when it is about socio-religious matters. Which is why now we also want to develop adjacent competencies and we are glad that SUSS has opened up this opportunity for madrasah students through lifelong learning opportunities; at the same time to acquire qualifications that will allow them to practise just like any other lawyer or social worker in a way that will contribute to our community, as well as in the future, if they want to go to the larger sector, they can do so too.

I thank the Minister for the support given to the madrasah community. I would just like to raise a question on the level of parity between the support given to the madrasah community by MUIS versus by MOE, in particular, as we look into the future support that is given by MOE in the sense of continuing education as well. I understand that today, madrasah students are not eligible for Edusave bursaries. And things like the IMDA support programme for computers are also done through MUIS. I would just like to know if, and this can be done in future, I guess, whether the level is at parity. For example, are the thresholds for means testing the same as applied by MUIS to be eligible for certain support programmes?

Parents who opt for their children to pursue madrasah education at the Primary school level are actually exempted from the Compulsory Education Act. So, they have made a choice to move into a sector where they know that funding from the Government may not always be available, particularly because it is in the religious sector.

Having said that, they still have options to go back to the MOE system that will provide the full support that they may need. In fact, for some of the areas like for those with learning difficulties, it is best that they go and pursue within the Government sector. Because this is where not only is it available but quality, quantity and availability are made available for everybody.

Having said that, for our community, our focus, as I had mentioned just now, is to produce religious leaders that will be impactful and also relevant to our community, and of course to help Singapore integrate into the multiracial, multi-religious landscape that we all are in.

We will try to increase the support for our madrasah with the resources that we have. As you know, these resources come largely from the community themselves. They are adequate, they have been increasing over time, and I thank all the donors, all the generous donations that the community has provided to support madrasah education as it stands today. In fact, if we compare ourselves to many other places, the structure and the institution of our madrasah are serving us; I would say it is adequate but I will not say that it is something we will settle for and we will continue to improve over time.

11 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in respect of the Workfare Special Payment (a) what is the rationale behind having up-to-date MediSave contributions as a qualifying criteria for the payment; (b) how many low-wage workers who are otherwise eligible for this payment have been prevented from receiving this due to arrears in their MediSave contributions; (c) how many of those who are not eligible for this payment have contribution arrears amounting to more than $3,000; and (d) whether the Ministry will consider removing such contributions as an eligibility criteria especially in this difficult time when liquidity and cashflow is needed by individuals to survive day to day.

Mr Speaker, the Workfare Special Payment is a one-off Workfare payment to provide additional support for lower wage workers receiving the Workfare Income Supplement for Work Years 2019 or 2020. In other words, to receive Workfare Special Payment, you will need to qualify first for the underlying Workfare Scheme.

The need to contribute CPF in order to qualify for Workfare is not new and this requirement was put in place because the CPF is a key pillar of Singapore’s social security system, which enables all working Singaporeans to save towards their own retirement.

For employees, the CPF contributions are made on a monthly basis by their employers. For Self-Employed Persons or SEPs, they will only need to make MediSave contributions at the end of the Work Year after declaring their incomes and this is the cause of MediSave arrears.

SEPs have until March 2021 to declare their income for 2019 and make their required MediSave contributions, to be assessed for Workfare. As at May 2020, 49,900 SEPs have declared their income for 2019 and are eligible for Workfare. Amongst them, about 44% have made their MediSave contributions, and the rest have until March next year to do so. Letters will be sent to these SEPs to remind them of their MediSave obligations.

There are about 600 Workfare-eligible SEPs who have MediSave contribution arrears of more than $3,000, accumulated over the last two Work Years.

We recognise that this is a difficult period for many Singaporeans. But it is important for SEPs to continue saving for their healthcare needs through MediSave, while they also get support from the Government through Workfare. The CPF Board has helped SEPs who faced difficulties by working out alternative arrangements for them to meet their MediSave obligations. Many lower income SEPs would also have received support under various Government schemes. Those facing difficult circumstances can also visit the MSF Social Service Offices if they need further help.

Ms Carrie Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Minister for his reply. While I understand the importance of CPF and MediSave, and the important role those play in ensuring long-term security for our workers in terms of their retirement and healthcare needs, would the Minister not agree that for individuals already facing cashflow difficulty in the current period, expecting them to make their MediSave arrears first before allowing them to get this payout to meet their immediate needs, is in fact defeating the purpose of the scheme in alleviating immediate financial challenges faced by these individuals? This is in allusion to my maiden speech where I mentioned the good intentions of the Government to 雪中送炭变成雪上加霜.

So, in view of that, will the Minister agree that we can allow these individuals to work out an instalment payment arrangement for their MediSave arrears, while at the same time making them eligible to receive the Workfare Special Payment?

Mr Speaker, I share the concern that Ms Tan has over the difficulties that many SEPs face during this difficult period. I am sure many Members have shared similar concerns and you would have seen residents who have similar difficulties.

I would encourage everyone to look at this particular requirement, not in isolation but to look at the full suite of help measures that the Government has put in place. Yes, there is Workfare Special Payment which is tied to the underlying Workfare requirement. But there are also many other help schemes in the Budget, through ComCare, through SIRS, through GST Voucher, where the help is provided more immediately and are not tied to any CPF contributions.

Secondly, I take the point that the Member had suggested, that we should do more to help SEPs meet their MediSave obligations and pay their arrears through instalments. As I had mentioned earlier, the CPF Board is already doing its part to reach out to them and provide instalment plans to help these SEPs fulfil their MediSave obligations. To the extent that some of these SEPs need more time to fulfil their MediSave obligations and they extend beyond the deadline for the Workfare Special Payment, we will be prepared to consider such appeals – meaning to say, they take time to fulfil their MediSave through instalments, but then they have passed the Workfare Special Payment deadline or the Workfare deadline, we will still be prepared to consider such cases for eligibility for the Workfare Special Payment.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you, Speaker. I am just wondering if the Minister can clarify for us whether in this particular period, there has been an increase in the subsidy payouts on the part of Workfare for citizens, in part because, obviously, due to COVID, some of these services may have actually seen reductions in their demand. So, I am wondering if he could clarify for us.

Mr Speaker, I do not have with me data on the Workfare payout, certainly not the latest periods of Workfare payouts. I will not be surprised if there are more payouts, partly because there may well be people who are in the lower income categories who will benefit from Workfare and, perhaps, more payout has been given during this period. But, certainly, because of the Workfare Special Payment, and if you pool it altogether, the Government is giving more to lower wage workers and we will continue to do so.

12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how can Singapore's workforce remain competitive when remote workers from the region are willing to work for usually far lower remuneration; and (b) how will our labour laws be updated to address the impact on our locally-based workforce and tax base.

Mr Speaker, COVID-19 has necessitated a change in the way we work, in particular with remote working becoming commonplace for many of our workplaces. Some companies, such as Facebook, have announced that all employees can work from home. UBS has started experimenting with issuing its home-based traders with virtual reality headsets to recreate the experience of working in a packed trading floor. Increasingly, traditional jobs which require physical presence may also be done remotely. For example, port cranes could only be operated from their cabins in the past but now they can be automated and controlled from a remote centre.

The impact of remote working technology is, however, not fully clear. Even when staff are able to work from home, employers may still prefer to bring teams of workers together physically, on a regular basis, for learning and collaboration. Face-to-face interactions with clients and partners will still be needed. As with digital technologies, which have mostly been adopted to augment rather than replace the work performed by people, it is likely that remote working technology supplement rather than fully replace physical interactions at the workplace.

Nonetheless, remote working may indeed prompt companies to redistribute their activities to take advantage of manpower availability in lower cost countries. This is similar to how activities such as garment manufacturing and call centre operations have shifted out of Singapore over the years. In their place, we have now grown new manufacturing clusters such as biomedical sciences and expanded the services sector.

At the same time, activities that remain in Singapore moved higher up the value chain. With limited land and manpower, we no longer compete on cost alone but on productivity, connectivity and ability to support business innovation. However, with each potential new disruption, we cannot take our relevance as a given. The effort to transform our economy must continue, to retain a competitive edge.

First, we must strengthen our business environment and ensure that Singapore remains the preferred location for trade and investment, particularly in emerging growth areas, such as additive manufacturing and fintech. The anchoring of global companies, which meet our desired profile and the aspirations of Singaporeans, will help to preserve and spur the creation of good jobs.

Second, we must sustain efforts to help Singaporeans build skills relevant to the global talent marketplace. This is why we started the SkillsFuture movement and complemented it with a range of career conversion programmes. They have helped Singaporeans take up new jobs in growth areas.

As for whether labour laws need to be updated, this is an on-going process that takes into account feedback from our tripartite partners. We are also actively monitoring shifts in workplace practices due to remote working and sharing views with our international counterparts, to assess the need for policy intervention.

Mr Yip.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. I wish to ask: how will MOM work with the Labour Movement to deal with the impact of remote workers from overseas competing with our local workers?

Indeed, Mr Speaker, the Member has pointed out that markets are certainly dynamic and businesses will often make decisions based on what makes business sense. So, it is important for our economy to continue to be relevant, to continue to be conducive, stable and to ensure that our companies remain, jobs continue to grow and we create new jobs and new opportunities for Singaporeans.

But what it also means is that we need to help our workers stay relevant, skilled, to remain competitive so that these jobs are not substituted or moved overseas so easily. Therefore, I think that the whole eco-system needs to be worked on and this is where the Labour Movement plays an important role, working with the Government, especially on our SGUnited Jobs and Skills programmes.

One of aspect of the programmes is to upskill workers, work on job matching, trying to garner and harness some of trends out there and see where the emerging growth areas are. But more importantly, apart from just providing opportunities and job matching, it is also helping workers get the right skillsets, working with companies to redesign jobs, to help us move up the value chain. Beyond that, I think it is still important for the Government to keep an eye on growing the economy. Because ultimately, the stronger our eco-system is, the more rooted companies will be here; and for the more rooted, the jobs will be here despite remote working being a trend.

13 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Manpower in respect of the Jobs Growth Initiative (JGI), what safeguards will be put in place to guard against companies reducing their headcount of existing employees and at the same time leveraging on the JGI to recruit new workers with the Government providing salary co-payment resulting in no net growth of jobs.

Mr Speaker, the Jobs Growth Incentive or JGI, supports firms to accelerate the hiring of their local workforce over six months. JGI was announced in August 2020 and will be provided to qualifying hires from September 2020 to February 2021. Eligible local hires can attract salary support for up to 12 months.

To be eligible for JGI, firms must achieve an increase in their local workforce size from the level in August 2020.

Hence, a firm with no net growth of jobs will not receive JGI payouts. A firm that initially increased its local headcount but subsequently reduced its local headcount below its original level would also stop receiving future JGI payouts. In addition, to ensure that the increase in local workforce is meaningful, it must be accompanied by an increase in the number of local employees in jobs that pay at least $1,400 in gross monthly wages.

There may be valid reasons why a firm that receives the JGI has to later let existing employees go, such as retirement or voluntary resignations. If we were to impose the condition that the firm promises not to let any worker go, that would create significant rigidity to the firm. In practice, firms would likely prefer to moderate their new hiring than have to deal with the risk of support being withdrawn.

Hence, we take a practical approach, where a firm's JGI payout is reduced in proportion to the number of existing employees that left the firm after the scheme started in September 2020. This gives the firms assurance of funding support while signalling clearly that they should make the efforts to retain existing employees even as they bring in new hires.

In addition, IRAS has put in place a robust anti-gaming framework to identify risks and prevent abuse. IRAS uses data analytics and risk profiling to identify cases, which are sent to a dedicated team for review. We view any attempt to abuse grant schemes very seriously and will not hesitate to report any malpractices or abuses to the Police for investigation and possible prosecution.

14 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) what has been the experience of the GPFirst programme launched by Changi General Hospital; and (b) whether the Ministry has plans to extend the programme to other public hospitals and their respective nearby general practitioners in the community.

Mr Speaker, the GPFirst Programme was piloted at Changi General Hospital or CGH in January 2014. It aims to encourage patients with non-emergency conditions to seek treatment at General Practitioners or GPs rather than at Emergency Department or ED. This enables the ED to focus on attending to patients with life threatening and critical conditions. Patients assessed by the participating GPs as requiring emergency care would be referred on and be given priority to be seen earlier at the ED. These patients will be given a $50 subsidy on their ED bill to help offset the cost of their GP visit.

From 2014 to 2017, there was a reduction of about 8.5% in the self-referred attendances at CGH ED, which may be attributed to GPFirst and other measures implemented during this period of time.

MOH has expanded GPFirst beyond CGH's region in phases. As of September 2020, GPFirst has been expanded to involve more GPs around Khoo Teck Puat Hospital and the Urgent Care Centre @Admiralty Medical Centre, and will be progressively implemented in the region surrounding Sengkang General Hospital, National University Hospital and Ng Teng Fong General Hospital by the end of 2021.

15 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the take-up rate for 2-room HDB Flexi flats for the first half of 2020, especially for retirees and singles; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider building more of such flats to meet the demand.

Mr Speaker, HDB launched about 1,000 2-room Flexi flats in the first half of 2020, with another 1,800 units launched in the August 2020 Build-To-Order exercise. Of the 2-room Flexi flats launched in the first half of this year, about 80% have been booked, of which more than 90% were booked by seniors and singles.

HDB will continue to monitor the housing market closely and ensure that our flat supply remains responsive to the housing needs of the population.

16 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development in each of the past five years, what is the number of singles who bought HDB resale flats, broken down by type of flats.

Mr Speaker, in the past five years, from 2015 to 2019, out of an average of around 22,000 transactions of resale flats per year, about 6,000 resale flats per year were bought by singles under the Single Singapore Citizen Scheme or the Joint Singles Scheme. Of these, about 46% were 3-room or smaller flats, 39% were 4-room flats and 15% were 5-room or bigger flats.

17 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how are the current specified maximum permissible noise levels for construction work determined; (b) how are the noise levels measured; and (c) when were the noise limits and penalties last reviewed.

Mr Speaker, NEA stipulates maximum permissible noise limits for construction sites in order to protect public health. The noise limits take reference from the World Health Organization's guidelines and are further tailored to local context. To minimise noise nuisance to residents, the noise limits are further differentiated based on the time bands, with more stringent limits imposed at night from 7 pm and 7 am and on Sundays and public holidays, when most of our residents are resting.

To measure the noise levels generated from their worksites, construction companies must install noise meters at the nearest affected buildings and monitor the noise levels regularly. For larger projects of contract value more than $3 million or those which involve demolition and piling, contractors are required to install noise monitoring systems, which allow real-time monitoring of the noise levels by both the contractors as well as by NEA.

My Ministry regularly reviews the construction noise limits and penalty regime. For instance, NEA tightened the noise controls and implemented the no-work rule in 2011 to prohibit work activities at construction sites located within 150 metres of residential premises and noise-sensitive premises, such as the hospitals and nursing homes, on Sundays as well as on public holidays. The penalty regime was also reviewed in 2014. And NEA is working with other agencies and industry stakeholders on an on-going review of the construction noise limits and penalty regime.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I would like to raise two supplementary questions regarding his answer.

The first is whether, as part of the on-going review, the post COVID environment will be considered, in particular, new features, such as working from home, students doing home learning and furthermore, looking at the built density of our HDB estates. I raise this because, especially during the recent and on-going examination season, a number of residents in Clementi have been very worried about noise from nearby construction developments.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, I would also like to ask the Minster of State, whether as part of the review of the penalties framework, they can also consider the economic levers that may be applied to the construction firm. I raise this because when a private development generates noise and disamenities to residents, such as residents along Clementi Avenue 1 and in the Faber Hills area, these disamenities are socialised, whereas in many cases, a private development results in privatisation of gains from the construction.

I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Certainly, in our on-going review, we will take into consideration the current situation and, of course, the economic conditions that we are going through. I have to remind Members of the House that noise management has to be considered in view of the cost as well as the duration of the construction time. It is of our most important interest to make sure that public health is being protected, to make sure that noise levels do not exceed the noise levels that are prescribed by the World Health Organization.

We will take into account the current as well as future conditions. We have to work closely with the built environment and the industry to ensure that whatever penalty regime as well as noise limits that are imposed will first has to protect the public health of our people and at the same time, also to ensure that our construction work continues to be completed within the time frame and within the cost that is stipulated. So, we will take into account the current and future conditions.

The second question that was being raised was about the economic levers. Today, we have a penalty regime that has been reviewed over the years and it has been effective in bringing down the number of feedback as well as enforcement actions. So, for instance, in 2012, we saw that the number of feedback per construction site was about 2.

7. And last year, it has dropped to about 1.

6. And also, in terms of the enforcement action, it has also dropped from 1.6 in 2012 to about 0.8 per 10 sites in 2019.

However, we will continue to look at how this penalty regime will have an impact on the construction noise and in particular for repeated offenders, as in construction sites, that have been given the same warning over and over again. So, these are the things that we look at in our on-going review – the noise limits, the ability to measure them as well as the penalty regime. These are the three areas we will look at in the on-going review.

Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bill. Second Minister for Finance.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 19, 21-23 and 25 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 18, 20, 24 and 26 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 15 October 2020.]

[(proc text) "to make supplementary provision out of the Consolidated Fund to meet additional expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021 and to reduce certain appropriations for that financial year due to exigencies", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time immediately after the conclusion of proceedings on the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for FY2020/21, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [5 October 2020], (proc text)]

[(proc text) “That the Ministerial Statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance on the Overview of Government’s Strategy to Emerge Stronger from the COVID-19 Pandemic be considered by Parliament.” – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance] (proc text)].

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

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and the Finance Minister for the Ministerial Statement that sets out the context for the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditures for FY 2020/2021.

Given the very extensive set of fiscal measures that were introduced in quick succession over the last eight months, it is most timely that Deputy Prime Minister Heng updated the House again on the Government’s continued response to the on-going pandemic and outlined the next bound of support.

While COVID-19 continues to be a threat to our lives and livelihoods, we are today in much different position than we were in, in March. We now know a lot more about this virus and better able to mitigate the risk than six months ago. We have weathered the sharp spike in cases with our concerted response and has help kept the fatality rate at a very low level.

There is now much higher public awareness on the virus and Singaporeans have largely adapted to the new normal of wearing masks, distancing, safe-entries and many other precautionary measures. It is therefore timely that the Government signal that we are entering into a new phase of our battle with the pandemic. And importantly, to also set our sights on how we will eventually emerge from the crisis and press on with our longer term strategic priorities.

Sir, I will touch on three areas: firstly, fiscal management; secondly, jobs; and thirdly, economic growth.

First, fiscal management. Since February this year, the Government has committed a massive $100 billion to help businesses and Singaporeans cope with the pandemic fallout.

To fund this gigantic support package, we have used up all of the accumulated surpluses from the last term of Government and also drawn on reserves for an unprecedented amount of $52 billion. As we have just entered into the new term of Government and in its first year, the Finance Ministry would not have any accumulated surpluses at their disposal to pay for the further spending.

We know that the COVID-19 support measures continued to be necessary; although we can now be more targeted in the next phase. The continuation of these support measures would cost the Government a further $8 billion.

In his reply to my Parliamentary Question and also in the Ministerial Statement, Deputy Prime Minister Heng has shared that the additional expenditures will be funded by reallocating monies from other areas where projected spendings have either been delayed or reduced due to the pandemic.

I noted from the Third Supplementary Estimates that the main reallocations are from the development items such as: MOT $3.6 billion, which is the highest of the reallocated amount; MTI $745 million; MND $615 million; MSE and MOH, I supposed it is related to hospitals and polyclinics, each about $500 million; and the other Ministries like MINDEF, MCCY, MinLaw for their projects, each a couple hundred million dollars.

These are developmental expenditures set aside but unutilised at the moment; and this amounted to $6.8 billion.

Also, in the Supplementary Main Estimates, we saw that despite having downward adjustments by some Ministries, there is a net increase of $1.7 billion due to increase in spending estimates by the other Ministries.

Taken together, it provided MOF with a net freed-up funding of $5.1 billion to pay for the continuation of the COVID-19 support measures (which costs $8 billion).

If there are no new revenue sources to offset, there would be a potential deficit contribution of about $2.9 billion; just a few months into this new term of Government.

On the revenue front, the pictures look daunting as well; with latest estimates projecting a drop in operating revenue of $12.3 billion or a 16.1% projected decrease.

Even with the NIRC added, the Government is likely to run an overall deficit of $ 74.2 billion; a record number in our history.

Sir, I have few questions for the Deputy Prime Minister:

Firstly, given the revenue outlook and the likelihood of further COVID-19 support needed, how does he envisage that we could balance the Budget in the next two to three years; and constitutionally we need to balance the Budget for the term of Government?

Secondly, while the reallocated unutilised funds can temporarily be used to pay for the continued support measures, this outlay would need to happen as soon as the projects meet its progress payment milestones or are completed. Where would the Government find the funding for this outlay if the revenue situation continues to be weak?

Thirdly, some of these projects are actually capability investments for the future, which will enable us to emerge stronger. So, these are necessary spending. Would the Government consider a further draw on the reserves again; considering the magnitude and severity of this crisis and these are essentially also investment items?

Sir, I move on to jobs. In the immediate aftermath of the pandemic crisis, the economic knock-on effects impacted all sectors of the economy. The Government’s swift and broad base support to businesses, helped in averting the situation of massive job losses.

With gradual opening up, we have seen some of the demand and businesses recovered. Companies have adjusted to the different operating environment and many pivoted into different business models and products.

However, there are sectors and businesses where the pandemic has significantly altered the business propositions or changed the operating landscape permanently. Demand that businesses used to enjoy before COVID-19 may never return.

Businesses live and thrive on demand for their goods and services; where they generated revenue to stay profitable, to stay as a going concern.

We know that no amount of Government stimulus or support can possibly make up for the lost demand and revenue in a sustained way; or bring back the business viability of the past.

As the Government taper down the support and assistances, we can expect the companies to start releasing more workers.

Some companies may not survive even with the best of efforts.