Hansard, Wednesday, 28 February 2018

Order. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of Standing Order 92, I have fixed the times for the conclusion of the Heads of Expenditure in the Estimates of Expenditure for financial year (FY) 2018/2019 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 the extension of Sitting times of the COS for each of the allotted days.

Additionally, Members are notified that the Sittings on the allotted days of 1 March to 8 March will commence at 10.00 am.

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Government's Factually website is actively being used to verify information and debunk fake news about Government policies; and (b) whether the information on the website is updated in a timely manner.

Sir, Factually aims to clarify widespread or common misperceptions of Government policy, or inaccurate assertions on matters of public concern that can harm Singapore’s social fabric. This is done on a timely basis to ensure that prevailing falsehoods and misinformation are debunked as soon as possible.

Over the years, the site has addressed inaccurate assertions on various matters, ranging from savings and taxes to education and employment. For example, in January this year, several online articles claimed that the Government had raised the Central Provident Fund Retirement Sum in a "secret policy change" when, in fact, the revised figures had been publicly announced in 2015 and was widely reported in the media. Another online rumour claimed that our public universities reserve a minimum 20% quota for foreign students when, in fact, no such policy exists.

Sir, since its inception in May 2012, 186 Factually articles have been published on the Gov.sg website. Besides providing written facts, Factually also employs graphics to provide greater clarity. In the coming year, we will explore using videos as well.

Ms Sun Xueling.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I would like to understand what are the criteria used to determine what policies need to be explained on the Government Factually website. Does it have to do with how serious the subject matter is or is it also correlated to how viral the fake news is?

Sir, Factually aims to address what we call "drums", that is, distortions, rumours, untruths, myths, smears and inaccurate information published in the public domain. We either do it proactively, when we see something online that has gone viral and there is a lot of misinformation, or when we receive feedback from the public for us to clarify.

This is a proactive process that we continue to refine as we go along. Certainly, when the misinformation has really gone viral that needs to be addressed very quickly, we will do it in a timely manner. Those that may not, but still needs to be addressed, we either do it ourselves or we work with the various agencies which are involved to see whether we can push out the information as quickly as possible.

2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs since October 2016 (a) to what extent are users of legal online gambling sites operated by Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club current gamblers on any platform versus first-time gamblers; and (b) whether such gamblers have used these sites to add to their total gambling spending as opposed to switching gambling spending from other platforms.

Mr Speaker, Sir, more than one-third and four-fifths of Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club's remote account holders respectively, previously held telephone betting accounts. Among those who had previously not held telephone betting accounts, over 95% of them indicated that they had placed bets with the operators in the preceding 12 months. In short, the large majority do not appear to be first-time gamblers.

It is not possible to ascertain whether these remote account holders have simply switched from other platforms, including illegal ones, or have increased their total gambling. That said, there has not been evidence of a surge in the sum of bets placed with Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club since the commencement of remote services in 2016. In 2017, Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club's turnover grew by 2.6%, in line with the average annual growth of 2.4% between financial year (FY) 2012 and FY2015.

On the other hand, according to gambling consultancy firm H2GC, the local underground remote gambling market grew only by 0.3% in 2017, lower than the average annual growth rate of 3.1% between 2012 and 2016.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Second Minister for the reply. Just one very quick supplementary question: may I know the source of the data for the first part of the answer on the proportion of users who previously had telephone betting accounts?

The sources are Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club themselves. The information is from surveys done on the users of their services.

3 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) what measures are in place at our border checkpoints to deter wildlife trafficking; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider establishing a wildlife sniffer dog programme to detect cases of wildlife trafficking at our border checkpoints.

Sir, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) works closely with Singapore Customs, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and local and international partners to combat wildlife trafficking.

First, we subject all passengers and cargoes as well as shipments to risk assessment. Our risk assessment framework helps agencies flag out which passengers and shipments require more detailed checks. Agencies ensure that these risk profiles and indicators are up to date by continually reviewing wildlife trafficking trends and exchanging information with international partners like the International Criminal Police Organization and the World Customs Organisation.

Second, agencies carry out multiple layers of checks at Singapore's border checkpoints. For example, radiographic scanners and x-rays are used to screen passengers and cargo. The officers performing these tasks are trained to pick out suspicious items and behaviours.

Third, agencies adopt a coordinated enforcement approach. This enables them to take quick action after receiving credible and actionable intelligence or tip-offs from the public and from our international partners.

Taken together, these measures have led to several successful seizures of illegal wildlife in Singapore. Traffickers face heavy penalties like fines of up to $500,000, or imprisonment of up to two years, or both.

AVA is continually studying the efficacy of different tools and techniques to detect illegal wildlife at our border checkpoints. To the Member's specific question about sniffer dogs, we understand that they are used in some countries to detect wildlife products. In Singapore, we use other effective scanning technologies for this purpose. More studies are needed to determine if sniffer dogs can be more effective than our current methods.

Mr Louis Ng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. The issue really is that the officers who are scanning the bags have so much to look out for that it is really difficult for them to also look out for wildlife products. I hope that the Ministry of National Development would seriously consider the proposal to set up a wildlife sniffer dog programme.

Secondly, the sniffer dogs are already deployed in our fight against drugs, so why not also use them in our fight against wildlife trafficking?

Sir, as I said earlier in my answer, we employ a multi-pronged approach and not just depend on one modality. It starts with good intelligence and then employing technology and techniques that have been proven to work in many other cases. So, we will continue to look at options, including sniffer dogs, if there can be objective data to show that they are more effective than our currently deployed methods.

4 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in each of the past three years (a) how much has been spent on the National Recycling Programme; and (b) how many tonnes of recyclables has the programme contributed to the total amount collected from Singapore's domestic recycling sector.

Public waste collection (PWC) contracts cover both the collection of recyclables, under the National Recycling Programme (NRP), and the collection of waste. The public waste collectors charge a single fee for both waste and recycling collection, which is paid by households as the monthly refuse collection fee.

NRP was started in 2001 to provide households with a convenient channel to recycle. It is complemented by other available recycling channels provided by the private and people sectors, such as charity donation drives, community recycling drives and door-to-door collection of recyclables.

In 2016, the public waste collectors collected about 44,200 tonnes of recyclables. This was an increase from 2014 and 2015, when about 31,000 tonnes and 37,000 tonnes of recyclables were collected respectively.

My Ministry continues to look at how we can improve recycling rates in the domestic sector, where the recycling rate has been hovering around 20% since 2012. In recent years, we have been enhancing recycling infrastructure to make it even easier for Singaporeans to recycle. For example, from 1 April this year, all new non-landed private residential developments above four storeys will need to provide dual chutes for refuse and recyclables. These dual chutes have already been introduced in new Housing and Development Board Build-To-Order flats since January 2014. All existing condominiums will also have to provide one recycling bin per block from 1 August this year. We will also use regulatory measures to complement the new recycling infrastructure. For example, we will introduce a new framework to make it easier for Singaporeans to recycle their e-waste.

Ultimately, active participation in recycling by all Singaporeans will be key to improving our domestic recycling rates. The National Environment Agency (NEA) promotes the 3Rs, that is, "reduce, reuse and recycle", via social media posts and educational materials distributed at community and school events. Information on the proper use of recycling bins, location of collection points and 3R tips are also available on NEA’s website and NEA’s myENV mobile app. We will continue to encourage every Singaporean to play their part to reduce, reuse and recycle.

At the same time, Singaporeans should not misuse the recycling bins. A little less-known fact is that we can no longer use the recyclables once they are contaminated, such as by food waste. Let us all be gracious and not waste the efforts of our fellow Singaporeans who want to do their part for the environment.

Mr Louis Ng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply, but I have also asked how much has been spent on NRP for each year in the last three years. Can I also clarify that the figure that the Senior Minister of State gave of 44,200 tonnes, is that the total amount collected from the Singapore domestic recycling sector or is that the figure that was collected by NRP?

Regarding the question of how much we spent, we do not specifically track the amount spent on outreach programmes and campaigns for NRP because this is actually done in-house by NEA together with other outreach campaigns, such as the Clean and Green Singapore, Keep Singapore Clean and Do the Mozzie Wipeout campaigns.

In addition, NEA does outreach and educational efforts to engage and educate residents on the 3Rs, including NRP through, as I have said, social media posts, as well as on our websites and on our myENV mobile app.

Regarding the 44,200 tonnes collected in 2016, it is just the collection of recyclables under NRP carried out by the public waste collectors. This is about 10% of the total amount of recyclables we collect for the domestic sector.

Mr Louis Ng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. Just one last supplementary question. I know that NEA uses surveys to track the proportion of residents who recycle but I do not think it gives a very accurate picture. So, would NEA be conducting more in-depth reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of our recycling programme?

The survey that the Member has referred to is, I think, the PWC Customer Satisfaction Survey. That was last done for the period 2015/2016. We had more than 8,500 respondents who participated in this customer satisfaction survey. It is done by a consultant using established survey methodologies, so, we think that this is reflective of the level of public participation in recycling. But we welcome any further suggestions to improve the accuracy of this survey.

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

[(proc text) "to amend the Air Navigation Act (Chapter 6 of the 2014 Revised Edition) and the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Act (Chapter 41 of the 2014 Revised Edition) in relation to the aviation safety framework and aviation industry infrastructure", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan); read the First time; to be read a Second time at a Sitting of Parliament on or after 15 March 2018, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 68 of the 2012 Revised Edition) and certain other Acts to enhance the fairness of procedures, and ensure correct and equitable outcomes, in the criminal justice system", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time at a Sitting of Parliament on or after 15 March 2018, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Evidence Act (Chapter 97 of the 1997 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time at a Sitting of Parliament on or after 15 March 2018, and to be printed. (proc text)]

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

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

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

Mr Azmoon Ahmad.

Mr Speaker, I shall deliver my speech in English and Malay.

First and foremost, my appreciation to Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat for the delivery of Budget 2018. I must admit that I am impressed. In fact, I would say it is a very clever Budget, especially on the fundamental change in the way major projects are to be financed in the future. It is a Budget that I consider as inclusive and progressive. It is heartening to see a well-balanced palette of offers and initiatives being laid down for all Singaporeans. Primarily, this Budget prepares us into the future, both in capacity and economics, based on the three major shifts in the coming decade and yet mindful of the well-being of fellow Singaporeans.

Though I mentioned I am positively impressed with the Budget, I am of the opinion that it is not a perfect one. There is still room for improvements. I shall not and will avoid being too picky. Rather, I shall mention those which I believe warrant attention and I hope Minister Heng can reconsider them.

Let me touch on the issue of overcoming near-term challenges. The move to extend the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) and all other related initiatives in continuation of support to firms in coping with near-term costs is rightfully addressed as they are directly linked to manpower, for example, Foreign Worker Levy (FWL), which is one of the major components of business operating costs.

I thought one component which is as critical, if not even more so, is premises rental. I feel this is missing and I believe this would make a big difference if the Budget could take this as one of the many initiatives to help businesses in the near term. As we know, two major components of business costs in Singapore are manpower cost and premises rental cost. These two will take up at least 50% of any business operation costs in Singapore.

Thus, Mr Speaker, I would like to suggest on any form of financial help to be formulated for business operators, especially the small and medium enterprises (SMEs), to lessen their burden due to premises rental. I would even go one step further – it would be great if we can find a structural solution to this. Hopefully, we can hear good news in the next Budget year.

Next, I would like to touch on fostering pervasive innovation. I was glad and delighted when I learned that innovation is mooted as one of the suggested initiatives in pushing forward towards a vibrant and innovative economy. Upon scrutinising the numerous offerings, while I am appreciative and glad to see good ones on the table, I still felt incomplete.

From financial tax deduction to the promotion of National Robotics Programme, I thought these are initiatives that touch on the surface. At most, it will only give a scratch. What I thought was missing is the soul of innovation.

Mr Speaker, I hope I am not being taken wrongly. Like I said, the numerous initiatives being suggested are all good. In fact, I support them. Being a person myself who has been involved in technology and innovation for more than 30 years, I am very passionate about innovation. What I thought worth mentioning is the creation of the innovation spirit. Unfortunately, I am unable to relate nor equate any initiative which supports the creation and building of the innovation spirit. I had expected more to be done in our education system and curriculum that foster the spirit of innovation. I was looking forward to a more fundamental shift which is so pervasive that it will become a basis in reshaping our innovation landscape.

In Budget 2016, when I was a rookie Parliamentarian then, I did bring up the same topic on innovation and the culture of inquisitiveness. I mentioned that innovation is an intangible capability and competence which needed to be nurtured with time. And it is important that this starts at a very young age and in schools. I had also suggested five actions then. I hope the suggested actions can be taken up for further discussion and reconsideration. While I am not rejecting nor dismissing any of the suggested initiatives, I thought the fundamental approach to fostering pervasive innovation is still missing.

Thus, Mr Speaker, I would like to suggest that a more fundamental approach towards fostering pervasive innovation to be reconsidered. With what is suggested today, I am not confident we will have a sustainable pervasive innovation landscape. Let us do the right thing and do it right together.

Mr Speaker, the thing that melted my heart about the Budget, albeit all the economics and business concerns and the slew of initiatives and suggestions to ensure us and our future generation a better future, is the re-affirmation by the Government towards achieving a caring and cohesive society. It is so heart-warming to see current running and new programmes and initiatives being rolled out concertedly, either enhanced or finetuned. The SG Cares initiative has proven to be alive and serves as a national platform towards the spirit of a caring and giving nation. Be it for individuals and families or senior citizens, there is always something for everyone. While it may not be complete, I believe the carpet has been rolled out and we just have to improve it year on year.

Our success as a nation should not only be measured by economic indicators alone. We must instil the sense of civic duty and ensure that everyone is not left behind. Be it young or senior, able or disabled, capable or not, everyone must and should be taken care of. And we have SG Cares as a platform to help us formulate and sustain our system of caring. Let us make it a success, together.

The feedback from my interaction with various and numerous community leaders on this matter has been very positive and encouraging. The continuation of support programmes is highly appreciated. It is also worth mentioning that the effort of integration of healthcare and social support for seniors has been very much welcomed. This is expected to improve efficiency and efficacy when dealing with intertwined eldercare programmes, which have proven to be needed in our ageing society.

While we move up the ladder to becoming a gracious and caring society, we should not and must not be over dependent on the Government to fork out grants and subsidies. Instead, I believe we need to build an ecosystem in which a substantial part of giving is to be generated from the society itself. We need to find a way and establish a system which is sustainable, where giving is becoming a pleasure, and giving is highly motivated. A system of recognition and reward should be explored in trying to encourage giving.

Mr Speaker, I suggest we should look into how donation can be made more interesting. Perhaps a progressive tax system for donors may be worth studying. I shall be elaborating on this in more detail during the Committee of Supply (COS) Sitting.

The surplus of $9.6 billion accumulated in our financial year 2017 is very surprising to me. While this is good news, I believe it is not a guaranteed recurring item. Henceforth, the decision to save part of the surplus for savings ahead is a right move. However, the sharing of $700 million with Singaporeans, which only accounts for 7% of the total $9.6 billion, I thought that is on the lower side. Perhaps more should be considered. What should it be?

From my experience in business, it is quite normal for a business organisation to share between 15% and 20% of its net income profit to its shareholders as dividend. Likewise, the same rule can be applied here, with the remaining to be retained as savings for use in financing near-term programmes.

What struck me about Budget 2018 is the fundamental change in the way how major and infrastructural projects are to be financed in future. I thought this is a clever way of managing our finances. However, this can only be true if our Reserves yield a return which is higher than the cost of borrowing by the various Ministries when undertaking the major and infrastructural projects. Based on past data on return on investment on the Reserves, I am confident that this is the case.

What I would like to point out is that there will be costs incurred for any borrowing. It is not free. There is no such thing as a free lunch. As major and infrastructural projects will have to be financed through borrowing, thus, the overall cost of these projects will be inflated by an additional amount equivalent to the cost of borrowing. As we all know, at the end of the day, whatever cost incurred will have to be borne by the customer or consumer. Be it the new high-speed rail project or Changi Terminal 5, it will be no surprise that this additional cost will be at the consumer’s cost.

Mr Speaker, I would like to suggest that the cost of borrowing under such circumstances to be financed through the return generated from the investment of the Reserves. In this case, the consumer will not be burdened by the additional cost of borrowing, which is the result of a new financial framework on expenditure of major infrastructural projects. Mr Speaker, I shall now deliver the following speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First and foremost, I would like to express my appreciation to Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat for the delivery of Budget 2018. It is, by and large, a very interesting one. In my view, Budget 2018 is an inclusive and progressive Budget. What is even more interesting is the new approach towards financing major and infrastructural projects in the future.

The current SG Care programme is also being finetuned and enhanced. New offerings are introduced to further complement self-help efforts by the people, with the aim of making it comprehensive. Generally, it is quite balanced.

Primarily, this Budget aims to prepare Singaporeans into the future, in terms of an advanced and progressive economy, as well as in terms of capabilities. It is based on the three major shifts in the coming decade, which are: a global economy that appears to be tilting towards Asia; the emergence of new technologies that are expected to change how we live, as well as the way we work and play; and ageing.

I would like to touch on and give my views on several worrying issues, if these have not been addressed or given close attention. As a corporate executive who has been involved in the engineering field for a long time, as well as in the largest Asian market, China, I would like to share my experiences.

My disadvantage at the present moment is that I am unable to communicate fluently in Mandarin. I am quite weak in the Chinese language and I know only a little bit. Even so, I was determined and explored the China market. To be frank, I faced difficulties. I feel that mastery of the Chinese language can act as a catalyst if one wishes to explore the China market, which is and will continue to grow rapidly.

The China market and its state economy have been developing rapidly over the past 20 years. At the moment, this largest global economic nation in Asia, will continue to expand on the basis of its own economic policies. Its policies are rather different compared to capitalist economic policies practised in the West. Its economic policies with a communist character will continue to be implemented so that China can develop into the largest global economy and overtake the United States (US) economy. In my view, this appears to be its long-term objective. If this occurs, we will have no choice but to face this outcome and deal with it.

During an economic forum organised by the New York Economic Society in 2015, the Chairman of Alibaba – which is one of the largest firms in the world – Mr Jack Ma said that his country is making preparations so that China will not only remain as a manufacturing and exporting country, but it will also continue to rise and it dreams of being a country that can import and consume.

At the moment, statistics show that the consumer segment in China will grow from 50 million people to 300 million in the coming years. When this happens, China’s purchasing power will become a very huge attraction. It will also become the centre of the global market which will change the way we do business in the future. This is a development that we cannot ignore. I suggest that our people, including the Malay community, pay close attention towards this development.

Therefore, I suggest that our young Malays be exposed to and learn to master the Chinese language. This can increase the possibility that, in the future, our children can compete more confidently.

Can the Council for the Development of the Singapore Malay/Muslim Community (MENDAKI) take steps to offer classes and sessions that teach the Chinese language? I am sure that if our children can at least converse in Mandarin, they will become more confident and have more opportunities in the future.

(In English): Mr Speaker, the Singapore spirit is prevalent in Budget 2018, as highlighted by Minister Heng. In wanting to move forward and progress into the future with certainty, clear themes and strategic initiatives have been outlined and, at the same time, not forgetting to be rooted and stay humane as a caring society. While I opine that there is still room for further improvements, I believe it is a Budget which is inclusive and progressive. Notwithstanding the points I have highlighted, I support the Budget.

Ms Jessica Tan.

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Budget. There is much in Budget 2018 covering key priorities which Minister Heng Swee Keat has outlined in his Budget Statement. In my speech today, I would like to focus my discussion on social mobility and opportunity.

There is growing concern that the divide across Singapore society driven by inequality of opportunity is leading to social stratification by class. The very fabric of Singapore and the Singapore Story is based on our people and how they have worked hard to build Singapore and a better life for themselves and their families. Hence, it is important that our systems and structures must continue to ensure access to opportunity for all Singaporeans to do better and move up in society based on ability and hard work.

When we talk about social mobility, we can give our attention to growth and how we make the pie bigger for everyone. I do, however, hesitate to say that the rising tide will lift all boats as we have seen examples in many countries, including Singapore, where this has not always been the case. While growth is important, if we are to be able to address the widening inequality, growth has to be coupled with access to and, more importantly, the ability of all Singaporeans to take advantage of the opportunities, if social mobility is to be achieved.

The Budget Statement each year outlines the Government’s revenue and expenditure for the upcoming financial year and the Budget measures. Each year, when I listen to the Budget, I pay a lot of attention to the measures because the measures outlined the aspirations of what the Budget sets out to achieve for Singapore.

I was very happy that Minister Heng Swee Keat clearly stated that Budget 2018 is about laying the foundation for our nation’s development in the next decade. He outlined the three major shifts which are confronting us: the shift in global economic weight towards Asia, accompanied by broader shifts in the global order; emergence of new technologies; and our ageing population. These will provide opportunities and challenges for all Singaporeans. These shifts could improve social mobility or cause an even greater socioeconomic divide.

Budget 2018's strategy is to anchor Singapore as a node for innovation, technology and enterprise. This will focus our efforts as a country to capture the opportunities presented by the shifts and capture them not just in Singapore but beyond. It will also create opportunities by developing and attracting growth to Singapore and transform our businesses to be manpower-lean, to enable older workers to continue to contribute.

While this strategy cannot guarantee success, these policies seek to provide appropriate support and equalise access to opportunity. The measures outline the Government’s intent to enable businesses and individuals to transform, build capabilities and tap on partnerships both locally and abroad to be able to engage and capture new opportunities. These measures, as the hon Member Mr Azmoon had mentioned, are not exhaustive but they do set out the foundation and direction. They will need to be refined and to evolve, given the pace and scale of the shifts that confront us. But if they are implemented effectively, they will enable companies and individuals to take advantage of these opportunities and have a very good chance at success.

Minister Heng outlined several measures to foster pervasive innovation to support businesses to innovate across the entire value chain. Additionally, the pilot of the Open Innovation Platform will also encourage the co-creation of digital solutions by providing that virtual crowdsourcing platform to help companies find partners to address specific challenges they face.

I would like to touch on the increase in tax deduction on licensing payments for commercial use of intellectual property (IP) which is capped at $100,000 of licensing payments per year. Minister Heng did indicate in his Budget Statement that this cap is to ensure that smaller businesses will benefit more from this measure. The feedback from SMEs on this measure as well as the increase of tax deduction for IP registration fees and for qualifying expenses on research and development (R&D) done in Singapore, is that for many of the SMEs that are developing in this space, many have little or no profits. Hence, they would not be able to benefit from these tax deductions. More targeted grants oriented for IP and R&D-related cost would better benefit these smaller companies.

The new opportunities that are presenting themselves would also require new skills, know-how and relationships. Building deep capability both for our businesses and workers is necessary to enable them to compete on value and skills and not cost. The various measures announced focus on capability development in internationalisation, digitalisation and productivity improvement. These skills are needed to equip Singaporeans and our businesses to be able to have the know-how and skills to take advantage of these new opportunities in Singapore, regionally and globally, and to create value to differentiate and compete.

Another important factor that Minister Heng touched on as well was partnerships, both locally and abroad, to allow our companies to harness one another’s capability. Why is that important? It is important for scale. But more important is speed, because the pace of change is happening so quickly and continuously that trying to do it ourselves is not going to be tenable.

There have been many measures but I was glad to see the focus, even for SkillsFuture, on areas of developing talent for being Asia-ready and developing talent for us to be able to compete and engage in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region. Because what is important is not just know-how but, to operate regionally, we will also need to build networks and plans that will allow these expansions.

I would now like to touch on the topic of our seniors. There has been much discussion in the Budget Debate over the last two days on our ageing population and the need to strengthen the support for our seniors. While I agree that this is important, I do want to talk about how companies can benefit from the mature workers in their workforce.

I have spoken about the movie "The Intern" in this Chamber before and I would like to use the example again. First of all, because I do not watch that many movies, so I do not have that many movies to give examples on but, actually, I thought it would help illustrate the point on the value of a diverse intergenerational workforce. I believe this is an area that we have not tapped.

In the movie, Robert De Niro played a retiree who applies for a position in a "Senior Intern Programme" at an e-commerce company. He reports to the young successful founder of the company. Although he is not familiar with the digital world, he makes the effort to learn and adapts well to the work and his colleagues. In the movie while he is adapting to the digital world, what he has done is he has applied his experience, his experience as a businessman, his sharing of knowledge and, most importantly, his coaching to help the young founder get through difficult times in her business. And why do I say "coaching"? Because it is also the "how do you work together". That is the important piece and I really firmly believe that our more mature workers today have a wealth of experience and knowledge. If tapped well, this intergenerational diverse workforce can make a lot of difference.

By bringing together a diverse workforce of both young and older employees, companies can tap on these new perspectives and the skills of their younger workforce and the wealth of knowledge and experience of older workers for a more effective work environment.

All these measures, I was really quite excited about. You may ask, "Why is she linking social mobility to all these things about innovation?" It is because, ultimately, if we provide the platform, we enable with skills and we allow that collaboration to happen, then, ultimately, that spirit of innovation will depend on businesses and Singaporeans to do our part, to put in the effort to make the best of these opportunities, and then do better for both the country and for ourselves.

If done well, I believe that this is social mobility in action. In this new world, with the shifts we are facing, what we are seeing is that when you do not have legacy, you can move a lot faster. Therefore, it will allow that disruption to allow people to actually do better. The opportunity to do better can be there. But creating the environment to do it is what Budget 2018 is laying the foundation for.

Let me just touch on one more point. I was very pleasantly surprised when the Minister shared the emphasis on the need to build capability and skills in the area of preparing our people to prepare for their financial needs at key stages in their lives. Financial planning and making informed financial decisions are core skills and have profound impact on the lives of individuals and their families. This is not a matter of whether you are rich or poor. In many of the Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) cases that I have seen over the years as a Member of Parliament (MP), much of the hardship and challenges faced by our residents and their families are usually a matter of lack of financial planning. When situations like sudden illnesses, loss of job or unfortunate circumstances occur, individuals or their families have problems coping if they had not done financial planning. This impacts the person and the entire family in managing their day-to-day expenses, as well as longer-term commitments like housing and medical needs.

So, it is good that financial education curriculum will start with our youths, as financial planning must start early. Can the Minister share more information on the financial education curriculum that is planned for our youths in our polytechnics and ITEs? Is there a reason why the junior colleges are not included?

What are the enhancements to existing services at Housing and Development Board (HDB) and Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board to enable Singaporeans to also make better informed decisions in the purchase of their flats and retirement respectively that were mentioned in the Budget?

So, Mr Speaker, Budget 2018 sets out to build the foundation and position Singapore for the future and for growth. By providing an environment to support access to opportunities and the ability to seize these opportunities will provide Singaporeans with hope and I hope also the aspiration to do better for themselves and their families. With that, I support the Budget.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this very balanced Budget, which invests in our people, businesses, infrastructures and environment. It clearly takes into account the need to keep up with rapid changes. From digitalisation to upskilling, to adoption of smart technologies.

The pressure to make major changes within a short period of time is daunting. On top of that, talks of increased spending in various crucial areas like healthcare, enhanced social safety nets and massive infrastructural developments, as well as the possible Goods and Services (GST) hike, have got Singaporeans waiting for this year’s Budget with apprehension.

Amidst a climate of uncertainty, the Minister for Finance has crafted a practical Budget that addresses all these challenges. He has outlined ways in which we can keep our economy innovative and vibrant, which means more opportunities for businesses and, in turn, a better future for all Singaporeans. Businesses will certainly appreciate the strong focus on the available support for pursuing innovation and increased digital capabilities. We will be making bigger steps towards our vision of a Smart City that is also green and liveable. A few days ago, Hong Kong announced their financial position as well. They have achieved a $28-billion surplus. In fact, one of the key focuses when I read up on it was how do they continue to invest in innovation? So, Singapore has our competition.

At a dialogue session with my residents in Sembawang after the Budget Statement was released, one concern among the residents was naturally on the proposed future GST hike. The residents were asking whether this was going to make Singapore an even more expensive place for businesses and for us to stay and for tourism as well.

In 2007, when the GST was raised from 5% to 7%, consumer price index (CPI) inflation rose to 2.6% in July 2007 from 1.3% in June, reflecting the 2% GST hike. How will the proposed GST increase from 7% to 9% affect Singapore’s competitiveness? Will the increase deter foreign direct investments into Singapore and hurt our tourism and the Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Exhibitions (MICE) industry? How will the proposed GST increase impact our CPI and inflation when implemented?

The appeal from the residents was to delay the GST increase as far as possible. If it is not 2021, is it possible to push it to 2025? Better still, have plans to grow the economy, grow the income of Singaporeans, grow the revenues and incomes of all businesses and also let the revenues of the country grow concurrently. So, if we can, we can deter the GST increase indefinitely.

I support the Government's ambitious plan to develop a number of mega infrastructure projects and I support the financing framework proposed. I think it is fair. But the more we build, the more we need to maintain. Did the Government take into account the maintenance cost after the construction? And I am a little bit concerned whether our construction sector and manpower can handle so many infrastructure projects at the same time. We are worried about whether we have the resources to do so, not just about finance, but also the space and the manpower. Can we space all these developments a bit further apart?

Next, I would like to move on to our environment, a topic that I have been following closely with every Budget for the last 12 years. Environmental issues are closely related to our sustainability and living standards. Hence, it is important for us to continue to review and improve policies regarding this aspect. The carbon tax, scheduled for 2019, was announced last year, and this year's Budget revealed further details on it. The carbon tax will no doubt serve as a deterrent for big emitters of greenhouse gases.

But we need to do more to push for more measures to help companies and households to reduce their energy usage and use renewable energy. Will the Government introduce incentive measures like grants for projects to help households as well as businesses to achieve lower carbon emissions?

At last year’s Budget, I spoke about exploring the use of solar energy, and I am glad tangible progress has been made. It is heartening news that the private sector, Town Councils and various Government agencies have been major contributors to expand solar capacity in Singapore in recent years. The private sector accounts for 45.9% of total installed capacity, while Town Councils and Government agencies like HDB account for 44.7%. The residential sector, comprised primarily of private homes, accounts for 589 installations, but that is less than 5% of total installed capacity.

The way forward is to keep the momentum and increase take-up rates. Understandably, space constraint remains a challenge. While smaller rooftop systems are less economical than larger ones, making them seem to be poor investments in the short term, increasing awareness on cost-saving abilities and installation procedures can help to generate more interest among private home owners.

In the United Kingdom (UK), the National Network for Low-Carbon Open Homes, an initiative by the Centre for Sustainable Energy, provides a platform for people with energy-homes to share about the technology they use, their experiences and to answer questions. For Singaporeans, the use of renewable energy is still in its infancy stage. So, perhaps a similar platform could help to generate awareness and interest. I hope the Government can consider subsidised or free energy consultation to encourage more buy-in from the public. The Government should also work closely with private developers and residents to facilitate convenient and affordable installation of solar panels for condominiums and other private residential apartments and commercial buildings.

On a related note, from the middle of this year, Singaporean households will be able to choose which provider to buy their power from. They can tap on the e-commerce platform for electricity to pick their provider. So, now would be an appropriate time to step up on public education and encourage households to make more eco-friendly decisions. I note that many such clean energy projects are still in the testbed or pilot stage, and awareness and presence are lacking. Not many residents are aware that their homes are being powered by or will eventually be powered by solar panels on roof tops. How many are aware that they will soon have a choice to use renewable energy in their homes and plan to make the switch? More importantly, how many Singaporeans see this as a good thing? It is important to get Singaporeans excited about renewable energy, and this can only be achieved through greater transparency and public education, even for early-stage projects.

My next topic is on encouraging acts of charity in Singapore. On behalf of my residents, I would like to thank the Government, and especially Mr Heng Swee Keat, for giving an early ang pow of $100 to $300 to all eligible Singaporeans aged 21 and above. I know the schools have encouraged students to donate an ang pow during the Chinese New Year period to the welfare fund so that needy students can benefit from the fund. In the same spirit of caring and giving, I would like to propose that the Government facilitate giving by providing an easy option for Singaporeans who are keen to donate their SG bonus ang pow to local charities like the Community Chest or even the President’s Challenge 2018. Maybe the Government can provide dollar-for-dollar matching to encourage the public to donate.

Next, I am glad that the Government intends to extend WCS. The goal of the scheme is to encourage employers to give wage increases to their employees. However, I would like to know if any study has been done on the effectiveness of the scheme. How many employers are doling out salary increases because of the scheme? On the flip side, many employers are also concerned with raising salaries as this will permanently increase their manpower cost, whereas WCS is a temporary one. Most employers would prefer to share the company’s profits with the staff by special bonuses which are one-off and will not permanently increase their manpower cost. Does WCS include such one-off bonuses?

Lastly, with all the talk about SkillsFuture and upgrading, there was disappointment felt by my residents that there were no enhancement and no top-up in SkillsFuture credits. There are Singaporeans who have utilised all their credits, and there are some, on the other hand, who are waiting for a perfect course to come by. They are afraid to waste their current credit on a course that may not benefit them. Why not top up their SkillsFuture credits since there is a Budget surplus? This is investing in our people.

Mr Speaker, the Budget reveals practical and forward-looking measures that guide us towards a future that is economically and environmentally sustainable. It also promises to shape a nation that is more compassionate and empathetic towards the less fortunate, with the Government taking the lead. I support the Budget.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister and his team for a very carefully crafted Budget to cater to Singapore's immediate and long-term needs. Whether we are considering the impending increase of the GST or the methods to finance future infrastructure projects, the issue of our rapidly ageing population informs every decision we make. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] On the new Budget announced by the Minister for Finance, from the impending increase of the GST, to how to finance future infrastructure projects, the consideration behind these issues is for our rapidly-ageing population.

The number of Singaporeans aged 65 and above is expected to double from 440,000 in 2015 to 900,000 by 2030. Our citizen to old-age support ratio, that is, the ratio of citizens in the working ages to each elderly citizen, is projected to fall to 2.1 in 2030. An ageing population and a shrinking labour market will bring about social impact and increase the burden on the next generation.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government will continue to implement multiple measures, including those that encourage parenthood and immigration, to maintain the dependency ratio of six to one. There are many Government policies aimed at improving productivity, encouraging the adoption of technology and lifelong learning to maintain sustainable economic growth. As the saying goes, "It takes 10 years to grow a tree and 100 years to educate a person".

After 2030, will this ratio still be a good one to allow Singapore to continue to be a liveable and prosperous nation? Will Singaporeans still enjoy a good quality of life without burdening the next generation? I would like to ask the Minister, if it is not the case, what would be the ideal ratio which will be good for Singapore?

(In English): We have to address the problem of our ageing population through a combination of raising the fertility rate and controlled regulated measures in selective immigration policies. Accept those who are self-reliant financially, can contribute good tax revenue for Singapore or who could create quality jobs for Singapore. Measures, such as ensuring more healthy golden years for seniors by upgrading their skills, boosting productivity and utilising technology, are all very well and good. However, there is no replacing having more babies, youths and an active workforce in our population.

Would the Minister elaborate on what other options have been considered, resulting in GST being the preferred choice? What is the average charity donation to IPCs made by Singaporeans per year for the past 10 years and whether it is stable or rising? Will the Government set up another charity fund to support ageing Singaporeans with public donations so that it may help mitigate the need of a GST increase? In Mandarin, again.

(In Mandarin): A recent study by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) in January this year showed that while 40% of Singaporeans think that the Government should tap into the Reserves, and not increase tax, to cope with the social expenditure on an ageing population, 34% of Singaporeans hold the opposite view.

Forty-one percent of respondents believe that each generation should be self-reliant and not rely on another generation. Thirty-eight percent hold the opposite view. These survey results lead us to ponder whether the many good traditions left by our forefathers will be affected by the changes in society. These good traditions have laid a solid foundation for us. Will these values disappear in the future?

(In English): An article that I read in The Straits Times written by a very young writer by the name of Ng Chia Wee, I quote, "The family is an economically important societal entity. Strong families are the bedrock of national fiscal sustainability. If the family abandons its responsibility to care for its aged members, the Government will have no choice but to step in, leading to greater spending and thus revenue-raising… rising Government involvement in healthcare does not mean falling family involvement. As Minister Heng remarked, rising amounts of healthcare and social expenditure will place greater demands on families and the Government." Sir, let me go back to speaking in Mandarin again.

(In Mandarin): The important value of filial piety is still very strong in our community and is deep-rooted. Repaying our parents is universal, regardless of ethnic and religious backgrounds. Except for a small number, Singaporeans shoulder the primary responsibility of caring for elderly parents. With small families of only one or two children and increasing life expectancy for our aged, the road ahead will be filled with challenges.

On the other hand, parents love their children and will normally not want to become a burden to them. Many senior citizens I have met told me that they do not want to cause any inconvenience or trouble for their children, and they also want to leave something for their children and grandchildren. This is the case even for those whose children are doing well financially.

In fact, there is a very meaningful tradition in our Chinese community. I believe most Members would have heard of it – the last batch of things or money left behind by the deceased – the shouweiqian (手尾钱). It is the money or things placed in the hands of the deceased before nailing the coffin; the coins are called 手尾钱. This money will be distributed to the children and grandchildren. And the ritual is called fen shouwei (分手尾).

The tradition believes that things left behind by the deceased will bring good luck for the family. It symbolises the love from the older generation to the next generations, and also the responsibility on the part of the children to carry on the traditions. To be able to bring luck and fortune to the next generations is considered a virtue according to traditional values which should be passed from generation to generation.

(In English): The same article in The Straits Times that I read, and I quote: "those who do not desire to support the older generation (must) consider that they themselves have, in fact, been supported by this very generation many times over. Would young people have been able to enjoy the quality education, the vibrant economy, the high-paying jobs Singapore has to offer if not for the values and revenue generated by the work put in by those who came before them? Paying more to support the elderly is merely a form of giving back… paying more now would mean paying less in future because it prevents additional problems arising in future which would require even more revenue-raising... policies to improve the healthcare infrastructure and social safety net will not just ensure better care for today's elderly but also ensure there are proper systems put in place to meet the needs of tomorrow's elderly. Although more top-ups would be needed to maintain these systems, the fact that these systems would already be in place will make things a lot easier for the elderly of tomorrow. Young people are, in fact, indirectly contributing to their own future care."

Next, I would like to voice my support for the plan to borrow for new infrastructure projects. Currently, some Statutory Boards are already borrowing, but doing so on a bigger scale is certainly the way forward. As the Minister had pointed out, this would help to preserve our Reserves while spreading the costs over many years. It will benefit other generations, too.

With Singapore’s triple-A credit rating, we will be able to attract strong interest and promote our local bond market. I would like to ask the Minister if the bonds will only be sold to institutions or be open to individual investors as well for Singaporeans to participate. If so, we have to be selective about which projects to be made accessible to the man-in-the-street. Not all projects will be suitable for individual investors.

For projects involving participation across borders, such as Changi Airport Terminal 5, the Kuala Lumpur (KL)-Singapore High Speed Rail, the Johor Bahru (JB)-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link, foreign entities and investors should certainly be allowed to participate and subscribe. However, for bonds to finance projects like local transportation, we have to be careful that we are not too commercialised in our offerings.

I agree that it is important to keep half of our earnings from our Reserves. We must be mindful to grow it not only for ourselves but also for our future generations, as we earn the substantial interest income in perpetuity.

Having a large, ever-expanding pile of Reserves is our best guarantee against an uncertain future. It is the mountain backing up our Singapore dollar, ensuring its stability and strength. The advantages include affordable imported goods and the leeway to draw upon these savings in times of emergencies.

It is important to remind ourselves and the younger generation that during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, with our Reserves, the Government could back the $150 billion guarantee for all bank deposits here and, in 2009, funded the $4 billion Jobs Credit Scheme and Special Risk-Sharing Initiative.

When foreigners know that we have a good fiscal system, a prudent and responsible Government, they will not speculate against our currency. Our reputation has meant the Singapore passport has been rated the most powerful in the world.

Spending is easier than saving. We have to continue our public education effort to teach Singaporeans the value of preserving and growing our national piggy bank – our Reserves.

Yesterday, our hon Members have suggested that we use part of the land sale to finance recurrent expenditures. It may be good to know the pros and cons of the proposal. From the prudent and disciplined financial planning angle, the proposal sounds similar to the concept of reducing mortgage policy, enabling long-term asset to meet the recurrent expenditure for retirement needs. So, one must know, and I do not think Singapore is going into retirement. Hence, one may ask whether it is the best policy as we need to work together to bring many more good years together to our children, to our next generation and to Singaporeans. In the finance industry, even if you ask for a short-term loan using a long-term asset, a bank or lender would ask for a repayment plan for this short-term loan. And this is also one of their prime conditions for granting approval.

Presently, there are other taxes, such as Buyer’s Stamp Duty (BSD), Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) and Additional Seller's Stamp Duty (ASSD), that will help us preserve our capital while allowing revenue to fund for social expenditure, such as the many different types of subsidy and special HDB CPF grants for our younger generation to buy HDB flats. For retirees, there are also many options, such as the Lease Buyback Scheme, to support their retirement.

On that note, may I ask the Minister if for every dollar paid by the low-income group, they will get $4 or more in benefit, in return? Likewise, for every dollar spent by the middle-income group, they will get back $2 or more in benefit, in return. With that, I support the Budget.

I know Member Lee Yi Shyan encouraged us to use more Mandarin, but I am not sure whether toggling back and forth is what he meant. But thank you to Mr Gan for keeping our interpreters on the ball. Mr Png Eng Huat.

Sir, I believe that Mr Png has asked for excuse from Speaker because he has a family matter to attend to urgently.

Okay. Miss Cheryl Chan.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget. Minister Heng Swee Keat referred to the 2018 Budget as a strategic and integrated financial plan for the long term. Singapore has long prided itself for planning with a long horizon and being prudent with our fiscal spending, to the extent that some sceptics may say we are very conservative.

In the 2018 Budget, the statistics provided and plans announced are all focused to meet the projected needs in 2030. We know there are technological shifts that will impact our economy, an ageing population looms and we need to foster a caring society to strengthen the social aspects supplementing the Government’s efforts. But beyond awareness of trends, surely, we must do something about it.

When I first began working, I used to ask myself what is Singapore's Budget about and how does it impact me? What is this annual ritual that gets people talking and fussing around the same time of the year? Like others, short-term handouts and schemes that directly impact us are what we are looking out for. Longer-term plans that are announced usually do not retain in our thoughts for very long. After all, the Finance Minister announces many initiatives or schemes in each annual Budget. To many, the crux of the Budget is how much will I receive and how much will the Government take in return? Herein lies the problem. To many, they view our Budget on a transactional basis rather than one that is about participative nation-building.

Recently, I had a dialogue with a group of 30 youths and young working adults. At the dialogue, we did an instant poll to understand what concerns them most about their future and Singapore. The results showed three areas of concern: one, future uncertainty – their jobs and Singapore's economy; two, cost of living; and three, shrinking family support.

Upon further discussion, I understood where their concerns arise from. It is heartening to know that some of our younger generation do look forward to understanding what Singapore’s future is and think about how their future fits in the big picture. Given that Singapore is a mature economy and the nature of jobs are rapidly changing, many are worried whether the economy can sustain at healthy rates and jobs remain available over time.

Unless we maintain a high employment rate and have reasonable income growing in line with inflation, it will be difficult for the working class to manage their living costs, contribute for future needs and save adequately for retirement.

For a developed economy to maintain a sustainable growth rate of 1% to 3% is not an easy feat. Today, our competition is no longer local. The real competition is dynamic and beyond our shores. Regional, global markets with substantive scale and an active hunt for talents are what constitute our competition. As workers, we cannot rest on our laurels and expect jobs to remain status quo or to remain readily available for us. Instead, creating opportunities, being innovative and staying relevant are the new normal that we must learn to adapt to. We must possess the passion and drive to hunt for the next new and big thing. Thus, the need for constant upgrading of job skills, value adding in our work scope have readily become a requirement on our part to keep abreast with time.

Let me share a personal account of my own. Many of you know that traditional engineering jobs involve extensive work with long hours. When I started out as a fresh engineer, there were many situations that I encountered which are not taught in books. It seemed there were always new applications to learn, new situations to grapple with that required me to think on my own feet. I recalled one incident where I was struggling and about to give up. This was what my then line manager told me: "Do not shy away from the issues. Be keen to learn or do more. Always think and go beyond your assigned tasks, continue to evolve, build your skills frequently as the company or even the global market changes. Someday, you will realise that you are the ultimate beneficiary of all the knowledge and skills that you have acquired in the process." I am glad to have heeded his advice as it has been one of the most practical and useful advice and has since been my mantra for skills upgrade and constant learning even before SkillsFuture emerged.

It has been one and a half years since the economic restructuring efforts began. To have a future-ready economy, we need more than just future-ready workers. The companies also need to be forward-looking and continue in job creation. Can Minister Heng provide more insights on how our economic restructuring efforts have been, and how we have been encouraging partnerships in the private sector? Have more jobs been created in different sectors, particularly for those in the middle-age group to senior workers?

In this Budget, much has been spoken about seniors aged 65 and above. From 500,000 seniors today to 900,000 by 2030, this is not an insignificant increase in a decade. Earlier this month, a Motion about strengthening support for seniors was raised in this House. In the Motion, we said that we should treasure and value our seniors, leverage and build upon the knowledge that they possess. But where senior workers are concerned, I do not think the society has fully embraced this.

It is true that skills gaps do exist in the marketplace today. But when the workers are equipped with new skills, will the industry hire those without prior direct experience or in the same field? I feel that the largest gap in the restructuring efforts lies with the current hiring process. Tripartite efforts with the private and public sectors are a necessary partnership. However, beyond encouragement from the Government, jobs creation for middle-age and senior workers can never be effected without a fundamental shift in the hiring process.

Today, hiring managers are very focused on past relevant experience and not the potential or the value-add that each individual candidate can bring to the job. This will limit how we can leverage the skills of individuals in adapting to uncertainty at the workplace. I believe this is also one of the factors that stereotype and keep many in the mindset assuming older workers are a burden, whether in terms of health, efficiency or knowledge.

Way back in 1998, Amazon Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Jeff Bezos hired people with a different perspective. Before he says yes to a new hire, there are three typical questions that he would ask: one, will you admire this person? Two, will this person raise the average level of effectiveness of the group they are entering? Three, along what dimension might this person be a superstar? Today, these questions remain relevant in hiring. He focuses on the value the individual can bring to the team, rather than what they have done in the past.

With a limited and ageing workforce, I urge all hiring managers across the industries to keep an open mind, begin rethinking and take concrete actions around this topic, as you, the hiring managers, are the most direct and effective channel to create such change that we truly need in retaining the talents of both young and old.

Apart from the various initiatives, like Place-and-Train, Adapt and Grow, that help some mid-career switchers or displaced workers, what more can be done? I suggest that the public and private sectors consider allocating some workdays off for their staff to attend relevant upgrading classes, or for collaboration between companies and course providers to offer customised courses in modules within the companies or the same industry in order to benefit more workers.

As we move from growth to sustainability for the future, have we, as a country and Government, done sufficiently to enable this? For sustainable outcomes, I believe it is prejudiced to measure the outcomes purely on monetary terms. I would view this from three dimensions.

First, we are building a social ecosystem, not an infrastructure. It is right to begin with the end game in mind. This will necessitate the need to plan, design and build ahead of demand. Take today’s healthcare in context, our healthcare capacity has yet to achieve an optimal point that supports all near-term needs, much less the future. As we build more hospitals, nursing homes and care centres, it is equally important to look beyond the hardware infrastructure. It is the holistic care ecosystem that we want our seniors to be able to age successfully in.

What this means is that we must radically initiate at least one generation of healthy active seniors, where their needs are not dependent on healthcare infrastructure to manage multiple chronic illnesses or sickly conditions. Instead, we want to build an ecosystem that provides quality social care that caters for their well-being, one which is less medically dependent as the seniors are socially active and mentally healthy. Such an ecosystem will require investments of a different scale and in communal activities where the community or corporate organisations can be more actively involved.

Second, continuous improvement on value-for-money projects. Over time, we are seeing more value-for-money projects which are large in both physical and financial scale. We often raise questions when large expenditures are in view. Naturally, people will look immediately to cost-cutting measures and easily follow the pursuit of low-cost solutions when, in fact, what we need is a balance between cost effectiveness and execution efficiency.

On one hand, we understand the need to constantly scrutinise the projects under planning and development. We know the need to check whether projects are within budget, on time or whether any base parameters have changed with time and thus requiring adjustments to serve the primary purpose. On the other hand, as projects become more complex, what is not obvious and easily overlooked is how effective have we coordinated the execution efforts as a project team. How then, in the long run, can we ensure there is no wastage that collectively delivers more value than us purely squeezing the last dollar?

Lastly, the changing fabric of our social safety net. With shrinking family sizes, the nature of support required also evolves. Over time, the social safety net may not be meant only for the low-income bracket. We should consider if strengthening this net signifies some intervention for the middle working class. As we continue to ensure social mobility is a key pillar within our society, the changing demographics do justify the need of changing the fabric of our safety net to give it the composite strength, without which, it can be difficult for working family members, especially those who are the sole caregiver, to juggle between their work, children and caring for aged parents without external support.

I would like to ask if the Ministries will consider policy changes in these areas. First, to mandate that companies allow employees to convert unused medical leave to family care leave or eldercare leave for their immediate family members. Second, to enhance tax relief to children who are not living with their parents but are the primary caregivers. Third, to consider modelling a time bank incentive scheme that provides rebates or care options for families who have contributed their time for other elderly within the community when they are still able. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would conclude in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, as a Singaporean, everyone has a part to play for the country’s development. We need to plan ahead and think not only for ourselves, but also for the future generation.

However, the country's future development is full of challenges. How can we sustain the multifaceted developments without burdening the next generation? The short answer is: we must take charge of our lives and be responsible for our own future first.

Next, we will plan for our family’s future and work hard for it to create a better life. Hence, we should uphold the same principle, work hard and build strong reserves for future generations. As the saying goes, "The forefathers plant the trees and the descendants enjoy the shades".

At the same time, we should have foresights to plan ahead and build more with less resources. Our forefathers did exactly that, and here we are today, enjoying the fruits of their labour.

This is not a rhetorical question, but one that makes us think about the need for wealth preservation and beyond our entitlements. Unless we are prepared to do this for our children and grandchildren, the urge to tap on the Reserves and current surplus will always be tempting.

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Minister Heng Swee Keat for sharing with us Budget 2018. It is a prudent and inclusive Budget that aptly refocuses our attention on providing for the under-served and the elderly and looking at how taxes can help supplement Government revenues so that we are able to fund much needed and increasing social spending.

I support the Budget, but I also wish to speak on three areas that I feel we need to take a closer look at, whether in this Budget or future ones. These areas are: one, older workers; two, women and flexi-work; and three, making taxes even more progressive.

One, older workers. In an earlier Sitting this month, some of our esteemed Members in the House filed a Members' Motion on the elderly, which is timely. I had the privilege of speaking on the Motion, and I wish to reiterate some of the points I raised then here.

Sir, the elderly among us are largely an untapped source of invaluable knowledge, experience and human resource. While I applaud the numerous schemes, programmes and initiatives to retrain older workers to help them reskill or cross-skill or deep-skill, what they also need are beyond skills and training. More importantly, our older workers need opportunities – opportunities to be given continued employment or job redesign or even opportunities to be mentors to younger workers. The amount of knowledge, wisdom and experience they have garnered over years of working should be put to better use, specifically for our younger workers to learn from.

To elaborate, for older workers who may not be able to carry on with work that is rather physically demanding, they can undergo job redesign to become mentors or trainers to younger workers. The organisation they work in can redeploy them as mentors or trainers who are able to train within the context and institutional knowledge of the organisation and be granted SkillsFuture grants for employee training, rather than engaging external training vendors who may deploy trainers who lack the experience, the contextual understanding or institutional knowledge of the organisation.

Another example is to retrain our older workers who are keen to explore working in a different industry, to be trained as early childhood teaching assistants or educarers, for example. I have brought this up before in this House. Personally, I believe that older persons have much more patience to work with young children, compared to their younger counterparts. Other than patience to nurture and help take care of the young children, it also provides the older persons an opportunity to laugh at the antics of the young ones and feel young again.

In 2016, Bangor University in the UK carried out an experiment in letting the elderly in a seniors day care centre and young children in Plant Parciau nursery in Caernarfon, Wales, a childcare centre, to interact and spend time together over several days. It was found that, for the seniors, they felt happier and had a better sense of well-being. For the young children, significant benefits were: one, there was an improvement in learning language, particularly dialects, and, in this case, it was Welsh; and two, a boost in their confidence levels. This was because the children had almost undivided attention and encouragement by their elderly friends as they played.

I am heartened that our Government is already piloting the co-location of childcare and elderly care centres over the next few years. However, I would also implore the Government to ensure the employment of more older workers in these dual-service care centres.

There are many jobs that provide meaningful work for older Singaporeans to do, be it in mentoring, training or caregiving, beyond menial work, such as cardboard collecting or cleaning jobs, that some of our seniors feel they are destined to do once they reach their late 50s or early 60s.

On the subject of continued employment of older workers, I would urge the Government to review the CPF contribution rates for employees above 55 years old. Currently, once a worker hits 56 years old, their employer CPF contribution is slashed from 17% to 13%, while their employee CPF contribution is cut from 20% to 13%. In total, there is a drastic cut of 11% in CPF contribution overall. That is a huge cut when you cross 55 to 56 years old.

I would propose that the CPF contributions not be cut until much later, say, when they are at least 60 years old. It does not make sense that when our average life expectancy is at least 80 years old, our CPF contribution rates are cut at 56 years old. It is too premature.

Alternatively, if not cutting the CPF contribution rates may render our older workers less attractive to be employed, then at least make the reduction progressive over four or five years, rather than the drastic 11% cut in just over one year.

With more Singaporeans marrying later and having children later, it is quite inevitable that at age 55 or 56, we would still be supporting school-going children and elderly parents, as well as financing our housing loans.

Women and flexi-work. The proportion of women who are actively working has been almost constant around 60% for the past few years. In comparison, the proportion of men who are actively working is around 75%.

There are various reasons that women may choose not to work or be employed. These reasons range from childcare or elderly care responsibilities, to the decision to have a better work-life balance and work from home on a flexi-work basis. Whatever the reasons, sufficient support must be given to our women in managing their numerous responsibilities.

In addition, we need to continue our push to ensure better parity between men and women, be it in terms of salaries earned or in terms of familial responsibilities. Men cannot be expected to always earn more than women in the household. And women cannot be expected to take care of the family more than the men in the family.

Another concern that I have is that women are still not seen as a valuable source of manpower in the workplace. Looking at the manpower statistics of 2017, there are still more women earning lower salaries compared to men. I will speak about this in the COS debates.

While salaries are competitive and are based on merit and experience, there is still much that the Government can do to lead by example in closing the income gap between men and women, and in changing the perception of what women and men are capable of doing in the workplace. For instance, there can be more women appointed to senior Civil Service or Administrative Service positions, the boards of companies and organisations, and even as ambassadors to other countries or to international organisations.

Other than appointments, the Government would also need to lead by example in allowing for more flexi-work for public sector and Civil Service employees, for both male and female employees. Currently, flexi-work is more widely accepted in the teaching service. This would send two very significant signals. One, that flexi-work is acceptable and can still render effective contribution at work; and two, that flexi-work is meant for both men and women, so that they are able to better manage work and familial responsibilities.

Three, making taxes more progressive. Taxes seem to weigh heavily on the minds of many Singaporeans, even in the lead up to the Budget announcement. Many have been worried about possible increase of the GST, and an increase in personal or corporate income tax rates.

I am aware that the last increment in personal income tax rates came into effect for year of assessment 2017, where those whose assessable income is more than $320,000 are taxed at 22%. Comparing similar economies as Singapore, that is Taiwan and Hong Kong, there is room for personal income tax rates for high-income earners to increase.

In Taiwan, those whose assessable income is between S$105,000 to almost S$200,000, have to pay a personal income tax rate of 30%. Those whose assessable income is more than S$200,000 would have to pay a maximum personal income tax rate of 40%.

In Hong Kong, the maximum personal income tax rate is 17% and this is applicable to those whose assessable income is more than S$33,000. Hence, I feel there is room to increase the personal income tax rates for higher income earners.

For instance, those whose assessable income is more than $320,000 and up to $500,000, can be charged a personal income tax rate of 22%. Those whose assessable income is more than $500,000 and up to $1 million can be charged a personal income tax rate of 24%. Those whose assessable income is more than $1 million can be charged a personal income tax rate of 26%.

In comparison, in Malaysia, the maximum personal income tax rate is 28% for those whose assessable income is more than RM1 million or S$335,000. Another comparison, in Taiwan, the maximum personal income tax rate is 40% for those who assessable income is more than S$203,000.

Other than increasing personal income tax rates for higher-income earners, the Government can review the corporate tax rates, particularly for multinational corporations (MNCs) or large firms. The current corporate tax rate for Singapore is 17%, flat. Comparatively, the rate for Taiwan is 17% while that for Hong Kong is 16.5%. While it may make it less competitive for Singapore to increase our corporate tax rate across the board, we can consider making it more progressive.

For MNCs or large firms, especially those that are earning annual revenues of more than $1 billion annually, which are among the top 1,000 earning firms in Singapore, they can be charged a higher corporate tax rate. These MNCs or large firms that are earning in excess of $1 billion annually, can be charged a corporate tax rate of 17.5% to 18%. It is a small increase, in order to keep Singapore globally competitive for businesses, but the revenue that can be generated to fund Government expenditure and social spending is significant even with this half to one percentage point increase.

Since personal income tax has already been made progressive, corporate income tax should also be made progressive, rather than the current flat rate that benefits high income earning MNCs or large firms significantly more than smaller firms.

For the imminent GST change, I can understand the need for the increase. However, the GST increment should be made gradual. For instance, the GST can be increased 1% for one to two years, then another 1% for the next one to two years. This staggered increment will give people more time to adjust to the increased GST and better manage their finances and expenses.

In addition, I would implore the Government to look at how GST for e-commerce, especially in the buying and selling of luxury items, such as branded bags and accessories, can be enforced and collected. While I do not have the data on this, I believe there is a substantial amount of revenue lost through e-commerce transactions, especially for large quantum amounts involving branded items.

There is still room for tax revenues to increase to front higher and increasing social spending, and I hope the Government will explore the suggestions I have made, even if not for this year's Budget, then for future ones. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Ganesh Rajaram.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak in this Budget Debate.