Hansard, Wednesday, 6 March 2013

Order. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of Standing Order 92, I have fixed the times for the conclusion of consideration of the heads of expenditure in the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 2013/2014 in the Committee of Supply.

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 sitting times of the Committee of Supply.

Members have been notified that the sittings on the allotted days of 7 and 8 March commence at 12.00 noon, and the sittings on 11 to 15 March commence at 11.00 am. Additionally, pursuant to Standing Order 91(3)(a), I have extended the time for the sitting on these allotted days to 7.30 pm on each day.

The "guillotine" times I have fixed have been notified to hon Members and will appear in the Official Report. [Please refer to Annex 1.] Order. Questions for Oral Answer.

Mdm Speaker, do we have a quorum?

[(proc text) Thereupon, a count was made. (proc text)]

Twenty five Members are required for the quorum. Eighteen Members are present. Ring the division bells.

[(proc text) Members summoned into Chamber as if for a division. (proc text)]

There are now 25 Members present in the Chamber. A quorum is now present. Asst Prof Tan.

Page: 8

1 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the Government's strategy in seeking Singaporeans' buy-in for the Population White Paper and land use plan; and (b) whether the Government will issue regular updates on progress made in the key areas in order to build trust and confidence in the roadmap to address Singapore's demographic challenge.

Mdm Speaker, following an extensive debate on the Population White Paper and land use plan, Parliament passed an amended Motion that reflects the concerns of Singaporeans, and calls on the Government to work on five key areas.

First, to resolve the current infrastructure strains.

Second, to develop infrastructure ahead of demand, to meet Singapore's future infrastructure needs and build in a buffer where possible. In the case of infrastructure, it is better to build more than we need, rather than be tight in the future.

Third, focus on encouraging Singaporeans to marry and have more children as a key priority, in order to attain a stable and sustainable citizen population even as our baby boomer generation moves into their silver years between now and 2030.

Fourth, ensure that the benefits of our policies flow to Singaporeans, while slowing down the growth of foreign labour.

Fifth, review our population policies and assumptions in the medium term and ensure that our policies take into account the changing needs of Singapore and Singaporeans.

We will continue to study options and engage Singaporeans on population and its related issues on multiple fronts, including through the Our Singapore

Page: 9

Conversation and other forums.

We will press on with delivering improvements to our infrastructure, especially housing and transport. We will support businesses in their efforts to increase productivity and reduce reliance on foreign manpower. We will also review policies to ensure inclusive and quality growth that benefits Singaporeans.

Madam, this year's Budget has introduced further substantive steps to put these into effect, including the new marriage and parenthood measures and major improvements to the pre-school sector; tightening of foreign worker levies, dependency ratios, and eligibility criteria; enhanced support to help companies upgrade productivity; the Wage Credit Scheme and significantly enhanced Workfare Income Supplement.

As we continue to engage Singaporeans and work together on policies, address and overcome the specific and practical problems we face and deliver on programmes to benefit Singaporeans, we hope to strengthen trust and consensus among Singaporeans on the future that we must build together.

The Government will continue to provide regular updates on the progress of proposals in the Population White Paper and Land Use Plan, through the release of studies, reports and announcements. We are also working towards a medium-term review before 2020.

Madam, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his reply. I am assured that the Government is taking the matter seriously. I think the debate was rather divisive, but I believe immigration is an imperative. My follow-up question relates to how the Government would seek to encourage Singaporeans to keep an open mind as I think that is important. We are not asking Singaporeans to be wedded to a "yes" or a "no" position, but rather how we can continue to strengthen trust and consensus given that immigration is an imperative, relating fundamentally to the well being of our society.

Mdm Speaker, I certainly agree Asst Prof Tan. The ageing population issue that we face is a very major one. It is a one-off problem which we are facing as a result of the very large Baby Boomer generation, spread over about 15 to 18 years, from the early 1950s to the mid 1960s. This is now coming through our system. We have to make preparations for that future. If we want to maintain a stable, energetic and able population for Singapore

Page: 10

and Singaporeans into the future, and be able to support and make sure that our seniors in these coming two decades are able to look after themselves, are well looked after by their children and by our nation, then we have to shape those policies today. I am glad that the debate has focused attention on this very critical issue and also the range of options and choices that we have from those which are on both ends of the spectrum. We will continue to make sure that we discuss this as we go into the future. We hope that as we go along, Singaporeans will understand the issues and choices that we face, better.

Asst Prof Tan, the next question.

2 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the emergency response by SMRT and the Singapore Civil Defence Force to the Newton MRT station fire on 13 February 2013, including the fire alarm system and evacuation procedures; and (b) whether the inspection, maintenance and operations requirements of the rail network can be made more robust for the protection of commuters and employees.

Mdm Speaker, let me assure Members that the safety of passengers in our MRT system is of utmost importance. Therefore, any incident of a fire is taken extremely seriously, even if in this case, the fire was small and localised in the tunnel off Newton station.

I have been briefed on the preliminary findings by SMRT and LTA. I have made clear to both agencies that I expect a thorough investigation to find out the root cause of the fire, and to learn useful lessons on how we can better manage similar incidents in the future, so that we can improve on passenger safety. Both SMRT and LTA will also look into preventive measures.

At this juncture, what we have established is that the fire was caused by a short circuit, most likely due to cable insulation issues. This will be confirmed by laboratory tests which should conclude in the coming few weeks. As an immediate measure, the cables at the affected stretch have been replaced. SMRT has also conducted a complete insulation test of all underground traction cables and stepped up its insulation checks on similar installations at all tunnels.

Page: 11

SCDF took swift action to put out the fire and fortunately, there were no injuries to commuters, or serious damage to the MRT system. The regular fire and rescue emergency exercises jointly held by SCDF, LTA and the operators helped in this regard. Nonetheless, we should await the investigations' findings and improve our incident management plans where needed.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister for Transport a follow-up question. I understand that this is not the first fire at Newton MRT Station. I was rather concerned to see that passengers were milling around the train platforms and were also taking photographs that were eventually uploaded on social media websites. I do not know whether the assessment was that it was a small fire and so there was no need to unnecessarily alarm passengers. But is that the protocol? Would that not be somewhat dangerous, given that it is hard to ascertain how serious a fire is, especially in an enclosed area?

Mdm Speaker, the Member is right in that this was not the first fire at Newton Station. The last was in 2004, which incidentally was also the last incident in the MRT system. The passengers in this case were ushered as quickly as possible out of the station, contrary to impressions that they were allowed to mill around and so on. Whether we can effectively prevent any passenger from taking a photograph if they choose to do so is something that needs to be looked further into.

3 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he can provide data on (i) the share of total wages in Singapore's GDP, averaged over each decade from 1970 to 2009; and (ii) the ratio of labour income (wages) to profits earned by the private sector in each of these decades.

Mdm Speaker, data on total wages and profits, compiled under the income approach to measuring GDP, are only available from 1980 onwards. In the 1980s, the wage share of GDP averaged at 41.8%. This rose slightly to 41.9% in the 1990s and further to 42.5% between 2000 and 2009.

Page: 12

A breakdown of the data into wages and profits for the private sector is not available due to data limitations. Nonetheless, for the economy as a whole, the ratio of wages to profits has remained broadly unchanged, averaging 0.83, 0.86 and 0.85 in the 1980s, 1990s, and between 2000 and 2009 respectively.

Order. End of Question Time.

[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [25 February 2013], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014." – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance]. (proc text)]

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

Madam, I commend the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister for a caring Budget. It shows that the Government cares for the concerns of ordinary citizens. At a time when we are focusing so much attention on the details of the Budget, it would be good to step back and remind ourselves what we are ultimately trying to achieve.

There are many thoughtful proposals for ways to improve things, to transform our economy. These are the ways and means. To what end?

An answer to that central question can be found in the Finance Minister's speech when he sketched out the common vision which has emerged from Our Singapore Conversation platforms. To summarise: a home with a strong Singaporean identity and sense of belonging. A Singapore with affordable living and good jobs that enables a more fulfilling pace of life. A society that values family ties, takes care of the disadvantaged, and helps our seniors to age with dignity.

With that in mind, I would like to focus on three areas: first, the quest for a higher quality of life; second, the plight of the vulnerable groups; and third, an inclusive and sustainable transport system. I will conclude with some thoughts

Page: 13

on national identity.

Madam, the Budget signals yet another shift to transform our economy. But will the transformation improve our general sense of well-being as a society and make us proud to be Singaporeans with a strong sense of belonging?

Increasingly, as our country becomes more developed, such questions become more urgent. Our people want a better quality of life, not just in terms of income, jobs and housing, but also in the intangible aspects. There is a growing sense that the high and rising per capita income has not provided Singaporeans with the sense of well-being they desire.

Going by the objective indicators of well-being such as those used the UN Human Development Index – Singapore scores very high globally. But when it comes to surveys that attempt to measure subjective well-being, the picture is less assuring.

Several recent surveys showed that Singapore workers notched the highest number of hours worked per year, worldwide. They also suffered the highest employee burnout rate in the region.

Madam, we have often spoken about the importance of helping our workers to enjoy a work-life balance, but the reality on the ground is that the demand for productivity, to meet growth targets, to cut costs, to take on multiple tasks, is incessant and is being translated to longer hours and more stress for our workers.

We will be injecting even more stress into society if we continue to encourage Singaporeans to marry early, have more kids, work hard, and then fail to create a strong and consistent work culture which supports families. Already, divorces are on the rise and so is single parenthood.

Many residents tell me they want a better work-life balance. They want to join our community activities, which will give them a sense of belonging and connectedness to the community – but they are often just too busy and too tired when they get home late from work. They desire the kampong spirit. Yet their hectic lifestyles are making it harder and harder for them to help create this.

Madam, helping our citizens to achieve a good work-life balance is essential if we are serious about boosting the birth rate, making this country more

Page: 14

liveable and giving Singaporeans a greater sense of belonging.

We need to change the mindset that working longer hours means that one is more productive. The culture of long hours no longer fits the economy, which must boost creativity and productivity.

We need to soften the national narrative that has been instilled in us for decades – that Singapore has no room for complacency. We have to work hard, or die. Perhaps it is time for a new narrative: work smart, live well; work hard, live well.

We need to devise more creative ways of working hard and working smart that challenge the existing stereotype of the long commute to work, long hours at work and time spent away from the family. One way to do this is to force the pace of companies offering flexible working arrangements.

Madam, in my speech in Parliament in 2004, I had called for flexi-work to be legislated, to give the right for eligible employees to request for flexible work arrangements and for employers to have a duty to consider this request.

Giving both men and women this right will help drive a culture shift in the workplace. It benefits employees who may otherwise feel they have no choice but to leave employment and benefits employers who retain skilled and experienced staff. It also benefits the wider community and economy by providing pathways for increased workforce participation and social inclusion. Unless the right to apply to work flexibly is enshrined in law, companies will continue to resist the request to provide flexible work arrangements.

When I first made the call in 2004, it did not receive much open support. Perhaps it was ahead of its time. But I am glad that my proposal on this was taken up recently by the PAP Women's Wing in its latest position paper and that it is being discussed seriously. If I may add, flexi-work can also help to ease the congestion on our public transport and roads.

I support the call of hon Member Janil Puthucheary yesterday for free travel on public transport before peak hours. However, for a deep cultural shift, this move needs to be accompanied with flexi-work. If workers go to work at 7.30 am, they should be able to leave by 3.30 pm. Otherwise, it will just mean longer work hours and not necessarily productive. Employers should also create more part-time options, with fair wages.

Page: 15

In this regard, I welcome the Wage Credit Scheme to help companies to restructure, increase productivity and raise the salaries of its workers. It is vital, however, to ensure that employers are indeed sharing the productivity gains with workers and not just using them to fatten the bottomlines of the companies, a point also made by several Members yesterday.

It is not the job of the Government to enrich companies and their shareholders. Why should the taxpayer subsidise Scrooge employers? But it is the job of Government to ensure that, as it pushes the pace of restructuring, the vulnerable groups have a life line and a safety net. Particularly vulnerable in this environment are our older low-skilled workers.

Madam, older workers often find it hard to secure alternative jobs, leading to a rise in jobless older workers over the years. The share of unemployed workers in their 50s and above tripled from 7.3% in 1992 to 22.4% in 2010. They also tend to be out of work for a longer period while looking for a job – three months for those aged 50 and above.

When they do find a job, it tends to be of the low-wage variety. Last year, six in 10 residents working as production and transport operators, cleaners and labourers were aged 50 and above. These trends need greater focus. They suggest that because most of these low-skilled workers are older, opportunities for retraining and job options would be seriously restricted if they were to lose their current position.

We need to assure our older workers that even as companies restructure, they will have a place in our workforce with decent and fair wages. We often hear older Singaporeans asserting that employers discriminate against them. We must face this squarely. Ageism is as bad as racism and sexism. We need new solutions to overcome mismatches in our job market and to protect our vulnerable groups from being exploited.

We see an increasing number of such older workers at our Meet-the-People Session (MPS). I have a resident, Mr Koh who is 72, earning about $1,400 as a security officer. Although he has various medical problems, he still works hard and works 12 hour shifts to pay his bills and support his ailing wife. His security company paid him irregularly at one period. So, in desperation, he turned to moneylenders to cover his bills. This decision is haunting him now and we are helping him. What his case highlights is how vulnerable our elderly can be and their sense of powerlessness in the marketplace. Many of the outsourced low-

Page: 16

wage workers, who work for subcontractors, are not unionised.

In this regard, I am heartened by the Government's measures to pay special attention to our seniors. I welcome the expanded coverage of the WIS and also the move to increase the cash portion in the WIS payout, something I have been asking for in my previous speeches. But has it gone far enough?

Given the higher proportion of older workers in these low-wage jobs, we should target a larger payout towards those aged above 60 – and with 60% in cash and 40% in CPF. They have worked to build up Singapore and we should make life a little easier for them if we can.

Madam, sometimes it is hard to accept that there could be people among us who earn so little yet work so hard at jobs that few would want to do – we feel it is injustice. But I take heart from this Budget – it is clear that we do not believe in leaving them to the mercies of the market. The harsh global marketplace is a fact of life, but we can soften it with a shared sense of responsibility in lifting up their lot and respecting the dignity of each individual human being.

To ensure they are not exploited and that their wages are decent, it would be useful to set a living wage – that is, an income which allow for the full participation of workers and their families in the economic, social and community life.

The living wage is usually calculated according to the basic cost of living in the country. It can provide an informal benchmark. It is not to be a legally enforceable minimum level of pay. This would also help us to assess if employers are paying their workers unreasonably, just because they could get away with it, and then benefit from taxpayers who top up the low salaries of their workers with WCS and WIS. It seems to me that basic pay of the low-wage workers have been set too low for too long and there needs to be an adjustment.

Last night, at my MPS, a coffeeshop owner came to see me about hiring foreign workers to work as cleaners. He said Singaporeans were not reliable, their turnover is high and some just do not turn up for work. They do not want to work the long eight- to 12-hour shifts. This is in contrast to foreign workers, he added, who are on fixed-term contracts and so form a stable pool of workers.

I asked him how much he pays the Singaporean workers. He said the market rate is about $5 to $6 an hour for such jobs. I asked him if he would

Page: 17

increase the rates, and may be shorten the hours, take advantage of the new WCS and other Government schemes, so that more Singaporeans can take on the job. I also added that, with better pay and hours, it could improve morale, lower the staff turnover, reduce absenteeism and improve customer service. But he did not look convinced.

Madam, for the Budget measures to work, we need a mindset shift, from both employers, and also workers.

Madam, another key prong of ensuring the well-being of our society is to invest more in public infrastructure to increase sustainability and liveability. Road congestion is an increasing problem in Singapore.

I applaud the Finance Minister's announcement that LTA will be tendering out routes to private operators. I asked for this in Parliament last year. The Members in Tampines have been lobbying for this behind the scenes for some years now, as we have been frustrated by some feeder bus services in Tampines, especially service 291 in my division. To LTA's credit, it has been on the ground with us to help resolve the problems, increasing the frequency and capacity of the bus services, but the problem remains because of the long routes taken and the road congestion at peak hours. I hope that, by having private operators, LTA can experiment with mini-buses running shorter and more frequent loops at peak hours within the town – and starting with Tampines.

Beyond public transport, we need to take a fresh look at cycling as a mode of transport. Cycling offers multiple benefits, including easing road congestion and pollution, improving health and reducing pressure on our infrastructure and public transport systems. Cycling can help Singapore achieve its objective of increasing sustainable transport and move away from a car culture. We need a long-term, sustained and consistent investment and a strategy to move cycling forward.

To make real headway, it is vital to ramp up cycling infrastructure to support cycle-rail integration and community cycling and to ensure greater safety for users. We should take a leaf out of New York's example – another high-density city. It was awarded the Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize last year. The city has redesigned its streets and roads to provide greater space and safety to cyclists and to pedestrians.

Cycling has become increasingly popular in New York. In fact, the number of New Yorkers who cycle to work and school has quadrupled in the past 10

Page: 18

years. To increase safety, New York has installed more than 430 km of bike lanes in its city. It has just launched its bike share scheme. These initiatives not only create a greener New York, but also make the city more liveable and more innovative.

In conclusion, for me, the bottom-line question is: what kind of society are we creating? What kind of Singapore?

There has been some debate lately about S Rajaratnam's ideas on national identity, immigrants and the Singapore Core. The discussion is of particular interest to me, being Mr Rajaratnam's biographer. In all his years fighting for his ideal of a Singaporean Singapore, he was consistent in his fundamental belief that Singapore, as an immigrant and multiracial society, needs a common national identity to unite the people. He believed in the ability of our people to transcend their racial, cultural and religious divisions to create a shared national identity, to which they give their primary loyalty. For him, this was an act of will and faith. He did not differentiate between old and new citizens, core and not core; he differentiated them on the basis of their values. It does not matter where you were born, it does not matter the colour of your skin, the texture of your hair, the accent in your voice. What matters is that your first and last loyalty is to Singapore. He believed in this completely because he himself had experienced the transformation in his own life.

He was born in Jaffna, Sri Lanka. He grew up in Seremban, Malaya. At age 19, he came to Singapore for one year to take his matriculation examinations. When he was 20, he left Malaya for London to study law. He ended up staying in London for 12 years. He returned to Malaya only at the age of 32 and began living and working in Singapore only from that point on.

In one lifetime, he was a Sri Lankan, a Malayan who was a British subject, then a Malaysian, and finally a Singaporean. Yet he had no trouble identifying with Singapore and its causes, and struggling and suffering for them as a founding leader of independent Singapore. He gave us the National Pledge which articulates our ideals as a people, of what it means to be Singaporean. So, when he said: "being a Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry. It is conviction and choice," it was not an abstract idea or an intellectual argument. He lived it. Becoming a Singaporean is an act of will and of faith.

Madam, if I may say, realising the vision as set out in the Finance Minister's Budget speech requires a measure of will and faith as well. But we can do it.

Page: 19

If I may end with this quote from Rajaratnam:

[(proc text) "The only thing you can be certain about in this otherwise uncertain world is that the past is unchangeable. The present will disappear in a moment. (proc text)]

[(proc text) But there will always be a tomorrow to be shaped as you wish. You can make the tomorrow you want, provided you have the wisdom, the guts and the will to struggle for it." (proc text)]

On that note, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to thank the Finance Minister for coming up with a package that is comprehensive and bold, with a clear objective to tackle current issues and the anxieties faced by the public. In line with the theme of Budget 2013 that exhorts everyone to increase productivity, several initiatives were crafted to help those who are disadvantaged, whether they are ordinary citizens or those doing business. With a determined effort to strengthen the social safety net, I am confident that we are heading towards a better Singapore.

It is very important to explain good policies and obtain consensus, so that there is understanding and support when it is implemented later. In order to face uncertain economic challenges, we must be united and work together with the Government. The best way to obtain public support is through sincerity, responsibility and an accurate flow of information to the people. In this way, good intentions are not misunderstood, or worse, become distorted by liars and their followers. In my experience, due to lack of publicity or lack of awareness about the existence of assistance schemes like the GST Voucher and Workfare Bonus, I often have to remind my residents to fill up the application form or check their bank accounts, especially among the elderly. There are also residents who know nothing about these initiatives and schemes.

For those who did not send in their applications, their dismay and grumblings will be directed at the Government in an unfair manner.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The messages in the 2013 Budget should be conveyed to every Singaporean in a simple and

Page: 20

direct manner. These include providing help to households such as GST Vouchers, U-Save and lowering the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy which would help citizens cope with rising cost of living. In addition, most retirees will pay less or no property tax. This is how the Government show its gratitude to the retirees who had contributed to our nation-building.

The Government will provide more help to low-wage workers. The Wage Credit Scheme will provide subsidy to ensure reasonable wage raise and encourage employers to raise workers' wages. Many companies, especially the SMEs, will receive support to help them restructure. Professional, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) and middle-class Singaporeans can also feel assured that they will have job security and opportunities of growth. For this aspect, I would like to thank the Government because I often talk about how these two groups of people need help and I am really pleased to see that the Government is now offering help to them.

Besides using the media as a one-way channel to announce policies, the Government should conduct dialogues and public awareness promotion activities such as exhibitions, to engage citizens in a two-way conversation. We could perhaps use special TV advertisements or reports to ensure every Singaporean knows what benefits he can get from the Budget and how to get them. The People's Association could perhaps produce and distribute pamphlets with simple graphics and work with grassroots network to explain the goodies in the Budget.

I am pleased to see some of the suggestions I proposed in the past one year incorporated into Budget 2013. These include improving the pre-school sector and helping SMEs raise productivity. I would like to reiterate some issues which I raised earlier. Please relook at the suggestion of providing concessionary fare to Polytechnic students. They are not different from JC students. They have simply chosen a different path towards higher education. Hence, they should also enjoy the same benefits. I also urge the Government to take more actions to improve our public transport system. Previously, I have asked LTA for more bus routes in Yishun so that residents can enjoy faster and smoother rides. I thank LTA for accepting my requests. I believe we can expect similar enhancements to other bus routes.

However, the MRT is far from ideal currently. During peak hours, trains are packed to the brim and we see more and more disruptions in services. This is not in line with our expectations of a world-class transportation system. When we push for more improvements and better maintenance of the existing facilities, the public transport operators should not increase fares. They should

Page: 21

respond to the Government's call to cut cost through raising productivity and innovation. Repeatedly using fare increase to offset rising costs and passing the cost to commuters might be a quick solution but not a convincing one.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, Budget 2013 echoes my relentless calls for enhancing Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC). However, not all companies know how to benefit from it. Here again, I urge for more outreach to engage these companies to get innovative and qualify for PIC. Besides technology, companies also need guidance on improving management practices and company practices. The way a company takes care of its employees is also crucial. After all, motivated and grateful workers are more productive than disgruntled ones. I have witnessed some employers oppressing workers with low wages and long working hours in an attempt to save costs and drive up productivity or, in fact, drive up profitability.

Like the Chinese saying goes, 想要马儿跑, 得给马儿吃草 if you want the horse to go faster, you must feed it adequately. We need to show them the importance of employee welfare. A motivated and grateful employee will in turn contribute to higher productivity. At this juncture, I would like to urge the Government to consider extending PIC beyond 2015. Based on feedback from SMEs who know how to make use of PIC, they feel that we should extend beyond 2015.

I agree that cutting manpower, especially foreign manpower, is the right move in the push for higher productivity and to reduce reliance on foreign workers. However, I am concerned that the pace of productivity increase may not match the cut in foreign workers. Workers and supervisors take time to learn and adopt new technology. In fact, during this transition period, productivity will dip before it picks up and we should give them more help rather than keep cutting.

Take, for example, the construction sector. It was announced in 2010 that MYE will be cut by 40%. So, in 2011, there was a 15% cut and, last year, which was supposed to be a 10% cut, but it was a 15% cut. This July, there will be another 15% cut. So, in total, there will be 45% cut.

Given that the Government is ramping up infrastructures and building more HDB flats, how can the industry cope when almost half of the workers are gone? I see the Deputy Prime Minister shaking his head. That means that there is not going to be so much cut, I hope so.

Page: 22

I am worried that this drastic cut in workers will translate into poorer workmanship, higher construction costs or delays. Worse still, contractors may fold up and projects left in limbo. Certainly, we do not want to see another Rivervale Plaza incident.

To enhance productivity in the construction sector, it is important to have a proper roadmap. BCA, MND, MOM and the construction industry could work together on a productivity roadmap, further aided by universities and research units working on the relevant technologies, methodologies and ways and means of increasing productivity and the time frame. In fact, such roadmap should be developed industry by industry. It should not be one size fits all and at the stroke of a pen, all scrambled! It is a very poisonous pen, indeed.

Moving on to costs of living, high property prices have been causing plenty of grief. For residential properties, it is directly or indirectly causing a myriad of social problems including late marriages, late child-rearing and general insecurity and discontentment. For businesses, high property prices mean high rental costs and a large dent in the pocket for SMEs. I had brought up in this House before, asking the Minister to look into making new BTO flats affordable amidst inflation. I am glad that the Minister has delinked the price of new BTO flats from resale flats price. I hope to see the prices of new BTO flats, not just steady but going south if possible, so that potential flat buyers, especially young couples, do not have to worry about shouldering decades of debts.

With regard to the restriction on private car loans, there has been plenty of unhappiness from the ground, from existing car owners to second-hand car dealers. Recently, I received a very long email from a resident of mine. He told me that he has been in the second-hand car business for 17 years. He started off as a salesman immediately after ROD and he worked his way up and he is currently the CEO of his company. He has 235 cars in hand and 50 staff with him, and he is crying out for help. He told me that he is going to sell his house but he worries that he cannot save his business. As I read his email, my heart really beats with him.

Again, the change is so drastic and immediate that some second-hand car dealers like my resident will have to fold up their businesses. Is this cut so critical and so market- sensitive that Government cannot give any advance notice?

Last but not least, I wish to touch on the topic of sports. I must declare my interest as the President of Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA). I am

Page: 23

glad to note that the Government will be increasing investments in sports programmes in the next five years by 30%. I hope to see that this additional funding will translate to additional funding to deserving National Sports Associations (NSAs). For example, in STTA, we started PCF programme in 2009 and now we are having this programme in 31 constituencies, but we are limited by the funding that we have. With more funding, I hope to push out to more constituencies, perhaps to all the 87 constituencies.

I also hope that the Government will strongly consider a matching grant for NSAs so that those that take the effort to raise funds will see their efforts doubly rewarded with matching grants from the Government, like what we are doing for arts and culture. It is also one of my greatest wishes that the redevelopment of Toa Payoh Sports Hub be given early consideration, as our players are very short of space for training sessions and programmes. At this juncture, I would like to renew my call for more support for our male athletes in national service so as to realise their full sporting potential. Surely, all of us would like to see Joseph Schooling winning Olympic medals or the sons of Fandi Ahmad becoming world-class footballers.

On a more personal request, I would also like to see better and more sporting facilities in Yishun to cater to the growing population. I am excited about the concept of bringing sports facilities to Singapore's doorstep. May I know when will we have the town sports and recreation centres at Yishun Town?

In conclusion, overall, this is a good Budget that benefits many Singaporeans. But it can be even better if there is proper roadmap, more buy-in from all stakeholders so that we are all moving in the same direction with one heart and one mind, 一心一意. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to be part of this debate. Singapore is not a welfare state but we should certainly be a state concerned with the welfare of its people, in particular lower- and middle-income Singaporeans. Our social compact is one of Singapore's prized assets and it is the duty of any government of the day to ensure that it is not left exposed to market forces. With this in mind, I appreciate the series of assistance rolled out in this year's Budget to alleviate the burden of daily living in an increasingly unequal society for lower- and middle-income families. However, I hope that this year's Budget will set in motion a re-thinking on the part of the Government to place more

Page: 24

emphasis on the social compact to improve the nation's well-being.

In my speech last year, I raised three issues: first, empowering our social workers and other professionals in the social service sector; second, reaching out to the vulnerable; and third, adopting a holistic approach in the forging of an inclusive society.

My speech this year will build on my speech last year and I will be raising three more issues: first, assistance for students from disadvantaged and less well-to-do backgrounds; second, support for the Public Assistance Scheme; and lastly the introduction of social services office.

Madam, social attitudes towards the social service sector must evolve with an increasingly ageing population. In February last year, the Acting Minister for Community, Youth and Sports, Mr Chan Chun Sing said, within the next one to two years, we should be able to close the salary very substantially to eliminate the gap. So, from a numerative perspective, it is competitive. I applaud the Government's intention to increase the pay of professional in the social service sector but, I believe, more can be done and the process can be further accelerated to enhance the competitiveness of the industry vis-a-vis the teaching sector, as stated in my speech last year.

The Government should also look at enhancing the recognition and salaries of support staff in the industry such as the Early Intervention Teaching Assistant, the Special Education Teaching Assistant and the Social Service Assistant. They play a crucial and integral role in the smooth running of this social service sector and they should be recognised for it.

Madam, my first point is on financial assistance for students from disadvantaged and less well-to-do families. The Deputy Prime Minister, in his Budget speech, has reiterated the importance of social mobility and he intends to improve it by providing children from less well-to-do families at the pre-school and Primary school levels with a leg up. He also recognised that meritocracy alone is not sufficient in the sustenance of social mobility. Undoubtedly, there are many financial assistance schemes currently in place to assist these students at both the pre-school and Primary school levels. For pre-school students, Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) has been the lifeline of many families. I am glad to know that such assistance is available and tapped upon by these families. Indeed, as someone who worked in a Family Service Centre before, I have seen many children benefiting from this Scheme. However, many in this House would know that KiFAS is only made available

Page: 25

mainly for students in the PAP Community Foundation kindergartens.

Madam, in January 2012, my fellow Workers' Party colleague, Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked a parliamentary question on KiFAS. He asked whether the eligibility for KiFAS could be extended to private pre-school operators and not-for-profit religious or racial groups. In his written answer, the Minister pointed out that there are currently about 240 kindergartens where families can apply for KiFAS. At the same time, it is a known fact that PCF kindergartens are eligible for KiFAS. Incidentally, a quick check on the PCF website would indicate that there are 247 PCF kindergartens in Singapore. You must understand the various considerations a parent has in enrolling his or her children in a pre-school. Among the many factors are proximity and the environment provided by the school. Some parents may, for convenience's sake, choose to send their children to a non-PCF kindergarten. For example, in my Kaki Bukit ward, some parents who are unable to obtain a placement at a PCF kindergarten at Block 519 Bedok North Avenue 1 would have to send their children to a non-PCF kindergarten. Parents would also like to have their children receive their education in a preferred environment in accordance to their beliefs and values. As such, there are parents who send their children to kindergartens run and managed by religious organisations or religious-based voluntary welfare organisations.

Madam, my view is simple and I hope KiFAS can be expanded to all families who are in need. It should be about providing assistance in accordance to economic needs rather than in accordance to one's choice of kindergarten. KiFAS should be made available to all students who require it and should not be limited solely to the 247 PCF kindergartens. Mdm Speaker, I will continue in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam, beside the KiFAS scheme, another scheme that I would like to talk about is MOE's Edusave scheme. Mr Zainal Sapari, Member for Pasir-Ris Punggol GRC, and I raised this issue in the Committee of Supply last year. One of us has given our views on why the Edusave scheme should be extended to students in the full-time madrasah.

Madam, creating an inclusive society is one of the main objectives of the Budget last year and this year. The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tharman, has said in his speech that we, meaning the Government, has taken major steps to ensure the creation of an equitable and more inclusive society. Madam, it is on this call for a more inclusive society that I again call upon MOE to realise this call by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tharman, to extend the Edusave scheme

Page: 26

to students of the full-time madrasah.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, I will continue the rest of my speech in English. Allow me to move on to my second issue on the Public Assistance (PA) scheme. I welcome the Government's move in enhancing this scheme. Any amount of increase means a lot to the beneficiaries. I also welcome the multi-tier approach to the PA scheme. Under the secondary tier, healthcare assistance, such as adult diapers, stoma bags, milk supplements and so on, is long overdue as expenses on these items are not cheap to the affected families. I have also noted the scale of increment ranging from $50 per month for a one-person household to $130 per month for a four-person household. However, clearer clarification and explanation as to how the increment is considered, tabulated and arrived at is required from the relevant Ministries.

Madam, the PA scheme and the other ComCare assistance schemes that are currently in place are meant to ease the burden of needy Singaporeans, and these assistance schemes come under the purview, management and administration of the Community Development Councils or CDCs in short. Apart from enhancing the various components of assistance, is also crucial to ensure that the administration of the aid is thorough and effective. In my last Budget speech, I have expressed my concerns that only 6% of the Investigative Officers from the CDCs are trained in social work. This is not only unfortunate but also worrying at the same time. Investigative Officers on the ground have to make judgement calls that require the aptitude of trained social work professionals who are able to evaluate the needs of the vulnerable with compassion. With the intake of social work students at the University level remaining constant at about 200 each year, I hope to see more plans to make social work and the study of social services a more attractive option for GCE "A" levels and Polytechnic graduates.

There is an urgent need to increase the current pool of social work professionals in the industry. This can come in the form of more scholarships and greater societal, remunerative recognitions of their contributions especially in the contacts of a rapidly ageing Singapore. I believe that the quality of social services rendered to our people should not be compromised. It is important to have a professionally trained sector so as to minimise the number of Singaporeans who fall through the cracks and hence move Singapore a step closer towards a more inclusive society.

Madam, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman announced that about 20 social service offices would be established to improve the manner in which the Government delivers social services. In The Straits Times article on 26 February

Page: 27

2013, it is explained that the social service offices serve as a one-stop centre located closer to homes with the function of planning and co-ordinating social services to ensure that the families get holistic support. In short, it is hoped that the administration of social services can be integrated and any duplication avoided. However, I remain puzzled by the introduction of another level of bureaucracy to the existing layers of social service structures and support network. While we frown upon a welfare state, we seem to embrace increase bureaucratisation in the administration of social welfare support. There are too many questions that need answers and I hope these questions can be properly addressed.

Madam, first, I would like to know which organisation would be given the responsibilities to run and manage these offices. Second, social workers that I have spoken to are interested to know more about the function of this office and the roles of the officers stationed at this office. And thirdly, is there a requirement for these officers to be social work trained?

The social service officers appear at first sight without much explanation to be a duplication of services offered by the Family Service Centre or FSC. From my tenure as a counsellor at an FSC, I am aware that FSCs provide information and referral services or INR. It also assumes the role as a one-stop centre for residents who are seeking assistance. Basically, the role of an FSC, apart from providing counselling and casework management, is to provide information on type of community services that are available and wherever necessary conduct the appropriate assessment and recommend referrals to relevant Government agencies.

There needs to a be a clear definition of the different case management roles played by the respective agencies namely the CDCs, FSCs and the social service office. If the social service office does the co-ordination, then what happens to the case manager at the FCS? How does this differentiate from the intensive case management system being put in place now? Seen in this light, may I ask what makes the social service office different from the current Family Service Centres that we have and what improvement can social workers on the ground expect from the establishment of the social service office? What would happen to the existing CDCs, FSCs and VWOs' structure that are currently in place, recognised and accepted by the people whom we want to help?

I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister can ensure social workers and industry professionals on the ground that the social service offices are not mainly satellite CDCs which would then defeat the purpose of the proposal to

Page: 28

set up 20 social service offices.

Madam, I am of the view that it is far more productive to channel the resources in establishing the social service office towards enhancing the functions and the capabilities of the FSCs which incidentally are located in the neighbourhood. As a Member of Parliament for the Kaki Bukit ward of Aljunied GRC, I can attest to the good work done by the staff and volunteers at the Moral Family Service Centre at Block 534, Bedok North Street 3, and any enhancement of the functions and capabilities of the centre would be most welcome by residents and social workers alike staying and working in my constituency.

From my experience as a counsellor, greater support would also be welcomed by all concerned and aware of the situation in many of the FSCs across the island. An efficient and productive FSC will be in line with the fourth pillar of the social strategy painted by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman in his Budget Speech, that the role of the community and the Government providing strong support for the community initiatives by partnering with community bodies and groups of citizens to improve the lives of Singaporeans.

Mdm Speaker, the issues I raised during last year's and this year's Budget are not mutually exclusive from one another. In fact, in striving for an inclusive society which is the core principle in last year's and this year's Budget, these issues are integral and intrinsic components. However, there are no quick solutions to complex issues especially when it comes to issues over social welfare and the role of Government in welfare support. But as long as any government of the day puts the welfare of its people at the core of it policies, exercising compassion with flexible management of resources, while strengthening the social compact, nothing is too difficult to overcome in our case for a better and more inclusive Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, I will be focusing on two areas of concerns that I have been hearing from Singaporeans and that this Budget also intends to address. Firstly, on Public Transport, and secondly, the job competition from the EPs in the PME space.

Firstly, on public transport. In the Budget Statement, the Finance Minister made particular mention of the pressing challenges of housing and transport and that the Government will spare no effort in resolving these problems.

Page: 29

Credit to the National Development Minister, I think we are on our way to resolving the housing imbalances in the next one to three years. The slew of demand management measures and the massive ramping up of housing supply has since begun to show some stabilising effects in the property market. All we are hoping now is for a nice soft landing in the next two to three years.

However, in the area of transport, our Transport Minister has on hand a much bigger and tougher problem to solve. For example, just in the area of car ownership, how can the Government fulfill the aspiration for more Singaporeans to own a car? Is this possible?

With our land constraints, it is inevitable that the growth of vehicle population on our island will one day come to zero. We are building new roads and expressways, and we are widening existing ones as well. But there is a limit as to how much we could increase road capacity. Even if we have more and wider roads being built which would help improve traffic, the emerging traffic problems on the ground now are actually bottlenecks and congestions at road junctions and slip roads, made worse by the higher housing density.

The much greater convenience and comfort of owning a car coupled with rising incomes and easy car financing have pushed up COE to historically high levels. But no matter how we tweak the COE system, we cannot run away from the fact that the demands for COEs are higher than the available supply.

The real and sustainable way to manage demand of car ownerships is really to offer a compelling alternative to owning a car. And it has to be public transport in our circumstances. Taking public transport must make sense to commuters in terms of convenience, reliability, value for money and comfort. Unfortunately, our public transport system at this point in time is still some way from the desired state.

Long waiting times, long travelling times and crowded buses and trains are a daily norm. Chaotic scenes at major bus stops and at MRT and LRT stations during the morning and evening peaks are not helping to entice more to take public transport. Often, commuters need to make multiple transfers to reach their destination and at each transfer you have to again endure the waiting time and crowdedness; not to mention contenting with the elements of weather.

To make matters worse, there are clearly many parts of our island that are under provided and underserved by public transport, especially in the HDB towns that have seen sharp increases in the population. We are building

Page: 30

housing at a much faster rate than we improve public transport. This has worsened congestions and crowdedness. My colleagues at my workplace told me that commuting to and fro from work is probably the most unpleasant thing they have to do every day.

While MRT lines will take a much longer time to build, we must do more to speed up the provision of bus services. Hence, I call on the Government to urgently act on some of the following measures I will suggest.

Firstly, significantly speed up the implementation of the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP) including engaging private operators to do the job. I applaud the Government for coming up with the $1.1 billion BSEP. It is a decisive and necessary intervention to ramp up bus capacity. Left to the two public transport operators, the capacity build-up would not be fast enough.

In fact, many Members would agree with me that it has a trying experience working with the Public Transport Operator (PTO) on the ground. Each of the requests submitted to these companies to improve bus services would often end up in a long-drawn discussion. And often, the final get-out answer from the PTO is that they have no drivers to increase the bus services.

I hope that MOT would move away from the two PTOs model and start using more of the private operators to help expand the bus capacity, especially under the BSEP. The privately run bus operators are very entrepreneurial and resourceful as evidenced by the way they scale up their bus fleet in 2010 when they provided the island-wide free shuttle bus service to Resort World Singapore. If the two PTOs are incapable of increasing the bus capacity fast enough, we should not waste time on them and quickly look to other operators to do the job.

Secondly, we need to manage the peak demand and further incentivise the non-peak hour travel. There is this inherent inefficiency in public transport where you design capacity to meet peak window demand. And at the non-peak window, capacity will be under-utilised and hence the overall operating costs would go up.

One of the logical solutions is to encourage employers to adopt flexi-work hours or to start and end work at non-peak windows. I am hearing that a few companies are adopting such practices but it is still a small number. Perhaps the Government and Statutory Boards could lead the way in this area, some of the learning institutions and some part of the Civil Service could take the lead

Page: 31

and experiment with such flexi timings.

The Finance Minister mentioned in the Budget Statement that more measures will be introduced to reduce crowding, including significantly enhanced incentives for commuters who travel during the "shoulder" period before and after the morning peak. If the incentives are good enough and can bite, it would certainly make taking public transport more comfortable and less crowded and more appealing. Hence, I join the call by Dr Janil Puthucheary to seriously consider having free or very low fares during the non-peak window in the morning and evening. After hearing Dr Janil's speech yesterday, I did a little research and found out that indeed in Melbourne's Metro, the city metropolitan train operator, do offer weekday free fares for early birds travel before 7 am in their city zones. We should study the Melbourne's experience. Even a shift of say, a 10% of commuters from peak to non-peak, would make a great deal of difference and ease crowdedness.

However, I would want to caution that even as we give free fares for the non-peak window, it should not come at the expense of the other groups of commuters, or cross-subsidise the other groups of commuters. It should be funded from other revenue sources such as the collections from COE, car taxes and the ERPs. So, I await in anticipation the good news from the Transport Minister in the coming Transport Ministry COS.

Thirdly, I want to call on the Government to freeze any public transport fare increase until we see significant improvements in service level and enhancements. Operating costs may well have gone up for the PTOs but that is just justifying it from the company's perspective.

From the public and commuter standpoint, LTA and PTOs have not delivered on its duty to provide reliable and convenient public transport. Commuters feel let down and are disappointed by the current under provision of services and the series of disruptions in trains, LRTs and the buses. LTA and the PTOs have to restore public confidence before we can even talk about fare increase.

Mdm Speaker, I move on now to talk about job competition from EPs in the PME space. Like Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Patrick Tay, I too want to raise the concerns on unfair employment practices where Singaporeans are not getting their fair opportunities.

Page: 32

I noted the Finance Minister's careful choice of words in the Budget Statement when he talked about the tightening of EPs and the strengthening of the Singaporean Core in the PME space. Yes, our EP policy must ensure that firms in Singapore can continue to recruit the best talents – both locals and foreigners – so that companies here can compete in the global markets. But at the same time, we must ensure that Singaporeans have a fair chance to the available job opportunities.

However, there are clearly still a number of firms that had visibly hire a large proportion of foreigners particularly in the managerial level. You cannot help but think whether it is really that difficult to find Singaporeans to fill those managerial positions. These include job roles like HR, finance, compliance, auditing and general administration. Or is it a case where some of the employers or hirers may already have pre-determined mindsets that foreigners with some international experience can do a better job? More engagements with such employers are necessary so that Singaporeans are given a fair chance.

Hence, I agree with the colleagues in this House that some form of market sensing practices when companies apply for EPs is necessary. While it may not always lead to a Singaporean hire, at least it will make the employers more conscious in their hiring process and give our local PMEs a chance.

One sector that demonstrates the leap of faith in Singaporean talents is in the Singapore Real Estates Investment Trust (S-REITs) scene. In the last decade, Singapore REITs has grown in leaps and bounds to become Asia's largest REIT market ex-Japan. It is a sophisticated market and requires specialised skills in real estate, finance, management and coming up with competitive value propositions. If we look closely into the entire development and growth of the S-REIT market, we would have noticed that it has been predominantly led and driven by local talents. The CEOs, CIOs and CFOs of the large market cap REITs are mostly our home-bred talents. And with these local senior executives at the helm, they help develop and nurture even more Singaporeans local talents below them to grow the sector and to expand beyond Singapore. Many of the REITs are more than just a Singapore-listed entity. They own and manage properties across the region. The vibrant Singapore market has also attracted more listing of foreign properties and assets in Singapore. This further deepens and broadens our capital markets and creates many more attractive professional job opportunities.

My point is this, our home grown talents can step up to many positions. What they need are more opportunities and the leap of faith. And my message to employers is this: Singaporeans may not be as articulate as those with

Page: 33

international background, or speak with a flair for the language. But do note that our local talents have solid grounding and have the ability to grow and prosper your company as the S-REIT markets have shown. Importantly, these talents are rooted in Singapore and form the Singaporean Core.

Next, I want to speak for a pool of former PMEs who have either retired early or are now under-employed. Many used to work in MNCs or large companies as managers and engineers. They are still in their employable age – probably at the mid-life age of 50s. They are well-educated and technically well-trained and experienced in their area of specialisation. However, either due to structural changes in their industries or companies downsizing or relocating, many left their jobs that they are specialised in. Few were successful in doing a career switch while many felt dejected in not being able to find jobs of similar terms or similar level of seniority or similar scope. I spoke to a number of them in my constituency. I can sense their anguish and frustration in not being able to find suitable jobs in which they think they can do well. Many went for interviews in numerous jobs but were mostly not successful in roles that they think they can perform. They get the sense that companies tend to favour the younger ones or foreigners. They also feel stereotyped as being less energetic or "over the peak".

We must help these Singaporeans to adjust and re-enter the workforce by way of skills conversions, customised career counselling and how they could turn their previous experience and expertise into job enhancing advantage. I am glad we have CaliberLink – a one-stop service point for PMEs under the WDA. But I believe that WDA may need to work with the ground agencies like CDCs, e2i and the community self-help groups to reach out to these discouraged PMEs and help them match meaningful jobs for their re-employment.

We may also again need to incentivise companies to hire these middle age former PMEs so as to give them a headstart. During the 2009 financial crisis, I remember there was this programme where MAS and EDB co-pay part of the salaries of our fresh graduate hires for a period of time to encourage companies to hire young graduates during the crisis. I think we could consider a similar approach for former PMEs who have undergone re-skilling programme. We could also look into giving scholarships for re-skilling or professional conversions in industries that are in need of PMEs, and upon graduation help place them in.

Clearly, more resources and support are needed here. Of course, ultimately, it depends on the former PMEs themselves. They need to respond positively to such programmes, and must be prepared to change their expectations and

Page: 34

attitudes, to embark on a new career journey. If we can gain enough traction, this could help increase labour force participation rate, reduce demand for and dependence on foreign PMEs.

Madam, before I end, I thought it could be helpful if I can share my personal experience on the NTUC Foodfare after hearing what Mr Png Eng Huat has mentioned yesterday. I am not sure if Mr Png has been to NTUC Foodfare, but he would know that NTUC Foodfare is open to members of the public – whether you are a member or not – at affordable prices. Of course, if you are a member, there are some discounts. And, if you are a senior and on public assistance scheme, you will also get some discounts. But members of the public do get affordable prices.

I know this because we do have a NTUC Foodfare at my workplace at Marina Bay Financial Centre (MBFC). Despite the high rentals at that area – I think that is one of the premium office locations – NTUC Foodfare does charge cheaper and provide affordable foods. For example, a cup of coffee costs $0.

90. I am not sure whether you will find another public eating place at Marina Bay – air-con ambience – for a coffee at $0.

90. So, I thought I should keep Mr Png informed about this. More importantly, it is to do justice to the good work done by NTUC Foodfare, which has kept food prices at an affordable level at MBFC and benefiting thousands of office workers there.

Finally, Madam, there are many things I like about this Budget, most of which were already mentioned by Members here, and I shall not repeat them. I just want to touch on one point that I feel very encouraged about in this Budget. Many ideas and suggestions raised by the PAP Members of Parliament were taken in or being studied. It could be quite a long list to cite. But we know many of the issues are what PAP Members have championed, and in this Budget, we have seen some of them bear fruits. I am glad that we are not in the similar situation or predicament, like what is happening in US now, where their legislature and executive have locked horns, fighting over spending cuts and raising taxes. Even as we speak, they are now faced with this self-inflicted situation where a series of heap hazards and economically destructive spending cuts – known as the sequester – would take effect. All these happened because of the ideological difference between the major political parties and their inability to work together.

From the tone, I garner from the speeches from both sides of the House yesterday, I am heartened that we are in unity for a better Singapore – striving for quality growth and an inclusive society. Madam, with that, I support the

Page: 35

Budget.

Madam, 30 years ago, this country was poor. But we were united in purpose, we were driven, we were happy. Now, we are a rich country, but we are divided, we are unsatisfied, we are unhappy.

Mdm Speaker, I think a lot of our present issues have been caused by immigration, inflation, and inequality. Hence, I have decided to focus my speech on these three "I"s, and I think that some of our issues can be resolved by more Innovation, Integration and Internationalisation – another set of three "I"s.

It has often been said that Government policies over the last decade have been good for Singapore, but not so good for Singaporeans. Indeed, the Gallup Poll recently ranked Singapore as the unhappiest and the eighth most pessimistic in the world. We were actually behind Cambodia. Yet, we have a triple-A rating and according to the World Bank, we are the world's easiest place to do business.

So, let us begin by examining immigration and how it has impacted us, particularly its relationship with our income inequality and inflation. Let us talk about immigration.

Our forefathers built a strong foundation for Singapore: we are hence known as a country with transparency, credibility, integrity, policy stability and racial harmony. Perhaps we underestimated the power of these strong fundamentals to attract people to our city.

Perhaps we "underpriced" ourselves to potential immigrants. We grew our population by over a million in the last 10 years without a White Paper. There were Singaporeans who benefited from this trend. The property, financial, healthcare, legal and hospitality industries benefited from this increased demand and employment rates – and incomes for some – stayed high.

But we also became congested, crowded and indignant with this new invasion of our limited space. This influx caused inflation and put pressure on our transport, housing and medical systems. Hence, the Government reacted and our national policies took a U-turn. The granting of PRs and new citizenships dropped sharply in the last two years. Foreign worker levies are

Page: 36

going up, taxes on foreigners buying property has also gone up. All these points towards a policy shift the other way. It is natural for us not to want to see an erosion of the Singapore Core. But whilst we debate about what it means to be a Singaporean, we need to be mindful that the international community is watching. When the BBC and boards of international companies start asking if Singapore is becoming xenophobic, we need to ask why.

So, whilst it may be that we were too open on the last 10 years, are we now going "cold turkey"? I suggest that an important consideration for the Budget is whether we are reaping the economies of scale of an enlarged population as we go forward, or if we need to beware of diseconomies of scale. Have issues around congestion, competition, transport and housing outweighed the economic benefits? So, the "I" in immigration hides another two "I"s, which are integration and infrastructure. We need to work on the underlying issues rather than just attack the symptom. An undue focus on the symptom risks the xenophobic tag and this is dangerous for Singapore.

Whilst I agree with policies in the Budget to help the lower paid Singaporeans, I would caution against the continued measures to excessively curb the flow of talents. After all, we should be proud of our Singapore brand and our international reputation as a good place to live and work, and we should accept that as long as we keep this reputation, there will always be people who wish to join us. Hence, whilst it is healthy to slow down to rebuild, and to be selective in our immigration process, we need to tell the world that Singaporeans are not afraid to welcome good talent who can take us to the next stage of growth.

Let us talk about inflation. The Government predicts inflation of 3.5% to 4.5% this year. This is high considering we are comparing with an already high base in 2012.

High inflation is a double-edged sword. It raises asset prices which creates wealth for many. But it also increases the costs of doing business, costs of living, and it is also regressive. It erodes the incomes of the masses, who by and large, do not gain from asset inflation. Whilst the Budget tries to ease price pressures in the property and car markets, these price pressures caused by tighter worker policies could outweigh any correction in housing or COE prices. Many economists believe that the wage spiral we have created will continue to cause long-term structural inflation. This will continue to erode income growth.

Page: 37

As an open economy, we are also subject to global monetary policies. Currently, the MAS has kept its monetary policy tight through a stronger SGD bias, but other countries in the region, like Japan, have a loose monetary policy that is now leading to a currency devaluation war. As global interest rates remain low, and the Sing dollar remains strong, this cash may find its way into our system, causing yet more asset inflation.

Whilst the tax measures have dampened residential housing, this liquidity could move into industrial and commercial buildings. This again puts more pressures on office and commercial rentals, causing yet more cost-push inflation.

At this juncture, it may be time to rethink our monetary policy approach. Traditionally, we have used a strong exchange rate to fight off imported goods inflation. However, it is instructive that neither the US, nor Japan, nor Europe, in fact, none of our major trading partners, are suffering from inflation. Surely, we cannot be importing inflation from them on the trade account. Our inflation is driven by asset price increases from the capital account and this needs a different set of policy tools. Whilst the macro prudential tweaking is a targeted approach, it creates too much policy uncertainty which is risky to our image of consistency.

I now come to the third "I" of inequality. This is a global phenomenon and will be the biggest issue facing the world in the coming decade. Increasing Gini coefficients are being exacerbated by a change in the nature of work because of automation. A high income gap could be potentially destabilising for our society. But we are better placed to address this than almost any other country. Why? First, we have husbanded our resources for just such a time; second, we have more reserves and surpluses that can be put to work; and third, we are more open and international, allowing us to benefit from global opportunities.

We have saved for a rainy day. This is the rainy day, because how we handle the transition of the next 10 years will make or break us. Doing a little more with our surpluses to achieve a re-distributive agenda is not a bad thing. A progressive tax rate is appropriate, as are policies that encourage the private sector to participate in this effort. However, the main engine must be the Government through targeted programmes for health, transport and housing. The Budget addresses these, but more is needed with better packaging. Hence, the Budget's progressive wage tax is timely, as is the Wage Credit Scheme to help businesses raise wages for Singaporean workers, and I applaud the

Page: 38

enhancement of the Workfare Income Supplement especially for older workers.

Whilst much of our lowest paid work is in the cleaning and security industries, I believe more can be done to encourage innovation and productivity growth in these two sectors. I think the users of these cleaning and security services may need to be persuaded to reward contracts based not just on cost or number of workers used, but also be receptive to the application of new technologies.

The Budget measures to improve social mobility, whether in areas like childhood education or healthcare, are correct. However, whilst we continue to review our healthcare financing, whether it is to top up MediFund, ElderCare or MediSave, let us remember to keep it simple for our elderly or needy patients.

Finally, as a woman, I believe more can be done to encourage Singaporean women back into the workforce. There are plenty of well-educated women out there who would like to work on flexi time but cannot find the right jobs. SMEs who could hire these women do not seem to have the right SOPs in place to offer such flexi time. Perhaps, Workfare would be extended to cover flexi workers? This would boost household incomes, replace some of the foreigners that our businesses have grown to rely on.

Whilst writing about the intertwining of these three "I"s, I contemplated the three "I"s that we do not want to be, and that is insular, irrelevant and inward-looking. But if we embark on a U-turn of our pro-business policies, we have every chance of becoming so one day. Instead, why not we focus on the three "I"s that we are and can continue to be, which is innovative, inclusive, and international. Allow me to quickly touch on these three "I"s.

Innovation. Silicon Valley success stories like Facebook or Google seem to be born out of a garage or a dormitory. Three success factors seem to be low costs of living and business, enough space to dream and experiment, and ability to accept failure.

With our current high cost environment, we have no choice but to raise productivity. The PIC bonus, "Future of Manufacturing" plan and the Budget all suggest the Government is planning to make us a more innovative economy. But innovation cannot be manufactured. It is, by definition, experimental and prone to failure. We are not Silicon Valley. We are a sovereign nation that cannot afford to fail. So, rather than force innovation, why not leverage on our competitive advantages that already exist? Rather than focus on small niches

Page: 39

like animation or satellite technology, why not focus on Big Data, on services, on advanced manufacturing where there is more job creation?

I would focus on Data Analytics as I believe this is a game changer and a high growth area that Singapore is well positioned to take a lead in. To do so, allow me to suggest three things. Firstly, our education system needs to groom more talent as Data Scientists and Modellers. Secondly, the PIC scheme should be enlarged to support the building and use of new business models that use big data; for example, using new credit scoring companies versus old credit bureaus. Thirdly, the PACT scheme or the collaborative industry projects should encourage alliances between stakeholders to tackle the various problems faced by Singaporeans in the private and public sector. Big data can be a big opportunity for Singapore. We need to create a public, private partnership for this, and a national registry. We are small enough to achieve this and we will have a lot of productivity benefits.

Inclusiveness. Let us talk about the "I" in inclusiveness. The bedrock of our culture is inclusiveness. We are a multi-racial population; our forefathers were all immigrants at some point. To succeed in innovation and productivity, we need to attract younger talents to improve our vibrancy and ecosystem. An SBF report cites studies from high income OECD countries that total factor productivity is much higher in a population with a median age of 35 and below. With our ageing population, if we wish to compete as a knowledge-based economy, and attract R&D, we need to keep our young talent and keep our doors open.

International. Keeping Singapore international is crucial for us. At the end of the day, we are 700 sq km with no natural resources. Why are we relevant to the world? We have prospered by placing ourselves squarely in the middle of global and regional trade and capital flows. Let us not jeopardise this. It is easy to say we should let firms move out, including SMEs. But this is a risky slope. There are many more 700 sq km plots of land happy to challenge our position.

Singapore has typically been seen as a safe and predictable base for companies to create a gateway for Asia. But if our policies start chopping and changing with many U-turns, we will lose that transparency and predictability that make us attractive. And with a home market that is one of the smallest in Asia, we have every chance of becoming irrelevant on the international arena one day. So, let us stay international!

Page: 40

Mdm Speaker, a good democracy is not about populist policies. A good democracy is about good leadership. Hence, whilst we debate the three "I"s of immigration, inflation and inequality, let us also contemplate the three "I"s that we might aspire to be − inclusive, international and innovative. A Singapore that we can be and continue to be proud of! Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, this year's Budget's efforts to ensure stronger support for the lower income groups and the elderly is a good step in the right direction towards creating a more inclusive society which looks into the needs of the less fortunate and less abled amongst us.

Today, families with dependants, those with young children, or those supporting disabled or elderly relatives face many challenges that need to be addressed. With today's cost of living, it is a necessity for both parents to work in order to support the family. At the same time, these families require someone to be able to be at home, caring for dependants.

Caregiving is a role that is often understated and goes unnoticed in society. Yet, it is a job that requires a huge amount of dedication and sacrifice, particularly when it comes to looking after the elderly and disabled. Sadly, despite being important pillars of strength for the family and playing a valuable role in society, they do not get sufficient support despite the many personal sacrifices and reduced income. That itself can take a toll on the family.

Another struggle facing families today is that of having to balance long working hours with numerous family responsibilities. Parents have many responsibilities apart from work to contend with. Looking after their children and being there during their most formative years, caring for elderly parents and also having some much needed personal time. Unable to balance these responsibilities, parents have to turn to paid help which brings about additional costs. At present, parents are squeezed by both high costs of living which require them to both work and work long working hours. Parents often feel caught between stepping back from work and diminishing their career prospects or neglecting their families whilst struggling in the rat race.

The lack of support for families when it comes to caregiving and work-life balance continue to put tremendous stress on the family. In order to provide more sustainable and holistic support to families who have dependants, I believe that the Budget must better support caregivers who in turn are pillars

Page: 41

of support for the family and institutionalise better work-life balance.

In addition to parents of young children who are also considered caregivers, there are over 200,000 caregivers looking after children with special needs, the disabled seniors as well as the sickly in 2004. While there are currently no updated statistics available today, these numbers are projected to increase along with changing ageing demographics.

Caregiving is a full-time job and can be both emotionally and physically draining. On average, caregivers provide close to seven hours of care per day. Just as caregivers are a pillar of support for their dependants, they too need support, relief and personal time to pursue their own interests and careers. These caregivers are often family members. Many of them stay at home or work part time because they are unable to afford hired help and have an obligation to care for their young children, ageing parents or disabled family member. We must look at more ways to ease the immense burden on caregivers and recognise their integral role within the family and in society as well. We must remember that the burden on the caregiver is inevitably a burden on the family. I would like to identify several ways to better distribute the role of caregiving to build stronger and sustainable families.

Firstly, do consider waiving foreign worker levy for certain groups of families. I welcome the Budget's initiative to reduce the foreign domestic worker levy from $170 to $120. This will ease cost for many families in Singapore who currently hire domestic helpers. However, especially for families with young children and those who are looking after the disabled or the elderly, having domestic help is a necessity. For such families, it is not a matter of luxury but of pure need and we should consider waiving the levy for them.

During my house visits in Punggol East, I have seen many wheelchair-bound elderly folks at home being looked after by domestic helpers while their sons and daughters are at work. These helpers also help to pick up the children from school and tend to them as well. Many families have shared with me how despite the fact that there are hired domestic helpers to cope with the many responsibilities of running a family while both parents are working, they still struggle with the cost. Families today are saddled with so many expenses – housing, transport, education, childcare and medical. Many need helpers but simply could not afford it. Their only option then is for the family member, typically the woman, to quit her job to become a caregiver.

Page: 42

According to a report in 2011, only 14% of caregivers currently receive support from domestic helpers. More affordable access to foreign domestic workers means that more caregivers can get assistance and some respite from their responsibilities. This is also in the best interest of caregiver dependants as it reduces the risk of caregivers being burnt out.

Caregivers, with assistance from domestic helpers, can also consider remaining employed either on a part-time or full-time basis. It is reported that 43% of women who are economically inactive have cited caregiving and family responsibilities as reasons. Greater access to assistance could have a portion of these women return to work. This benefits not just the caregiver who may want to seek personal fulfilment through work, it will also benefit his or her dependants as well as the economy.

Next, better access to training for caregivers. It is not easy to be a caregiver for a disabled, those with special needs, or the elderly. Caregivers require specific skills and knowledge to help the caregiver feel empowered and be equipped to provide support to his or her dependants. The Caregivers Training Grant, which is the only support scheme available to caregivers, currently offers an annual training grant of $200 per year to attend training programmes that CEL has pre-approved. However, caregiver courses can range from $50 to $1,300 for disabled training. Elderly caregiver training courses range from $10 to $400. Subsidy should be accorded in proportion to the cost of the course rather than the standard $200 grant which may often not be sufficient to help a family cover the costs, given that they also have to cope with medical bills and special arrangements to accommodate a sick child or elderly person at home.

Lastly, promote work-life balance and introduce flexi-work arrangements. Singaporean workers have been known to work the longest hours. A survey in 2012, found that the Singaporean average working hours amount to 46 hours a week. Work-life balance is important not just for couples considering having children or more children, but also those who currently have children, or who also support disabled family members or elderly parents.

They, too, need to work, not just for income but for self fulfilment. Flexible work means that the responsibility of care is not placed unduly on one member of the family. It can be shared amongst working family members. There continues to be a perceived stigma about working mothers and caregivers, as well as concerns among employees that asking for flexible work may be seen as a negative sign by their bosses, who might lose confidence in whether they

Page: 43

would be able to perform in their jobs.

We need to support a shift in mindsets which can be brought about if the Government takes meaningful steps to institutionalise better flexible work practices. Despite Singaporeans working long hours, Singapore's productivity is low. It is a problem today. At the same time, companies in Singapore are among the slowest in the world to implement flexible work practices. Perhaps, it is time to reconsider the long-held assumption that the longer one works, the more productive he or she would be. There is plenty of research to show this over the years. And it is also telling that some of the most successful and sought-after companies today to work in, like Google, Facebook and Hitachi, for example, are proud advocates of flexible work practices for their employees. Many studies, including the most recent one conducted by Stanford University and the University of Beijing, showed that availability of flexible work arrangements, such as telecommuting and working from home, resulted in higher job satisfaction and greater productivity, as well as efficiency.

Businesses today should not see flexi-work arrangements as an unwelcome cost but an investment in its own future in a changing society. Being able to adapt to a changing environment will ensure that businesses are more sustainable and able to adapt to changes, enhances workplace productivity, creates better gender equality and helps companies retain talent. This was affirmed by a recent report released in 2012 by the Diversity Council of Australia which also continued to encourage businesses to play an active and positive role in the community.

Our top priority, given the declining fertility rates and the consequences that bring to the population, should be to ensure that Singapore becomes more conducive for raising families. I would like to reiterate my call for an independent commission to look into work-life balance practices for equal opportunities for women and a more family-friendly Singapore. Partners and membership should extend to Government, key business leaders, employers, business associations, civil society groups and regular Singaporeans in order to take an integrated approach to work-life balance solutions. The setting up of this commission will signal a commitment to look into the complex issues of work-life balance, taking into consideration the needs of not just businesses but the larger society. The objective of this commission would be to lead public discussions on family-friendly work practices, develop research and promote global best practices to enhance work-life balance, and to develop pro-family business practices and resources to help businesses shift towards a more pro-family environment. It is simply because the issues are complex that we should dedicate sufficient time and resources to look into solutions in-depth for the

Page: 44

long term and not go for the one-size-fits-all approach.

Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, raising a family in Singapore has become increasingly tough. The number one concern of families is how to manage the high cost of living. The accumulated costs are immense, from financing a house, buying a car to transporting young children, paying for childcare, supporting the medical expenses and a host of other bills. What more for families who are also taking care of disabled or elderly relatives?

Today, we want to encourage younger Singaporeans to realise the joys of family and to settle down and start families of their own. Yet, what these young Singaporeans see today are high expenses and parents being stretched by unlimited demands at home as well as at the workplace. When the balance is tilted too far, raising a family can be seen as an opportunity cost rather than a joy.

Mdm Speaker, families are the cornerstones of our society. All the more we should make stronger efforts to relieve some of the burdens they face in both the short and long term, and commit to placing families at the centre of all our policy considerations.

Mdm Speaker, the paradox of trust: trust is something entirely abstract, yet the absence of which is painfully palpable. Trust determines the course we take in the future, yet it is so utterly anchored in the present. Trust is unquantifiable, yet reflected in each and every vote cast at elections.

The recent robust debate on the White Paper on Population put in bold, belief in the importance of trust in politics. The Managing Editor of The Straits Times, Mr Han Fook Kwang, highlighted this as well in his opinion piece in The Straits Times on 10 February 2013 entitled, "Government needs to regain people's trust".

The planning norm of 6.9 million was much criticised. To me, this is a matter of trust. If public transport does not work well and buses and trains are crowded, when the supply of HDB flats does not keep up with demand and the cost of living rises steeply when the population is at its current 5.3 million, then people will object to a lower norm of even 6.3 million, let alone a norm of 6.9

Page: 45

million.

However, when at a population of 5.3 million, the trains run, the buses are not crowded, HDB flats are built quickly enough and inflation is low, then people will give us the benefit of doubt and support us even when the population planning norm is higher than 6.9 million. Therefore, it is heartening to hear our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance reiterate during his Budget Speech that we will fix the problems we have on hand. He has our trust in this matter.

Mdm Speaker, we are all in the business of trust. Trust is ultimately based on present and past experiences of what the Government has delivered. To the public, the Government includes not just politicians, but also civil servants and even boards and management of privatised companies offering public services, such as those in healthcare and transport. In the coffeeshops and hawker centres, the Hokkien term "zenghu" means much more than what bureaucrats and politicians think of what constitutes "government".

Trust is based on experience and, in turn, experience has two elements. Firstly, there is the aspect of performance that we are all familiar with – I trust you because you have worked and delivered in the past. Secondly, there is the element of expectation. This is something that we have not discussed much about recently.

Our Government has tried very hard in the past to enunciate what it will deliver for the people. Healthcare will remain affordable, schools will give good education, people will have jobs and so on. The recently announced White Paper and Land Paper are two such examples. The Annual Budget Debates are also examples of these efforts to manage and calibrate expectations.

I would like to urge our Government to go one step further. In the management of expectations, we need to tell the people the bad news. This is not pleasant, but it is necessary. It requires courage, and fans of the BBC comedy "Yes Minister" will remember that Sir Humphrey described "courage" as a dirty word in politics.

So, what are some of the bad news that we are talking about?

One, we will increase the number of places in Universities and Polytechnics and 60% of Singaporeans will become PMETs, but some graduates will never stay in private housing or own a car. This is because 85% of housing are HDB

Page: 46

flats and only one third of families have a car presently and these numbers will not change drastically.

This country needs to continue to be run as a meritocracy. There is no other feasible alternative. The best will get more. One may rightly question the norms of meritocracy, as in what makes a person more meritorious? One may even ask why are there so many brand-name schools in the more affluent areas in Singapore and not in the new HDB estates. And in the harsh reality of meritocracy, we also expect the meritorious to do what is necessary for meritocracy to remain relevant – they must contribute more than others to the betterment of the society and maximise welfare for everyone living and working in Singapore. Meritocracy cannot be "take and take" by the best and the ablest without any obligation to serve and contribute.

Next, even if we increase our TFR to 2.1 in 2013 suddenly, we will need to import labour to care for the elderly over the next 20 years. The babies born now or in the near future will not be ready to look after the 900,000 Baby Boomers retiring over the next 20 years. We are not even talking about money here, but just simply the number of hands needed to care for the number of elderly we will have in 10 to 30 years' time.

Next, our public hospitals will continue to give good care that is accessible and affordable to all. But we will have to continue to have waiting times, and the latest high-tech expensive care options will not be available to all. Ultimately, healthcare is a trade-off between affordability, accessibility and quality. Usually, quality in terms of expensive care is of a lower priority, although we will not compromise patient safety. This is true for most developed countries in the world.

Next, we will make our public transport reliable again and increase capacity. But COEs may never go back to the days of old again. There are limits to our car population, just as there are limits to our human population.

Next, we will limit the influx of foreign labour into Singapore, but we cannot shield our workers from competition. The reality is that our workers will still be competing day and night, 24/7 with workers in China, India or Indonesia.

Mdm Speaker, I can go on with many more examples of such harsh realities that Singapore is facing or must face but I will stop here. The currency of politics is trust. While we must strive to improve on our performance, we also need to

Page: 47

get down to the difficult business of managing expectations.

Expectation is a spectrum. Most politicians only talk about the higher end of the spectrum – the lofty things that are nice to hear. But as responsible politicians governing Singapore, we will have to be honest and we will have to communicate the bad news, the harsh realities that each and every Singaporean has to face sooner or later.

Sometimes, in order to do the right thing, we also need to be foolish. Confucius said, "明知不可为而为之" which, loosely translated, means "We have to attempt to do this even though we clearly understand it cannot be done". This may sound foolish today, but I think it is the right thing to do.

Managing expectations is a most difficult thing, but I think Singaporeans need to know the limits and realities they are facing or will face. And even if we think the people will refuse to listen or accept the bad news, in the spirit of Confucius, I hope this is an endeavour that this House will undertake as responsible leaders of this country. Singaporeans deserve no less.

In conclusion, Confucius also said, "五十知天命" which translated means, at 50, one knows one's purpose in life. I turn 50 this year, and Singapore is fast approaching 50 as a nation. We are now at the crossroads and Singaporeans are questioning what is the Singapore Core and where is our country heading. I urge our Government to listen to the people, to labour for the people and to lead the people. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I continue to believe in the Labour Movement's version of "welfare", that is, the best "welfare'' for Singaporeans is to ensure full employment. This boils down to ensuring a healthy and growing economy with good job opportunities, so Singaporeans can lead a better life. In my opinion, this year's Budget titled "A Better Singapore", is, in fact, trying to achieve economic and manpower growth, so that all will have job opportunities and better jobs, better lives, then we can have a better home.

Page: 48

As a country with few resources, we have taken an "open" approach to our economy. In fact, Singapore is ranked as the world's second most open economy in the 2013 Index of Economic Freedom. We have not only grown our presence as a hub for international trade, but also attracted many businesses to establish their bases here, creating more job opportunities. This has allowed us to maintain a low unemployment rate, with abundant value-added job opportunities. We should continue in this direction, as this is critical to building a better Singapore.

My key message to all Singaporean employers is to value every worker – and treat all employees with the dignity and fairness they deserve.

Moving forward, we have to ensure that as we calibrate our workforce numbers, we are fair to all workers – both protecting the interests of our Singapore Core and ensuring that foreign workers are treated with rights and dignity that they are entitled to.

At the Migrant Workers Centre, we have endeavoured to not only provide humanitarian assistance, but also proactively address potential conflicts, engaging migrant workers in educational outreach efforts and facilitated integration activities.

These moves set a good foundation for all employers. Valuing all workers – local and foreign – also builds a conducive organisational culture and a fair and equitable work environment that supports cross-cultural teamwork, maintains and builds trust, loyalty, productivity and high morale. It is a win-win move for all organisations to take the "people developer" mindset to attract, cultivate and retain talent among all its workers.

In valuing every worker, we should go for quality and not quantity. It is imperative that employers value talent and value-added skills. I would like to emphasise that one must not look at quantity, but quality. In 2010, the Economic Strategy Committee had already suggested progressively reining in the growth of foreign worker numbers. Now that measures to tighten foreign worker inflow have been implemented, we can see its immediate effect. Many are worried they may not be able to find enough workers to fill job positions. I understand these worries.

However, we must also look at ways to ensure the sustainability of our future workforce. More does not necessarily mean better. We must reduce reliance on foreign workers. In this way, we can develop in a sustainable way,

Page: 49

and attract high-quality workers to fill job vacancies.

Skilling-up the workforce with the Progressive Wage Model is the key way forward. All companies, no matter big or small, should make use of the Government's growth package to come up with a comprehensive plan to boost productivity, improve workers' welfare, particularly in terms of increasing wages of the low-wage workers. This is something that can only be achieved with increased competitiveness and productivity growth.

As the social partner within the tripartite arrangement, the Government, being the largest employer, should do more. At the same time, they should ensure that employers understand how they can benefit from the various growth packages, and cut down on red tape. At the same time, the Government should do more to help employers increase productivity and make use of the Wage Credit Scheme to speed up the adoption of the Progressive Wage Model initiated by the Labour Movement, NTUC.

Many employers are concerned about what will happen after the three-year implementation period for WCS runs out. I want to tell everyone that NTUC has already started collaborating with a few companies a few years ago and has seen many success stories. In the past few years, the Customer-centric Initiative by NTUC, SPRING Singapore and Workforce Development Agency has resulted in many companies re-designing their workflow, improving the companies' performance, as well as attracting and retaining more staff, getting more Singaporeans to join the service industry. Recently, the Government lowered the Dependency Ratio Ceiling for the services sector. A few companies have reacted positively by seizing the opportunity and have achieved stable growth. After coming on board the scheme, productivity went up by 23% on average and workers' salaries increased by 16% in some companies.

At Han's Group of Companies, which runs F&B outlets, the company made use of the Government's growth package, and overall productivity doubled. The company has also seen a 58.9% increase in revenue and gave staff a bonus amounting to a generous 15% of their net profits. Han's has gone a step further. For one, it gives $200 to any staff that refers a new employee that stays on for more than three months. In addition, Han's only employs Singaporeans for its office-based jobs. If an employee has done well and is more productive, achieving higher sales figures for the outlet, the employee will receive a bonus equivalent to 2% of his/her quarterly salary. Since March last year, the company has increased wages of their workers twice and has given a pay increase of $200

Page: 50

to employees from its outlets in Singapore.

Han's also tapped on the Government's assistance schemes to bring in advanced equipment and technology, as well as automation systems, in the form of automatic roasters and tablet computers that help customers order while still waiting in line. These measures have boosted sales across its 24 outlets within a year.

Companies that respond positively have all moved a big step forward. They are committed to redeveloping their manpower resources and redesigning work flow, and have seen an increase in their returns while boosting productivity. These companies deserve to be rewarded.

I urge MOM to consider granting short-term DRC flexibility to these companies that have embarked on schemes with the NTUC, the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i), SPRING and WDA, to assist these companies in ensuring their plans are effectively executed.

Mdm Speaker, with a high employment rate and a tight labour market, wages will naturally increase. In order to cope with the ever increasing wage costs, companies must learn from the examples I mentioned above, by tapping on Government schemes to invest in productivity development or reduce reliance on foreign manpower, or move up the value chain. The Wage Credit Scheme is a form of transitional support for businesses before their investments take off. The WCS can serve as a catalyst; it is like the medical ingredient added to enhance the efficacy of medicine. If companies, big or small, tap on the suite of Government productivity schemes, together with the WCS, to increase productivity and restructure, and allow employees to enjoy wage increases, the WCS will definitely be of help. It will allow employees to enjoy the fruits of labour, while ensuring that companies can achieve sustainable growth, and not worry about what will happen in three years' time.

Mdm Speaker, to ensure that Singaporeans have a better life, the Progressive Wage System initiated by the tripartite partners is the way to go. In July and September 2010, NTUC Hospitality and Consumer Business Cluster (HCBC) launched the Core Executive Development Programme in the hotel and F&B sector, and retail sector respectively.

Thus far, the HCBC has worked with seven hotels to create more high value-added jobs with higher wages, optimising their manpower use. Such positions usually command a 30% to 50% premium in salary over a traditional single skill-

Page: 51

set job. For example, one hotel created a new position called Hotel Operations Specialist Team (HOST), which is different from other single skill-set positions, with starting pay increasing from $1,300 to $1,800.

In our pilot phase, a total of 95 vacancies have been created. Other hotels should follow suit. These positions help train workers in more than one skill set, which not only enhances the worker's employability but also allows the hotel to improve productivity. Of course, this has also enhanced the company's competitiveness, and helped the hotel cope with the shortage of manpower.

Mdm Speaker, these schemes not only develop our blue-collar workers. We have also launched these schemes for white-collar PMEs. We launched the Executive Development Programme and Core Executive Programme, which help companies hire graduates from local Polytechnics and Universities. Currently, eight hotels are participating in the initial stage, creating 19 management positions. In the F&B and retail sector, 174 PME positions have been created for graduates from local Polytechnics and Universities.

All these examples show that no matter the size of the company, they can all tap on the Government's productivity schemes and redesign their workflow to strengthen their operations, while increasing job opportunities for workers. With a transitional scheme like WCS and a commitment to gain sharing, SMEs will be able to enjoy a smooth transition during the restructuring process, and achieve sustainable growth. Then, they will have no problems sustaining the wage increases three years later.

Yesterday, I read a quote from a famous entrepreneur. He said, "Change is the only constant." In the midst of change, one should not be pessimistic, because your greatest enemy is not the change in environment, but your self-confidence. If you are unable to stand firmly, nobody can help you. The Government has tried to give companies a boost through various measures and incentive schemes, so companies should also give themselves a boost and advance towards a better tomorrow.

(In English): Madam, in English. Mdm Speaker, another aspect of valuing all workers and treating all employees with the dignity and fairness they deserve is fairness in recruitment. Employers, as responsible corporate citizens, should abide by values, such as fairness. This is the case in recruitment drives. Employers need to play their part to ensure that the qualifications, training and skills required of local workers are the same as that required of the foreign

Page: 52

workers.

At the end of the day, I believe that we need to secure migrant workers with the right technical skills, as well as the social adaptability to co-exist with our locals, who are their co-workers. This will, in turn, help us focus on productivity and continuous improvement to build a bigger piece of the economic pie for all to share, and, more importantly, to ensure that the benefits of growth in terms of job opportunities and salaries will flow to Singaporeans.

One area that the Government should look into is reviewing the entry-level Employment Pass. We must ensure that employers give fair opportunities to fresh graduates of our local Polytechnics and Universities.

Madam, I am pleased about the recent amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act to increase protection of migrant workers and increased enforcement to punish errant employers. We should now review the Employment Act, too. I renew the call for more legislative protection for all workers, particularly in the area of non-payment of salaries, which looks into areas like enhancing the recording of salaries, such as making payslips mandatory.

We also have to come down strongly on employers who do not pay their workers promptly. I would like to urge MOM to prosecute such employers to set a firm stance that such moves are unacceptable.

Mdm Speaker, besides our moves to create a vibrant and dynamic manpower landscape that provides opportunities and productivity outputs in a fair and just way, we must also look beyond just managing manpower to optimise and sustain it. To this end, we must continue our efforts to build a safer and healthier workplace for all. It is essential that every worker, whatever his or her job is, returns to his or her home safe and sound at the end of every workday.

Now that the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act covers all workplaces, the Government must ensure that this Act will really have teeth and have measures to help every worker say no to risks at work and help every company to be equipped to maintain their WSH capability. I urge MOM to roll out more incentives and training support to unions and companies to achieve their WSH targets and monitor that these are sustainable.

Page: 53

Lastly, I would like to reiterate my call for reviewing and enhancing the portable medical benefits. A flexible and comprehensive portable medical scheme is a good form of security for our workers; in particular, we are all more concerned about medical expenses and also with the drive towards longer employment and the implementation of the Re-employment Act. Currently, the Government only gives tax incentives for employers to contribute additional MediSave for their employees. Mdm Speaker, I hope MOF will seriously consider my call again to review its tax incentive scheme to encourage efforts that enable medical benefits to be made portable in whatever form, and not just only this form, so as to help everyone make the medical benefits for our employees portable.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, with the new direction – lower dependency ratios, higher levies, stricter manpower regulations – a new reality is upon us. These moves, while challenging now in the initial stage, will serve to help us to do better, be more productive, innovative, self-reliant and be better skilled. I urge employers to take on the challenges and the Government to support efforts that have been put in by the tripartite partners. Most importantly, we must go for quality and not quantity, value every worker in this transition and transformation process. Madam, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, my speech today is divided into two parts – the first assesses the Budget's attempts to create a more inclusive Singapore, with the second focus on changes to our car ownership policy as a result of the Budget announcement on the same.

Mdm Speaker, a simple "control F" of the Budget speech, and a search for the words "do more" reveal seven matches. According to the Budget, the Government will do more for retirees, Singaporeans who need help with their medical expenses, seniors so that they have a sense of economic security and fulfilment in their retirement years, and also for children in the pre-school and Primary school levels.

The Government also wants to do more against rising inequality to tilt the balance in favour of the lower and middle income, and for older Singaporeans, with enhancements in Workfare and CPF. The timing of these changes are significant, too – three years before the next General Elections with enough lead time for the proposals to take effect.

Page: 54

Be that as it may, the Government's efforts to improve social mobility and reduce inequality are necessary steps, especially in view of how the global economy and, more importantly, forces beyond this Government's control, are shaping up. Chiefly among which are inequality and economic insecurity.

For the longest time, the state discourse in Singapore has eschewed any reference to welfare. Similarly, the state has tended to place meritocracy on a pedestal. In fact, the political leadership has tended to frame both issues in the extreme, with welfare representing the bad and meritocracy representing the good.

However, this Budget was noteworthy because meritocracy came with a caveat. The Deputy Prime Minister's Budget speech noted that meritocracy alone will not assure Singaporeans of social mobility and that Government policies seek to level up children that come from poorer and less stable families. This is a significant statement as it appears to premonition a shift in the state discourse.

Equally noteworthy, the Budget speech established that while overall healthcare expenditure will go up, Government policies envisage a reduction in Singaporeans' out-of-pocket share of medical costs, with the Government taking on a larger share. Whatever the reasons for these shifts to the left, they are in line with the long-held belief of the Workers' Party and many Singaporeans that for a country with a per capita income of about US$45,000, the Government can do much more on the social front for Singaporeans.

Mdm Speaker, one subject covered in the Budget that affects many middle-class Singaporeans are changes to the Government's policy on car ownership. The significance of the Budget and associated changes to the Government's car ownership policy led the executive director of a leading car dealership to say, "In my 28 years in this trade, this is the most serious development I have seen." An accounting partner of a Big Four firm was quoted as saying, "The Minister is riding through Singapore's Sherwood Forest to tax the rich who own high-end properties and drive luxury cars."

While I would not take it as far as the accounting partner did – as there is much more room for greater progressivity in our tax system – I am in favour of higher taxes paid by those who drive luxury vehicles. It was telling that as the Minister spoke about the tiered ARF for his Budget speech, an MAS circular about a cap on loan-to-valuation (LTV) ratios also started making its rounds.

Page: 55

The circular established that the new loan quantum for a car with an OMV of less than $20,000 would be 60% of the car price and 50% if the OMV was higher. Significantly, the maximum loan repayment is now only five years, from the 10 years previously.

On one level, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance's Budget speech on tiered Additional Registration Fees (ARF) appeared to continue with the theme of progressive taxation, but the possible effects of the Budget announcement and the MAS circular taken together lead me to conclude the opposite: that the rich will benefit from the latest changes to our car ownership policy as the changes do not address the high disposable income of the rich.

In the context of the Budget statement, it would have been helpful if the Minister had addressed the changes to the ARF with the policy intent of the MAS circular, especially since the two are so inextricably linked. If these changes were implemented to force Singaporeans to use public transport, the system, as it stands, leaves much to be desired, especially during peak hours. I am not sure what the effects of these latest changes to our car ownership policy will be, as there are differing views on the impact of the latest policy changes on COE prices and, as a result, the price of cars. But the effect of the new LTV ratios is likely to be most acutely felt by families with two or more children and those with elderly family members or the disabled who need the mobility provided by a car but are unable to cough up the down-payments since the larger household size necessarily entails a lower disposable income set aside for the higher down-payment required now.

There is also the tangential concern about the inability of larger families to purchase a vehicle which, from a policy perspective, may well indirectly stymie efforts to promote our TFR, since the lack of mobility for family, leisure, travel and support will well factor into a person's decision to have fewer children and prejudice those who already have large families. It would be imperative for the Government to look at possible tweaks to the system if indeed larger families and families that include disabled Singaporeans or elderly parents are genuinely affected, as the effects of the new policy kick in over the next few months.

One specific way could be to raise the LTV ratio for cars back to 70% as it was previously, but only for families with two or more children so as to buttress and incentivise the Government's efforts to raise TFR.

Page: 56

Mdm Speaker, it would be a tragedy if younger Singaporeans included the inability to purchase a car as a reason for wanting to look abroad for greener pastures, in addition to the visceral insecurity of a more crowded Singapore in the future. It may be helpful for the Government to solicit feedback from Singaporeans about our car ownership policy going forward, particularly on the aspirations of owning a car, even if the stated objective of this policy is to discourage Singaporeans from over leveraging.

This may entail a deeper look into the COE system or even larger national considerations, such as the future population size of Singapore, so that the policy fear of a more crowded Singapore does not operate to scuttle the aspirations of Singaporeans to own the car of their dreams, unless of course the Government's intention – be it directly or directly – is to remove the dream of car ownership for middle-class Singaporeans.

On the flip side, I am encouraged by tweaks to the COE policy that give greater business flexibility to SMEs. In January 2013, I asked the Minister for Transport in a Parliamentary Question whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the COE bidding system for goods vehicles and buses to alleviate the costs of doing business for SMEs. While the Minister replied that there were no plans to review the COE system for the said category, he did say that, as part of Budget 2013, his Ministry would carefully consider if more help was needed. To this extent, I welcome the flexibility granted to commercial vehicle owners whose vehicles have reached the end of their 10-year COE, as they can now choose to renew their COEs for five years in the first instance, and a further five years later.

Likewise, the granting of a one-year 30% road tax rebate for goods vehicles, buses and taxis is also welcomed. It would be helpful if the Government could make the extension of such road tax grants permanent, especially for the "mom-and-pop" SMEs with a headcount of five or less, when COE prices reach astronomically high levels as they have been in the recent past for Category C COEs. In addition, as some SME owners, particularly hawkers and sundry store owners, work with narrow margins, it may be helpful to look into allowing Category C COE holders to extend their COEs every 30 months or two-and-a-half years, rather than every five years, as the Budget has announced. Such a move would allow for even greater flexibility for SME owners and nudge them to consider pulling an older vehicle off the road since the decision-making cycle of renewing of COE would be shorter.

Mdm Speaker, post Budget, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance acknowledged that the country continues to be in an unhappy part of

Page: 57

the property cycle, following up from the Budget speech that reiterates that the Government will spend more efforts in resolving the present challenges facing housing and transport. While I look forward to the resolution of these problems, it would be equally important for the Government to explain the reasons behind significant policy shifts instead of leaving Singaporeans to second guess the Government's real purpose, as has been the feedback for MAS' changes to the car ownership policy. Such engagement will help reduce unpredictability and encourage a more participatory democracy and allow Singaporeans to plan for their future with more certainty.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on Budget 2013. Madam, this year's Budget has many initiatives for both companies as well as for Singaporeans, especially those more affected by the high cost of living and in doing business. I feel that while the intention of the Budget is very good, to be an inclusive Budget, we really need to be more targeted on how we roll out the various schemes and incentives and the Minister could have consolidated many of the Budget measures into three clear areas.

First, increasing the real wages of Singaporeans, especially for the lower income Singaporeans; second, helping companies survive the short-term pressures of cost and manpower crunch by introducing cost mitigation initiatives; and third, to recalibrate the rate of restructuring.

Madam, on helping companies, I feel that the current year's Budget did not adequately address the cost of doing business issues that are faced by many of our companies. The problems that they face are multi-faceted – the high cost of rental and real estate, high cost of the Singapore dollar therefore making us uncompetitive, the increasing labour costs, and the demand and supply imbalance of infrastructure and vehicles that has skyrocketed prices of goods and services in Singapore.

This year's Budget could, therefore, have focused on cost competitiveness, especially since we are already facing steeper competition from many of our neighbouring countries. The Government has placed all its bets on productivity improvements, which, we all know, will take a little longer to be achieved and that, too, not easily. So, in the meantime, all the other bottomline cost issues will plague companies rendering them uncompetitive. We need to give companies some breathing space to survive first and then restructure to

Page: 58

become competitive and, then, strong. How can we build a strong and resilient economy if the bulk of our companies are struggling to stay afloat with these issues?

The tax rebates to help mitigate costs which, although is a welcome move, will help only those companies that are profitable and will not do much to help those companies that are already struggling to make profits.

On achieving productivity gains, it is good that we are now really focused on productivity-driven growth, as a small and expensive country like Singapore should be pursuing such a growth strategy in the first place. But I think we are putting the cart before the horse by increasing levies and restricting foreign workers before productivity improvements can take effect; and this is a risky strategy that the Government is taking, in my opinion.

In the past, we also tried to pursue a productivity-driven growth, through the Construction 21 project in late 1999, to address the increasing problems in the construction sector. Then, there was Retail 21 launched in March 2001, which was part of the SME 21 vision of doubling the impact on the productivity level of the retail sector in Singapore. And there was ProAct 21 launched about a decade ago for Singapore to become a knowledge-based economy, deriving its competitive edge from productivity.

All of these did not produce the desired results. But we also started to forgo many of these productivity initiatives as we pursued the growth-at-all-cost economic strategy with the import of cheap and, in many cases, unskilled workers.

It is good that the Government is now serious about the productivity drive and I hope we will not make future U-turns on this as we did in the past, but I am asking the Government to be realistic about the rate at which companies can restructure their businesses.

The Government needs to ask whether the current schemes, like the PIC and the intended Wage Credit Scheme, are going to change the behaviour of companies and also that of the employees. The way things are going with the PIC, in my opinion, is that companies that are going to spend on some big ticket items, especially the larger companies, are benefiting by claiming back money from the Government for what they are going to spend anyway. But did they have a mindset change in terms of doing more things to improve productivity? My gut feel is that a small number only really did something to change

Page: 59

behaviour towards productivity-driven business models. The same will be with the Wage Credit Scheme, in my opinion. Companies, especially bigger companies, will anyway be increasing their employees' salaries and it would have nothing to do with new productivity behaviour and they will be claiming millions of dollars from the Government. It will be a pity if this is widespread. We should, therefore, relook and sharpen some of these productivity intended tools introduced in this year's and past years' Budgets.

On survival versus restructuring, I urge the Government to recalibrate the whole process. I think this is something that we really have to think about very seriously, to allow companies to survive first before going for aggressive restructuring. We are now forcing companies to fight for their survival and aggressively restructure for an aggressive productivity goal, all at the same time.

I would like to suggest we recalibrate the process and timing and focus on a five-year goal where we slow down in the first two years but we speed up even faster than the current projected five-year rate, from the third year onwards. We will still arrive at the same destination, with the same goals that we want, but through a different journey or route. If, after two years, companies fail to restructure, despite the grace period given by the Government, they will face even greater challenges from the third year onwards, and they will have to make even steeper changes as the rate of restructuring then becomes much more intense. And if they fail to restructure in the first two years, then I think it will be a fair proposition that the Government cannot help any further because they failed to help themselves when they were given ample opportunity.

The Minister might say that the Government did give ample notice to companies about the impending foreign labour cuts, but I want to say that many in the business community thought that the Government would again make a U-turn on its labour policies, as it did in the past. Now that everyone knows that the Government means business in the restructuring drive and that there will be no more U-turns, let us give companies a last chance to restructure properly. I am afraid that we are pushing companies beyond the tipping point unnecessarily with the aggressive pace of restructuring.

What about the impact on labour policies? I hope that the Government will tweak the labour control measures. We need two things to happen. First, how can we make it more attractive for locals to enter the workforce and, second, we need to recalibrate the reduction rate of foreign workers. While I agree that in the longer term we need to be less dependent on foreigners, in the short term, we cannot suddenly turn off the tap. So, let us recalibrate the reduction rate to

Page: 60

give companies some time to restructure their business models.

MOM is already working on many things to attract more locals to the workforce and I hope these will work well. This year's Budget also announced a number of measures that, hopefully, will attract locals to the workforce. I believe we will have some success by these measures but we need to attract them with reasonable wages. The current approach by the Government is to encourage employers to raise wages, but I feel that it may take too long and we may lose the battle for restructuring in the near term. I feel that we cannot wait and hope for wages to go up by encouraging employers. We have waited too long and we should, therefore, take a more decisive action right now.

Therefore, I would like to once again call on the Government to adopt a formal minimum wage system to speed up the reform of wages for locals. Some say that the minimum wage adds to the cost problems for companies. I am, therefore, suggesting a Government-assisted, time-reducing minimum wage system, something like the Jobs Credit Scheme where the employer pays a certain level of wages he can afford and the Government tops up the rest needed to make up the minimum wage. There can be a five-year decline in the Government top-up which zeroes out in the sixth year and then the company will have to pay the full minimum wage from the sixth year onwards.

For companies, what this means is that they will have a clear roadmap of reduction of foreign workforce quotas − a five-year reduction and also a five-year roadmap of having to pay higher wages. This will be an excellent way to compel companies to restructure and work seriously on productivity and, if they fail to do so, they will know that it will not be viable for them to operate here in Singapore and may perhaps have to relocate or shut down. We will therefore not artificially kill companies too early with our desired pace of restructuring.

We must also have greater confidence that Singaporeans with minimum wage will not be a deterrent for employers. We have many other good things going for us − good infrastructure, good connectivity with global markets, good financial system, stable government, a hardworking work force and, of course, low taxes. These will be enough to balance any negativity that may arise as a result of a minimum wage system here in Singapore.

Over the Chinese New Year period, I spoke with a senior banker from Hong Kong who told me that the Hong Kong government was worried that the minimum wage will result in companies leaving and job losses for people. But this did not happen and Hong Kong's economy, in fact, remains vibrant and

Page: 61

continues to boom and they are now advocating − just after one year − an increase of the minimum wage that they had set a year ago. I believe that as long we have a vibrant economy, we should be confident and not be afraid of establishing a minimum wage system.

Hong Kong's lesson is that the minimum wage policy helped enhance the incentive to work. The labour force participation rates rose across different age groups and educational levels, especially among women and the elderly. Even in the US recently, President Obama announced an increase of the minimum wage, and I do not think the US economy is less vibrant as a result of this policy.

In Singapore, I am suggesting that the minimum wage could be around $1,500, something less than what the US practises. This will allow Singaporeans and their families to have a basic decent quality of life based on our current cost structures. If we pay people well, they will do the job. I firmly believe that what we consider as jobs which Singaporeans are not willing to do are such because we have depressed the wages in industries like construction, security and cleaning industries. It is unfair for such jobs to pay Singaporeans just $800 or $900 per month when cost of living is so high. If we pay a reasonable salary for some of these jobs, I am sure Singaporeans will be willing to do them. It is happening in all the developed countries in the world, like Australia, USA and Japan where locals proudly do these jobs because they are paid well and because the jobs are restructured to be more value added than the way we have structured these jobs in Singapore. We should raise the salary base to uplift the lives of lower income Singaporeans and use the quotas on S Passes to lift the median wages of Singaporeans.

The Wage Credit Scheme is a good attempt to help encourage companies to pay employees more, but I do not think we will achieve the desired objective easily for a few reasons. First, the three-year limit of wage support will put an overall salary burden on companies from the fourth year onwards. Fearing that they may not be able to support the future wage all by themselves, we may not achieve the objective of uplifting the workers' salaries in the near term. Second, the scheme requires companies to pay the salary first and claim later, in fact, I think at the end of one year of employment. So, companies incur costs first, adding to their cost and cash flow woes. It will be viewed as a cost-adding component although the intent is to have companies pay higher wages for Singaporeans who otherwise may not want to take up a job. Third, bigger companies will benefit most from this scheme because they would in any case be increasing their salaries to retain and hire staff. And in the case of hiring new staff, they would in any case be raising salaries after a typical probation of three months or so. Why compensate them when they do not really need it? I recall

Page: 62

when we implemented the Jobs Credit Scheme after the 2009 recession, this is exactly what happened. When I spoke with some CEOs, some actually told me that they did not really need the money but it was a welcome addition to their income, a few million dollars each for some of these big companies.

Why are companies struggling to pay higher wages to Singaporeans? Because the overall cost of doing business is very high, especially rentals. If we had a good handle on costs, companies may not use their employees as a squeeze point. It is unfair for employees to face the brunt of the serious business cost issues that we are facing as a result of our past economic policies and also because of the liberal investment environment we adopted in the past, that is, investment in commercial and industrial properties by locals and foreigners who are just financial investors and have no vested interest in businesses. Therefore, I strongly feel that unless JTC or any other Government agency goes back to providing affordable rentals for our companies, we will have little chance of seeing future local entrepreneurs starting and growing in Singapore. And we will see many of our SMEs actually not being able to operate. One other way of reining in prices is to strictly enforce that industrial property should be only used for goods and services producing activities and not for office and other non-producing activities. The current liberal usage rules have distorted the rentals of industrial properties and, therefore, made it too expensive for industrial users while it may be much cheaper than the office and commercial users.

If we still believe that we need cooperatives like NTUC FairPrice, NTUC Choice Homes and NTUC Foodfare to inject reality to market prices, then why do we not believe that we need JTC rental factories to manage factory rental prices? So, let us bring back the JTC of the past to help us inject some reality into the rentals of industrial properties. In fact, this will discourage the investors from playing with our industrial properties to make monies for themselves because the JTC, leveller of rentals, will not make their returns in investing in industrial properties attractive.

In summary, I would like to urge that we keep things simple and make the measures sharper and more targeted towards achieving the originally intended recipients. These simple measures are, first, the wage gap. Let us combine the WIS, wage credit and some of the GST rebates to have one simple minimum wage scheme supported by the Government for a five-year period. Then, people do not have to feel that they can only survive because of the handouts that they get from the Government. Second, cost of doing business – combine all the initiatives, including the wage credit, to help companies manage cost and cash flow, instead of a blunt tool like the wage credit, as it is intended right now, that

Page: 63

also benefits companies that do not really need it. Let us allow companies to apply for the money that will compensate for their cost of doing business. It may be more cumbersome but it is more targeted, causes companies to justify why they should be given support to manage their costs. So, roll all of the measures into one cost mitigating package. And third, restructuring for productivity. I urge the Government to give companies a five-year roadmap and support the smaller companies with more resources in a more targeted approach to help them restructure. In this respect, I hope that we will add more resources to organisations like SPRING.

If we can do all of these things, we can definitely help companies here a lot more in coping with the restructuring while keeping our targets fixed on the same objectives at the end of the five-year period. I hope the Government will consider these initiatives and make sure that our restructuring plans are effective. As I mentioned at the beginning, we have many excellent ideas in this Budget, but I think we just need to re-target them and we will be very effective in achieving our restructuring goals. On the whole, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, every Budget is a step in nation-building. I rise to support two important principles that undergird Budget 2013 − the notion of an inclusive society and shared growth, which are the cornerstones of the PAP Government's nation-building ethos. So, I am actually happy to hear the Member, Mr Pritam Singh's acknowledgement of the Government's ethos, but disagree that it is a departure from the Government's long-standing principles. In fact, part of my speech will show us why, and there is no need to second guess.

Mdm Speaker, first, on inclusive society. When Mr Lee Hsien Loong first became Prime Minister, he reiterated the importance of building an inclusive society. And in recent policy debates, I hear of public intellectuals and Singaporeans at large concerned that we remain an inclusive society, and that no one should be left behind because of their background or the nature of their talent or ability. These people care, and that is good news to a government that has been committing 47 years to building this ethos.

The PAP Government leads by example, actively helps its people beat the odds, whether it is SARS or financial crises, administering help even when it does not seem to be the wisest thing to do within the capitalist market system.

Page: 64

It has done this through its commitment to educating the nation, levelling-up those in need, creating an active income policy, and negotiating with the business sector and labour unions as partners so as to ensure that business and economic growth translate into better jobs and wages, and, of course, ultimately, a better life. The aim is to serve its citizens first.

However, each age has brought its special problems, and, as a sociology student, I know that, with success, you see further sedimentation of class and that is what the PAP Government must try to redress. And it did through this Budget.

If we recall, in the 1960s, we were all almost equally poor but we had a lot of young people. Over the past 40 years, we reaped the demographic dividend via social cohesion and a vibrant economy. As wealth builds up and given the miracle of compound interest, wealth replicates itself a lot more with each generation, contributing, in part, to a higher Gini coefficient. It is not useful to beat ourselves up just because we have been successful in wealth creation. However, what we must do is to mitigate this via progressive taxes and egalitarian fiscal policies, so all boats can be lifted when the tide comes in.

So, the PAP Government has never simply relied on market forces alone to improve the lives of Singaporeans. Equal chance does not equate equal outcomes, and there is a need for active state intervention to address gaps and market failures which erode meritocracy.

There are three aspects in this Budget which I am delighted with. First, helping the marginalised keep up with living costs. The Government improved the support to the lower income and other disadvantaged groups. Positive steps include the increase in the quantum of the GST Voucher, the top-up of the MediFund and ElderCare Fund, the edging-up of the Public Assistance payout and additional help for the disabled population. Together, these measures help these groups to keep up with the rising cost of living.

Second, jobs remain the best welfare. There is dignity in work and in wishing to take responsibility for one's needs. Jobs give people a sense of purpose and fulfilment. The Workfare system reinforces the idea that jobs are the best form of welfare. Hence, the expanded and improved Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) and the newly introduced innovative Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) will help up to 70% of our working citizens cope with cost-of-living issues while living a dignified life. It is a hand-up, not a handout.

Page: 65

Third, which is probably the most important that underpins this Government's ethos, is really social mobility via education. Think of the massive ramp-up in education that has enabled Singaporeans to move from a position of few jobs in the 1960s, to the blue-collar jobs of the 1970s to white collar jobs in the middle class today. This was, in fact, the kind of lifestyle that our people used to aspire back in the 1960s, 1970s and even 1980s.

In the 1970s, only 1% of the population had University education and 11% were in PMET jobs. In 2010, 22%, close to 23% of our resident population, had University education and about 50% of Singaporeans are in PMET jobs. By 2030, well over 40% of each Singaporean cohort will have accessed publicly funded University education and it is expected that two-thirds of Singaporeans will be in PMET jobs. That will be the aspirations that parents of pre-schoolers today have for their children.

The commitment to education as the route to social mobility, therefore, has been a long-standing one. In fact, in December 1990, in a speech to the grassroots, the then Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong said: "I want to elaborate on one of the central pillars in my approach to building a better Singapore. Essentially, I want to maximise and equalise opportunities for Singaporeans to improve themselves. I do not want anyone in our society to miss out on a chance to better his life because he cannot afford the opportunities. I want to give everyone the same chance for a good start in life. I shall do this primarily through education."

With that, we saw efforts placed on "levelling-up" policies – the re-invention of our technical education, which then we had VITB and Primary 8, where students suffered low morale as a result of being labelled "non-academic" or "cannot make it". Today, we have world-class and world-admired Polytechnics and ITEs that others envy, and our young people are proud to be a part of.

Then, in 1993, Edusave was introduced to encourage children of varied talents to pursue their dreams – be it in sports, arts or others. It recognises that success can be achieved in different forms, given we could do more in this area.

Under Prime Minister Lee's leadership, levelling-up through education has gone beyond that of the formal school years. We now have a systematic way to foster life-long learning – from the Workfare Training Support Scheme to the Continuing Education and Training (CET) system. These are pathways to ensure that people have the means to continue to learn, to re-skill and realise their full

Page: 66

potential and earn a good living even as market conditions change.

So, why has the PAP Government done this? This is because the PAP has always been conscious of the need to ensure there is social mobility and that we are an inclusive society. So, at every stage of your life, there is some help from the Government to level up, change course and do better than that we might expect from our "starting point".

On pre-school education, Mdm Speaker, I am especially happy to learn about the large investments that will be put in. Currently, there is a lack of childcare and kindergarten places and teachers, and this needs to be addressed urgently. Many of my residents are waiting and frustrated that some mothers cannot go back to work as a result of the lack of places. I urge the Government to tackle this actively.

Beyond the clear and present shortage, I am glad that much work has gone into thinking about pre-school teaching pedagogy and its delivery. I hope that the enriched pedagogy will be extended to all, especially to children from disadvantaged homes.

Starting with bigger investments in pre-school education and early intervention programmes will mean a lot, especially for the disadvantaged families. Since 2010, I have been a frequent visitor to the two blocks of rental flats in my division in Punggol North. There are about 500 units there, with many young children and the elderly. My heart aches whenever I see and hear that the little children of school-going age are still unable to read A-B-C or count one-two-three. They are capable of it, and I know that. But they did not have the environment to nurture them. We need to help them and give them a fighting chance to life, to break out of their poverty cycle.

Therefore, my grassroots leaders and myself started a relentless campaign to persuade the then MCYS and HDB to allow the void deck space to be turned into a pre-school education centre. We also persuaded a VWO to design both the space and jobs to cater to the elderly population and generate jobs for the residents of the rental blocks. We hope to showcase students who show potential in both the academic and non-academic arena, and, in so doing, inspire the rest of the students and parents in our rental blocks to strive for a better tomorrow. The simple message is: there is hope when we all work together. The centre is now almost built, and I will do my utmost to make it a success.

Page: 67

So, please do not allow anyone to say that this Government or the leadership has neglected this key objective of social mobility and inclusiveness. Perhaps, what we need is a bigger, bolder vision to really stir the soul. Could it look something like this: could we, say, set the target to send our poorest children up the socio-economic ladder – such that in 20 years, X number of children whose parents are in the bottom 30 percentile of today's income ladder, would be amongst the top 30 percentile of tomorrow's income ladder? Are we brave enough?

Mdm Speaker, let it be known that this House has, over the past 47 years with the PAP Government, stood firm in its commitment to improving the lives of Singaporeans. Today, it is part and parcel of the Singaporean culture, spirit and ethos to uphold the ideal of an inclusive society. The market served us. It should never be the other way around. Measure that. Put it into our Public Service Outcomes Reviews that MOF conducts. Better still, adopt my proposal from last year's Budget debate to properly develop a "Singapore Inc(lusive) Balance Sheet" and an index of well-being to institutionalise this fact that a PAP-led Government puts citizens' well-being first!

Now, onto the second point on shared growth. I applaud the Wage Credit Scheme and the rest of the three-year Transition Support Scheme. In responding to the need to restructure the economy so that we rely less on manpower, the Government is saying that, through the packages, it will try to recognise the costs of doing that and will play its part to soften its transition. I do agree with Member Inderjit Singh that we need to make sure that we do not put the cart before the horse. But it is far from being a strategy of "labour shock therapy" to turn off the tap to what our industries need.

What piqued my interest was the $100 million that will be set aside for the Collaborative Industry Project that will enable SMEs to join hands to find common solutions to problems they face. Collaborative innovation is the way to go, but I would like to know how this will really work on the ground, especially in the social services sector. Meanwhile, at every Budget, I will relentlessly push the ideas of social innovation and social enterprise. This year, I will do the same and the new idea is called "collaborative consumption".

Mdm Speaker, the well-being index I spoke of earlier champions multiple bottom lines and not just the financial or fiscal one. In past speeches, I have offered several examples of how social innovation could strengthen social cohesion while addressing practical economic needs.

Page: 68

This year, the new idea is called the "sharing economy" or "collaborative consumption", which is a new idea that has taken the world of social innovation by storm. In 2011, Time magazine called it the top 10 ideas that will change the world. In February 2013, Forbes magazine estimated the revenue to surpass $3.5 billion this year, with growth exceeding 25%. At that rate, peer-to-peer sharing is moving from an income boost in a stagnant wage market into a disruptive economic force.

So, how does this work? Simply put, this is like going back to the kampong days when people did not have everything they needed, but they shared what they had with each other. In other words, the emphasis is not on ownership, but on access to resources. Many homes have power drills or tools that are used only once and occupy space. If these tools could be shared for free or for a fee, we will maximise their value and also utility.

My first example has to do with land transport and this is the idea of the Zipcar. I used Zipcar in Boston and Connecticut back in 2007. All I had to do was have a phone and a zip card, find out if a car was available nearby and reserve it, and then use my card to unlock it and drive it away. I do not need to worry about parking, because I could park everywhere where Zipcar is made available. It was so convenient that owning a car became unthinkable.

Another example is Airbnb, started in 2007 by two young guys with a need for rooms to accommodate conference guests. Instead of using more land to build hotels, Airbnb solves the bed crunch by allowing people to advertise their spare rooms or properties in a website and, suddenly, tens of thousands of rooms and houses are made available in more than 34,000 cities and 192 countries. If you search the listing under Singapore, you will find 471 properties listed, a boon to both owners and guests, with pictures, details and so on. Singaporeans are already contributing to the sharing economy and we should encourage it.

Zipcar is estimated to be worth US$500 million, while Airbnb is valued at US$2.5 billion. These are just two amongst many of the examples that I could quote. But, what is more interesting would be how we can use this concept to solve some of the supply shortage crunches in Singapore today.

Could we come up with car sharing, bicycle sharing, neighbourhood childcare networks, elderly step-down homecare, and so on and so forth? I think these are entrepreneurship that could tackle social concerns based on the principle of self-help and mutual help, of trust, of achieving utility while reaping

Page: 69

social dividend and economic benefits.

Aided by modern technology and peer-to-peer connection or social networking, the Sharing Economy prioritises access to goods and services over ownership and convenience over ego. We can do more, own less and rent the rest with the help of ICT. It cuts waste, good for the individual's pocket and good for Mother Earth. It is smarter and a boon for cash-strapped families in a weak recovery. It also frees up the much-needed space in the house and puts cash in the pocket for more productive use. This accumulated saving could spur more innovative entrepreneurial activities, especially for young start-ups waiting to change the world with their new ideas. Obviously, to share effectively, people have to help each other, trust each other, learn to take care of common assets and build on their social bonds.

The Government should create an incentive framework for the Sharing Economy to happen here, in the same way that it has set aside the $100 million for collaborative industry projects. Why not set aside another $100 million for collaborative consumption projects? Further, liberalise some stiff rulings in the transport, housing and other areas where there are currently a severe supply shortage, and allow people to start innovating. It will bring a paradigm shift to how we could frame our economy. If successfully implemented, it will provide a sustainable framework for the Government to think about our economic eco-system such that it brings about a higher quality of life and lowers the cost of living, reduce inequalities, increase trust and social cohesion amongst Singaporeans.

So, to end, I think there should be no mistaking – we are committed to building an inclusive society, collaboratively, with each group and sector bearing responsibility so that society as a whole can progress, as Deputy Prime Minister Tharman has put it very aptly in his Budget Speech.

I am glad that we do not have a pure Robin Hood situation, where we rob from one and give to another.

We can see that the Government is prepared to pick up the tab for economic restructuring and, as we know it, to achieve inclusive, quality growth for all. Perhaps, what we have is a happier Stone Soup situation. The story goes this way: long ago, a village was starving when a boy said that he would make "stone soup" to feed the community. He is poor but has a big heart and a big vision. He threw a stone into a big pot of boiling water and started to stir. This inspired the villagers to throw into the soup whatever little bits of vegetables

Page: 70

that they could find – a carrot, some potatoes – and each contributed what little that they could get from their homes or even just along the road and in the trees that they could pick from. At last, the village soup was born and stomachs were filled.

The positive energy of the stone soup story brings the real change we want for our people. No effort is too small, so long as we all do our part. We take care of one another. We progress together, levelling up where we can, waiting for one another when it takes a little longer. Because this village is called Singapore, my home, our kampung. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, Budget 2013, the narrative reads "A Better Singapore: Quality Growth, An Inclusive Society". The last three words are also the three most meaningful words – when we build and have an inclusive society, we will have a Better Singapore. So, today, I wish to confine my speech on just this aspect.

Building an inclusive society cannot be mere rhetoric. It covers several tenets. It is about looking after and offering a dignified life to all segments of our population; it is about caring and doing the right things for various groups in our community, our staff, our fellow Singaporeans; it is about helping the poor and elderly, those who are physically challenged or have special needs; or those who had served time in prison and strive to start afresh; it is also about helping and providing better jobs for our fellow citizens. For corporates, it is about being socially responsible to their staff, their community and the environment they operate in. It is about making normal and reasonable profits and, certainly, not about maximising profits.

For corporates, the notion of an inclusive society compels us to put our money in our talk. I am talking about this creature called social enterprise. Let me first declare my interest as the co-chair of Social Enterprise Association of Singapore and also declare my interest as the CEO of NTUC Fairprice Co-operative which is part of the stable of social enterprises under the NTUC Group. I think social enterprises play an invaluable role in helping us build a more inclusive society. It is a rare creature that has a capitalist mind but a socialist heart. In this Budget, and in future budgets, I hope the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance can look to see how we can further recognise, fund and incentivise social enterprises and also the people behind these social

Page: 71

enterprises.

Let me now share some inspiring stories of two such social enterprises here that have done well and played a significant role in helping us build a more inclusive society and, in turn, a better Singapore.

Last December, I was honoured to attend the inaugural President's Challenge Social Enterprise Awards, and I was delighted that Benny Se Teo was one of the winners of the Social Enterprise Awards. Chef Benny Se Teo founded Eighteen Chefs in 2007. It is a social enterprise which employs and trains ex-drugs offenders. Benny Se Teo takes in ex-offenders like himself during their last few months of their jail sentence to train them in necessary skills so that they can have a new start in life. Through employment, he helps to ease their integration back to the society. Benny went in and out of prison between 1980 and 1993 for heroin addiction from the age of 14. After a near-death experience, he turned over a new leaf and started learning how to cook. Benny serves up not only good food, but a strong dose of hope for other ex-offenders.

More recently, just last month, in February, Mdm Sim Sin Sin, who is the CEO of Laksania, invited me to join her and other friends to celebrate the opening of their latest eatery at Upper East Coast. Laksania is another social enterprise, a social enterprise that Sin Sin herself started in 2008. Their social mission is to help persons with mental or physical disability to gain employment. Laksania employs them and enables them to earn a living using their own efforts. They have set up a central kitchen to hire and train clients of IMH. These clients are encouraged to be self-reliant and have gained important inter-personal and other life skills, setting down the road to financial independence.

These groups have benefited from on-the-job training in the various aspects of F&B and have been fully integrated into their business model – one which is sustainable. Laksania, for those who are not sure what they are, as the name suggests and implies, it is a laksa specialty café where you can try all kinds of laksa. You will be amazed what kind of laksa and how many different types there are. Indeed, in this year's Budget, all social enterprises will benefit from the various schemes, such as the PIC, Wage Credit Scheme and others. But, certainly, I hope they could be given even more help.

Let me now turn to a different kind of social enterprises – co-operatives. UN Secretary General Mr Ban Ki Moon said, "Co-operatives are a unique and invaluable presence in today's world. They help to reduce poverty and generate

Page: 72

jobs." In his message to commemorate International Year of the Co-operatives in 2012, Mr Ban Ki Moon emphasised the role that co-operatives play in strengthening communities socially and economically. He recognised that co-operatives are value-based businesses and are rooted in their communities because they are owned by their members. I certainly agree with what Mr Ban Ki Moon has said and wish to state upfront my contention that co-operatives also help to make for a Better Singapore. As you know, NTUC has set up various cooperatives and they include NTUC Fairprice, NTUC Income, NTUC First Campus and NTUC Foodfare.

Mdm Speaker, yesterday, the hon Member Mr Png Eng Huat made some statements about one such NTUC cooperative, NTUC Foodfare, to be precise. His comments, I felt, cast certain aspersions which I feel compelled to respond and clarify.

Foodfare Co-operative was set up by NTUC in 1995 – just like all other NTUC social enterprises – to help all Singaporeans, not just union members or certain target groups. Foodfare was set up amidst a backdrop of rampant price increases and profiteering by F&B private operators during the introduction of the GST. Foodfare's mission is to keep cooked food prices affordable and ensure that all Singaporeans and consumers can benefit from its initiatives.

How do they do this? First and foremost, Foodfare benchmarks its food and beverage prices against similar locations to ensure they are fair. It moderates the prices of its food and beverage in the coffeeshops and food courts that it operates at by controlling price increases to prevent unchecked increases that hurt consumers. Foodfare has, on many occasions, held prices of basic food and beverage down during recessions when the need is greatest. For example, in February 2011, when there was a tide of price increases within the coffeeshop/foodcourt industry, Foodfare announced that it would hold off any price increases at all its outlets for the rest of the year. While Foodfare is not immune to the business pressures of rising food, labour and rental costs, it did so in order that all Singaporeans, not just union members, can better cope with inflation. By setting this price floor, Foodfare stood against the rage of others who had been raising their prices and, as some would say, profiteer. I think this is something to be applauded, not derided.

In addition, in April 2011, Foodfare launched its One Million Plates for Singapore, an initiative to help Singaporeans cope with the rising cost of cooked food. Under this initiative, Foodfare set aside one million NTUC Value Meals, which are available not only to union members, but to all Singaporeans in all its outlets. The meals, at discounted prices, can be redeemed via coupons

Page: 73

at every stall. In order to better reach out to the poor and needy who are not union members, Foodfare also partnered the Community Development Councils (CDCs) to distribute 200,000 coupons out of the one million to needy residents so as to make a difference where it is most needed.

Foodfare's efforts to do good for the general public to moderate the cost of cooked food are also being acknowledged by a private property owner of Marina Bay Financial Centre. In fact, just now, hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa talked about his own personal experiences. Foodfare was invited by the owner there to operate the foodcourt there in order to provide reasonably priced and quality cooked food to the general public and the working people in the Marina Bay area. I know for a fact that many office workers and PMEs there, they all wished NTUC Foodfare had opened much earlier so that they could have saved more money from the meals they had to otherwise take elsewhere before Foodfare was there.

Now, let me give some more specific examples of the good that Foodfare has done for all Singaporeans and consumers. For example, Foodfare's Breakfast Set delivers very good value at just $1.80 to the public. And what does $1.80 give you? Two eggs, a toast and a cup of coffee or tea. If you compare that with the average price sold in the market today, I think they range between $2.50 and $2.

80. Additionally, its basic coffee or tea prices start at how much? $0.70 and $0.80 at their coffeeshops and food courts respectively. These are good benchmarks. These prices, offered to all customers, have not increased since 2006, regardless of where the outlets are.

They strive to ensure that basic food offerings, such as fishball noodles, yong tau foo, duck rice and others, are one of the cheapest and provide great value for its customers – again, regardless of whether they are union members. For example, you can get a bowl of fishball noodles at $2.50 in their Clementi coffeeshop. If you like chicken rice, there is $2.80 chicken rice at Yew Tee coffeeshop, and char siew noodle at its Rivervale Mall foodcourt for $2.80 a plate.

It is not an easy task to balance quality options and affordability for the masses and, at the same time, balancing the business aspirations of their tenants. In addition, they strive to also deliver these in a good shopping ambience – standards and comforts befitting what the customers want. Members heard earlier their foodcourt at Marina Bay Financial Centre. Those who have not been there, pay a visit. It really serves up a menu at heartland foodcourt prices which are easily 5% to 15% cheaper than any neighbouring

Page: 74

foodcourts in that area.

While Foodfare strives to serve every Singaporean, not just its union members, Foodfare does strive to do even more for the poor and needy. So, I wish to put this question to Mr Png: should the poor and needy or those on the Public Assistance scheme not be helped more? Let us not be naive. Foodfare helps nobody if it cannot first make its numbers work. But given what they have, they have already decided not to make super-normal profits. Further, from the margins that they have, they have to decide where to give this help. It makes sense, certainly to me, to channel this to where the need is greatest. If this logic is faulty, I would thank the Member for Hougang for correcting it and, more importantly, provide his own distributive logic.

As a social enterprise, Foodfare has extended an extra helping hand to those who are on the Public Assistance scheme and to the elderly. This can be seen really from its $1.99 economic rice community project, as well as its recent launch of its Budget Pick programme where these groups of people get extra help with discounted meals. And for the avoidance of doubt, NTUC Foodfare Co-operative does not enjoy any subsidised rental from the Government or NEA in any of the premises they occupy. They still have to make an offer and, if they are successful, pay at market rates for the premises, just like anyone else. So, I find some of the comments made yesterday a bit incorrect, not just to the co-operatives, but they also cast a certain slur on our efforts and it also demeans the work of the many people who work in and for the co-operatives.

Eating out at hawker centres and kopitiams is a favourite pastime for all of us. And, indeed, at NTUC Foodfare stalls, they provide a convenient and affordable meal option for all Singaporeans and consumers alike. But, of course, if you want to stretch your dollar even further, nothing beats cooking and eating at home. And this is where another NTUC co-operative, NTUC FairPrice comes in. We work for over 630,000 owners − all Singaporeans who own our shares. We employ about 9,000 staff and they are overwhelmingly Singaporeans. Over two-thirds of our staff are female and over 40% of them are above 50 years old. I cite this because the national profile will show that about 31% of our workforce is more than 50 years old. This shows that we are very pro-mature workers.

FairPrice also ploughs a large part of its surpluses to the community to help the poor and needy, the elderly and low-wage workers, as well as to VWOs and many charities. We also do our best to help moderate the cost of living. One good example is the senior citizens discount that we give out every Tuesday. The figures would show some five million transactions each year benefiting over 90,000 senior citizens each week. I checked the figure yesterday, which was

Page: 75

a Tuesday, and, indeed, over 90,000 senior citizens came by. What does it cost us? Over $2.3 million each year and this amount can only grow.

We are also a strong promoter of local SMEs and their produce. We do our best whenever a crisis strikes us − Bird Flu, SARS, rice crisis and the list goes on. Whenever the opportunity for profiteering arises, we will certainly be there to try to stand up against it by taking the first hit. All these are not by chance but deliberate policy and guiding principles that we subscribe to because we are an NTUC co-operative with a social mission.

I am stating all these because not so long ago, in October 2011, Mr Png's colleague, Mr Yee Jenn Jong, also made some statements concerning NTUC co-operatives, which I had also addressed and clarified. But since Mr Png raised some of these issues, I wanted to take this opportunity to shed more light.

Mdm Speaker, co-operatives are a check on pure market forces. They have social, not political ends. I am a PAP Member of Parliament and a staff of NTUC FairPrice Co-operative. I am clear where one set of duty ends and another begins. I thank Mdm Speaker for allowing me to provide the same clarity for others in this House.

Finally, I hope, through these examples, the Government – and I am looking at the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance – would continue to look at ways to further build, nurture and grow the social enterprise sector. Social enterprises and cooperatives can help us in our journey to build a more inclusive society and, when we do, a Better Singapore would follow. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker, I am encouraged that the Budget is designed to build a Singapore that provides better opportunities and a better future for all Singaporeans.

I would like to make two recommendations for MOF and the Deputy Prime Minister's consideration. Firstly, respect every job and value every contribution. In the past, many freelancers and self-employed had indicated that they needed more support. They do not receive CPF contributions by employers, nor do they enjoy medical or leave benefits. Some have to deal with clients who do not pay up, or take a long time to pay for the services rendered. I have spoken with many of them recently and they have reiterated that these remain major

Page: 76

concerns for them.

This year's Budget has brought much cheer to them. Many will enjoy income tax rebates, GST rebates, enhanced Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) and MediSave top-ups. These measures will go a long way in helping them manage cost pressures.

With the evolving economy, we are actually seeing more and swifter changes to job options. Many people are becoming self-employed and freelancers, whether they are taxi drivers, adult educators or tour guides, as examples. Many of them I spoke with hope that society will respect their career choice and not perceive this choice that they have made as a fall-back option. What they do every day contributes significantly to our economy. Our economic transformation should include the self-employed. We can do more to make their jobs more respectable and their choice a better one. Let me cite two examples to illustrate what I meant.

First, taxi drivers. I would like to declare that I am the Adviser for the National Taxi Association, and many taxi drivers that I spoke with share their sentiments with me. I hope taxi drivers and taxi operators will be able to strike a good partnership. Drivers should be viewed as co-owners, instead of the current taxi operator-hirer relationship. Take, for example, the Government has just announced a one-year 30% road tax rebate for commercial vehicles, including taxis. The immediate response by some taxi operators to the call by the National Taxi Association (NTA) to give back the savings to drivers is a good start. We hope all taxi operators will follow suit.

Older taxi drivers I spoke with are also pleased with existing programmes, such as the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) by MOH, to help them manage healthcare costs. The NTA, together with dental and healthcare groups, has also rolled out discounted schemes to enable taxi drivers to enjoy affordable medical care. Recently, the Health Promotion Board has also stepped in to provide some level of support for taxi drivers.

All the stakeholders have taken very proactive steps. However, with rising medical costs and needs, affordability remains a major concern. The drivers I spoke with welcomed the one-off MediSave account top-up of $200. In addition, they have two requests to make this Budget a more inclusive one.

Firstly, this Budget enhanced the WIS and created the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS). This was good news to many. However, as self-employed, they hope

Page: 77

that they will be able to receive the same amount in WIS as employees. Today, they also receive a smaller amount in cash. Mdm Speaker, many are pleased with the generosity of the WCS. But as self-employed and freelancers, they do not benefit from this programme. While there is no direct scheme to help the self-employed in this Budget, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could consider further refinements at a later date.

Secondly, taxi drivers work very hard every day. What they hope to see is that the Government and operator can offer greater support to help them build up their CPF savings. They grapple with rising business operating costs, such as higher taxi rental, ERP charges, diesel tax levy, petrol costs and insurance premiums. They have suggested reviewing an existing old scheme and re-calibrating it to meet today's reality, and that is the diesel tax levy. With cleaner diesel technologies and more Euro IV cars on the roads, perhaps the Government can review the annual diesel tax levy and its utilisation.

One way is to explore taking part of the levy collected from drivers and transferring into the drivers' CPF accounts. This way, resources can be directed towards giving them greater security for their healthcare, housing and retirement needs.

Another group of the growing pool of self-employed is the adult educators. Efforts over the last few years by the Government in Continuing Education and Training have actually expanded the market for more local trainers. The Singapore Workforce Development Agency estimates that, today, there are probably over 15,000 training practitioners. I have spoken to some of them recently and they welcome the recent announcement that training for Singaporean workers would be boosted and the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund will receive a top-up. To them, this represents a bigger market share – more people going for training, more businesses for the adult educators. Our brand as an adult training hub has also gone up among our regional neighbours. I am also the Executive Secretary of the Education Services Union and we recently conducted a survey among adult educators. Their main concern is about income security.

In this Budget, many workers can look forward to benefiting from the enhanced Workfare and WCS. Many will see their wages and skills rise through the progressive wage model illustrated by Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang earlier on. Adult educators have not been left out in this effort. Together with the Institute of Adult Learning by the WDA, industry practitioners and the unions have been working on the progression pathways for adult educators. Today, they can progress from being a trainer certified under the Workplace

Page: 78

Trainer Programme to attaining an advanced certificate, a diploma and even Masters in Training and Development or in Lifelong Learning. And the good news is these courses are co-funded by the Government.

Such a pathway enables adult educators to deliver better services, handle more complex needs, such as assessing training outcomes and designing curriculum. Moving forward, they are able to better earn higher income and access new markets, both locally and regionally. Indeed, adult educators can seek the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance's consideration to give them more help, more funds. But as one of them remarked to me, the best help is to expand his market reach and deepen his professionalism, not more money.

Hence, I call upon the Government and employers to speed up the recognition of training certification, whether it be WSQ or other certifiable courses. Such skills recognition is key to our efforts to embark on quality growth. We should also engage the services of training practitioners with the right qualifications. This is especially important since they have a significant role to play in bringing about positive impact to our workers.

Adult educators gain expertise in their fields and have valuable skills that allow them to perform well in their job. Their work should be highly valued and their career choice respected. I hope that buyers of their services will want to work closely with them, respect their work and, of course, pay them in a timely manner.

Finally, my second point is to help Singaporeans get a job quickly. I support Ms Mary Liew and Mr Heng Chee How's call to help more segments of Singaporeans to find good jobs quickly. Last year, the Minister for Finance announced enhancements to the Special Employment Credits (SEC) scheme. The Acting Minister for Manpower, in a recent reply to a Parliamentary Question, also shared that he is open to extending SEC or some variant form of it to ex-offenders who are under the Yellow Ribbon project.

Previously, I had called for the SEC to be extended to other vulnerable worker segments, be it back-to-work women or ex-offenders. I have also visited the Prison to find out more from inmates about their employment concerns. In my constituency, I continue to meet many ex-offenders and back-to-work women who face challenges to return to the workforce. Some have shared that employers tell them that the cost of having to make adjustments for hiring them is not viable. For example, they may have to create a more flexible work schedule or create a mentoring system. And job seekers also share that they

Page: 79

find it challenging or costly, sometimes, to attend courses and there are obstacles they face along the way.

Perhaps, the Minister can consider bundling some of such support services together so that the job seekers are trained before they are sent to the employers. And employers are prepared in their workplace with certain incentive schemes to receive these groups of job seekers. I hope that the Minister can also review the plans to use the SEC scheme to enable more back-to-work women and ex-offenders to re-integrate back into society quickly.

Mdm Speaker, I think it is important that we do more for the self-employed. It is not always through giving out more grants, although I am quite sure many will welcome it. For many, this career route was not their first choice. They may have lost their jobs in other arena and have to look for alternative ones. It is unfair to leave them alone, assuming that because they are self-employed, they can look after themselves. I believe that, with greater help and support, we can deepen their skills and enable more people to appreciate the self-employed and the work they do.

It is equally important that we adopt the right mindset towards such career options and create the right working environment for them to thrive. Their jobs, whether as taxi drivers, adult educators or other forms of freelance work, must be considered as a viable long-term career. Every contributor to our economy, be they employees or self-employed, is critical and their inputs valuable. They, together, will make a better Singapore. Mdm Speaker, with that, I support the Budget.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.32 pm until 3.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Page: 80

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

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

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the Population White Paper published several weeks ago has been much discussed among Singaporeans. As this Paper concerns the happiness and prospects of Singaporeans, it garnered high levels of attention from various groups. This is a heartening sight. When people are concerned about the affairs of the state, it enables all parties to have in-depth discussions about issues. If we can reach a consensus, we can stand by one another to build our future together.

The Budget debate which began yesterday saw many fellow Members raising many views and suggestions on the various measures. I notice most of us are only concerned with bread-and-butter issues. Of course, tackling bread-and-butter issues are very important. As the sayings goes, "When the family is in harmony, everything goes well" and one has to "conquer the battle within" before overcoming the external enemies. If a country is plagued with domestic unrest and problems, it cannot concentrate on tackling other issues.

However, we need to be mindful that Singapore's future does not depend on domestic factors alone. The bigger and tougher challenges actually come from the external environment. Being a city state and a highly open economy, international affairs, regional competition, balance of powers, and certain unforeseen circumstances could jeopardise our prosperity and survival anytime.

Mdm Speaker, there are three types of major international and regional events which can greatly impact Singapore – politics, economy and environment: (a) economic uncertainties include the European debt crisis, US fiscal cliff, whether China's economy has a "soft landing" or "hard landing", and the stability of crude oil supply in the Middle East; (b) political uncertainties include internal strife within Middle East countries, peace talks between Israel and Palestine, nuclear facilities in Iran, nuclear build-up in North Korea, the tension between East Asian countries in the East China and South China Seas, the pace of economic development among various Southeast Asian countries

Page: 81

and how defence development within the region would shift the current balance of power; (c) environmental challenges cannot be overlooked either. Singapore is an island surrounded by waters. Global warming and the melting polar ice, sea levels rising and shortage in water and food supplies will have a crucial and long-lasting impact on Singapore in the next 30 to 50 years.

The above-mentioned issues may not have been directly addressed in the Budget. Thus, I hope that the future Budgets could be more specific on these issues. This is an "investment" to tackle future challenges. Having such an awareness will broaden our international perspective so that we can have a more macro-overview in our Budget discussions.

As the saying goes, "One who lacks foresight is bound to run into problems". The international challenges mentioned earlier may seem very far away. However, as long as there are major changes in international politics and economy, Singapore cannot be insulated from them. As the saying goes, "Every citizen is responsible for the rise and fall of their nation". It is, therefore, not the Government's responsibility alone to pay attention to global affairs. The people should also do likewise. I like to read the classics and tap on ancient wisdom to shed light on current issues, as they are often enlightening and thought-provoking. Thus, I was glad to hear Mr Sitoh Yih Pin quoting from the Analects of Confucius. It makes me feel that I am not alone. So, now, it is my turn to reciprocate his gesture by quoting from a Confucian text – The Book of Rites. There was a passage which was illuminating in cultivating oneself, managing the family, governing the state and conquering the world.

The passage reads: "Consider preparing yourself before taking actions as one is deemed to fail without preparation. Consider your thoughts before you speak so that you don't run out of words or put yourself into a corner. Consider your plans before implementing so that they can run without hindrances. Consider your actions before acting out so you will not have regrets. Guide yourself with a set of guiding principles so that you can always act accordingly."

This passage tells us that in doing anything, we can achieve success as long as we make good preparation, but without preparation, we will surely fail. And we need to recollect our thoughts before we speak in order to substantiate our points and not stumble on our words. Likewise, we need to be well prepared before acting on our plans, to plan ahead of obstacles and setbacks. We also need to be decisive in carrying out our plans and not have any regrets. Lastly, we need to have a set of guiding principles so that we will not go astray in our course of actions. This passage may be written more than 2,000 years ago, but

Page: 82

the essence is still applicable now.

As the saying goes, all good things come to an end, and it is not uncommon to see successful people or companies going downhill. Likewise, in running a country, challenges are present even during prosperous and peaceful times; therefore, to be always prepared for contingencies has always been the way for Singapore. Presently, the Government has initiated a discussion on the population and infrastructure blueprint for Singapore between 2020 and 2030. This is to plan ahead and make preparations, so that we have the ability to handle any crisis.

Besides paying attention to bread-and-butter issues, we should also pay attention to changes in our external environment. As such, I urge all Singaporeans to put the same intensity into discussing how to overcome international challenges. Just as even the wisest of men might make a mistake, even though the Government is already looking into formulating strategies for some time, it would be more beneficial for every Singaporean to participate in the discussion so that we could look into the details, or look at issues from a broader perspective, to come up with better and more creative solutions for the future challenges.

Mdm Speaker, Singapore's success did not come easy. The first generation of Singaporeans worked hard to build the nation from scratch. The second generation diligently carry on the work. Perhaps, in another 10 to 20 years, the decades of hard work would not be worth mentioning anymore. But we should not forget the sacrifices and contributions of the first and second generation, for they had made Singapore into what it is today. This Tang poem puts it well: "Without going through the bitter cold winter, one cannot enjoy the sweet fragrance of plum blossoms".

In another 10 to 20 years, the third generation will take over the baton and lead Singapore into another era. This generation of Singaporeans surpasses the first two in terms of education, knowledge, technology and international perspective. However, the challenge that Singapore faces has moved from surviving domestically to competing globally.

Mdm Speaker, in this global economy, regional and international factors have crucial impact on Singapore. Therefore, in the next 10 to 20 years, besides looking into domestic issues, we need to have broader perspectives and look beyond Singapore. Solving bread-and-butter issues alone will not help us preserve our country. We need to increase our overall competitiveness in order

Page: 83

to survive in the global game. As "one should look far ahead when making big plans", one wrong move may cost the game, but one good move may lead to a checkmate. Governing a country is like playing chess. Looking around us, we will notice that many countries have risen and fallen, and, very often, one mistake causes them a lifetime of regrets.

Recently, I saw a couplet which was very interesting. I would like to share it with everyone, as an exhortation and as a reminder. The first line goes: "The perspectives of the world", and the second line goes: "The spirit of braving through storms". What I get from this couplet is the nation of Singapore was built upon the changing state of affairs among countries, thus we always need to look at domestic matters with a global perspective, and we need to build our nation with the same kind of spirit our pioneers had – to brave the storms and work hard to build our nation.

If the Government and the people can be of one heart and work together, we will continue to have a bright future. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Good afternoon, Mdm Speaker. I speak in support of this Motion. When Singapore proclaimed its Independence in 1965, one of the aims in the proclamation was to "seek the welfare and happiness of her people, in a more just and equal society." Reading this Budget brought that aspiration to mind, as it seemed that many of the measures in this Budget are geared towards building a more just and equal society in this modern age, with the welfare and happiness of the people in mind.

In 1965, the reference to "a just and equal society" was a declaration that all people should be equal before the law and should have equal rights and opportunities. This is something that we take for granted in many ways, but, at that time, it had to be fought for. Now, over the decades, since Singapore's Independence, Singapore has prospered. Equality of opportunities has allowed many people to benefit, some more than others. Unfortunately, over the years, equality of opportunities often means inequality of outcomes. This has led to the current situation where we have rising income and wealth inequalities in Singapore.

One big danger of this inequality of outcomes, in rising income and wealth disparities, is that it may lead to inequality of opportunities as well, if the children of the wealth-off have better chances, while the children of those who

Page: 84

are less well-off do not have as many good opportunities.

In that sense, the entire debate of whether or not we should strengthen our safety nets or maintain meritocracy, is perhaps not necessarily an accurate debate. What is perhaps a better characterisation is how we should strengthen and support our safety nets so that we can maintain meritocracy and keep equality of opportunities.

In that respect, I support many of the measures in this Budget. I think the broadly re-distributive themes are in the right direction. The property taxes are a very good way of capturing those who have wealth and who are enjoying it. At the same time, the higher distributions in terms of bigger workfare payments, as well as more generous GST Vouchers, are very good means of redistribution.

In this speech, what I hope to do is focus on another group – and this is really the middle-income Singaporeans, those who may live in 4- and 5-room flats, and who may be struggling with both the upbringing of children as well as caring for elderly parents within their families. Within my constituency, this certainly represents a very large proportion of the households.

Many of the measures in this Budget move in the right direction for this group of people. But I think there are still some areas where more can be done, and I will just go through some of the bigger areas that are in many people's minds.

The first is childcare and child-raising. I think everyone in this House agrees that one of the biggest challenges that Singapore faces is how to improve our total fertility rate, what we can do to encourage more people to have children. Certainly, in my ward, which is a much younger estate, there are many families with children. One of the biggest challenges that many of them raised to me is that getting childcare is difficult and very expensive.

In that sense, I certainly welcome the expansion of childcare and student care benefits in this Budget, as well as greater subsidies for pre-school education. I also welcome the reduced levy on foreign domestic workers – they can also help with the child-raising. But perhaps, aspirationally, we could go even further in this respect. If we look at Primary and Secondary education, the philosophy we have always taken is that the large chunk of the cost of Primary and Secondary education should be borne by the state, with parents paying a certain amount of fees. The fees are never enough to pay for the whole cost, but the parents would, by and large, pay something so that they still value the

Page: 85

service.

As a matter of philosophy, it might be helpful if we did this for childcare as well. What this means is that we will be socialising the cost of childcare a great deal more and taking away the burden from individual families. This means parents will pay a certain amount, but it will not necessarily be in the hundreds of dollars. If we want to maintain the cost, we could make it something token. For lower income families, this already happens. Those who pay $5 or $20 a month for childcare are very happy. But this does not apply to the majority of the households. There is a hope for socialising the cost of child-raising even more and providing more subsidised childcare for middle income families.

Another aspect in many people's mind for the young working adults is, "What are my prospects going to be like at work? What is going to happen?" A big concern here is what happens when we have rising numbers of foreign workers coming in. In this respect, the measures that increase the levies and tighten the quotas on both S Pass and Work Permit holders are welcomed, especially by lower income Singaporeans, who might feel that they are facing competition from them. As I mentioned in my previous speech for the White Paper debate, there is also scope for expanding this protection to Employment Pass holders, perhaps introducing some method of labour market testing, or even restricting the numbers. I am glad that there seems to be some steps in this direction made in the Budget as well. This is a measure that I would support.

SMEs are another important area that need a lot of support. I welcome a lot of the schemes that are in place in this Budget. I have filed COS cuts on these and I will take that up in more detail in the next session. SMEs do employ a very substantial part of our workforce and it is necessary for us to make sure that any workforce restructuring we do still keeps their interests in mind.

Now, let me deal with the third element that is big on the minds of many of these young Singaporeans and, that is, healthcare. A lot of the young working families tell me that they are stuck with paying very expensive cost for child raising. At the same time, they may have elderly parents staying with them and are concerned about what happens if their parents suddenly fall ill. For a lot of low-income families, there are very substantial subsidies for healthcare. But for middle income families, especially when means testing takes place, this may not be as generous, and the middle-income families may be forced to make more serious trade-offs, in terms of what they can and cannot do. This again places a greater burden on the middle-income families.

Page: 86

Aspirationally, could we provide healthcare that would be substantially cheaper for a large majority of the population after they reach a certain age? I understand that the current measures that expand Medisave and Medifund are in the right direction. This could be one means of doing it. Another way of doing it would be to expand the coverage of MediShield and include a larger amount of conditions in that and reduce exclusions.

I recognise all these measures would obviously mean much greater Government spending in the upcoming years. I could deal with that in a while.

One more aspect, since we are being aspirational, that I would like to discuss is housing. Again, a number of middle-income families have told me that while they would like to have bigger families, it would be nice if there were bigger flats available and the specific request was flats with more rooms – four bedrooms or five bedrooms. One couple was telling me that they have two children – one is a boy and one is a girl – and the husband's parents. So, the parents take one room, he and his wife take one room, and there is one more bedroom for the children. It gets a bit awkward, as the boy and girl get older, for them to share the room. I guess in the past, we may have been more prepared to have more children sharing rooms and so on, but I guess, as Singaporeans get wealthier, their aspirations rise. I guess they would like to have more comfortable housing options available, too.