Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [18 February 2022] [2nd Allotted Day]

"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023." – [Minister for Finance].

Question again proposed.

11.32 am

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The past two years had us tackling the immediate challenge of protecting lives and livelihoods during the pandemic while building on the foundations of an economically vibrant, socially cohesive and sustainable Singapore for us to call home.

In many countries, the pandemic had exposed cracks and divisions within society. There are those against being masked, as well as anti-vaxxers, voicing out against measures amidst the pandemic. What made us different? The difference was our coming together as a united society, helping each other in these exceptional times. We understood we had a responsibility and the part to play for the greater good of public health.

Volunteers reached out, especially to seniors staying-alone, encouraging vaccination and ensuring the seniors do not feel isolated amidst the pandemic. Grassroot organisations distributed care packs, masks, assisted in COVID-19 Support Grants and organised career fairs for those that lost their jobs. Private organisations such as Ghifari Network, helped to obtain and distribute care packs including for the migrant workers. Industries supported each other such as aerospace workers supporting vaccination centres. Companies took in mid-career workers switching from challenged industries through the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme. There are many more instances where things could have been much worse, but by coming together and helping one another we have emerged from this pandemic stronger.

However, there remains many challenges ahead. The situation in East Europe reminds us peace is fragile. The global economy is more competitive and digitalised. Climate change continues to threaten the world. We are one of the fastest ageing populations in the world with one in four Singaporeans above the age of 65 by 2030. As we emerge from this pandemic, we must position Singapore for the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

We are at an inflexion point in our history. It is for us to define how we want to grow as a society in this next phase. We must reaffirm our commitment for progress in an inclusive society. We must continue to impart the right values to the next generation. Our ageing population would increase the demand for healthcare and social care. How do we, as a society care for our seniors? How do we, support our less-privileged families and our low-wage workers? How do we continue to improve the lives of all Singaporean by growing our economy and staying relevant in an increasingly competitive global economy? How do we manage work-life harmony in a future work environment that blurs the line between work and home? How do we contribute to global efforts in tackling climate change?

These are all pertinent questions we must answer but our means to provide resources for these will come under great strain as the ratio of our working population supporting aged dependents decreases. We can only get through this stronger if we remain united, helping and working together to ensure that the outcome is greater than the sum of all our efforts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a balanced Budget. We continue to provide support for workers, businesses and households in tackling the immediate challenges due to the pandemic while positioning ourselves to be future-ready by continuing our journey in transforming our businesses, developing new capabilities and investing in our people.

This Budget also reaffirms our societal commitment towards inclusive growth: caring for our seniors, assisting our low-wage workers and preparing for increased healthcare and social care needs. Do we leave individuals to find their own way, or do we as a society collectively agree to provide stepping ladders for those in need?

That being said Mr Speaker, Sir, I do worry that this is our third consecutive year running a Budget deficit and we will be digging into our reserves yet again. I have a few points for clarification.

Firstly, on GST and how can we protect our residents by preventing profiteering from the GST increase? Secondly, in light of the challenges ahead, how do we remain relevant in the global economy and drive sector-specific industry transformation? And thirdly, how do we ensure inclusive growth for all?

One of the concerns that has been echoed by residents is how do we prevent businesses profiteering from the GST increase at the expense of the consumers? A Pasir Ris resident, Mr Wong, shared that he worries businesses will increase prices disproportionately at each GST hike in 2023 and 2024. The outcome will result in a disproportionate increase in cost that is borne only by the end consumer. How can we prevent businesses from passing costs straight to consumers instead of everyone shouldering a bit of the pain?

Can I also seek clarification from the Minister on how the Committee against Profiteering will be implemented and how will it address concerns of businesses perceived to be profiteering from the GST increase?

How can the Committee against Profiteering identify the singular cause of price increase and hence, identify businesses profiteering from GST in light of increasing cost of supplies, rental, labour, energy in addition to the step increases in GST? How can we ensure the committee is effective in protecting our residents?

Moving beyond GST, in light of our future challenges, how do we remain relevant in the global economy and drive sector-specific industry transformation? It was previously mentioned that the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) will be refreshed by this year to meet the accelerated changes brought about by the pandemic. What is the progress of the ITM refresh?

And given that in this year's Budget, a lot of additional resource is provided to bring about business transformation, how do we ensure companies develop capabilities in line with the refreshed ITMs to take full advantage of the opportunities available in the industry? How will the economic transformation efforts be integrated more closely with the National Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2025 plans? Will the ITM Refresh consider workplace transformation and specifically address the upskilling, retraining and hiring of mature workers, workers with disabilities and other vulnerable workers for an inclusive transformation of the industries? How can we leverage on the 811 company training committees (CTSs) set up by NTUC and its affiliated unions to identify the training and skills workers need to keep up with the transformation. Will there be a clear direction on how to enhance sustainability efforts in our ITM Refresh? For example, in the aerospace ITM Refresh, what will be our direction on sustainability activities such as sustainable aviation fuels, electric hydrogen or hybrid propulsion. How will electric vehicles feature in our land transport industry transformation?

As we position ourselves for the challenges and opportunities ahead and transform our industry, I am heartened that in this Budget, we have provisioned significant resources to renew and strengthen our social compact. Our efforts to uplift low-wage workers have been ongoing for the past decade and I believe we can continue to do more to support our low-wage workers. It is important to ensure that productivity continues to improve so that wage growth is sustainable. If real productivity is not achieved, there is a risk wage growth would drive up costs and make us less competitive in the global market. The key to sustainable wage growth is upgrading workers' skills to ensure our workers maintain a good job, earn a good wage and have the opportunity to earn more.

In this Budget, we have apportioned significant resources such as $200 million for building digital capability and increasing the capacity at Polytechnics and ITE centres to engage in technology. We will also invest in an additional $100 million to support NTUC to scale up CTCs and introduce new grants to support transformation plans.

How can we encourage and support SMEs to transform their businesses so that lower-wage workers can be deployed more productively, with more scope for progression? How can we get business associations to support more SMEs?

I am heartened that Progressive Wage Model (PWM) will be extended and wage increase for low-wage workers will be co-funded under the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme. This will be further boosted by the Enhance Workfare Income Supplement Scheme. The qualifying monthly income cap for this scheme has been raised, age eligibility has been extended and the payouts increased especially for people with disabilities.

While Companies transform to drive real productivity growth, how do we encourage low-wage workers to continuously upskill and upgrade? Can we consider a yearly workfare income supplement "bonus" or tiered supplement scheme if the worker utilise his SkillsFuture credit or attend training and courses yearly to upgrade himself or herself?

Disadvantaged platform workers also need assistance to meet their housing and retirement needs as well as with getting an adequate amount of baseline coverage for work injuries. Will MOM be able to provide an update on discussions at the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers?

Inclusive growth should create opportunities for seniors, workers with special needs and those with caregiving responsibilities. With the increasing prevalence of Flexible Work Arrangements including work hours, how will MOM encourage employers to sustain these arrangements? Can we create second careers for our seniors who are still able and willing to work but do not want to work full-time? Can the Ministry consider promoting flexible work arrangement, flexible work hours and work-sharing to create opportunities for these individuals?

Even as we make adjustments to foreign worker policies, to increase its effectiveness, we must progress on fair employment opportunities. How are we progressing at legislating TAFEP guidelines to ensure fair employment practices and treatment at the workplace?

Beyond supporting our workers, we must also ensure that students from all background are given equal opportunities to excel in the skills-based economy. How is our education system preparing our students for employment in a skills-based economy? For students in our ITEs and Polytechnics, can MOE consider apprenticeship schemes where students can work with experienced staff from industry partners, learning job-specific skills and gaining applied competency? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In the future, Singapore will face an ageing population, with one in four Singaporeans above the age of 65 by 2030. We also believe that we need to continue to help senior citizens and less fortunate families in our society. This means that our healthcare and social needs will increase, while the resources required to support the increase will be limited.

I am heartened that this Budget shows that we remain committed to inclusive economic growth. The KidSTART and UPLIFT programmes will be expanded further to help more underprivileged students. The Progressive Wage Model will be extended to other industries and wage increases for low-wage workers will be co-funded under the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme.

The Workfare Income Supplement scheme will also be enhanced. The qualifying monthly income cap for the scheme has been raised, the age eligibility has been extended and the payout increased especially for persons with disabilities. These programmes, among others, aim to ensure a fair and inclusive Singapore.

This Budget is a balanced budget, which provides support to workers, businesses and households to tackle the challenges due to the pandemic, and at the same time, it also prepares us for a more challenging future by transforming our businesses, developing new capabilities and investing in our people.

However, several areas can be improved:

The first is how the "Committee Against Profiteering" can prevent businesses from profiteering from the GST hike. Second, in light of future challenges, how do we remain relevant in the global economy and drive sector-specific industry transformation via the Industry Transformation Maps? Third, we must continue our journey towards inclusive growth by providing assistance for platform workers, providing job opportunities for senior citizens who still wish to work and special needs workers and, and also address workplace discrimination through TAFEP legislation.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a balanced Budget. it provides support to workers, businesses and households in tackling the immediate challenges brought about by the pandemic while positioning ourselves to be future ready, by continuing our journey towards transforming our businesses, developing new capabilities and investing in our people. I am heartened that we continue to invest in our people and strengthen our social compact. We have always committed ourselves towards inclusive growth and we will continue to do so.

Notwithstanding the clarifications above, I rise in support of the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

11.47 am

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): In the concluding paragraphs of the Budget Statement, the Finance Minister highlighted how various sectors of Singapore society rose to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. He applauded the Singapore spirit, as seen from frontline workers to those who set up community care facilities to the footballers and fans at the AFF Suzuki Cup semi-final. He was emphatic that Singapore would always prevail so long as we stood side by side in solidarity with one another.

There is nothing to disagree with this. That said, two years on into the pandemic, it is appropriate to start evaluating how governments and people across the world responded to the pandemic, not just in terms of the health and economic impacts, but also what lessons or hints can be drawn about a nation’s culture and innovative potential.

One analysis early on into the pandemic studied how 57 countries around the world responded to the pandemic. This study was published early last year in The Lancet by Prof Michele Gelfand, a cultural psychologist at the University of Maryland, USA and several colleagues. Prof Gelfand divided the countries based on whether they had “tight” or “loose” cultures.

Thus, for instance, countries like China and Singapore were classified as having tight cultures, in that our societies tended to be highly respectful of rules and norms; contrast this with a country like the United States, where people tended to defy them. She observed, unsurprisingly, that loose countries had more difficulties enforcing social distancing measures due to the attitude of the people to rules; this in turn was associated with more COVID-19 deaths and serious illness in loose countries compared to tight countries.

To be clear, these findings were more about the culture of the people rather than what the state did. For us here, classified as a tight culture, Singaporeans have fared well to comply with rules and guidance; this has contributed to keeping the overall health impacts of COVID in Singapore at a relatively manageable level.

In talking about Prof Gelfand’s study some months later, CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria went further. He noted that as the COVID-19 pandemic raged on, the development of vaccines shed another dimension on tight and loose cultures. He observed that some of the loosest countries, which fared poorly in managing the pandemic through social distancing measures, were the most innovative and dynamic at developing, procuring and distributing the vaccine. These loose countries included the United States, Britain, Israel and Chile. Mr Zakaria posited that the very traits that made it hard to follow social distancing rules, were the ones that helped generate the solution to the problem. He concluded that these loose countries benefitted from the creativity, risk-taking and rule-breaking that was endemic in their people. Today, it is clear how these solutions have benefited humankind across the globe.

While Singapore has done relatively well in the pandemic for health outcomes, it would be opportune to do a stock-take of how we did to invent or create solutions for COVID-19. On the one hand, there are some indications of significant breakthroughs. For instance, it was reported that a Singapore team from Duke-NUS had developed a COVID-19 neutralising antibody test kit, which was the first of its kind to get approval from the American Food and Drug Administration. Another example is the COVID-19 PCR test kit developed by DSO National Laboratories, that did not require reagents to process samples. On the other hand, despite some initial hype, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has yet to approve for public use any Singapore manufactured vaccine or Antigen Rapid Test kit for home use, arguably two of the most critical resources needed in the pandemic.

Speaker, a lack of locally manufactured solutions is not just a matter of national pride. We have experienced first-hand how, in a global pandemic, needing to procure supplies from abroad subjects us to market forces and has resulted in supply shortages.

On a related note, the Budget Statement highlighted that the mRNA vaccine manufacturer, BioNTech, will establish a manufacturing facility here. I also note the recent announcement that work has started on a new vaccine manufacturing facility at Depot Road by Hilleman Laboratories. This facility is part of efforts by the Economic Development Board to strengthen capabilities across the biopharmaceutical manufacturing value chain. These are reassuring developments.

Nevertheless, we should strive to move up the value chain, to be the owners of such intellectual property. This raises the more general question: what is the state of Singapore’s capacity to innovate?

According to the Global Innovation Index 2021 published by the World Intellectual Property Office, Singapore ranked overall eighth globally, and has been in the top 10 list for more than a decade. When one drills down further to why Singapore is ranked highly, we see that this is mainly due to its institutions and market and business sophistication. We did not fare so well in the area of Creative Outputs and Knowledge and Technology Outputs. For a high income country, we were ranked especially weak in the areas of Knowledge Creation and the Registration of Trademarks and Industrial Designs. For the 2021 ranking, it is notable that South Korea shot to fifth position and overtook Singapore. The report highlighted that countries like South Korea were particularly active in commercialising and patenting inventions in health-related technologies during the pandemic. South Korea was especially strong in registering patents, trademarks and industrial designs.

Sir, we should do some introspection on why we seem to be somewhat lagging in the area of Creative Outputs and Knowledge and Technology Outputs. As a high-income country, we can contribute more to improve the quality of life for humankind. Do we need to do more to nurture creativity and risk-taking? Are there other inhibitors in Singapore’s ecosystem that need to be addressed? These need constant review.

Sir, the other point I wish to make today concerns inclusivity of the Budget Statement. Budget 2022 is entitled “Charting Our New Way Forward Together”. If one looks at its coverage, it does indeed provide measures that support a broad church – from business to households and workers. It also imposes increased obligations on the more able to contribute more to the public purse, while accelerating salary increases for many low-wage workers.

On GST, my Workers’ Party colleagues have explained why we do not think the GST hike is necessary. For my part, I will just make an observation on the household illustrations used in the Budget Statement on the expected impact of the GST increase.

From paragraphs 286 to 287 of the Budget Statement, and also Annex F-3, there are four household scenarios highlighted. It will be noted that all the households comprise of a wedded couple living in an HDB flat, mostly with children; if the couple is of working age, the husband is always older and always earns more than the wife. There is a further assumption that all household members are Singapore Citizens.

To be fair, the Ministry may have used them because the scenarios are typical. However, these illustrations may inadvertently alienate Singaporeans whose households do not fit into the traditional structure. They also reinforce the stereotype of the man being the major breadwinner. In addition, these households may experience less severe impacts from the GST increase than other types of households, due to more offsets.

I wonder if the Ministry could, in future, be broader in its illustrations to capture some other types of households. Such other types of households, which are not uncommon, include divorced families, families with a foreign spouse and adult singles living with elderly parents. In addition, from a gender perspective, I feel that there is no need for the illustrations to stipulate the amounts earned by husbands and wives separately. Instead, the indication of the combined household income would suffice.

By including some other types of households, we can have a fuller picture of the impact of tax changes on different segments of society. More importantly, I believe including them would have an important signalling effect that every household, whatever its composition, is part and parcel of the Singapore compact.

Sir, to conclude, I have spoken today on how the COVID-19 pandemic has tested countries not just in terms of how to contain the virus, but also pointed to the environments which appear to promote the finding of inventive solutions. Singapore would do well if it finds a balance between tightness and looseness. I have also made an observation about the household illustrations used in the Budget, which in my view could be more inclusive.

Mr Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

11.57 am

Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Mr Speaker. First, let me just say thank our Finance Minister Lawrence Wong, as well as the team from MOF for putting up this particular Budget that is forward-looking as we move towards the post-pandemic phase to build a greener, as well as more inclusive Singapore.

During the last financial crisis in 2008, the Government dipped into our national reserves to support the economy and the amount utilised was probably returned when the economy rebounded strongly, post-crisis. This time, the Government has again deep into our national reserves for the pandemic, and the amount utilised is actually much larger compared to the last crisis. Using the same lyrics that was from last year's National Day song – that "we did it before and we'll do it again" – or just wondering whether will the Government be doing it again, and how and when the Government will be able to recoup and return the drawdowns that have been made during the pandemic so that we can return the reserves to our future generations.

I will focus my speech now on three areas that affects the poor, the rich and all. First, inflation. Second, the tax system. Last, clean energy.

On inflation, we are already feeling the pinch of inflation even before the Budget statement was made. The rise in petrol prices, the higher electrical tariffs, supply chain disruption, higher labour costs arising from the pandemic have triggered across-the-board rise in the cost of living. HDB resale price went up, private property prices went up. Public transport fares were increased last year. School bus transport fees were increased. Childcare services fees were also increased and taxi fares are all going up.

Cooking oil and eggs prices are also moving up. Even throwing rubbish cost for now, as refuse removal fees was increased; and soon, even the plastic bags will cost some money, if you collect plastic bags from the supermarket. And having a sugary drink itself may cost more if the Government decides to implement a sugar tax.

Inflation is making in-roads into the pockets of the man-on-the-street, especially the lower socio-economic groups. We have heard rumblings of higher cost of living as the people struggle to adjust with the cost to the loss of purchasing power. Salaries, if there had been any increases at all, are unable to fend off the rise in the cost of transport, cost of food, as well as other essential household items and healthcare services. And this Budget, we will see a higher GST next year, a higher carbon tax next year, which fuel inflation to an even higher level.

The combined effects of the trio – GST increase, carbon tax increase and wages increase – cannot be underestimated. The cost of running businesses is rising rapidly, although there are various packages from the Government to cushion the impact on the operational overheads.

Yes, under the 2012 Progressive Wage Model (PWM), the salaries of local lower-wage workers were increased. Employees' salaries went up by 3.3% in 2021 compared to 3.6% in 2019 and it is expected to rise by 3.5% in 2022, according to Mercer's 2021 Total Remuneration Survey (TRS). However, Singapore's headline inflation in 2021 was 3.9% to 4%. So, these numbers show how inflation is eating into the worker's income.

GST was first introduced in 1994, with a 3% rate. Headline inflation then was 3.1% in 1994, and it dipped to 1.7% in 1995. MAS allowed the currency to appreciate steadily during this phase. This helped to contain overall domestic inflationary pressures. I take reference from the MAS "50 Years of Inflation Experience in Singapore" that was published by Macroeconomic Review October last year.

In 2003, GST was raised to 4% and again to 5% in 2004, and it was up again from 5% to 7% in 2007. In the latter half of the 2000s, exchange rate policy was generally tightened as Singapore's headline inflation rose rapidly, from 0.5% to 6.6% in 2008. This increase was attributed to the backdrop of strong global commodity prices and also partly due to the China's rapid economic growth and other emerging economies. According to MAS, this was estimated to add around 0.4% to 0.5% to headline inflation each year in 2007 and 2008. During this period, the price of crude oil increased significantly due to heightened uncertainty, leading to a short bout of high inflation. In 2008, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose above 5% for two months due to skyrocketing gas prices – sounds déjà vu again. By the third quarter of 2008, the effect of the US banking crisis impacted our economy. This resulted in Singapore being hit by recession.

By allowing our Singapore currency to appreciate, it will help to cushion the inflation of imported goods and services but it will also harm our businesses by making our exports more expensive and reduce our competitiveness.

While Singaporeans note that the Government has an offset package in place to cushion the effect of the GST rise, they argued that this offset package is only temporary. The inflationary effect on the cost of living is permanent. And they worry for their children and grandchildren having to live with this high costs. And, for businesses, their biggest overheads – wages, rental and property prices, only go one way – they will go up. Once business costs go up, this will also affect all consumers. Are we chasing our own tail? As we push for more wage increase for Singaporeans especially the lower-income group, business cost will also have to go up and inflation will increase and erode the purchasing power of these workers.

Mr Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Government has pledged to do more, if inflation becomes more persistent and more serious than expected. I would like to raise the question: what is the projected acceptable medium and long-term inflation numbers? If inflation goes up, it hits people's savings especially the poor, the elderly and retirees. They would feel the drop in their buying power, and everything is more expensive for them. Those with savings would find themselves digging deeper, further into their savings than before. What may previously be an adequate amount of retirement funds could now become insufficient.

How are we to manage wage increases to go up in tandem with this inflation? Otherwise, the Government's efforts in helping the workers and employers with the Wage Credit Scheme would be a futile effort. We need to examine this carefully and how are we to manage inflation when the GST rise kicks in.

Next, on the tax system. The big question is that is it progressive enough or is this just the beginning?

Mr Speaker, I agree that progressive tax changes include the latest income tax levied. But there is one area where I feel we should take a closer look; that is the property tax. I feel that there is more room for adjustment. From the current Budget, I do not see how the Government can recover the expenses that the Government requires in the coming years in order to reduce the deficit. Recently, we kept hearing news of record transacted prices of Good Class Bungalows. Should we have done more to make property tax more progressive, especially for the top-end properties like in this category?

Our tax system is based on the annual value of the property which is as I understand is computed based on the imputed rental value of the property. Because of the land area of GCB compared with a high-rise and more densely populated condominium, the property tax levied on GCB is comparatively lower. The expanse of land for a condominium would include the many facilities and car parks, but the density is much higher, even for HDB blocks. They could be paying much more property tax per square foot than a GCB.

So, my question is – Singapore has only 728 square kilometres of land, of which 14% is allocated for residential housing. What is the total amount of property tax on residential property that the Government collects every year from this? And what is the distribution of this property tax going by housing type, such as GCB, various landed properties, low and high-rise condominiums as well as HDB properties? Besides this, I would like to ask whether there is a differentiation between a freehold and lease hold property in the computation of property tax? If not, why?

I would like to ask about property developers who sell their housing projects on a 99-year lease basis but using their freehold or 999-year lease land. Do these companies pay any tax on the value that they are holding since the ownership of the land will go back to them after the expiry of the 99-year lease? Otherwise, it would seem that these companies or developers are allowed to hold value without paying any taxes for 99 years.

Since the Government need to increase revenue to support the long-term needs of an ageing population, why were sin taxes, such as gambling, alcohol and cigarette taxes, not increased in this Budget? Increasing sin taxes will encourage Singaporeans to adopt a healthier lifestyle and help our Government to support the revenue.

My last topic will be on sustainability and clean energy. I agree with Dr Tan Wu Meng on what he said yesterday. Singapore is a small city state of just over 700 square kilometres. The limited size that we have also limits the amount of renewable energy that we can harvest. Even if we put a solar panel on the whole island, we will still not generate enough energy to meet our daily needs. So, my next question is: is it realistic for Singapore to aim for carbon zero?

Between land for housing, transport, security, healthcare, education and a whole suite of economic infrastructure, we also push out land for infrastructure for Electric Vehicles (EVs) in public and private housing estates, office buildings, public roads and carparks. I know we have embarked on tapping solar energy and explored many other avenues to reduce our carbon footprint, but is it enough?

I know that the Government has been working to import clean energy from ASEAN and various countries. All these are fine, as long as the relationship between countries are good and stable and the supply countries do not face any disruption or any sudden domestic needs increase. With climate change causing a heightened frequency and intensity of climate disasters in our supply countries, this is a real threat. The concerns over our energy security, as well as resilience, arises if we are significantly rely and depend on external supplies.

The events in Europe are a good eye-opener of how energy prices shot up amidst the disruption and the supply of gas and because of conflicts between countries. However, only France seems to be in a better place than the rest of Europe because its electricity supply is supplied by its own nuclear power plants and this accounts for more than two-thirds of its total electricity generation in 2021.

In the Far East, Hong Kong, which is slightly bigger than us, about 1,106 square kilometres, gets its electricity generated from coal, natural gas and also nuclear energy. Hong Kong gets its electricity from a nuclear power plant that is in Guangdong, the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station.

I have raised this question previously before, that was before the nuclear incident in Japan occurred, whether will Singapore consider nuclear energy. I also raised this question in a written Parliamentary Question (PQ) as well to MTI earlier this year and Minister Gan Kim Yong has replied as a written reply to say that Singapore supports the international effort to strengthen the global nuclear safety as well as the security architecture. But the question is: how far are we from there?

I appreciate the response, that Singapore can give some priority to review the tapping of nuclear energy as part of our option to use clean energy, to meet our commitment to the global community on environmental sustainability, technological advances in micro nuclear reactors will enhance safety, reliability as well as cost effectiveness. We need to keep an open mind and tap this option in the future to enhance our energy security and resilience and reduce our dependence on other countries. With that, Mr Speaker, I do support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

12.11 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, Budget 2022 is a step in the right direction, in many ways. Even as the Workers' Party disagrees with the key proposal of the GST hike. In my speech, I would like to talk about a carbon tax, our transitions in the petrochemicals and industry and transport, before touching on the GST impact on healthcare costs.

Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party has been supportive of a carbon tax when it was first mooted. We recognise that the Government has finally thought it appropriate to raise the common tax to a level in line with international standards to help Singapore achieve a net-zero and emissions ambition. We support the move to see the common tax raise progressively to a target between $50 and $80 dollars by 2030. This is still broadly similar to the range as proposed by my colleague, the hon member for Sengkang, Assoc Prof James Lim, in his previous speeches.

It will impose a temporary cause to Singaporeans, but we are of the view that when we do become a green economy, the impact of the carbon taxes will be reduced. However, I like to seek a clarification from the Minister on whether there are any efforts to extend the carbon tax to companies that emit less than 25,000 tonnes of GHGs per annum to enhance our efforts toward a net-zero ambition. I also hope that the Government will present more details on how they intend to mitigate the impact of the increase of the carbon tax on our households beyond the U-Save vouchers.

Mr Speaker, I wish to further address the important issue of Singapore's green transition. This is an important subject, given the carbon taxes increase over the next eight years and to aim to achieve net-zero emissions, by or around mid-century. Although some details, such as the exact day of the net-zero achievement and of the transition framework for emissions, intensive and trade expo sectors, as well as the exact quantum of the additional U-Save rebates to help mitigate the cost increases to businesses and households, have not been released, this is a step in the right direction for Singapore. The Workers' Party agrees with the need to transit our economy to a green one as soon as it is practical.

However, the Workers' Party also recognises that while decarbonisation is necessary, it will also impose a cost. This is especially so if we are to provide climate leadership for our citizens and in this region.

Singapore has taken some early measures on sustainable development, such as switching to natural gas for electricity generation instead of more pollutive fuel oil, imposed a vehicle quota system to cap vehicle growth and has introduced a suite of mitigation measures to decarbonize our industry, buildings and households sector.

We now have a bolder carbon tax trajectory and improve our net-zero climate ambition. Therefore, we need to think carefully about how to bring about this change and not leave anyone behind.

In my speech during the "Towards a Low-carbon Society" Motion last month, I have argued that we are in need of a just transition, one that is inclusive and equips those who work here and plan to work here with the necessary know-how, to access good job opportunities in the sustainability sector. Today, I wish to talk about the need for a just transition within the petrochemicals industry.

There have been movements towards a greener transition within our petrochemical industry. In November last year, Shell has announced that it is halving its crude processing capacity at its Singapore hub and reduce fuel exports. The oil major, a major part of our oil and gas industry, is intending to transit from fossil fuels to cut emissions and meet lobal low-carbon energy needs. This is part of a wider global trend in a transition towards lower carbon fuels and it undoubtedly will affect Singapore.

Earlier this year, students from the group Students for A Fossil-free Future (S4F), produced a 68-page report calling for universities to divest from fossil fuels. I empathised with the concerns of these students. They have proposed that Singapore Universities seek sustainable alternatives to linkages with the fossil fuel industry and implement climate crisis education over the short, medium and long-term.

However, while it is true that we do need to transition, what does that mean for the petrochemical industry in Singapore in its current form? We know that our petrochemical industry has been a strategic pillar of our industrial sector. According to a 2019 answer by MTI to a Parliamentary Question (PQ), the energy and chemicals industry contributes nearly 3% of our GDP and employs about 28,000 people in 2017, with the majority in their 30s and 40s. The number went down to 27,000 in 2020, according to MTI's answer to my PQ in April 2021.

Mr Speaker, any growing resistance in Singapore against the oil and gas industry may mean a talent pipeline disruption in this strategic pillar. In 2019, Singapore was the world's fourth biggest exporter of refined petroleum, and fuels and chemicals accounted for around 23% of our total merchandise trade, according to data from the World Bank and the Observatory of Economic Complexity. We are also a regional trading centre for coal, natural gas and oil products and support dozens of finance houses that specialise in the said commodities. More than a hundred global chemical companies have operations in the city.

As noted above, Singapore's linkages into the current brown economy are deep. And while we build for the economy of the future, the reality is that if we take away the manpower and capital in the petrochemical industry abruptly, we will cut the oxygen prematurely at a time when our green ambitions have only just begun. And there is still a need for some petrochemicals in the modern green economy as some petrochemicals can be found in modern solar panels, modern wind turbines and batteries, to name but a few.

Therefore, I ask that the Government provide more details on how it intends to manage the green transition in our petrochemicals industry and if Singapore will continue to attract and keep parts of the petrochemicals industry in Singapore that are relevant for the green economy. In the Committee of Supply debates, I will focus on the manpower transition in the industry with the hope that Singapore will be adequately prepared for the transition so that our Singaporean workers, young and old, will be able to be optimally employed in the sector as it undergoes the green transition and that we will not need to rely on or import significant foreign manpower.

Mr Speaker, I next move to some updates from the Minister on our drive towards electrification of the vehicles on our roads.

Last month. I filed a question to the Minister for Transport asking for the total number of electric vehicle chargers installed in 2021 and the expected number of EV chargers that will be installed progressively over 2022 and 2025. Minister S Iswaran said that there were around 2,200 electric vehicle charging points in Singapore, of which, 300 were installed by commercial operators in the past year. In 2022, there will be more than 600 charging points deployed at public car parks under the joint LTA-URA pilot tender, in addition to charging points in other locations like private residences, malls and petrol stations. The Minister also said that LTA will continue to monitor EV adoption trends and accelerate the deployment of our EV charging network where necessary to meet our 2030 target of 60,000 charging points island-wide. The year 2200 appears a long way off the target of 60,000 in eight years' time and I would like to ask the Minister again what are the Government's progressive targets over the next few years and how does the Government plan to step up on the installation of public EV chargers.

Last year, in my Budget debate speech, I also mentioned that having a critical number of charging points required in all residential commercial car parks and public car parks as well as the design of the car parks and the siting of the EV charging points are important. Singapore is unlike other countries like the US or Australia, where most people have the luxury of charging their cars in their own garage overnight. The minimum charging time, even with an incomplete charge with a fast charger, may still lead to queues in HDB or condo car parks, if there are insufficient chargers or if the chargers are inappropriately sited.

A year on, I would like to ask the Minister what the Government's experience with the installation of our initial chargers over the past year has been. Has the Government done any study to establish a suitable ratio of EV chargers versus the number of cars per car park? Will the public car parks be adopting all fast chargers or will there be a combination of fast and slow chargers? Does the Government have any specific planning requirements for the design of car parks in public, private residential or commercial buildings in respect of the installation and siting of EV chargers in car parks to minimise waiting time and avoid any traffic blockage caused by vehicles waiting for charging? For existing car parks, does the Government foresee that some or all car parks may require modifications? If modifications are required, would the assistance offered by way of the current EV common charger grant to MCSTs be sufficient?

Not unlike ICE cars, most vehicles, except for commercial vehicles, will not require daily charging. However, drivers will still have to develop new habits of charging their cars with some forward planning. ICE cars may need just 10 minutes in petrol kiosks. But, for EVs, queuing time aside, typically, a fast charger may take between 30 and 40 minutes for up to an 80% charge, and a slow charger may take up to eight hours for a full charge. Technology is, of course, improving constantly, but depending on the number of cars waiting for charging at any one time, an HDB car park with, say, just three to four chargers, may still possibly create queuing time not currently seen with ICE cars in petrol stations, even with charging operators charging a penalty charge for drivers who leave their cars beyond the charging time required. Will MOT consider using public education messaging on wise and considerate use of public chargers so that we can start engendering good and considerate habits with our drivers while the EV numbers are still small and growing, just as we also want to encourage our ICE drivers not to use slots reserved for EV charging?

It is good to get these issues right as early as possible so that we can minimise the waiting time and enhance charging access for EV owners. Importantly, this will, in turn, have an impact on our efforts to persuade more vehicle owners to convert earlier to the use of EVs.

Mr Speaker, I next move on briefly to the proposed GST hike. As I have mentioned earlier, the Workers' Party recognises the costs that the decarbonisation move will impose on Singaporeans. Therefore, the GST hike comes at an inopportune time for Singaporeans, many of whom are dealing with record consumer price inflation. I echo my other Workers' Party colleagues who are asking for the GST hike to be implemented only as a last resort.

Mr Speaker, I am aware that the Finance Minister has provided assistance packages to cushion the impact of the proposed GST increases. Apart from the adequacy of such packages, I note that the assistance package is only available for a few years. As for the enhancement to the permanent GST Voucher Scheme, those with an assessable income beyond $34,000 will not be receiving any assistance, a sharp cliff where, for some, these packages may no longer apply should they earn more. I note that GST has only gone up and has never gone down, even if assistance packages will adequately cushion the impact for low-income earners and even the lower-middle middle class in the short term.

The eventuality is that the GST increase will be a burden on the middle class, increasing their costs of living. And as the sandwich class, this may be something they can less afford, as compared to higher income groups above them. In particular, we need to pay attention to Singaporeans in their 30s to 50s, but the vast majority are not just paying for necessities for themselves but also for their parents and their children. The compounded pain that households will have to deal with is not something we should ignore out of hand. This is particularly so as we expect an ageing population to come in the near future. According to a Straits Times report on 27 July 2021, citing figures from Census 2020, residents aged 65 years and above form 15.2% of the resident population in 2020, up from 9% in 2010.

About one in four will be above 65 in 2030 and a corresponding increase in old-age dependency is to be expected. Singaporeans will be facing more questions on out-of-pocket healthcare prices. The Government has argued that the Government's healthcare expenditure will increase significantly, but the out-of-pocket costs of healthcare paid for by the people will also increase as a result of the GST hike. While subsidised patients in public hospitals and polyclinics do not pay any GST, the GST on the goods and services provided by GST-registered private clinics and non-structured hospitals that Singaporeans do go to are not absorbed by the Government. GST also applies to premiums of Shield and group medical insurance plans. Can the Government assure Singaporeans that the hike in GST will not mean that Singaporeans are going to pay more in their out-of-pocket healthcare costs?

Mr Speaker, let me conclude. While Budget 2022 can be said to be matching our climate ambitions to the international standards, the devil is, of course, in the details as we will need to transition away from our current economic structure at some cost. I look forward to more details from the Government on how it intends to manage the transition, particularly within the petrochemical industry, and the move towards electric vehicles.

Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.

12.25 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I am the Adviser to the Union of ITE Training Staff on a pro bono basis. I am heartened that the Finance Minister is committed to making more investments in our people and social infrastructure to strengthen our social compact. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In our rapidly ageing country, each of our youths becomes even more precious. The Government and the community should invest in and develop our youths, especially those coming from disadvantaged families, and help them grow and learn in a healthy way. Youths nurtured with care will grow up to be successful and contribute to our country.

The Government should allocate more resources to help disadvantaged families to help minimise the adverse impact of family problems on teenagers.

When families are struggling, the Government needs to step in quickly to prevent their situation from deteriorating further. A stitch in time saves nine! Many youth problems, such as school absenteeism, delinquency and addictions, can be prevented if we intervene early to nip the problems in the bud.

(In English): Will the Government elaborate on how we will strengthen our framework to identify families in crisis more quickly? I applaud the scaling up of the ComLink initiative nationwide to 21 towns. I hope there will be a teenage version of Comlink. How can we hire, retain and train more family support counsellors to help vulnerable families navigate the assistance schemes available to them?

All youths benefit from caring role models, guidance and advice for their studies and future careers. For disadvantaged youths, these are even more vital in order for them to get out of the poverty cycle. How can we increase accessibility to mentorship opportunities and provide better internship and career placement support to them?

In the latest survey conducted by Young NTUC, youths and young adults ranked mentorship opportunities the second most useful in terms of career-related resources but they also noted that they have little access to them.

In 2020 and 2021, when physical events were curtailed, Young NTUC organised virtual career mentoring sessions. I understand that about 1,200 youths took part. There was a high demand. Hence, I urge the Government to provide more funding to organisations, such as Young NTUC, that run mentorship programmes to support the recruitment and training of mentors and ensure their quality.

Better internship and career placement support is also important. I would like to request for more Government incentives to encourage companies to provide internship opportunities for our youths. Funding is needed for allowance subsidies and to support various components of an internship programme, such as the training of company supervisors.

I also hope that the Government will consider giving incentives to spur sectoral tripartite cooperation to build a more systemic approach in curating internship and placement opportunities.

Creating an internship of quality requires input and cooperation among the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), employers and Government agencies. Companies need more help to design good internship programmes that enable the students to gain work experience, make meaningful contributions and gain insights of the industry. These should help the students gain clarity on their career options and make informed postgraduate choices.

We should encourage youths to go beyond their compulsory school internships today and embark on additional ones if possible.

Internships should also benefit companies as opportunities to spot potential talents and employees. We need to change our employers’ attitude towards interns and internships as temporary exercises. Internships should be taken seriously as part of a firm’s long-term human resource management. If our youths have positive experiences, we may be able to address the problem of local manpower shortage for certain vocations and industries.

A promising approach is to get the employers, unemployed youths and the IHLs to come together to develop a work-study experience. It can be an apprenticeship plus internship programme or a conversion programme where they learn before commencing work. This method had proven quite effective for Work-Study Diplomas, a mid-career switch conversion programme. However, the process to develop and approve new courses can take some time. To expedite, the Government, through MOM or NTUC, can take the lead and drive each sector's development in this area.

Would the Government also consider providing funds to help unemployed graduates as union members? As members, they are entitled to the equivalent of student passes so that they can get further job placements or skills training.

It is also important to support ITE students and youths-in-transition from school to the workplace and provide programmes to build up their experiences through internship opportunities. For certain sectors, due to limited internship opportunities, they get some exposure through school projects but this is not the same as work experience.

Special needs youths need help to secure internship opportunities too. Both the youths and employers would need customised training and support to make sure that the work arrangements can be sustained. Would the Government please provide more funds and support to incentivise companies to be more inclusive?

I would also like to ask for more funding to support IHLs to develop Continuing Education and Training modules with input from sector leaders and companies. Such an ecosystem will facilitate the development of updated training programmes, which are relevant and in demand by industries.

An excellent example of a multi-parties' involvement for training is Google's Skills Ignition SG programme, a partnership between Google, EDB, IMDA and SkillsFuture. The programme involves online vocational and on-the-job learning with local and global host companies.

Indeed, a tripartite approach is the most promising one to ensure timely and relevant curriculum development and good matches to place the trained participants.

In recent years, there has been a sharp increase in the number of platform workers. We need to rethink our approach to supporting their welfare.

A key factor contributing to the gig economy's expansion was the improvement of digital technology. This facilitated the matching of workers to tasks. However, the relationship between these technology companies and assigned workers is unequal and heavily weighed in favour of the firms, which have access to the data, customers and a wide pool of non-union, unorganised workers. The tech companies have no obligation to the independent workers, which mostly include private hire drivers and food delivery couriers.

As independent service providers, they are not employees and thus are not entitled to employee rights such as sick leave, mandatory leave, CPF contributions, medical expenses, so on and so forth. Therefore, although they have flexibility and autonomy, the fact is that they have limited bargaining power and will find it hard to earn a sustaining wage if they do not work full-time.

While many platform workers are young and work part-time, now, the number of full-timers are also significant. As a gauge, consider in 2018, 8% to 10% of Singapore's resident workforce was self-employed or they did full-time independent work. It is time for us to review their work conditions and consider if we should amend legislation to require platform companies to treat the full-time platform worker as employees as well as to allow them to form unions to protect their rights, including fair and timely payment.

Presently, they are prone to exploitation and have very little say on how much they get paid – they are price takers – and in order to make a decent living, which include the incentive pay, which comes with completing certain assigned jobs, they have to work long hours to reach their target wages.

Due to low barriers of entry, the jobs are attractive to those who have difficulty finding other jobs due to low levels of education, lack of skillsets or credentials, or other reasons, such as a prior criminal record. While they provide a much needed and in-demand service, they are in dead-end jobs with no prospect of progression. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To residents of Chua Chu Kang, and platform workers, my fellow Members of Parliament and I will help you get fair wages and rights.

(In English): The least we can do for them is to ensure that they have representation via unions and are treated fairly, in another words, with the full rights and entitlements of employees.

Finally, I would like to speak on the topic of carbon taxes.

With the changes in carbon taxes, companies will face increasing pressure to transform. However, the cost of transformation will ultimately be passed on to the consumers and lead to higher costs of living. With inflation and logistics challenges due to the pandemic, ordinary families will face financial pressures. SMEs will also face challenges dealing with the higher carbon taxes.

Singapore is the first or the only Southeast Asian country to introduce a carbon tax. While I support our efforts to go green, both figuratively and literally, I am very worried about the impact on our middle- and lower-income families and the competitiveness of our local SMEs. I hope the Government will assist them more over the transition period.

With this, I would like to conclude with my support for the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap.

12.36 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, there are two parts to my speech. First, I will cover the topic of a caring and inclusive society, which I will deliver in English. For the second part, I will speak on a couple of issues related to the Malay/Muslim community in Malay.

Sir, the constant feature of almost every Budget tabled in this Chamber has been efforts to build a caring and inclusive society. This year was no different. With this in mind, I would like to use my speech to invite the Government and every Member of this House to reflect on the issues that are faced by certain segments of our fellow Singaporeans who may still feel marginalised.

For those who belong to these segments, the phrase "caring and inclusive society" may provoke anger and disappointment rather than any joy or pride.

Sir, let us start by identifying who these people are and what the reasons are for their discontent. They are the ones who face challenges in their respective lives due to certain existing Government policies. I want to highlight the difficulties they face and make some suggestions that could alleviate the hardship these citizens face. The issues I am about to cover are not new. Rather, they have been discussed before and been raised repeatedly by many Members from both sides of this House, including myself.

Sir, the first marginalised group I wish to highlight are our fellow countrymen who are low-income earners and are low-income motorcyclists who depend on motorcycles to support themselves and their families.

In November 2021, I put forth an Adjournment Motion on the ever-increasing issues of motorcycle COEs. I proposed some suggestions which I felt could reduce the burden on motorcyclists and motorcycle owners. In responding to the Motion, MOT agreed on how the high COE prices burden motorcycle owners, especially those belonging to the low-income segments. The Ministry said it would monitor the situation and will assess what were the best measures that could be taken to address the matter.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask MOT whether it has any updates to share with the House relating to this matter, about four months after the Adjournment Motion.

Sir, the COE prices for motorcycles had already crossed the $10,000 mark. I would like to know whether the Government considers this situation to be an appropriate one and what are the steps that have been or are being considered so that those who depend on the use of motorcycles to make a living do not face even deeper troubles as a result of this situation.

The second group of citizens are those whose spouse is not a Singaporean Citizen. The difficulty they face is in obtaining a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or Singaporean permanent residence or Singapore Permanent Resident status. I believe I do not need to elaborate at length as this matter has been raised repeatedly in this Chamber. However, I want to emphasise the negative implications stemming from the situation whereby applications for the Long-Term Visit Pass and permanent residence are rejected many times. I personally know some of my residents who face such situations, the implication of which is separation.

This is very sad, because it is far from demonstrating our caring and inclusive society that every Budget claims to want to achieve.

On this issue, the Workers' Party has specifically called for foreign spouses to be given priority for citizenship naturalisation if they apply after five years on their LTVP+, on the condition that they have been married to their current Singaporean spouse for three years or more and they have at least one child together.

Another stressful situation faced by individuals married to foreign spouses is the cost of schooling for the children of their spouses. That is, their stepchildren. They have to pay high school fees because their stepchildren are student pass holders.

For low-income earners, this is a very heavy burden. Many such individuals are destitute and find themselves out of options and solutions for their financial problems arising from the high school fees. Many of these individuals have already sought to obtain Permanent Resident status in the hope that their children would not be subject to high fees. However, many of those who have applied have been unsuccessful.

As a concern for Singaporeans experiencing such a situation, I would like to ask the Government to re-evaluate our immigration policy in order to provide relief in this situation. Alternatively, I recommend that MOE considers establishing a subsidy scheme for such students, especially for those from low-income families and where their stepfathers have legal guardianship status over them.

The next group who feels marginalised are divorcees: single mothers or fathers and also unwed single parents.

Many still suffer from failing to find a place to live. Although there are reform measures taken by the Government such as allowing single parents to buy subsidised flats without having to go through a development period and also allowing unwed single parents to purchase up to a 3-room flat in a non-mature estate from HDB or a resale flat, but I think more flexibility can be exercised to reduce the difficulties of this group.

This is worrying as there are still many restrictions in our public housing policies for unwed single parents as they and their children do not meet the criteria of a family nucleus under the existing rules. I and many other Members of Parliament have expressed our concerns on the matter and have been calling to abolish this unfavourable ruling and at the same time, to extend public housing benefits to all single parents regardless of their marital status.

I hope this issue can be given due attention and will result in more positive changes to HDB's existing housing policies.

There are two other concerns I have voiced in recent years, which I feel can have a positive impact in our effort in continuing to reinforce caring and inclusive values if they are addressed.

One is with respect to the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme, KiFAS.

I have asked on several occasions in this Chamber to have this scheme extended to students from low-income families who attend kindergartens run by non-profit organisations such as charities, voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and religious entities such as mosques and churches. This is because parents who wish to send their children to a kindergarten of their choice for certain reasons should not be sidelined or deprived of the opportunity to obtain financial assistance schemes. I do not think this is in line with inclusive values.

Full-time madrasah students may also feel excluded from society in some ways. While the move to provide all full-time students at madrasah with Edusave accounts is a welcome one, I note that the Edusave awards, which are presented to students who have performed well or shown good improvement in a mainstream school, remains unavailable to madrasah students.

Sir, at this point, I would like to declare that my daughter is a student at one of the full-time madrasah.

I would like to once again request MOE take additional inclusive measures by extending the Edusave award to full-time madrasah students.

Sir, the recognition of MOE through the Edusave award should not be limited to school students under the administration of the Ministry. Such awards should be extended to every Singaporean student to further strengthen efforts to inculcate inclusive values in our society, especially students.

Sir, the last category of individuals which I wish to highlight are those whose nationality is classified as unknown or stateless.

I have raised this matter in this House, previously citing two individuals who have sought my assistance on their dilemma of being stateless. Both of them were born and bred in Singapore and have never left this country as a result of their nationality status. One of them has to bear a heavier financial burden due to ineligibility for medical fee subsidies and the other is unable to access ComCare assistance. Having stayed in this country for the whole of their life and after giving their youth and energy to the building of this nation, they were repeatedly told of their unsuccessful applications and appeals for citizenship. Other Members of this House have also separately filed questions relating to the plight of the stateless.

According to the Minister for Home Affairs, as of end November 2020, there were 1,109 stateless individuals in Singapore, of which 76% have obtained Permanent Residence status. That still leaves another 266 individuals. I also note that the Minister for Manpower had said in January 2021 that there were no regulations preventing the employment of stateless persons. However, I note that there are several steps that prospective employers of stateless persons need to take before employing them.

Sir, I understand that the immigration authorities take this issue seriously and have to assess each application for Permanent Residency and Citizenship in detail before issuing their decision on whether to approve an application. I hope that the authorities will consider formulating streamlined policies to resolve the status of the stateless in Singapore. Sir, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to bring up a number of issues relating to the Malay-Muslim community, during this Budget debate as well as the Committee of Supply debate.

In today's debate, I would like to touch on two matters, that should be given due emphasis and attention to ensure the well-being of the Malay/Muslim community in Singapore. First, on home ownership and second, on education.

After almost 57 years of independence, Singapore has attained many commendable achievements. The excellence that we achieved is the result of having awareness, hard work accompanied by sweat and tears, in addition to the spirit, perseverance, commitment, determination and solidarity of our people with a touch of vision and aspiration. As the people of a multi-racial Singapore, we are cognizant that united we stand, divide we fall. As a result, we can see now that on the world stage, Singapore is increasingly known as an exceptional and reputable brand name.

We are a nation that is far ahead in many areas like economic growth, public administration, quality education, health services, anti-corruption and so on.

Sir, as Members are aware, Singapore’s excellent achievements today have made our citizens more educated, skilled and capable.

However, there are still many who are unable to say that they are self-sufficient. This is because we are facing critical challenges and problems, brought about by the wave of progress in the name of development, success and prosperity

In short, we all face the pressure of a very high cost of living. Just look at last January’s core inflation which has gone up by 2.4% on a year-on-year basis, reaching the highest level in nine years, driven by higher inflation in food, electricity and gas, as well as a smaller decline in the cost of retail and other goods. This was declared by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) in a joint statement on 23 February.

In this august Chamber, I would like to say clearly and plainly that the increase in prices of goods has adversely affected our people's cost of living.

In this challenging and increasingly stressful situation, the Malay community is the most affected. The Population Census showed that the number of Malay households living in 1-room and 2-room rental flats has more than doubled in 10 years, from around 9,100 in 2010 to 18,600 in 2020.

This, Mr Speaker, this is not progress but regression. If every rental flat is occupied by a family of four, it means 74,400 Malays are now living in a cramped, stressful and hampered manner. This comprises almost 15% of the entire Malay community in Singapore.

So, I would like to ask the Government; first, what is being done by the Government to improve the ability of Malays to purchase flats and therefore leave the rental flats? Second, how many Malays are living in HDB rental flats in 2021? Third, what are the Government’s short-term and medium-term plans to reduce the number of Malays living in 1-room and 2-room rental flats? Four, what is the Government's target to reduce the number of Malays living in rental flats by 2030?

Sir, moving on, I would like to know clearly the Government's plans on the education of Malay children, especially with regard to the Malay language. I am very concerned, looking at the growing number of our children who are more comfortable speaking in English. This will cause their command of the Malay language as their Mother Tongue to be eroded. In future, perhaps within another decade, Singaporean Malays will generally feel awkward speaking in their own language.

According to statistics from the 2020 Population Census, there were 38,668 Malay boys and girls aged 0 to 4 years old. Children at this age are at a critical stage in their growth development. With married couples focused on supporting families, most of these children are placed in childcare centres before being sent to kindergarten.

The upbringing and teaching of Malay Language, whether at home or at childcare centres, are equally important. However, I discovered from a reply by the Minister for Social and Family Development in April 2021 that 350 childcare centres provided Malay Language lessons beginning this year, despite having more than 1,800 preschools here. This means that only 19% of preschools here teach Malay Language. This is far from sufficient.

I acknowledge that it is important for our people to have a good command of English, and the bilingual policy adopted by the Government should ensure a balance for all mother tongues, including the Malay Language, and on this point, my concern is that if there is no concerted effort, the majority of our 38,668 Malay children will have difficulty mastering the Malay Language, much less being fluent in their Mother Tongue.

Moreover, the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) results showed a very clear indication that the percentage of Malay children who scored grade A* to C for the Malay Language had declined. The lowest percentage was 97.5% in 2020, and this downward trend began since the beginning of the new millennium in 2001. The Malay community cannot allow this decline to continue on. This is an early indication that a critical step must be taken to prevent this problem from worsening. Some may think that this decline is very small or negligible.

Therefore, on this issue, I would like to pose some questions to the Government on the education of Malay children. This will allow the community to know more clearly the Government's position and stand in ensuring that Malay children are not hindered from the opportunity to learn Malay Language from a young age. As the saying goes, bend the bamboo while it is still a bamboo shoot.

Sir, I have these questions for the Government.

First, what will the Government do to address the shortage of preschools offering the teaching of Mother Tongue? Will the Government provide a bigger allocation to attract more professionals to join the preschool teaching sector to teach the Malay language?

Second, what are the Government's plans to increase the number of preschools that can offer the teaching of Malay Language to meet the needs of the majority of the 38,668 children aged 0 to 4 years old, where currently only 350 preschools out of around 1,800 preschools that are doing so.

Third, what are the immediate steps that will be taken by the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs as well as the Mendaki Foundation to improve Malay language proficiency among primary school students who will sit for the PSLE. Generally we know that Mendaki Tuition Classes do not offer tuition in the Malay language.

Four, what is the near-term objective of the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) to address the lack of Malay Language teaching in preschools by 2030?

Sir, what I presented are part of several key issues that the Government needs to address with detailed answers. The Malay community is always told about our achievement and progress, and when we look that the available statistics, we can see a significant weakness over the last 10 years.

The issues highlighted must be addressed decisively and judiciously.

At the same time, we also seek the Government’s understanding to look into the living situation of Malays, with many increasingly living in rental flats. This has to be addressed quickly to extract them of the cycle and grip of poverty, and all the social problems that come with it.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

12.55 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, the world has changed since the hon Minister for Finance delivered his Budget Statement on 18 February 2022. We heard an account of this from the hon Minister for Foreign Affairs in this House yesterday.

Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 in what has been described as the biggest invasion of a European country since World War II. In a flash, blood has been spilled. Families have been displaced. Worryingly, I see no end in sight in the immediate future.

Financial and economic sanctions on an unprecedented scale have been imposed on Russia by the US and EU countries. Singapore decided to follow suit and impose its own sanctions on Russia based on our principled approach to diplomacy. The hon Minister was quick to point out that our decision will come at a cost. We need to be prepared for this.

The consequence for the rest of the world is substantial and serious. Both Russia and Ukraine are substantial commodity producers. We have seen spikes in the prices of oil, gas and agricultural commodities. Singapore is not immune. We are already hit with the inflationary pressures arising from the pandemic and supply chain issues. These pressures are likely to worsen.

I trust that both sides of the House are solidly behind the hon Minister for Foreign Affairs’ condemnation of Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and call for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine to be respected. As he eloquently highlighted, our own short history as a tiny island city-state informs us that we too will always be vulnerable to machinations of big powers and must continually be prepared to guard against any existential threat to Singapore and fellow Singaporeans.

We have little influence in what happens globally. We are price takers. We have no choice but to take the world as it is. That is why our defence policy is based on the twin pillars of diplomacy which advocates a rule-based approach to settling international disputes in accordance with the UN Charter and international law; and deterrence, which involves a strong defence capability and ensuring that any enemy will know that there will be a big price to pay if they take us on.

It is these developments that have guided me to draw hon Members’ attention to one aspect of the Budget Statement which is not specifically spelt out but is the raison d’etre for a number of initiatives stated in the Budget, that is strengthening our nation’s resilience and robustness.

I am not using these terms interchangeably. I am guided by how Princeton professor Markus Brunnermeier has defined these terms in his book published last year titled “The Resilient Society”. He described “resilience” as the ability to rebound from a shock, whereas “robustness” is the ability to resist.

Closer to home, at NUS, environmental scholars at the Lee Kuan Yew School have defined “resilience” as R1 and R2. The first being an ability to mitigate and resist; the second, to adapt and flourish in new circumstances.

Whatever their names, the two are ways to respond to external shocks. More importantly, the Lee Kuan Yew School researchers point out that resilience is not a cost-free virtue. In fact, the price of resilience is inefficiency – a point I shall elaborate on below. Investing in both these capabilities are important to ensure Singapore’s survival in this unpredictable and volatile world. What is clear is that we cannot afford to adopt a “feast and famine” approach to building these capabilities.

Thinking long term to secure Singapore’s future has always been the hallmark of the PAP Government. Let me provide a few examples.

Hon Members will recall Prime Minister Lee’s bold plan to build polders and barrages for a period of between 50 and 100 years to save Singapore from rising sea levels costing at least $100 billion.

The hon Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat spoke last year about efforts to strengthen Singapore’s capabilities in biomedical sciences and health infrastructures to be ready for Disease X. The hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim recounted some of these efforts in her speech just now and aptly described them as a "reassuring development".

Also last year, the hon Education Minister Chan Chun Sing announced plans for MOE to roll out mental health education lessons to our children at Primary, Secondary and pre-university levels by next year to help them build up their resilience.

These are not short-term plans, with an eye on the next electoral cycle. They are for the protection and flourishing of our children, grandchildren, and generations beyond – but already hardwired into our spending today. I applaud these moves and other Government initiatives aimed at making Singapore and Singaporeans more resilient and robust.

No doubt though, there is a cost – and one we bear today – in developing these capacities.

Let us take grocery supply as an example.

It costs less for a supermarket to stock groceries employing a just-in-time inventory, something that hon Member Mr Seah Kian Peng knows very well. Purchase decisions can be made based on current conditions. It makes the business operations leaner but susceptible to disruptions when the suppliers cannot supply.

The other option is to employ a just-in-case model which will allow the businesses to be more agile and respond to sudden demand increases quickly. It does, however, mean that business costs will be higher. This may not be the most efficient way to use resources. But it may be the better way when dealing with strategic goods.

This is where we, on both sides of the House, must come together and affirm that these costs must be incurred progressively over the long term because what is ultimately at stake is Singapore’s survival and viability.

My question to the hon Minister for Finance is two-fold; first, could he please let us know what are the strategic areas that the Government intends to build resilience and robustness capabilities for the immediate as well as the long term; and two, have we committed sufficient funds and resources for the building of these capabilities?

My hope is that the Government will continue to eschew the natural tendency, when our country’s fiscal position is relatively weak and there is a pressure to increase social expenditure, to cut back on investments to progressively build such capabilities. We cannot be capricious. We must hold fast to our resolve to develop these strategic capabilities.

I now turn to the hon Minister’s decision to increase the tax responsibility on wealthier Singaporeans through personal income tax, property tax, luxury car tax and GST increases.

With respect to GST, I am glad to note the progressive way in which the GST will be implemented. The progressive nature of our policy ensures that low- and middle-income Singaporeans will, on a net basis receive significantly more benefits from tax transfers than what they would have paid. This is provided for under the Assurance Package and the permanent GST Voucher Scheme.

This also means that, on a net basis, it will be the wealthier Singaporeans, who will be bearing the brunt of the impact of the GST increase.

I have carefully considered the reasons provided by the Minister for the tax increases. I support the Minister’s decision requiring those with more to contribute more tax to fund our social programmes and, in particular, help those whom the hon Member Mr Faisal Manap referred to in his speech just now as "marginalised people" and keep our social compact strong.

In fact, such contributions by the wealthier amongst us will so serve as “investment” not just for the future of the less fortunate but also for their own continued economic well-being and growth. After all, the strength of our social compact provides the foundations of our economic growth. In this way, their businesses and wealth will continue to grow, in a society that is stable and fair, where each man feels he has a place.

Not only that, we should also acknowledge that our tax bases are still relatively low, even with the proposed increases.

One point which I wish to emphasise though is the continued need to keep our public expenditure lean.

As the hon Minister mentioned, Government spending today, excluding COVID-19 related expenditure, stands at 18% of our GDP which is the lowest among developed economies but yet it has produced social and economic outcomes that have been better than most. This fiscal discipline must continue. If we do not and we just continue to fund social expenditure for the less fortunate through knee-jerk increases in tax for the wealthy, then I am afraid the social compact will, ironically, weaken. There will be a danger that our society will fracture as a result of an “us against them” mentality taking root. It is a point that hon Members who spoke before me also raised.

Already I see warning signs that this may happen. I note calls amongst persons who own private landed properties but have no steady income streams asking for Government support. Indeed, in the Assurance Package, it is provided that a person who owns a single private landed property but does not have income can get up to $1,600 over five years. This, with other measures such as CDC Vouchers and MediSave top-ups for seniors, will allow them to get more than five times the GST that they would have paid in a year.

The reality, however, is that with the landed property prices as they are, these persons can well afford to fund their own expenses through readily available reverse mortgages from banks which will allow them to live comfortably in their homes until the end of their lives. Thereafter, their homes may be sold and the proceeds applied against loans extended by the bank. It is not easy to make these arguments to people who feel very strongly about their properties, but we must, on behalf of a society where more than 90% live in flats, push back against such claims.

A similar example involves elderly retired couples in an HDB flat which is eligible for the Lease Buyback Scheme. They would again be entitled to Government support because they are living in an HDB flat without income. In reality though, they would be able to fund their expenses through the Lease Buyback Scheme which would again enable them to sell the tail end of their lease to HDB and live comfortably in their homes until the end of their life with the proceeds obtained.

Some time back, I met an elderly couple who sought ComCare assistance because they are retired and their children are not willing to give them any allowance. I suggested the Lease Buyback Scheme to them as a way to resolve their financial woes. After some thought, they came back to me and the answer was that they are not keen. The reason is because they want to pass on their homes as inheritance to their children even though their children are not paying for their upkeep. As parents, they are amazing but as claimants on taxpayers’ monies used in substitution for their upkeep, they become what economists refer to as “free riders”.

Private inheritance comes at a cost of public funds. This also means that there is less money for helping a person who may have a more pressing need for assistance. Again, this may be a hard argument to make to the elderly couple, but if we do not, we will be a nation of ComCarers, with a large budget. And there is no large budget without large taxes.

At some point in time, as our social spending increases, we will have to make hard decisions on whom we should support through social assistance so that we can keep public spending lean and only to be given to the truly need it, while we focus on making our safety “trampoline” – a phrase made popular by Senior Minister Tharman – springier.

The final area I wish to touch on in my speech concerns the development of entrepreneurial talent undertaking sustainability initiatives that can generate carbon credits for use by businesses to offset carbon tax.

I support the move to increase the carbon tax as part of Singapore’s commitment to reduce emissions and tackle climate change.

I note with interest that the hon Minister intends to allow businesses to use high quality, international carbon credits to offset up to 5% of their taxable incomes in lieu of paying carbon tax.

What I wish to explore is whether assistance may be provided to entrepreneurial businesses in Singapore which have promising sustainability projects but lack the scale necessary to attract carbon credit financing.

One suggestion I have is for Government or Statutory Boards to partner these businesses in the provision of services such as waste to energy plants to power lamp posts in business parks.

With established track records, these Singapore businesses would be able to establish good branding and reputation as leaders in this field, venture into the region or beyond, and undertake larger scale projects to reduce carbon emissions that can be financed through carbon credits.

Through this we would have developed a value proposition for Singaporean businesses and allow them an opportunity to participate in the international carbon credit value-chain.

Sir, that I am able to speak of carbon credits, long-term spending on climate resilience and the structure of taxation, in the middle of a global pandemic and a military invasion that has impacted the entire world, speaks to how important peace and stability are to a small state.

We cannot take this for granted. It is not the natural position of price takers. But while we cannot determine our own price, we can continue to write our own destiny as long as we are a sovereign state, with the will and wherewithal to defend it. To continue to write each page, requires resources and careful husbandry of what we have. This is what our Budget does, and this is why I support it. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

1.11 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic serves as a reminder to all of us of the importance of national resilience. We are now moving towards life with COVID-19 as an endemic disease, a path which is bound to be fraught with unexpected challenges. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been a stark demonstration of the fragility of territorial sovereignty in the face of aggression by a larger neighbour.

Building national resilience is a key effort we need to undertake to prepare for current and future challenges. It has to be a joint effort, borne out of the partnership between the people, society, companies and the Government. It is vital that Government policies must be supportive of this endeavour to build and strengthen resilience.

As I respond to the Finance Minister's Budget Statement, I will talk about seven pillars of resilience I believe that we need to continuously build up our nation. These are resilient families, resilient environment, resilient infrastructure, resilient companies, resilient workforce, resilient society and resilient government.

Families are the building block of society. We must do all we can to increase the resilience of family units whatever form they might come in.

I am concerned about the plan to raise the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) by 3.5% per year for the next five cohorts turning 55 from 2023 to 2027. MOF said that eight in 10 CPF members turning 55 in 2027 will be able to set aside the heightened BRS. This means that 20% of them will not be able to withdraw more than a token sum from their CPF. Currently, some 435,000 Singaporeans aged between 55 and 70 are unable to meet the prevailing BRS. Many of them struggle with their living expenses and are not able to use their CPF of housing payments. I hope that MOF will give careful consideration to the needs of CPF members with lower balances before raising the BRS.

For our children, building resilience starts at home. All parents, myself included, view our kids as precious gems, but we must be careful not to mollycoddle them. Let us encourage our children to take part in competitions, whether in sports, games or the arts. Every competition will have only one winner and many losers. Let them learn to win with grace and remain resilient in defeat by picking themselves up to fight another day.

Let our children take public transport to school instead of ferrying them everywhere by car. This brings an additional benefit of reducing traffic jams around schools. I commend schools that disallow parents from turning up at schools with water bottles or homework that their children left at home. Occasions like these are opportunities for our children to take responsibility for their actions and their belongings.

Next, on building a resilient environment. I am glad to hear the Finance Minister announced that Singapore aims to achieve net zero emissions by or around mid-century. In order to realise this goal, Singapore must be prepared to make big investments in emerging green technologies and take decisive steps towards wielding the mantle of climate leadership, regionally and globally.

I would like to renew my call made in January for Singapore to launch a national hydrogen strategy, and roadmap to spur the creation of a hydrogen economy in Singapore. This will set Singapore on a path towards being a global player in the hydrogen industry and benefit Singaporean workers.

NEA is now mulling the introduction of a mandatory plastic bag charge at supermarkets. I support the reduction of one-time-use plastics. However, policies designed to achieve this must take into account the local context. Most shoppers do not throw away their plastic bags but use them to bag their thrash before throwing it down the rubbish chute. If they do not have enough plastic bags from supermarkets, they might end up buying plastic bags or, worse, throwing their rubbish directly down the chutes.

Therefore, any policy interventions should strive to encourage intrinsic attitudes towards conservation, not lead to people trying to work around punitive measures. Instead of a per-bag charge, has NEA considered requiring large supermarkets to offer a discount as an incentive for not using plastic bags?

Singapore's rapid urban development and ascent on the global economic stage was made possible in large part due to good infrastructure. Our public transport network has seen improvements in recent years although the convenience and frequency of bus services in some areas like Bedok Reservoir has been a bugbear for many commuters. This has shown up in commuters' surveys which rate bus services the lowest among transport modes. I will speak more about this during MOT Committee of Supply.

Moving on to digital infrastructure, the prevalence of online scams points to the need for more resilient cyber infrastructure, not only at the backend but also at the frontend, with efforts to detect attempts at social engineering and prevent people from falling prey to scammers.

While our public education is important, the financial institutions must redouble their efforts to use technological solutions to detect suspicious patterns of use and stop using SMS as a channel for sending passwords.

The world has entered a stage where cyber warfare is a real threat, as demonstrated by Russia's alleged cyberattacks Ukrainian's infrastructure, long before the air, land and sea invasion began. Adversaries can potentially maliciously shut down or control critical infrastructure with the click of a mouse. Are our Government agencies putting enough resources into countering this threat and are critical infrastructure providers, like water treatment plants, power grid operators, telcos and public transport operators, ready to counter these threats?

Our companies have seen challenging times in this pandemic. Many are still struggling to stay afloat. The pandemic has shown our over-reliance on our foreign workforce. We need to transform our economy to boost the attractiveness of local talent to companies.

MOM should watch out for companies that circumvent market testing requirements, for example, doing a token posting on MyCareersFuture when they already have a foreigner in mind to hire. Where there are instances of companies claiming that they are unable to find Singaporeans to take up positions, we need to make a deeper qualitative assessment on why this is so. For example, are there gaps in our education system that are preventing our schools from producing market-ready graduates?

On a separate note, I believe that one of the brightest sparks from the pandemic is the mainstreaming of work-from-home arrangements. A large proportion of both employees and employers want to continue remote work, at least part of the time, even after the pandemic ends. We should build on these gains and encourage more companies, especially the traditional SMEs, to provide work-from-home options for their employees.

Good economic prospects and technological advances disproportionately benefit the high-skilled. To make our growth more inclusive, we should engage more Singaporeans economically, including people with disabilities and the elderly. Companies should extend work-from-home opportunities to engage and empower Singaporeans with mobility issues. Not only do they form a large untapped labour market with valuable experience to contribute, enabling them to work from home will help them to connect better with society, improve their overall well-being and strengthen Singapore's social security. I hope MOM can consider ways to incentivise companies to extend work-from-home opportunities to this group of Singaporeans.

In his Budget Statement, the Finance Minister introduced a $500-a-month minimum income requirement to qualify for the Workfare Income Supplement from 2013. This could potentially impact up to 46,600 employed residents, inclusive of part-timers, who earn less than $500 a month. It will disadvantage workers who have extremely low incomes and are forced to work reduced hours through no fault of their own or have unpaid caregiving responsibilities. The Minister said that this is to encourage part-timers and casual workers to take up regular full-time work. However, I fear that it will result in the exact opposite. Workers may decide to drop out of the workforce because their income cannot even cover their travel expenses. I appeal to the Minister to rescind the minimum income requirement, so that all lower-wage workers will benefit from Workfare. This was a call made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition as well.

We must ensure that every working Singaporean receives a decent minimum wage. I welcome the requirements for all local workers to be paid at least $1,400 a month, if their companies employ foreign workers. All the workers are in a Progressive Wage Model (PWM) sector or occupation.

I am cheered that the Government is going to co-fund the pay increases for low-wage workers over the next five years. Building on this approach, would the Minister consider also co-funding for five years the pay increases of all Singaporean workers who are taking home less than $1,300, including those who are not in sectors or occupations covered by the PWM? This will help companies adjust to paying their workers a minimum wage and bring Singapore closer towards implementing a national minimum wage, something that the Workers' Party has been consistently advocating for.

In addition to strengthening our workers' rights, we also need to build more resilience in our local workers. Some employers have lamented to me about local employees quitting when they are made to work long hours, in contrast to foreigners whom they claimed have no qualms about working overtime. We should not be dismissive about those who may have genuine domestic responsibilities like taking care of children or elderly parents. However, for those that do not, including many young professionals, I feel it does not hurt to "pia" a bit more during your first job, so you can establish your career and compete more effectively with the global workforce. Of course, do this without sacrificing your mental and physical health.

A vibrant local sports scene contributes towards building a resilient society. The Suzuki Cup football tournament was a great demonstration of how sports can promote national unity. I experienced it myself when I took my son to see one of the matches.

However, cheering the Lions once every two years is not enough. Our sporting talents are playing in the international tournaments throughout the year. They should be better featured. For example, Loh Kean Yew's historic victory at the 2021 Badminton World Championships could only be watched live on Cable Television. Non-subscribers had to wait almost a week to watch it on free-to-air TV. Featuring more of our local sporting talents on free-to-air TV or local online channels, like meWATCH, will not only imbue a greater national spirit, but will also inspire generation of young sports enthusiasts, who may go on to become future champions.

Finally, I believe we need a resilient government. A sizable presence of opposition Members in Parliament will keep the government on its toes and responsive to the needs of the people and increase the resilience of our government.

On the other side of the coin, as an efficient and effective civil service, I commend our public servants for demonstrating great resilience in helping our nation through the pandemic. I was once a civil servant and, to this day, I hold close to my heart a piece of advice that my Permanent Secretary gave to me when I first joined the service. He told me he expected me to be a subject matter expert on the issues covered by my desk. He said it was my responsibility to provide objective recommendations in my policy submissions I put up to the senior management and Ministers. This was sound advice.

Civil servants should not second-guess what their political masters want or implement instructions blindly, just because the Ministers said so. They must also not be afraid to respectfully point out policy errors made by political officeholders, as it is in Singapore's interests that the best possible policies are advanced. The civil service must also remain politically neutral.

The final point I wish to raise is to register my concerns over the planned hike in the GST rates in 2023 and 2024. I understand the budgetary pressures that come with an ageing society, and I support moves to socialise more provision of more public welfare services, especially for the elderly. However, it remains my belief that a consumption tax hike should be the last resort to increasing revenue. This is because the GST is an inherently regressive tax, to which the poor pay a higher percentage of their income compared to the rich.

In Singapore, only a portion of the GST paid is returned in the form of GST Vouchers. The GST Offset Package is meant to help lower-income households adjust but this will last only five to 10 years. However, the GST hike will be forever.

MOF should consider other more progressive sources of revenue besides the GST hike. Yesterday, Member of Parliament for Sengkang Assoc Prof Jamus Lim did a deep dive into the Workers' Party's alternative levers for raising revenue. This includes higher taxes in carbon emissions, multinational corporations and wealth, using a portion of land sales and increasing investment returns contribution, which can more than make up for shortfalls in revenue brought about by higher social spending without having to increase GST.

Mr Speaker, the pandemic has precipitated societal and political upheavals in many countries. Singapore has, thankfully, been largely spared the kind of widespread rifts in society caused by measures to deal with the pandemic. Nevertheless, we must anticipate that future challenges will only get harder. Let us take the necessary steps now to build a more resilient Singapore, so that our next generation will be better prepared to weather any storm that comes.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

1.26 pm

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, last year’s Budget had set us on the course to brave the storm of this pandemic by helping businesses, workers and families. We had also planted the seeds of growth on the SG Green Plan through sustainability efforts and green financing.

Our consistent and careful handling of the COVID-19 crisis has led to greater confidence not only in Singapore but the region as well. However, we are not out of the woods yet. New challenges have emerged in the course of the past year.

COVID-19 and its variants have tested our system and the resilience of our people. But we have prevailed, thanks to the cooperation and understanding of everyone. This is also assisted by the various schemes like the JSS, COVID-19 Relief Grant and the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI), just to name a few.

We are also facing a period of global economic uncertainty and higher energy prices, given the recent developments in the Ukraine region.

With these challenges we now face, I agree with Minister Lawrence Wong that we have to further strengthen our social compact as one people, more so now than ever before.

In this regard, in my Committee of Supply cuts, I will focus on three main areas.

First, strengthen our institutions and relations. This includes strengthening our total defence and relevance of National Service (NS) to our people and new citizens, maintaining and improving our relationship with other countries in the region and all over the world.

Second, prepare our people to be secure and confident to face a post-COVID-19 world, that means maximising the potential of everyone, especially the most vulnerable, like ex-offenders. Instead of offenders, they can become overcomers through our help in their rehabilitation and reintegration into the workforce and society.

We must also look at the retirement security of not only our seniors but entire communities, by considering reforms to make it easier and affordable for Singaporeans to plan for their retirement and their future.

Third, invest in our next generations through technology, education and skills required for the future. This involves not just targeting young people or students but also working with their parents, educators and industry players. How we support the young determines how they will grow to support our country in the future.

However, all of these goals and aspirations will only remain as a wish list if we do not have the fiscal discipline and proper planning to finance our plans in the future. This Budget 2022 gives us the springboard to do so. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Budget is bigger than last year. Total Expenditure exceeded $100 billion, which is $4 billion higher than the Revised FY2021 estimate.

Although revenue is projected to be higher than last year, this is not sufficient to cover our recurring expenses. The projected overall fiscal position for the year is a deficit of about $3 billion. Therefore, there is a need to increase revenue not just for current and future expenditure but to save for our future generations.

Many people are talking about GST. Minister Lawrence Wong has explained its reasons and the fact that the GST increase will be done in stages and will only take place from next year onwards.

However, anecdotally some Chua Chu Kang residents have informed me that they are already seeing some shops and stalls increasing retail prices.

While it is unclear if this is due to an expectation of GST increase or other factors like the rise in the costs of energy and supplies, I welcome the establishment of a Taskforce by the Government to tackle profiteering and those who take advantage of the upcoming GST hike as an excuse to raise prices. The Taskforce is not something new as it was also set up during the GST hike in 2007.

Our GST system is progressive and the features of the permanent GST Vouchers and other transfers have the effect of helping those who need it the most. At the same time, it also results in savings in administrative costs and implementation.

The increase in GST alone will not be able to cover our expenditure, especially healthcare expenditure which will continue to increase.

At the same time, while the Government had been able to tap on the country's reserves to respond to the COVID-19 crisis, this is untenable for the long term. We need to take steps to reduce the budget deficit in the future.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, as stated, this year’s Budget will have an even bigger deficit. What this means is that we need to do three things: first, work hard; second, spend smart; and third, save more.

First, given the continued impact and uncertainty of the pandemic and global situation we have to continue to work hard in our economic recovery and strengthen our social compact. I am glad that we have come up with many efforts for close coordination between Ministries and agencies in specific areas which would also give us the ability to work harder together.

For example, the Singapore Green Plan 2030 involves various Government agencies working in concert, along with a whole-of-society effort, to meet a global challenge. Just like the saying, "if you want to run fast, run alone. If you want to run further, run together".

In recent years, MOF had also developed a number of joint Budgets to ensure better alignment and greater efficiency and value. We have seen these efforts in the Smart Nation initiative for example.

What other whole-of-government efforts can be better coordinated across Ministries and agencies so that we can also attain greater efficiency and savings in implementation? For instance, I would suggest that the recommendations of the taskforce on family violence be considered for potential implementation not just by MSF alone but on a whole-of-Government effort.

With regard to the pandemic, does MOF track the coordination of efforts and resources by MTF and the various agencies and Ministries related to the COVID-19 pandemic? This would be useful for future studies on the impact of the pandemic and how much it cost our country to provide the necessary support and response.

I would suggest a multi-Ministerial consolidated Budget or allocation to address any future crisis. This will also provide a more accurate picture of non-crisis related expense by a particular Ministry or agency.

The second step, spend smart. In my work with the Parliament Estimates Committee, we looked at the Government's budget to see how improvements may be effected to increase efficiency. In the course of the past year, we have also introduced various legislation which has helped in this.

One example is the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act (SINGA) which allows Government borrowings for major national infrastructure projects that will last for at least 50 years. If I may clarify, can Minister illustrate how significant the financial impact of SINGA has been on this year’s and future Budgets in an easy to read and digestible manner? With such explanations or regular reports, Singaporeans can understand that the borrowing will not only help “free up” our spending capacity but at the same time not be a burden to future generations.

Next, streamlining our tax system. One example is the Land Betterment Charge Act (LBC) which streamlines the previous framework for tax collection. Under the previous framework, landowners and developers have to pay to either the URA or SLA, a Development Charge or a Temporary Development Levy or a Differential Premium. However, now under the new Act, the LBC will replace all these previous charges and collected by just one agency, SLA. This is a good example of making things more efficient.

I have a clarification: would MOF be looking into streamlining the imposition and collection of other charges to ensure greater efficiency? Is there a specific department that looks into this? Our tax system is admittedly already simpler and less complicated to navigate than other jurisdictions', but we can still see how to make it more efficient.

Perhaps just like how we set targets on right-sizing Government spending with 5-year Block Budget Framework, MOF can similarly set targets to trim down the number and types of taxes too.

Third, save more. Besides cutting on costs and spending smart, we must save more into our reserves. Our country does not have any other viable natural resources. NIRC, is already the single largest source of revenue. We cannot be over reliant on this alone. We cannot tax this golden goose. Now is the time for us to start planning to put more into our reserves for the future generations.

Would MOF set some targets within the next five years, to reinvest more of our investment returns to build up our reserves and explore more revenue streams to complement our investment income? Hopefully with such targets we will be able to save more for our children and their children.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must continue to work hard, spend smart and save more for Singaporeans of today and Singaporeans of tomorrow. I stand in support of the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.

1.38 pm

Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, budgets are seen by most lay people mostly from the lens of “what’s in it for me” – what am I going to have to pay more for? What goodies am I going to get? How will my business benefit? Economists and market watchers look to be convinced of whether the Budget will make Singapore more competitive and foster GDP growth. But just as organisations are finding that employees are increasingly looking beyond dollars and cents for companies with a clear and inspiring purpose, I believe that Singaporeans are also looking for more in a Budget: do the values reflected by the policies and initiatives proposed align with our own core values?

Because when the values espoused are aligned with your own core values, it is a very special and awesome feeling – just ask any Liverpool fan who has bought into the ethos of "You Never Walk Alone". It is about not just getting results but doing it in a way that makes you deeply proud to be a Singaporean.

On this measure, the evolution of the social compact towards a fairer, greener and more inclusive Singapore, as described by the Finance Minister, delivers. These are values and a vision for the future that are shared by the broad middle ground of Singaporeans.

Personal responsibility and collective support. The yin and yang of the Singapore way, mutually reinforcing. While reinforcing personal responsibility through tying incentives and support to work, the Budget continues the tilt towards collective support. This has been happening for the past more than 10 years. The Government has recognised the need for greater social support, in response to growing inequality, technological change and changing societal expectations, and adjusted the system, very deliberately, over time, including the introduction of the new anchors of our social security system like Workfare, Silver Support and now PWM, and the tightening of foreign manpower policy.

Collective support means we all pay, which also ensures that we all understand that nothing we get comes for free. But the wealthy pay more. The more money you have, the better the life you lead, the more you can afford to pay for other people's children's education and other people’s healthcare. That is just and fair. I welcome the progressive moves in the Budget: the uplift in salaries for lower-income workers, the higher income taxes for the rich, the wealth taxes, and the combination of GST with GST Vouchers and other rebates. By raising revenue in a broad-based way, but spending it in a targeted and fair way, we set ourselves up for a more sustainable fiscal position, while giving time and support for the transition.

However, one area I urge the Minister to review, in light of recent developments, is the Household Support Package. Many Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have spoken about their concerns over the cost of living. I must echo this concern, for low- and middle-income households.

I sat and talked to one of my residents. He and his wife have five children, they live in a five-room flat. Very typical upper middle-income family. Over the past few months, his electricity bill has gone up from $120 a month to $200 or by $80 a month. Multiply that by 12, $960 a year. His water bill has gone up from $30 to $60, multiply by 12, $360. His petrol bill, which he uses to work and ferry his kids to and from school has gone from $500 to $800 or $300 increase a month, $3,600 a year. His food expenditure – they do not cook a lot, so they mostly eat out – has gone up by about 15% to 20%, he says. Fortunately, his spend on healthcare and education have not gone up by much.

But as you can see, these add up pretty quickly. Some of these, we expect to come down in due time, as MTI has previously shared, but the developments in Ukraine and the continued disruption of supply chains, give rise to concerns that this situation might go on past the end of the year.

Mr Speaker, if anything is regressive, inflation is regressive. So, I would like to ask the Finance Minister, what assumptions of inflationary trends were made in developing the $560 million Household Support Package and whether more support can be given, including to the middle-income, for whom ComCare is not an option.

But long term, the way to make sure that the increased cost of living does not bite too hard, is to ensure that incomes grow faster than expenses at every level of the workforce. With the expanded PWM, I think we are quite covered with the lower-income workers. For the middle-income, it is vital that we continue to enhance the competitiveness of our economy so that we can continue to create and retain good jobs. It is vital that we continue to invest in capability building and take a balanced, tempered approach in implementing the tax and manpower policy changes.

In the Committee of Supply, I will speak more on measures to enhance the competitiveness of the economy, build capabilities in our people and businesses, accelerate the green transition and manage the healthcare costs and workforce for an ageing population.

I would like to focus the rest of my speech today on three strategies for our nation’s development, strategies that are driven by alignment of values.

The first is an economic strategy. Go after the Beyond Great companies.

There is a set of leading global companies that are moving past all definitions of “great”, companies that used to focus on scale and strong shareholder returns. One example is Microsoft. These Beyond Great companies have realised that sustainable competitive advantage in an era of technological, geopolitical and social change, can only be attained by being responsive to the needs of all stakeholders, shareholders, but also customers, employees, local communities, governments and the natural environment. The have agile business models that offer customised solutions to borderless communities of digitally connected customers and are experts at forming flexible ecosystems of partners. Conscious of their responsibility to the countries they operate in, they nurture local expertise, enable SMEs to participate in global and regional value chains and help the countries they are in to develop customised solutions to their toughest problems. They are willing to provide jobs and opportunities for a combination of skills, from the highly skilled global professionals who compete with the best in the world, to the middle and lower-skilled workers who may compete more often with lower-cost resources in the region, because they understand that for Singapore to be true to our values, we must have jobs for every Singaporean.

The Government, led by EDB, can proactively attract and nurture Beyond Great companies to anchor in Singapore. To attract these companies, we must continue to offer financial stability, predictability, transparency and low taxes. But these are table stakes. Beyond Great companies will also demand world class digital infrastructure and customs procedures that minimise transaction costs, cross border data sharing frameworks and safeguards, regional trade agreements that harmonise regulations. All of these are necessary for them to transact international business through digital platforms and fast-evolving ecosystems.

Beyond Great companies also require flexible labour policies and the ability to tap on global employees and freelancers sitting outside the host country and within a country, a workforce that is not only highly skilled with specialised technical capabilities but also people with digital mindsets, who are agile and always hungry to learn, who have motivation and grit.

In my maiden speech at the start of this Parliament, I spoke about the need for the Government and companies to invest in our people. We have made significant moves since then, but it is still not enough. We must continue to accelerate the reskilling and upskilling of our workforce for a more digital, more green future and, over the long term, we must reexamine the entire education system from early childhood all the way to work, to enable learning at the right time, at the right place, on a personalised learning journey.

We must also collaborate in public-private ecosystems with these Beyond Great companies to align plans, policies and incentives to achieve mutually shared goals beyond profit and growth.

The second strategy deals with social policy – implement a permanent growth dividend.

As I have alluded to earlier in my speech, we have built, over time, a comprehensive social security system fit for our demographic profile with Workfare, Silver Support and Progressive Wage Model – really quite game changing.

I must confess though that when schemes like the Solidarity Payment and Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers were announced, I was quite bemused. Did rich Singaporeans really need the $100 to feel solidarity with other Singaporeans? But after getting feedback on the vouchers from the ground, I must say my position has shifted. My residents in 5-room, executive apartment (EA), executive maisonette (EM) and Jumbo flats – we happen to have a lot in my division – told me that it felt good to finally get something when, usually, there is nothing for them, even though quite a few of them donated theirs.

In the discussion on GST in this and previous Budgets, we have talked about the advantages of GST as a broad-based tax on revenue. Perhaps, there is something to be said about boosting solidarity through a broad-based distribution, which also provides an additional way to enhance financial security and mitigate inequality for those whose fortunes do not reflect the nation's success.

The support package has elements of this but, if we want to be more inclusive, could we explore a more structural change to provide a permanent growth dividend tied to GDP or Budget surpluses, with different payouts, of course, based on wealth or income, partly in cash, partly in CPF, that give every Singaporean an additional stake in the nation's economic progress, reinforcing that we win and lose as a team.

We have done this before with one-off payments like the SG Bonus in 2018, the Growth Dividend in 2011, the New Singapore Shares in 2001 and, of course, the discounted Singtel shares in the 1990s. It may feel moot to even be discussing this in the context of consecutive years of Budget deficits, but I hope the Minister might consider this as we move forward.

The third strategy deals with shaping our values themselves – build a positive national culture.

Our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, famously said in 1977, "You know the Singaporean. He is a hardworking, industrious, rugged individual. Or we would not have made the grade. But let us also recognise that he is a champion grumbler." Forty-five years later, we may laugh and wryly say some things never change.

But who do we really want to be? Have we thought about how much better and stronger we would be if we were a more positive people? Not just law-abiding but positive. There are three components of a positive national culture that I think are particularly important.

First is empathy. In dealing with people, we must make the effort to get to know them as whole human beings. It increases the likelihood that they will go the extra mile when we need them to. The relationship and the trust between the people and the Government and the Public Service are a massive ingredient to sustainable success for our nation.

Second is mutual respect. If we respect others, we must accept that people have different strengths and weaknesses and support them to use their strengths to flourish and not be stuck with narrow ideas of what good looks like and of what should be valued. We must accept different backgrounds, cultures and viewpoints while not letting society become more and more fragmented. We must speak to one another, on the streets and in this House, with respect and with integrity.

Third, aspiration or ambition – always believing that we can do better, be better. We fight complacency and cynicism by surrounding ourselves with people who push us to aim higher and do better. We believe that no matter how small we are, our actions matter.

For example, with respect to climate change, we could take the view that Singapore going to net-zero may not move the needle if bigger countries in the region and the world do not do their part or we could take the view that I mooted in last year's Budget debate that by investing in research and development (R&D) and developing solutions for the greatest existential crisis of our times, we can lead and change the world.

We must cultivate that eternal optimism, that sense of idealism and adventure.

Mr Speaker, at this point, I cannot help but remember another famous speech by our founding Prime Minister, "There is a glorious rainbow that beckons those with the spirit of adventure. And there are rich findings at the end of that rainbow. To the young and the not so old, I say, look at that horizon, follow that rainbow, go ride it. Not all will be rich. Quite a few will find a vein of gold. Dig it out. But all those who pursue that rainbow will have a joyous and exhilarating ride and some profit."

Mr Speaker, building this positive national culture requires a lot of work that has to start early in life – in our schools, communities, workplaces, in our interactions with Government agencies, in social media, in the metaverse. We have to enable and stimulate the building of networks, support groups, mentorship programmes, volunteer groups.

In my youth, we had a lot of public education campaigns on radio and television. Who can forget Singa the Courtesy Lion, Teamy the Bee and all those jingles? Now, the same types of campaigns may not be quite so effective with Singaporeans today but we have even more new mediums, tools and talents today to put out relatable and inspiring content to propagate positivity among Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, during the pandemic, there was a catchphrase that became quite popular. Test negative, be positive. Let us infect one another with positivity, regardless of backgrounds, cultures or political leanings.

Mr Speaker, before I end, let me say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Not long ago, I received a message over Facebook from a Chinese resident. Taking pains to say that it was nothing racist but an encouragement to me, our Malay MP in our Sembawang GRC, she shared what she overheard from a group of Chinese women:

"Aiyo, you see, generally Malays are less hardworking … But you see that our Sembawang GRC Malay MP looks so cheerful, so hardworking and active?"

Is this racist? Some will say yes, some will say no. But it is at least prejudice. The truth is prejudices are real. As minorities, the truth is we have always had to work harder than others just to be seen as working as hard as others. Is that fair? No. But is there a genuine desire to put in the hard work to change things? I believe this to be the case with this Government.

It is fashionable these days to cry out injustices, to see calls to cancel someone or something. Sadly, that can sometimes do a great injustice to the hard work being done to change things.

The Budget represents a vision of a fairer, greener and more inclusive Singapore. A fairer and more inclusive Singapore where the fruits of progress are shared more equally by all augurs well for our community. I hope our community will take full advantage of the commitment to invest in our people, invest in our children. I hope more will be done to build a positive national culture and that through the formation of networks, mentorship and communities, the Malay community can be lifted by a positive spirit.

I know many are unhappy about introducing GST in next year, but I also know that with the $6.6b Assurance package, the vast majority of our community will not be affected by the GST increase at all until 5 or even 10 years or more from now. Indeed, some will get a GST bonus in the interim. During this time, we must continue to work on increasing incomes across all levels of our community through our individual efforts to upskill, and through further Government effort. Separate from GST, there are valid concerns about cost of living. I hope the Government will move swiftly to support Singaporeans even more if the high costs persist.

I also hope that the 4G leaders will continue to build genuine relationships with our community, understand our values, our constraints, but also our talents, our efforts and our hustle. And then please be our ally and help us develop and use our strengths to benefit ourselves and society. Because we don’t just want to get better than we were, we want to be at par with everyone else.

(In English) Mr Speaker, Budget 2022 makes a significant move down the path of a fairer, greener, more inclusive Singapore, from which may emerge a vision of a Singapore that is beyond great. It moves further to build capabilities to keep our economy and our people competitive, scaling up early intensive interventions to boost social mobility.

It is a Budget we can be proud of. I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chee Hong Tat.

1.56 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, the Labour Movement welcomes the pro-worker, inclusive and forward-looking Budget by Minister Lawrence Wong.

I join Members of this House to thank our workers for their hard work and sacrifices during the pandemic. This includes our frontline workers and also those who are providing critical support behind the scenes.

In my capacity as advisor to the Healthcare Services Employees' Union (HSEU) and as Senior Minister of State for Transport, I have witnessed how our healthcare and transport workers have stood strong and resilient in the face of challenging circumstances, to care for patients and commuters, and to keep Singapore connected with the world.

Our Labour Members of Parliament will speak about how NTUC and our tripartite partners have worked together to protect, enable and care for our workers.

Brother Abdul Samad will share his views on the protection of workers during the pandemic and beyond.

Brother Heng Chee How will touch on enhancing employment for older workers, a topic close to his heart.

Brother Patrick Tay will focus on strengthening workplace fairness and support for professionals, managers and executives.

Brother Desmond Choo will talk about providing support and opportunities for younger workers.

Brother Melvin Yong will speak on improving mental health support for our workers and enhancing consumer protection.

Brother Fahmi Aliman will touch on NTUC's efforts to uplift lower-wage workers, reflecting our shared values with the People's Action Party to build a fair and just society.

Sister Yeo Wan Ling will highlight how NTUC has provided support for women, family, self-employed persons and workers in small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

Brother Seah Kian Peng will share on cost pressures faced by SMEs and how NTUC and our social enterprises have helped Singaporeans to manage costs of living and provided assistance to our members.

Together, the Labour Members of Parliament will present how NTUC has championed the interests of our workers and helped them to achieve better wages, better welfare and better work prospects – because every worker matters, and every worker can make a difference.

Sir, today, I will focus on how a strong tripartite partnership between the Labour Movement, Government and employers will enable our workers to benefit from better growth, better protection and better skills.

Let me start with growth and why this is important to give our workers a brighter future.

In his speech at the 1976 NTUC's Second Triennial Delegates Conference, Dr Goh Keng Swee warned about the dangers of having small or no economic growth. Without sufficient growth, we have a zero-sum game. This will intensify social conflict because one group can only benefit at the expense of another. Instead of win-win, we have win-lose. And when cohesion is affected, win-lose will soon become "lose-lose".

This is why the Labour Movement fully supports the Government’s efforts to grow Singapore’s economy and to ensure that when companies do well, our workers receive a fair share of the gains. The PAP Government has consistently placed emphasis on achieving this win-win outcome through tripartism, to keep improving the lives of our workers.

As Mr Lee Kuan Yew said: "It is in the interest of the workers and their unions that we must strive for growth and development. In other words, growth is meaningless unless it is shared by the workers." When Singapore’s economy transforms and the profile of our workforce changes, this important purpose shall remain at the heart of NTUC’s mission. Even as we evolve "what" we do and "how" we achieve our outcomes. In Mandarin, we say 不忘初心，与时并进. Never forgetting our core purpose and DNA, while moving in tandem with changing times.

We could see how this principle was translated into action when NTUC implemented new ideas over the years. For example, when we developed the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) to uplift the salaries and skills of our low-wage workers without exposing them to dis-employment risks. Or when NTUC set up e2i to work with Government agencies and employers to improve productivity and help workers find jobs, which is especially important during a crisis.

A more recent innovation is the formation of Company Training Committees (CTCs) between our unions and employers to strengthen our engagements with companies and workers through NTUC’s Training and Placement Ecosystem. Since Brother Koh Poh Koon started the CTCs in April 2019, we have set up 826 CTCs so far, with both large organisations and SMEs. Our ecosystem brings together a comprehensive package of training and placement services provided by e2i, NTUC LearningHub, Ong Teng Cheong Labour Leadership Institute and NTUC’s Industry Training and Transformation team.

Compared to an entity which does only training or only job matching, we provide companies and workers with a wider range of integrated services. Our union leaders will mobilise workers to actively upskill themselves and support the company’s transformation plans. Depending on their requirements, NTUC can help CTC companies to redesign jobs and implement productivity improvements, improve workplace safety and health, to promote physical and mental well-being of our workers, provide training to existing workers and new entrants and match jobseekers to companies that are growing and expanding their workforce.

We also have strong support from Government agencies and employers, which makes a powerful combination for driving enterprise and workforce transformation through CTC as a collaboration platform. I am happy that Ms Janet Ang, Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Sharael Taha have expressed support for setting up CTCs. They are experienced business leaders who understand tripartism well.

The Labour Movement would also like to thank the Government for agreeing to our proposal to provide NTUC with $100 million to scale up our CTCs. And this includes a $70 million grant to help CTC companies implement their transformation plans. This will give NTUC additional resources to work with our CTC companies and co-fund their proposals to raise productivity, re-design jobs, upskill workers and improve work prospects by helping every worker to become a better worker through training, making every job a better job through job redesign and then matching the better workers to the better jobs through effective job placement.

Certact Engineering is a local SME that provides precision and plastic engineering services. The Managing Director, Ms Ellis Eng, is a strong believer in training and self-improvement. She started her career as a nurse before she joined Certact. Through on-the-job training, she picked up new skills and learnt more about its business functions. Certact Engineering formed a CTC with the Advanced Manufacturing Employees’ Union (AMEU). Management and union agreed to redesign the role of "Machinists" to "Robotics Operators".

Some of the workers were initially reluctant because they were unsure how they could adapt to the new requirements because they had been working as "Machinists" for many years. But with support from the union and from management, the workers embarked on the transformation journey and, over time, they became more confident and more familiar with the digital tools. After its transformation, Certact Engineering has more than doubled its revenue and is expanding its operations to take on more contracts. The growth benefited the workers, too, as they received significant wage increases. It is a win-win outcome that we want to scale up and achieve together with other CTC companies.

NTUC will go beyond our original target of forming 1,000 CTCs by this year to achieve a more ambitious goal of having at least 2,500 CTCs by 2025. We will make good use of the $30 million funding from the Government to expand our team of Industry Training Officers (ITOs) and enlarge our network of CTCs to benefit more workers and more companies.

I will now talk about protection for our workers and I will focus on two areas: first, how NTUC can uplift vulnerable workers, including ex-offenders as well as persons with special needs and disabilities, through skills upgrading and job placement. Second, why the Labour Movement firmly supports the Government’s policy for Singapore to remain open to international trade, investments and foreign workers.

Because we know that our workers can have better wages and better work prospects when our economy is open and connected with the world and when we allow employers to have a complementary mix of local and foreign workers to grow their business in Singapore.

Let me start with the support for vulnerable workers. I visited Agape Connecting People, a social enterprise that helps individuals turn their lives around through skills upgrading and job placement. The beneficiaries include people who are physically or visually challenged, single mothers and ex-offenders, with the last group forming the majority of their clients.

One of its co-founders, Mr Anil David, is an ex-offender himself. He founded Agape Connecting People to help other vulnerable workers by equipping them with job-ready skills. He and his team have helped more than 800 vulnerable workers to find jobs and, just as important, to discover their sense of purpose, dignity and self-worth.

One beneficiary is Ms Nur Madiah Lim, who was born without hands and legs. When Nur approached Agape Connecting People for help, the company trained and appointed her as one of its contact centre agents. She has been in this job now for the past three years and continually hones her skills to manage calls, emails and live chats. Nur went on to handle a National CARE Hotline (NCH) and earned her diploma, which was one of the goals she set to achieve. Her other goal was to own an HDB flat, which she has also achieved. Well done, Nur! Your resilience, determination and positive attitude are a source of inspiration.

NTUC and e2i have been partnering social enterprises and agencies like Agape Connecting People, Yellow Ribbon, Singapore Prison Service and SG Enable to help our fellow Singaporean workers like Nur and many others. I am also glad the Jobs Growth Incentive, which has been extended to September 2022, will continue to include higher support for employers who hire persons with disabilities and ex-offenders. Together with our partners, NTUC will expand our services to help even more vulnerable workers through training and job placement.

The number of vulnerable workers may be a small proportion of our overall workforce, but this is a meaningful area for the Tripartite Partners to focus on. Last evening, Mr Shawn Huang spoke passionately about how he and his colleagues have worked with Ms Denise Phua to help a group of vulnerable workers find meaningful employment. And what he shared really touched my heart – to build a more caring and inclusive society, we must do our best to leave no one behind.

Sir, another way to benefit our local workers is to keep Singapore open and connected with the world, so that our companies can grow their business operations and create good jobs for Singaporeans. I agree with Mr Edward Chia that Singaporean workers are capable, but there are not enough of us. Minister Ong Ye Kung made the same point during an earlier debate in this House. We believe a balanced and complementary approach is better for our local workers, instead of rejecting free trade agreements (FTAs) and turning away foreigners and foreign investments.

We understand the concerns of local workers regarding competition from foreigners. NTUC will do our best to protect the rice bowls of our workers and champion fair employment practices for locals. However, we know this alone is not sufficient. Having an empty rice bowl does not help our workers. They cannot eat the bowl. To enable our workers to have better jobs and better lives, we must also protect our rice fields and ensure that the fields are productive and can yield bountiful harvests year after year. Then our workers and their families, their rice bowls will be filled with rice. This is why NTUC works closely with employers and the Government to grow Singapore's economy, attract more investments and create more good jobs for our people.

As Minister Lawrence Wong said in the Budget Statement: "by combining local and foreign professionals, we form the teams in Singapore to create value together. This gives us that extra advantage to excel amidst intense global competition and to create many good jobs and career choices for Singaporeans."

Sir, to be clear, there are some employers who do not practise fair hiring and do not invest enough in developing their Singaporean Core. They are the minority among employers, but their behaviours have created a negative impact on the lived experiences of our workers and their families. NTUC supports the Government’s moves to differentiate the inflow of foreigners to offer better protection for Singaporean workers and to take firm enforcement action against errant employers to send a clear message.

However, we must not react to the small number of black sheep employers by implementing overly tight foreign manpower measures that will hurt our businesses, or worse, by stirring anti-foreigner sentiments amongst our population.

Such moves are detrimental to Singapore and Singaporeans as they damage our international standing, erode cohesion in our society and lead to job losses for our workers. Instead, a key part of our response must focus on working with employers and HR managers through tripartism to improve workplace practices for local workers, strengthen the emphasis on developing local talent and invest in building a strong Singaporean Core.

Last year, I suggested at an event with business and HR leaders that the Government should sharpen the differentiation in how we treat employers with good HR practices and strong relationships with the unions, versus those with poor HR records and do not put in effort to develop their local workforce.

A differentiated approach is also fairer to good employers who have invested resources in building a strong Singaporean Core and developed positive relations with the Labour Movement.

These companies add value to their workers and to the community and we should recognise their contributions in tangible ways, for example, by giving them a competitive advantage over their peers, including in areas, such as Government projects, grants and work pass applications.

One example is dnata Singapore, which has been badly affected by the pandemic as their main business is ground handling, cargo and catering services to the aviation industry. After they formed a CTC with NTUC and completed their Operation and Technology Roadmap in 2020, the company started offering food services to local business and retail customers. They also invested in upskilling their workforce to support their transformation and to prepare for the recovery in the aviation sector. A 115 employees have taken on expanded job roles in Air Service Management, Passenger Services, Load Control and Cargo Services.

I met three of their staff during my visit – Ms Garmit Kuar, Mr Abdul Faizal and Ms Ferry Carisma. Garmit and Faizal are locals, while Ferry came from the Philippines. They shared with me their challenges during the pandemic and their upskilling journeys to become trainers in dnata. They enjoy their new roles as it gives them great satisfaction to help their colleagues acquire new skills and knowledge. I was also happy to learn from Garmit and Faizal that they appreciate having Ferry and other foreign colleagues as co-workers because they contribute to making the team more productive. And when the company does better, everyone gets to enjoy larger bonuses and higher salary increments.

Dnata's example show that if we can work with companies through our tripartite partnership and CTC platform to create good jobs for locals and develop a strong Singaporean Core, it will help to provide sufficient protection and assurance to our people which will in turn allow Singapore to remain open and connected with the world.

This brings me to the third and final area, skills upgrading for our workers. The Labour Movement believes that a good job is the best welfare for workers. And the best protection for their employability is to invest in their continuous training and skills upgrading. Lifelong learning for lifelong employability.

I fully support MOE's plans to give lifelong learning a further boost and Minister Chan Chun Sing's call for all Singaporeans to "learn for life, and to learn throughout life". Skills upgrading and continuous learning are key priorities for the Labour Movement too. One practical challenge we want to tackle is the jobs-skills mismatch, where employers who are short-handed could not find enough workers with the right skills to fill their job vacancies. Some workers also feel frustrated when the new skills they acquire after going through training are not a good fit with what employers are looking for.

We propose to address the skills mismatch by forming Tripartite Academies, where we bring together unions, employers and Government agencies to jointly identify industry-specific skills requirements, so that workers can receive job-relevant training that prepare them for jobs that employers offer. The tripartite coordination can help achieve better alignment, improve job placement rates and reduce wasted time and effort for both employers and job-seekers.

We have some experience with such tripartite collaborations. The Singapore Bus Academy (SGBA) was formed in 2016 as a partnership between Land Transport Authority, National Transport Workers' Union and the public bus operators to train bus captains and technicians. They have been doing good work to identify new skills required in the industry and preparing existing workers and new entrants with the relevant training.

Another example is the Singapore Institute of Power and Gas (SIPG) that was set up in 2014 to be a Centralised Training Institute. I was then Chief Executive of the Energy Market Authority (EMA). This has grown into a tripartite collaboration between the Union of Power and Gas Employees (UPAGE), industry and Government agencies like EMA. Under the leadership of Brother Samad, UPAGE worked with SIPG to train our workers in emerging areas, for example, Electric Vehicle charging facilities and wider adoption of renewable energy in Singapore.

More recently, NTUC set up the Tourism Careers Hub with Singapore Tourism Board. We also brought in Workforce Singapore, e2i and the industry associations to help employers and workers from the tourism sector. The tourism industry has gone through a difficult period during the pandemic, but it is slowly recovering and I am confident it will bounce back.

Tourism Careers Hub will provide customised training courses focusing on skillsets that employers require, including traditional areas such as safety, security and customer service as well as emerging areas such as digital skills and knowledge in eco-tourism. Dedicated career coaches will advise new entrants and existing workers on the training they need to take on higher level jobs in the industry.

Tourism Careers Hub will also facilitate placement of workers within the industry to help employers who are facing manpower shortages. Besides tourism, the Labour Movement is discussing with employers and Government agencies to explore setting up Tripartite Academies in sectors such as advanced manufacturing, retail, logistics, security, healthcare and maritime. We plan to start with these and grow the list of sectors over time.

The Tripartite Academies will serve as collaboration platforms at the sectoral level to complement our network of CTCs which are collaboration platforms at the enterprise level. Both platforms are important because they support the larger national objective of transforming Singapore's economy by building stronger enterprise and workforce capabilities which will in turn provide better jobs and better wages for our workers. Mr Speaker, please allow me to continue in Mandarin before I conclude in English.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, we must continue to drive the transformation of businesses to achieve sufficient economic growth, to give our workers better wages, welfare and work prospects. We must protect their jobs and interests, treat them fairly, and ensure that their skills are constantly upgraded through lifelong learning.

Take the Chang Cheng Group for example. They started from a coffee shop in Toa Payoh. Mr Kok Kuan Hwa, founder of the Chang Cheng Group, became an apprentice chef at the age of 15. Over the years, he and his team have worked hard, listened to customers' feedback, and improved constantly. They have improved efficiency, developed new products and brands, and become the food and beverage group it is today.

The Chang Cheng Group and the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers Union worked together to set up a Company Training Committee (CTC) to develop plans for employee training, business transformation and job redesign, to train and upgrade the skills of all their employees (close to 1,000) and give them better job prospects.

The Chang Cheng Group is also working with e2i to improve work efficiency, training employees to perform multiple roles, and help 56 low-wage workers and 15 older workers to upgrade their skills and earn higher wages.

Through our tripartite partnership, NTUC will give full support to companies like the Chang Cheng Group and other local enterprises, enhance their competitiveness through transformation, and create more good jobs, better wages and a secure future for our workers.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken about the importance of Growth, Protection and Skills Upgrading or "GPS". As a navigation tool, GPS can show us how to get to our destination, but GPS cannot get us there unless we embark on the journey. This is the journey of transforming and growing our economy to build stronger enterprise and workforce capabilities through tripartism and helping our workers to upgrade their skills to remain employable and to take on the new jobs that are being created.

There will be obstacles and unexpected developments during this journey. Sometimes, the GPS may wrongly indicate a turning or we could discover new paths along the way. So, we will need to adjust and calibrate our measures as we progress but never lose sight of the direction we are taking and the destination we want to arrive at. And always remain cohesive so that we can stay together while we move ahead as one united people.

SG Together, Solidarity Forever! Sir, I support the Budget. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Abdul Samad.

2.25 pm

Mr Abdul Samad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I will like to begin my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Budget 2022 provides various forms of support to help Singaporeans cope with the increasing cost of living. As always, the low-income group should receive such support to help them with their living expenses. I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to the Government to review the eligibility requirements in terms of individual or family income, by taking into account the middle-income group so that they are also given a fair share of support.

It is also important that employers hire Singaporean workers and make them the first choice. As someone who represent workers, I am very heartened with the announcement on the lowering of the Dependency Ratio Ceiling. This approach reflects our openness to foreign workers because we are all aware that there is a shortage of manpower that is needed to continue developing Singapore's economy.

Furthermore, the announcement of the $100 million grant to NTUC shows the Government's trust and confidence in NTUC's efforts to enhance the capabilities of workers alongside their employers through the Company Training Committees or CTC. The main objective of forming these committees is to allow trade unions and the management to work together to improve the quality and capability of their workers through comprehensive and new skills. As a result of this effort, I hope that the workers can have better income, career and welfare.

We often hear news reports where Government says that a lot of job opportunities will be made available through new companies that will commence operations in Singapore for the near and long term. This announcement is very much welcomed and therefore, I encourage all workers to constantly improve your skills and capabilities so that we can take on the jobs that will be offered.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest appreciation to every nurse, doctor, paramedic and all those involved in managing this crisis. In addition, I would also like to convey my appreciation to the Fatwa Council and our religious leaders in providing guidance to fulfil our religious obligations at the mosques in terms of Friday prayers as well as daily prayers. This includes the mosque committee members and volunteers who have been working hard to facilitate and ensure safe distancing measures, among others, so that the congregants can come to the mosques in a safe and orderly manner.

(In English): Sir, I will now begin my speech in English. I am heartened that this Budget reflects the Government's continuous support for workers and businesses that are still impacted as we move to an endemic situation. The Budget also acknowledges and empathise my fellow workers' plight given the rising cost of living and their stagnating income.

I would like to begin by highlighting some of the efforts undertaken by fellow Union leaders and NTUC to protect workers and their livelihoods since COVID-19 struck us. We partnered with Government agencies to help redeploy workers from hard-hit sectors to sectors that had an urgent need for manpower.

For workers who unfortunately lost their jobs, we negotiated for reasonable retrenchment benefits and at the same time, provided immediate employment assistance through our Job Security Council. For the companies that were still doing well, we pursued the skills upgrading and career development of workers through the company training committees. These all are only possible due to our unique model of tripartism. Yes, tripartism.

As our economy shows signs of recovery, and our resident unemployment rate has rebounding to pre-COVID-19 levels. This is an opportune time to grow jobs and improve the wages, welfare and work prospects of our workers. This brings me to the first topic of my speech, very close to my heart and indeed all in this Chamber, I believe – Strengthening our Singaporean Core.

This pandemic has accelerated technology adoption across all industries. We have seen many positive examples of unionised companies automating lower-level manual jobs and upskilling workers to work with technological solutions to increase their job value and productivity. As the COVID-19 situation improves and borders are slowly opening, companies should avoid taking the easy way out by bringing back foreign labour as a quick fix solution. Companies should invest in technology and automation for work processes to be easier, safer and smarter. I understand that there are some jobs that need to be supplemented by foreign labour but we should build on the momentum to train and transform our workforce to strengthen our Singaporean Core.

The recent announcement on the reduction of Foreign Dependency Ratio from one is to seven to one is to five, is a positive move to reduce reliance on foreign workers, but raising the minimum qualifying salary by $500 for Employment Pass and S Pass applicants created some misconception and unhappiness because, some see this as a move to increase wages of foreign workers but our Singaporeans do not get similar adjustments over the same period of time.

While the rationale is to ensure employability of our local workforce, MOM needs to clearly show how the increase in the qualifying salary of S Pass and Employment Pass has benefited the local workforce and resulted in the overall increase in wages for Singaporeans. Even with the reduction of the Dependency Ratio, I would also like to see that MOM continues to be stringent in assessing the needs of companies for foreign labour and ensure that such talents that come, complement our Singaporean workforce and augment their skills and capabilities.

Strengthening our Singaporean Core applies to workers of all levels, including our Professionals, Managers, Executives (PMEs). The demands for good and high-skilled jobs that would attract PMEs are also growing, and this provides opportunities for localisation of jobs and career development. The NTUC-SNEF PME task force reported that younger PMEs, aged below 40, opined that their employers are not investing enough to equip them with relevant skills to prepare them for the future. Companies should not take advantage of the recovering economy to bring in foreign talents but instead put in place career development for their Singaporean workers to take on these jobs and grow their careers.

While we could continue to embark on the transformation journey, together with enhancing foreign manpower and companies' policies, we acknowledge that it is important for us to keep up with the demands of the evolving job market, hence it is imperative that companies continue to invest in training, to build deep capabilities in our local workforce for us to strengthen our Singaporean Core.

NTUC is very heartened by the Government's strong support in setting aside $100 million to scale up the company training committees (CTCs) to support companies' transformation plans. NTUC is very committed and ready to partner with companies to form CTCs to identify relevant training to upskill and transform workers in tandem with industry transformation. Such efforts must lead to better wages, better work prospects and better welfare for our workers. These three outcomes will be the catalyst to encourage workers to attend training.

I would like to ensure our companies that NTUC is more than able to support such efforts through our NTUC Training and Placement ecosystem, comprising Employment and Employability Institute (e2i), NTUC Learning Hub, NTUC Industry Training and Transformation (IT&T) and Ong Teng Cheong Labour Leadership Institute (OTCi). Sir, NTUC is well positioned to support companies in their business strategy planning, job matching, job redesign and more importantly, workforce training.

For instance, amid the COVID-19 outbreak, NTUC Learning Hub swiftly augmented its training capabilities to respond to training needs and the national agenda to upskill. This allowed companies from hard-hit sectors such as aviation, hospitality and among others, to reskill and upskill their employees. I am pleased to share that NTUC Learning Hub has achieved a record of over 500,000 training places and upskill more than 300,000 workers since the start of the pandemic.

NTUC Learning Hub also launched their Learning eXperience Platform (LXP) late last year to encourage online learning at one's own pace, anytime and anywhere. This is to also encourage our workforce to embrace lifelong learning and upskilling – complementing CTCs' efforts in partnering companies to transform their business and workforce towards Industry 4.0 and Worker 4.0.

As a strategic partner for industrial transformation, companies can tap on NTUC's Training and Placement network for a smoother business transformation journey, mobilise workers for upskilling and into new jobs to meet the aspirations of their workers, for better staff retention.

Mr Speaker, union leaders are glad that the Government continues to support the aviation industry as it slowly recovers from the severe impact caused by this pandemic. For Singapore to remain its Airhub status, there needs to be a continuous and healthy pipeline of talents to perform these good skilled jobs. With this support, companies need to ramp up their technological solutions and also train their workforce. Companies should also find ways to retain experienced workers through better salaries and benefits while at the same time, improve internship opportunities for Polytechnic and ITE students.

Besides aviation, tourism is another severely impacted sector and have been facing severe manpower shortage. Workloads have increased and sadly, salaries have not increased much since pre-COVID-19. Now and post pandemic, companies are and will continue to change to be leaner and more efficient in their operations, where skilled manpower is sought after. There are efforts to upskill the workforce so that it enables companies to cope with international demand when it returns.

These are good jobs where a worker who has picked up the relevant industry knowledge and has the passion to contribute can rise very quickly to take up management level positions. We hope companies could increase the local Polytechnic and ITE graduate entry level salaries to attract Singaporeans and retain them in the long run. Otherwise, the salaries offered by the gig economy will draw them away from these industries.

However, while Singapore gradually expands vaccinated travel lanes, there remains economic challenges and COVID-19 fear. These put additional pressure on effective recovery of international tourism. I hope and I call on the Government to review and extend similar support to the hotel sector too.

Next point that I would like to raise is on the rising cost of living, with my focus towards extending more support to the middle-income earners. We are all aware that inflation has been on the rise. Singapore's overall inflation in December 2021 has jumped to 4% on a year-on-year basis and has remained at 4% in January 2022. For the whole of 2021, overall inflation rose to 2.3%, and in fact, this is the highest since year 2013.

Based on the feedback and sentiments from my peers and fellow workers, inflation is quickly emerging as a key challenge this year, as households face rising prices on multiple fronts, ranging from food, education to housing. This is especially for our middle-income earners.

We are really heartened by Government's initiatives such as the GST support package to help lower- and middle-income households as well as retirees to cope with the GST hike. Aside from GST Voucher and doubling the U-Save rebates applicable to all HDB households for the remaining quarter in 2022, we also appreciate the increase of annual assessable income to $34,000 as a qualifying criterion for the GST Cash Payment. On this note, we hope that it could be further increased so that it can be extended to middle-income Singaporeans to help them cope with the rising cost of living.

Let us also not forget the group of lower middle-income workers, who are earning slightly more than lower-income individuals, but their families are also struggling with increasing daily expenses, yet they are losing access to Government support schemes as they have just fallen short slightly of the income criteria of these support schemes.

I hope the Government can review the income criteria of various support schemes such as Kindergarten, Student Care and Childcare Subsidies, CPF Housing Grants, to prevent the "cliff effect" and better support the lower middle-income family.

To my fellow workers, rest assured that the unions and NTUC hear your concerns and anxieties on the cost of living. We are also paying close attention and finding avenues to better support you. Our NTUC's social enterprises are committed to continue helping members and workers to moderate the cost of living and stretching their hard-earned dollars.

Today, there are 10 NTUC social enterprises under the NTUC Enterprise group, ranging from FairPrice, FoodFare, Kopitiam, First Campus, Learning Hub and more. Each of them is created to primarily address specific concerns that weigh on the minds of fellow Singaporeans, from rising food costs, catering to the broader needs of Singaporean working parents and their families to staying relevant throughout their working lives. They will continue to roll out initiatives to help Singaporeans cope with the rising cost of living.

I would close my speech by making two key points. One, as our economy recovers, we should build on the momentum to train and transform the Singaporean workforce. NTUC is here to support companies to form CTCs and through the Training and Placement ecosystem, we will provide support for business strategy planning, job redesign and workforce training. Together with the strong support of the Government, we will continue to walk this journey with you, raise local workforce capabilities through upskilling and reskilling. Most importantly, building the pipeline of local talents for the future.

Second is for our middle-income earners. I really hope Government hears our call for greater support for middle-income earners to cope with the increasing cost of living as well as constantly reviewing the criteria of various support schemes to ensure this group of workers does not fall through the cracks.

Unions and NTUC will continue to protect our workers, and the social enterprises will continue to cushion the impact of the cost of living through our various initiatives. Together, unions, NTUC and our social enterprises are committed to serve our members and workers better. We are and will always be by your side, because every worker matters! Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

2.43 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of Budget 2022. This is indeed a Budget that is well-considered and targeted in giving our nation, economy and society a strong boost for the future while supporting our fellow Singaporeans to ride through this pandemic and easing their concerns over the cost of living today. It is one that invests more in our people and social infrastructure so that together, we can bring Singapore out of the COVID-19 shadows and re-inject the nation with resilience and strong growth.

It is important that we continue to build a vibrant economy with thriving companies, supported by a future-ready workforce that can access good jobs and wages, and ensure that no one is left behind. Being part of NTUC and as Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Chair for Education, I believe in investing in our workforce and our companies. As shared by fellow Labour Members of Parliament, Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat as well Labour Nominated Member of Parliament, Brother Abdul Samad earlier, as well as many other hon Members of this House, we are glad to see further investments in our people – not just the young but also supporting Continuing Education and Training, and Lifelong Learning for all, especially our mid-career workers amidst an ageing workforce. By training our workers and equipping them with good and in-demand skills, and giving them good jobs and opportunities, we want them to have better income stability to manage their daily cost of living and tools for success to achieve their aspirations.

In my last Budget debate speech, I made a special highlight on a segment of our workforce which the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted immensely. They are the Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) in Singapore, especially those in the ages of 40s to 60s.

Last year, the NTUC-SNEF PME taskforce, which I co-chaired, consulted more than 10,000 PMEs and stakeholders to understand their concerns, needs, aspirations and fears at the workplace. In response to our local PMEs’ call for assistance, NTUC and SNEF want to strengthen their employment and employability and ensure that they can compete fairly and effectively to meet employers’ manpower and skill demands in a dynamic labour landscape.

NTUC and SNEF have together deliberated the various challenges and concerns faced to arrive at nine recommendations under four key thrusts, which was presented to Minister Tan See Leng and MOM on 21 October 2021.

I am heartened that the Government has taken the NTUC-SNEF PME Taskforce recommendations into serious consideration, as reflected in the Budget Statement made by Minister Lawrence Wong.

In this regard, I would like to elaborate on four of the most urgent tasks on hand to enhance workplace fairness, employment and employability for our PMEs, which are: first, strengthening the Singaporean Core through enhancing the Employment Pass framework; second, imposing a penalty framework for egregious cases of workplace fairness; third, protecting the confidentiality of whistle-blowers of discriminatory practices; and lastly, four, helping mature PMEs to transit into new roles through short term salary support.

First, strengthening the Singaporean Core through enhancing the Employment Pass framework.

While many of us, including the local PMEs whom the NTUC-SNEF PME Taskforce surveyed, recognised the contribution and complementarity of foreign PMEs to Singapore’s economy and the need for us to stay open and competitive, there remained ground concerns and perceptions that an overreliance on foreign PMEs has led to an unnecessary increase in competition in the local job market and employment.

To safeguard our Singaporean Core and curb discriminatory hiring, we must ensure that Singaporean PMEs have access to a level playing field for jobs while at the same time, balance companies’ manpower needs in the immediate and longer term.

Today, the eligibility criteria for Employment Pass (EP) applications generally focus on the individual applicant’s educational qualifications and salary. With the qualifying salaries of both the EP and S Pass holders raised in the past, and with further increases announced in Budget 2022, this will go some way to level the playing field for local PMEs as it ties in with the rise in their median wages. However, I opine that such a system, by itself, is inadequate to level the playing field for our local PMEs.

It is therefore pertinent that the EP framework be further enhanced to meet the objective of ensuring that foreign professionals complement our local PME workforce and that employers practice fair hiring as well as improve the diversity of their workforce.

I am elated that Minister Lawrence Wong announced earlier that the Government will refine the EP application framework so that there is complementarity, transparency and diversity of the foreign workforce. I look forward to MOM sharing more details of the refined EP framework at the Committee of Supply.

I hope that MOM will take in our NTUC-SNEF PME Taskforce’s recommendation for the enhancement of the EP application review process and include a point system which factors in: (a) sectoral input; (b) whether the employer has been hiring and developing local workers; and (c) the diversity of nationalities within the companies.

We believe that such a system will provide the flexibility to let employers who have justified genuinely and adequately, secure foreign talents to complement their local PME workforce and restrict access to foreign talents for the errant companies. And for our local PMEs, we believe both a refinement of the EP system, coupled with the workplace fairness legislation, will go a long way to give better protection and stronger assurance to our local PME populace, especially those 40 to 60 years of age.

Second, imposing a penalty framework for egregious cases of workplace fairness.

While there have been many measures and policies, even with the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) set up over the years, more needs to be done to penalise the small proportion of egregious companies that are out to exploit the system, so that local PMEs can continue to receive fair opportunities and treatment while maintaining Singapore’s economic competitiveness.

I am glad MOM has formed the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness and I hope to see a set of recommendations which will include establishing a robust framework to help achieve workplace fairness for our local PMEs. This should include measures to strengthen enforcement against errant companies and management personnel who adopt unfair practices and require their remedial action. The measures should also be supported by grievance handling processes that will be entrenched to facilitate the therapeutic resolution of grievances at company level for our local PMEs.

Third, protecting the confidentiality of whistle-blowers of discriminatory practices. This brings me to my third point on mandating whistle-blowing policies and procedures to ensure that employees can speak up safely, especially with the forthcoming workplace fairness legislation.

In my engagements, I have heard from various HR professionals and PMEs who have witnessed or experienced discriminatory practices at work. However, in most cases, they do not report such practices for fear of potential reprisals or consequences in their workplace or in their industry.

It is beneficial for those who experienced workplace discrimination or harassment to come forward so that problems can be resolved and positive norms can be established.

We will therefore need to incorporate legal protections to promote transparency and fairness by safeguarding employees’ confidentiality and preventing retaliation by the employer. In this aspect, I hope that policies can be put in place to mandate that employers set up formal grievance handling processes that are communicated clearly to employees. Equally important in the process, is to ensure confidentiality of the whistle-blowers and prohibit retaliation against employees, ex-employees and potential employees, who report discrimination or harassment.

Fourth, helping mature PMEs transit into new roles through short-term salary support. The findings of the NTUC-SNEF PME Taskforce Report shows that mature PMEs are in a particularly precarious and vulnerable situation when they are retrenched or unemployed.

In an online survey with 1,000 PMEs last year in April, we found that as compared to younger PMEs who are 20 to 40 years old, a higher percentage of the mature PMEs who are 40 to 60 years old, attributed their age to be a disadvantage to them at workplaces. In another online survey conducted last year in July with another 1,000 mature PMEs, majority of these mature PMEs expressed challenges in their search for employment and attributed their age to be the key reason. Half of them expressed that they faced some form of discrimination during their job search or at their current workplaces. Some also held the perception that companies are not open to hiring workers who are aged 40 and above.

Thus, I am heartened that in this Budget, the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI), which supports employers to expand local hiring from September 2020 to March 2022, will be extended to September 2022. This will better encourage and support companies in hiring our mature PMEs and ensure that mature PMEs get the opportunities they need and deserve.

In the long-term, and with an ageing population, I hope that the JGI can be translated or even entrenched to a permanent short-term salary support initiative to assist our mature PMEs. This is done by helping companies, who hire unemployed mature PMEs, in mitigating their costs and risks associated with hiring this group of PMEs, who may possess the relevant skills and experience needed by the companies. This will also allow companies to assess the mature PMEs’ suitability for the job roles and continue to keep them in the company's workforce.

In conclusion, as our demographic profile shifts over the next decades, coupled with profound transitions of the global economy because of COVID-19, we will need to transform urgently to stay competitive, while ensuring we continue to meet the job aspirations of Singaporeans.

We recognise the growing need to ensure PMEs are adequately protected, have access to good jobs and are equipped with relevant skills. As we prepare for the new normal, it is important that we continue to entrench progressive and fair practices at workplaces and extend schemes to support our local PMEs, especially the more vulnerable ones.

It is crucial to create a level playing field for Singaporean PMEs, strengthen the Singaporean Core, eradicate all forms of discrimination through tougher measures and targeted legislation, and support PMEs and workers in general, to transit effectively and less painfully between jobs.

One of the best ways to protect PMEs and help them progress is through having better wages and better jobs. NTUC will help support PMEs with the four Ups – Up their Skills, Up their Employability, Up their Protection and Up their Employment Opportunities. At NTUC, we will champion these for all workers because every worker matters.

As we pivot and transform to the next normal of work, employers and workers alike will have to find new ways and new avenues to navigate the kinks and curves that the uneven and uncertain future presents. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman.

2.55 pm

Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, this has traditionally been a time when we as a nation delineate our goals and aspirations for the year ahead. It is thus imperative that we renew our commitment and resolve to uplift society as Singapore continues to recover from the corollaries of the pandemic.

I am encouraged by the central theme of this year's Budget. As we continue to find ways to deal with the ever-evolving nature of the pandemic, we must also set our eyes on how we can prepare Singaporeans for a post-pandemic future. Only by doing so can we “Chart Our New Way Forward Together.”

My esteemed colleagues and I in the Labour Movement strongly support and welcome the slew of measures introduced to alleviate the hardship that Singaporeans have experienced as a result of the pandemic as well as improve all facets of society as we transit to a post-pandemic future. I am heartened to note that the Government will be allocating more resources to help vulnerable groups in society.

As we chart our way forward, we should remain sensitive to the challenges and concerns of our vulnerable workers, especially our lower-wage workers and migrant workers. The best way to help workers cope with cost of living is through better wages and better jobs. Mr Speaker, allow me to elaborate.

Many of our lower-wage workers are frontliners in our nation’s fight against the pandemic. Spanning from security to cleaning sectors, our workers have toiled to keep Singapore safe. As the number of COVID-19 cases soared, our workers continued to work tirelessly to keep Singapore going. In doing so, they stepped up despite the risks to their health and took on additional precautions to limit the transmission of COVID-19 in our community.

In my Budget speech last year, I spoke about the ongoing efforts to support lower-wage workers. In particular, I reiterated that the formation of the Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers is a testament to our commitment to ensure that the interests of our lower-wage workers are protected.

Over the past year, the collective support from various stakeholder groups to uplift the incomes of our lower-wage workers have been encouraging. NTUC, alongside our tripartite partners and various other stakeholder groups, will remain committed to help workers improve their income security and quality of life, and give them confidence in navigating their careers, equipping them to participate in new growth opportunities. But how can we work towards this goal? What are some areas we can continue to look into?

Firstly, the introduction of the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS) is pivotal as it will provide transitional wage support for employers to adjust to upcoming mandatory wage increases for lower-wage workers covered by the Progressive Wage and Local Qualifying Salary requirements. It will also allow employers to voluntarily raise wages for lower-wage workers. Under this scheme, the Government will co-fund wage increases of eligible resident employees from 2022 to 2026.

The introduction of the PWCS is a step in the right direction and will go a long way in uplifting and supporting lower-wage workers. Having said that, at NTUC, we are cognisant that efforts to help lower-wage workers is a long-term strategy.

As more sectors and occupations are incorporated into the PWM, there will be a greater need to re-think the duration of transitory support new sectors will receive under the PWCS beyond 2026. Therefore, I would like to know how new sectors incorporated into the PWM between 2025 and 2026 will be supported. In particular, I would like to know if the Government will make special provisions for these industries.

On the subject of PWM expansion and as mentioned in my Budget speech last year, NTUC has identified two sectors for the implementation of PWM, namely, strata and facilities management and pest management.

NTUC has conducted several engagements with stakeholders in the respective sectors and the response has been very encouraging thus far. In this regard, I would like to take this opportunity to call on the Government to seriously consider our proposal to implement PWM in the two sectors.

Secondly, on a related note, it is imperative that we look at parallel efforts to complement PWM.

In sectors where services are outsourced, we ought to incentivise service buyers from the private sector to adopt outcome-based contracting to ensure that PWM wage increases are sustainable in the long run. Consumers and service buyers should also become more socially responsible and reject service providers that provide services at a low cost but at the expense of the welfare of such essential service workers. Instead, service buyers should adopt an outcome-based contracting model where contracts are awarded to companies with progressive employment practices that give due recognition to workers, rather than basing these decisions on price alone.

In 2018, NTUC launched the Smart Sourcing Initiative that gives funding to service buyers in security, cleaning and landscape sectors that implement outcome-based contracts and train procurement staff to be familiar with the best sourcing principles. The introduction of this initiative is encouraging but it also reminds us that there are sufficient opportunities and latitude to incentivise service buyers from the private sector to adopt outcome-based contracting.

In order to do this, I call on the Government to provide funding for trade associations to engage consultants to develop an outcome-based contract guide. Depending on the industry, the consultants would develop bespoke guides for employers in varying industries.

By incentivising private sector employers to implement outcome-based contracts, due recognition can be accorded to our workers, ensuring that they can progress and perform higher-value roles and our PWM wage increases will be more sustainable in the long run.

Another vulnerable group adversely impacted by the pandemic would be our migrant workers. I will not be the first to thank our migrant workers for their hard work and contribution to the development of our nation, all while working in challenging conditions, distant from their homes and loved ones.

NTUC has perennially been advocating for enhanced medical coverage for the welfare and safety of our migrant workers. We are pleased that the Government has heeded our calls for greater protection.

At NTUC, we strongly believe that our migrant workers deserve to be insured against risks within and beyond the workplace. In December last year, NTUC Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC) introduced its Associate Membership to offer holistic protection and benefits that are specially tailored to serve migrant workers' lifestyle needs. In exchange for a membership fee of about $24 per annum, our migrant workers would be insured up to $10,000 in term life insurance against critical illnesses, non-work-related death as well as total and permanent disability.

Collectively, I am confident that the Government's provision of enhanced protection and NTUC MWC's Associate Membership programme would ensure that our migrant workers are well protected against uncertainties. To ensure that our migrant workers are insured within and beyond the workplace, I call on the Government to mandate or incentivise companies to sponsor the membership fee for their workers.

Early last year, it was reported that more than 97% of employers with foreign workers living in dormitories were paying salaries electronically, up from 76% before the requirement was introduced in April 2020. MOM also claimed that the electronic payment of salaries has proven to be beneficial, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, because it ensures that foreign workers continue to receive salaries even when there are movement restrictions in place.

Once again, I urge the Government to consider mandating electronic payment of salary for migrant workers to protect them from exploitation. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] At this year’s Budget Speech, the Government announced the Household Support Package to provide support for daily essentials. The Assurance Package for GST to cushion the impact of the planned GST increase, and enhancements to the permanent GST Voucher scheme to provide continuing help to defray the GST expenses of lower-income to middle-income Singaporean households, beyond the transitional support covered by the Assurance Package. Support is also provided to lower-income households to cope with the rising cost of living. For example, the 2021 Public Transport Voucher (PTV) Exercise will be extended to support lower-income families to cope with any fare adjustments. These schemes announced by the Government would undoubtedly assist in defraying the costs of living for Singaporean households, including the Malay-Muslim community in Singapore.

By strengthening our social compact, the assistance rendered is beyond defraying cost but also provide opportunities for all to enhance our social support pillars. We will be able to focus on our children’s education through the expansion of Uplift and Kidstart to support more young children from lower income families.

The budget will immensely benefit our Malay-Muslim households in Singapore in coping with the cost of living as Singapore transitions to a post-pandemic future. The majority of Singaporean households will receive at least five years’ worth of additional GST expenses. It is important for the family to take this opportunity to, firstly, continue to find a stable job that provide protection for us now and in the future; second, encourage the spouse to get back to workforce and support the family income; and third, upgrade and upskill to prepare for job in the growth sectors.

We can all take a leaf from 47-year-old Brother Ahmad Sadiq's lifelong learning journey.

To ensure a brighter future, Brother Ahmad Sadiq pursued part-time courses to climb the academic ladder, beginning with a NITEC in Mechanical Technology, then a diploma in Mechanical Engineering, and finally, a Bachelor's in Mechanical Technology with Honours (Distinction). All this education was fully self-funded, alongside a study grant from the Union of Power and Gas Employees (UPAGE), as well as SkillsFuture Credits. As a Mechanical Engineer and now as a union leader, he continues to champion lifelong learning and leading by example. In fact, he is currently pursuing an energy manager course supported by his company, and plans to pursue shorter courses that are aligned to his personal interests.

Moving forward, NTUC will also join hands with the Malay/Muslim community to address the community’s various needs and concerns. At NTUC, we firmly believe that the best approach is to empower our workers to access better jobs and earn better wages with better skills. On 24 February, through a Memorandum of Understanding, NTUC formalised our collaboration with Yayasan MENDAKI with both organisations tapping on our respective networks and resources to advance Employment and Employability for Malay workers in Singapore. This MOU is part of M3 Focus Area 4’s key strategy to uplift the Malay community in Singapore.

This partnership is a prime example of how NTUC enlarges our efforts in empowering our workers, forging collaborations with community-based and self-help organisation partners to enhance our reach to workers and communities that would benefit from our national-level resources in training and job placement.

We will do this by leveraging our training ecosystem with NTUC LearningHub and NTUC’s e2i. And through this ecosystem, the Malay/Muslim community’s efforts to train and upskill, can be augmented and scaled up, so that they remain employable and competitive in the job market. Malay Muslim union leaders are also deployed in the M3@Towns to rally the Malay Muslim workforce and provide the last mile support for job placements.

In line with a Malay proverb that tells one to make an effort to achieve one’s desired outcome - NTUC will also partner companies to set up Company Training Committees, or CTCs. As highlighted by Brother Chee Hong Tat and other parliamentary colleagues earlier, this CTC model brings together the unions and employers to develop concrete firm-level transformation plans, including the relevant training needed by their workers. Through the CTC companies, we can multiply our impact to help more workers train and upskill. With continued support from the community, NTUC's efforts will go a long way in our cause to uplift the Malay/Muslim community in Singapore.

(In English): Sir, in conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has tested our resilience as a nation. Singaporeans have remained steadfast despite the challenges they faced during the pandemic. Whilst we have come a long way, there will inevitably be many more challenges along the way. However, as a country, we have weathered similar storms and emerged stronger together.

As we chart a new forward together, the Government and NTUC are committed to helping workers in every step of the way and will continue our fight for a fairer and more progressive society for all. Rest assured, NTUC will continue to champion all workers because every worker matters. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

3.13 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, as we continue to navigate the realities of a world still rolling with the punches of COVID-19, it is key that we look out for new opportunities that help us forge a better Singapore that produces more equitable outcomes and is more inclusive of Singaporeans who come from all walks of life.

First, on the Progressive Wage Model. Every country is faced with an apparent trilemma when it comes to labour policies. What seems to be fair often does not cultivate a competitive workforce and what appears to do both ends up with high costs of living or taxes.

Singapore's answer to this comes from the PWM the Singapore Labour Movement pioneered. Done prudently with meticulous negotiations amongst the tripartite partners, it rewards improved productivity and quality with a wage increase ladder suitable for individual industry sectors.

Two upcoming PWMs will be in the retail and food services sector. The workers in these sectors touch our lives and hearts everyday and yet, we have taken our workers in these sectors for granted.

Many Singaporeans start our day with a kopi that is served by their usual good neighbourhood kopi soh. When we celebrate with our families birthdays, anniversaries, New Year and Christmas, our workers in the restaurants are right there with us, even if their own families are spending time away from them.

Our retail frontliners have also been there for us when we buy our first set of furniture, when we pick the freshest produce from our grocers, when we scoot down to our convenience stores at 2.00 am to pick up emergency supplies. Our workers in these sectors have been keeping Singapore and our lives running with their hard work, sacrifices and good cheer.

Despite this, even till today, some 60% of food services and 45% of retail full-time resident workers are earning at or less than the 20th wage percentile of the local workforce.

In many international standards among OECD countries, percentile 20 defines the threshold for low pay. We need to do something about this.

F&B and retail are price sensitive, where a rise of prices in a kopi or a plate of economy rice at the food court will draw much attention. Indeed, our retailers have told me how price spotting even amongst essential items have become ever more keen with the advent of online shopping, cutting their margins razor thin. Therein, the concept of PWM is critical as it marries wage increases with productivity increases through upskilling, investments in technology and career pathways.

The pandemic has shown that this sector’s veterans and newcomers alike do thrive with the help of technology. Radha Exports Private Limited is the company behind the ValuDollar chain of stores. During COVID-19, the team was caught in an onslaught of challenges to their supply chain and manpower.

It was the necessity for change that pushed the company to digitalise and upskill their workers in this process. This increased productivity generated new and better paying jobs by helping the company justify a better pay for their employees.

I visited with the company and was delighted to have met with Uncle Rafi, as he is affectionately known. He has been working with the company since 2004, and has moved from being a deliveryman to now their warehouse supervisor. Today, Uncle Rafi is 65 years young, and he proudly tells me of his lifelong learning journey in Radha, from taking inventory using paper and pen, to creating rooms filled with filing shelves, to now being able to use their warehouse software to call up the smallest bar of chocolate from the aircon comfort of his newly computerised monitoring room.

The moral of the story is clear: upskilling works and tech is here to help. The PWM ensures competitive pay comes from justifiable reasons. The results speak for themselves.

As the PWM continues to reach out to more lower-wage workers, as a Labour Movement, as a Tripartite Partnership, as a country, we need to stand together. This is the heart of the matter: the PWM stands for Singapore’s commitment to uplift workers. This is about companies investing in our hardest working workers, unions protecting them with promise and hope, consumers making sure that those who labour can find ways to make ends meet with dignity, and Government ensuring that companies, workers and consumers are supported while we all are playing our own part in uplifting the lives of our fellow Singaporeans.

I would like to turn my attention to another slice of workers in Singapore, our freelancers and the self-employed. As many countries battled the economic downturn in the face of the COVID-19, the gig economy has provided crucial lifelines for many, allowing workers from affected industries to seek freelance jobs in food delivery and ride-hailing services.

The growing importance of this economy has seen a greater emphasis to protect the interests and welfare of these workers, workers who are not considered employees and thus are not afforded the protections and benefits salaried employees enjoy. Indeed, in the recent study by the Institute of Public Policy just released yesterday, researchers warn of food delivery and private hire vehicle workers facing risks of becoming trapped in poverty and precarity. The study cited that the "lack of savings and voluntary CPF contributions, being stuck in platform work poses additional challenges to future aspirations, such as home ownership".

As a progressive Labour Movement, we are sensitive to changes in the evolving Singaporean workforce and have witnessed, like many in the House, including Mr Saktiandi Supaat, the growing popularity of gig work. As such, the Labour Movement has been at the forefront of Singapore’s push to accord greater protection and welfare benefits for workers in the gig economy. We thank Mr Supaat for his feedback and suggestions for protecting freelancers in the education sector and hope that Mr Supaat can continue his good work with us in our associations and our unions.

Over the years, we have set up and advocated for safety nets for our gig workers such as offering protection and representation in the event of illness or injuries and care support for income loss or training assistance. However, there are miles to go before we sleep.

As we seek to maintain the flexibility and ease of entry into the gig economy that current circumstances allow for, it is imperative that the companies and platforms share our workers' sentiments and work towards providing better protection for our freelancers.

I am heartened to see some platforms putting in place their own measures to protect their riders, with delivery platforms such as Grab and Deliveroo offering their riders basic accident insurance coverage. The Labour Movement, through NTUC Learning Hub, has also started to introduce career conversion classes to protect the long-term livelihoods of our drivers who intend to move out of the industry.

Even as these efforts are encouraging, such measures do not sufficiently protect workers, particularly those who rely on the gig economy as their primary source of income. Without basic labour protections, one can ill-afford to fall sick or face sudden emergencies without facing a loss of income. If this is their hard-earned rice bowl, should we not then provide them with the required protection they deserve? Instead of basic insurance, should we not look towards a standardised level of insurance applied to all workers in the same plight? If our workers are contributing to the enterprise value of their partner platforms, should we not then also insist on platforms also contributing to the retirement safety nets of their partners?

As the Adviser to the NTUC’s National Taxi Association, National Private Hire Vehicles Association and the National Delivery Champions Association, I have heard loud and clear from the ground the need for better protection and representation of our gig platform workers. One of our brothers, Raymond, met with an accident last year. While covered by his platform partner’s insurance package, he felt that the claim process was onerous to a point where he decided not to pursue the insurance, as he would be able to earn back in one day what he would have received in the claims.

Brother Joseph also spoke to us about gaps in their platform partner’s support when their app went down and drivers were not able to earn their full day’s livelihoods. Our associations assisted to compile the list of bugs as the app went back up so that our drivers would have a coordinated voice on what impacts their livelihoods most. These are just some of the many small inconveniences and I would say large tribulations our gig economy workers face as the gig economy and its ecosystem of platforms evolve and grow.

As we look to provide greater protection and welfare benefits for workers in the gig economy, the Tripartite Partnership must strive to support a healthy diversity of career options and sustainable, dignified livelihoods brought about by the gig economy. In this respect, I look forward to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee for Platform Workers. It is a good significant beginning for a more coordinated approach to supporting our growing gig worker population.

On the topic of evolving workforce, one of the greatest lessons learnt has been on the importance of accommodating diverse profiles as a design feature of our labour force, rather than a design fault. In particular, the interests of two groups of employees – women returning to work, as well as single mothers – must be paid attention to.

The Labour Movement has long recognised the distinct challenges women face at work that primarily stems from women having to saddle a greater proportion of domestic responsibilities and have accordingly championed and provisioned to advance this cause.

For example, our NTUC Learning Hub has started to co-create with our Women and Family Unit, confidence training courses as well as skills-based programmes to give women returnees the much needed boost when it comes to re-entering the workplace. We has also introduced a Women Mentoring Women programme that consists of Women Union Leaders joining forces with female grassroots leaders in mentoring women who need support with careers and livelihoods.

The primary thrust of these supports have been to alleviate the pressures that our women face both at home and the workplace, so that they can engage more productively and meaningfully in both spheres of their lives. To this end, the Labour Movement has sought to continuously enhance Flexible Work Arrangement standards to stay responsive to changing family and workplace needs.

As we celebrate these strides forward, we should also be mindful of ongoing gaps. It is my firm belief that changes in organisational culture is just as important as formal frameworks and enhancements to FWA policies must be accompanied by parallel changes in attitudes and values. As companies consider FWA a long-term feature, ground issues such as fair performance evaluation of employees on FWAs, and the availability of FWA options to employees in all job roles become all the more real on the ground. On this, I call for more support from our Government to help employers upskill their HR and line managers to manage a workforce with employees on FWAs.

Mothercare, is a name many mothers are familiar with, and it is not surprising that they have championed my heart for women. When I visited Mothercare recently, I was delighted to note that mothers with young children were 40% of their new hires in 2021. While I was at their store, I delighted in meeting with Mdm Fadilah who has four children and has worked her way in from Sales Assistant to Store Manager in just eight short years. She was not alone and I met another three teammates of hers, who were moms with three to four children each. The secret to Mothercare’s success? They are committed to job redesign and providing flexible working arrangements especially for their moms at work.

I believe that we ladies can have our cake and eat it too with the support of our workplaces. And I look forward to the measures our Government will introduce to encourage and support our employers to take on the challenge of job redesign. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progressive Wage Model will commence in the 3rd quarter of 2022 for the retail industry and 1st quarter of 2023 for the F&B industry. This will affect 28,000 full-time low-wage Singaporeans. These people are those who interact with us in our everyday life – our colleagues, neighbours, relatives and friends. They are the coffee aunty whom we meet every morning, and the smiling lad at the convenience store, the restaurant waiter whom we celebrate birthdays together, and the aunty cashier who gives us discount at the supermarket counter.

Some 60% of food services and 45% of retail sector workers are classified as low-income workers. We must improve this situation.

In this Budget, the Government announced a five-year Progressive Wage Credit Scheme to help stablise the wage of the F&B and retail sectors. However, improving the situation of low-wage Singaporeans requires the cooperation of other stakeholders. Workers must constantly upgrade their skills and companies must invest in technology. Helping low-wage Singaporeans is the mission of NTUC, the investment of the companies and the duty of all Singaporeans.

(In English): Helping businesses pivot to capture new capabilities in digitalisation and upskilling and allowing for employees to share in the fruits of advancement; creating deeper safety nets for the freelance ecosystem, ensuring parity for single mothers and sparking deep attitudinal changes at workplaces for women. These are the opportunities we must latch onto as they present themselves in a Singapore economy that awaits thoughtful reconstruction as #EveryWorkerMatters. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget 2022.

Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.

3.30 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate.

The Budget theme “Charting Our New Way Forward Together” is especially apt for a group of Singaporeans with the most vested interests – our younger Singaporeans. They are also part of “Generation COVID”. It is a loose moniker covering people from late childhood to early adulthood who are coming of age during this pandemic. This generation faces unique challenges. COVID-19 has changed the workforce, workplace and aspirations. New opportunities abound but also new threats lurk. Technology has accelerated the creation of higher-end jobs but also commoditised lower-end ones. Skills erosion is happening faster than ever. Young workers preparing for a changing economic order before COVID-19, now find themselves facing a vastly altered one.

Recently, Young NTUC commissioned a study involving 1,500 young Singaporeans from age 16 to 35. Perhaps, unsurprisingly, two out of three youths are anxious about the employment landscape, finding it challenging to navigate. Only one in two youths is certain of their career path and believe that they are provided with adequate career opportunities. Yet, they also have opportunities beyond the reach of earlier generations. Some worries I have heard from younger Singaporeans include how fundamental economic shifts will impact their job prospects and, of course, inflationary pressures. They want to pursue the future with energy and passion but are faced with a nebulous environment.

Generation COVID are the future leaders of Singapore. We need to address their anxieties and worries and, importantly, work with them to fulfil their potential to the fullest. I do appreciate that I am perhaps unable to adequately understand the predicament faced by Generation COVID. So, for a start, I would like to explore some of their concerns from three aspects: jobs, education and changing aspirations.

First, jobs and education opportunities. Some members of this Generation find their skills eroded substantially even before they graduate. Others are graduating into depressed sectors, such as tourism-related industries. Yet others, majoring in oil and gas, are entering the decarbonisation era. Reskilling and rapid adaptation are the new game.

First, we can consider expanding the reach of SkillsFuture. The use of SkillsFuture credits has shown a strong uptake in the past year. Courses related to skills in the IT, healthcare and professional services sectors are seeing the highest demand, alongside good employment outcomes.

Generation COVID would similarly benefit from SkillsFuture. This is especially for those who have graduated but find themselves unable to tap on growth opportunities due to a mismatch in skills. Young NTUC’s survey also showed that a majority of young people find such skills workshops useful. The much shorter economic cycles require us to consider lowering the minimum age for SkillsFuture. In addition, we can also increase subsidies for targeted SkillsFuture courses, especially those that support young Singaporeans to explore industries in growth economies.

Because of the shifting skills landscape, many younger Singaporeans will possibly need a more significant skills upgrade via a second subsidised diploma or degree. There is merit to such bigger moves because some skills acquisition just cannot be done through micro-courses. Currently, every Singaporean enjoys one bite of the cherry – one subsidised diploma and/or degree per person. With a shrinking cohort of Singaporeans every year, there is already capacity within the IHLs for people seeking a career boost.

Currently, hard technical skills are already baseline expectations. These can be taught within educational institutions or academies. However, there is a greater industry emphasis on soft skills, such as career management and interpersonal skills. Some of these soft skills are not transferable through courses and are perhaps better picked up through the sharing of experiences.

Thus, there is great demand for structured mentorship in today’s workplace to assist our younger people in navigating the professional workspace. Mentorship will be especially valuable for Generation COVID younger people from the lower- and middle-income families. Some of them might not have easy access to mentors, unlike their better-off counterparts. We have some nascent endeavours, such as Young NTUC’s LIT Mentorship. There is also WeConnect 2.0, an initiative by the Mentoring Alliance For Action (Singapore). But for the Singaporean workforce to differentiate itself from competitors, we must see mentorship as a national capability. It is also part of the ethos espoused by this Budget – Singaporeans looking out for one another. We must still preserve the ground-up mutual help movement. At the same time, creating national centres of excellence for mentorship can accelerate and boost the impact of mentorship. Tripartite partners, such as NTUC and SNEF, can develop such centres because of their deep industry connections.

Ironically, the new opportunities from the post-pandemic world, or the endemic-pandemic world, would also have made career navigation a lot more difficult. The current model of navigation starts from the school in the form of career guidance offices to national placement centres, such as e2i or Career Connect. The transition is not seamless and might not also meet the needs of younger workers. Young workers have often asked about the possibility of a one-stop centre that houses career counselling, mentorship, internships and employment opportunities. I can imagine that even the approach to career navigation might be quite different if it primarily serves younger workers. Can the Government consider working with tripartite partners to develop such a capability?

Next, on how we can better tailor our policies to Generation COVID, shaping Singapore into a country that they are proud to call home.

Mr Speaker, Generation COVID are perhaps the most outspoken, educated and progressive citizenry in the world. In Singapore, the SG Youth Action Plan has shown us our youth’s vision for Singapore in 2025 – social inclusivity, sustainability, mental well-being, and the need to strengthen our social compact.

Indeed, Generation COVID youths are different from the youths we were. They hold different aspirations for Singapore and have a stronger sense of social justice and activism. Many of them are interested in political and social causes, actively seeking avenues to be heard, to contribute meaningfully to such discourse. During the pandemic and even now, many youths have founded and expanded mutual aid networks to help the less fortunate around us.

They also hope that their professional work aids in the advancement of social causes. Increasingly, we see our younger people seeking the expression and advancement of such issues not only through their personal lives, but also their professional work. This intersection of work and social activism is both exciting and less understood.

We have an urgent need for deeper conversations to chart the way forward. This brings us to the theme of Budget 2022 – Charting the Way Forward Together. We must first seek to understand Generation COVID’s views on a deeper level, by creating safer spaces for them to candidly share their thoughts, views and aspirations for Singapore. What is their desired workplace and work culture? What is the new compact with our younger workers? NTUC is working towards a deeper understanding of the aspirations and needs of our younger workers. We welcome partners to join us on this journey. This is that critical first step in building a new and sustainable compact with our young workers.

To many of our Generation COVID, greater strides must be taken to tackle mental health issues. As part of a generation who ascribe greater significance to having a purposeful balance between work and mental wellness over traditional aggregators of success, this issue is one Generation COVID feels strongly for.

The pandemic has normalised hybrid workplaces and work-from-home culture. While the changing face of the workplace has afforded more flexibility, it has also blurred the boundaries between work and personal lives. New entrants to the workforce have a much harder time adapting to the hybrid work model without the benefit of an established support network. Thus, they are more exposed to stresses that were never present before the proliferation of hybrid workplaces.

I believe we can spark more conversations on mental health on the national level, thereby normalising mental health issues across the nation and within workspaces. Key stakeholders, such as employers, must remain sensitive and understanding towards persons struggling with mental health issues.

The Labour Movement will work closely with our tripartite partners to champion mental health within the workplace. We can consider establishing a code of practices for working from home and increasing peer-to-peer support as an avenue to advance mental wellness. Peer support is a crucial part of primary care at the workplace. It is not meant to replace professionals but, instead, is a vital link to get people to seek help. NTUC has launched a WSQ on peer-to-peer support and endeavours to work with all stakeholders to advance mental well-being.

Mr Speaker, Sir, despite the uncertainties, the future is shining bright for our younger people with Budget 2022’s commitment to investing in new capabilities and opportunities for our economy and our people. We must ensure that Generation COVID is well-prepared to face the uncertainties of the global economy and even the next pandemic. In NTUC, we will champion the aspirations and needs of our younger Singaporeans. We will chart this journey together with Generation COVID, working with them to emerge even stronger from the pandemic.

Notwithstanding my suggestions, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.

3.41 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Sir, first, let me declare my interests as the Group CEO of NTUC Enterprise and the Fairprice Group.

Sir, this Budget looks into the future, even if it runs, for the third year, into the red. The bills come, not just from the price of security and safety today, but for the education and investments of tomorrow.

The rising inflationary pressures come from different sources and are complex in nature. The impact, however, is simple and direct – a dollar today can buy more than a dollar tomorrow.

I want to speak on two groups that are particularly hard-hit – small businesses and the cost of living for the ordinary men and women.

First, cost pressures faced by SMEs. Many SME suppliers are all struggling now to manage the cost increases that are coming from all fronts. Some described it like a "tsunami". Whether it is raw materials, freight, manpower, packaging or cost of energy, everything is more expensive now. Added to that, the headwinds from tough weather, floods and logistical disruptions due to COVID-19 restrictions.

For SMEs, in particular, where profits can be razor-thin, it is about cost pressures and stresses of managing rising costs in many areas, and these, sometimes, can appear to be faceless corporate troubles. But when businesses fail, jobs are lost, too. And behind each SME is a group of men and women with dreams and families.

One SME owner shared with me that the cost of his raw materials for soya sauce includes soya beans. Prices have gone up by 20%, sugar and salt are up 30%, and the freight cost of shipping raw sugar from Thailand to Singapore has increased from what used to be less than $200 per 20-foot full container load, is now $1,000. That is almost a five-fold increase.

The current conflict that is taking place in Russia and Ukraine will add further cost pressures to businesses. Amongst other things, Ukraine is a major supplier of sunflower seed, sunflower oil, whilst Russia is a major supplier of wheat, which will impact raw materials supply and cost of wheat-based products. Ukraine is also a major producer of corn. Corn supply shortage may also impact price of livestock feeds where corn is a major ingredient. Indeed, many egg suppliers have told me that their cost has gone up very significantly where energy cost and corn, which is the feed for the chicken, are major cost items for them.

In its annual survey last year, the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry sought feedback from more than 1,000 businesses, 92% of whom are SMEs. Many say their costs have gone up quite significantly and, as a result, they have suffered losses. For sure, some 57% of Singapore businesses surveyed saw their costs rise this year. That is nearly double the 28.8% who did so last year.

SMEs form an important part of the Singapore economy, including as a source of jobs and meaningful livelihood. And, often, the voices of small business owners go unheard.

So, what can we do to ensure that SMEs have a place at the table? For example, trade associations play an important role in gathering feedback, as well as explaining new policies and schemes to its members. Such associations may run on a tight budget, which constrain their effectiveness. Can the Minister consider providing some one-off grants to such associations?

On the impact of cost increases, I think some price increase in products and services may be expected. Of course, there are those few errant businesses which may take advantage of the situation to profiteer. Like everyone else in this House, I have no sympathy for them and they should be taken to task. I am sure the Committee against Profiteering headed by Minister of State Low Yen Ling, when the committee is formulating the guidelines against profiteering, will, with the help of the community, step up their vigilance in light of the current situation and ensure that those who use, whether it is “inflation” or “GST” or whatever, to cover a multitude of price increases, will be taken to task.

But at the same time, we should not begrudge businesses and SMEs for legitimate and reasonable price increases for the reasons that I shared earlier.

Finally, I would like to bring up an "ask" from SMEs – the issue of manpower.

Given the important role that migrant workers play in Singapore’s economy, I would like the Government to give some flexibility to businesses and, in particular, SMEs in hiring such workers.

Let me now switch to the other group and speak about the cost of living faced by individuals and families.

Cost of living is a perennial issue. I am not sure about the rest of you but my grandparents, parents, peers and now my own children, they are also talking about it. I think no one will ever say things were cheap during their time.

Our forefathers carried those worries too, but through determination, hard work and with support from various people and the Government sectors, they not only survived but prospered and built the foundation of a thriving Singapore.

NTUC was certainly one of those partners. In fact, NTUC FairPrice, "Welcome" then, was born at a time of rising prices in the oil shocks of the 1970s. Just two Mondays ago, we announced the "Stretch Your Dollar" programme to give a 5% discount on 100 essential items every Friday. This will start in March. We ran similar "Stretch Your Dollar" programmes in 2007 to 2008 during the Global Financial Crisis and again from 2010 to 2011 during the economic downturn.

Overall, NTUC’s focus is on ensuring workers in Singapore remain competitive and employable for life, as well as enhancing their welfare. To do this, NTUC strives to help workers of all collars and ages get better jobs and earn better wages.

At the same time, NTUC supports workers and their families by moderating the cost of living through various programmes, including sustainable wage increases in the form of PWM, subsidised training, financial assistance schemes and affordable daily essentials and services through the NTUC group of social enterprises.

Within the NTUC group, we have various charities and foundations. They include U Care Fund, FairPrice Foundation, Orange Aid, Eldercare Trust and Bright Horizons Fund to ensure those who have less, they are not disadvantaged. In fact, when I group all these together, over $441 million have been given out.

Over the years, the NTUC Enterprise group have evolved to be significant industry players today, whilst continuing to take care of the needs of not just workers, but also their multi-generational families, across their different life stages. We strive to play our part to moderate cost of essential goods and services, serving as price benchmarks and addressing underserved needs. Of course, we are not the only ones doing this, and there are many, many helping hands all over Singapore to help those in need.

I would like to ask if the Government can consider the following.

First, can we on a whole-of-Government and whole-of-society basis, coordinate, encourage efforts which keep basic items affordable, to help cope with the cost of living? This can either be in the form of giving guidance on specific items or tax incentives for doing so.

Second, keep looking out for those whose incomes have been lost or reduced during the pandemic and to provide support for those who might fall through the cracks, such as those with limited family support. And related to the second, perhaps it is not just a matter of having more schemes, but helping more people become aware of and applying for such schemes. Yes, we need to extend more help to those less tech-savvy workers to apply for Government schemes. They are often the ones who need it most. Even as we help address their welfare needs, we can also help them see where they need help in terms of upgrading their skills and securing jobs.

As Singapore develops, aspirations today are understandably different from the past. We are better educated, technologies have empowered convenience and lifestyles have evolved. But one thing remains: we continue to want the best for our children and for the next generation.

In the past, a dollar’s value is measured in its ability to buy a home, to go to school and put a meal on the table. Today, a dollar can already do this for most of us, and we want it to buy more.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the challenges have become more complex today – ageing population, maturing economy, sandwich generation, cost of living, climate change, global competition for talents. What we need to buy with our dollar is security for all Singaporeans, to be able to continue our common dream of peace and prosperity amidst rising and uncertain seas. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.50 pm until 4.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

DEBATE ON ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye.

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Budget, which seeks to address our immediate challenges and chart our way forward together.

Sir, let me first declare my interest as President of the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE).

This Budget comes on the back of significant global inflationary pressures, at a time when rising cost of living is a major concern for many Singaporeans. The proposed increase in GST will no doubt add to consumers' concerns. While we understand the need to raise revenue, I am heartened that the Government has decided to delay the GST increase to 2023 and to stagger the increase over two years. Doing so will provide time for the various measures introduced to tackle rising inflation to come into effect.

At CASE, we believe more can be done to help consumers make informed purchasing decisions. That is why we launched the Price Kaki mobile application in 2019 to allow consumers to compare prices of household essentials, groceries and hawker food, make informed purchase decisions and stretch their dollar.

Since its launch, the app has been downloaded more than 80,000 times. CASE will expand Price Kaki this year, with more retailers, more products and more services, so as to benefit more consumers. We will increase the coverage of cooked food stalls from the current 114 hawker centres to cover an additional 200 foodcourts and coffee shops. CASE will also increase the coverage of groceries and household essentials on the app from 4,000 to 10,000 items.

To tackle rising prices, consumers can also consider purchasing house brands for their daily essentials. According to Price Kaki's data, house brand products can cost 10% to 25% cheaper than brand goods. House brands can be just as good and have similar nutrition value as regular brands. I would encourage consumers to look beyond the advertising and give house brands a try. The same taste for a much lower cost may come as a pleasant surprise.

Sir, house brands help set an important price floor for many of our household essential items and I hope all major supermarket chains can absorb the GST increase for selected house brand essential items.

But comparing prices alone is insufficient if a retailer chooses to maintain the price but reduce the quantity of the product. To tackle this shrinkflation, I would like to call on the Government to introduce mandatory unit pricing for supermarkets and grocery retailers in Singapore.

Mandatory unit pricing is already practised in countries such as Australia, Argentina and Chile. This might have been a logistical and administrative challenge in the past when price tags were printed on paper placed manually on the shelves. With the wide use of digital price tags today, supermarkets should have no difficulty displaying unit pricing.

As part of our commitment to price transparency, CASE will display unit price alongside the retail price for items listed on Price Kaki.

Sir, COVID-19 has impacted many of our heartland shops and hawkers. While the CDC vouchers have been a major help, more can be done to help our neighbourhood merchants transform their businesses. Heartland shops are facing immense pressure as higher prices of goods and utilities are weighing down heavily on their profitability. They are also facing stiff competition from online retailers.

As consumers' purchasing behaviour shifts to e-commerce accelerated by the pandemic, I thought it would be helpful to onboard our heartland merchants and hawkers onto a major e-marketplace. This will help them tap on the huge e-commerce potential.

I am therefore glad that Lazada Singapore has partnered Radin Mas to launch the Radin Mas Marketplace @ Lazada. This will be Singapore's first e-marketplace for heartland shops.

Lazada will onboard all interested merchants and hawkers in Radin Mas, which number close to 600 and allow them to list their first 100 items on the e-marketplace at no cost. Lazada will also teach our merchants how to better engage with younger customers such as through livestreaming. Merchants and consumers can also benefit from the occasional promotional campaigns organised by Lazada.

Sir, our heartland shops are an important part of our social fabric. As we transform our economy and chart our way in the post-pandemic future, we must ensure that our heartland shops will continue to remain part of our Singapore Story.

Mr Speaker, to manage the cost of living, wages must increase in tandem with rising inflation. However, we need to watch out for these three "invisibles" that could stand in the way of raising salaries – the invisible competition for jobs, invisible skills mismatch and invisible threat of burnout.

The COVID-19 pandemic has completely transformed the way we work and has accelerated the "work from anywhere" trend. Competition for jobs can now come from digital nomads working from any corner of the globe as long as the candidate has the right skills, a computer and a good Internet connection. There is even a new word recently invented called "workcation" where people travel and work remotely at the same time.

Countries are now seeking to attract these digital nomads as they reopen their economies and try to revive their tourism and hospitality sectors at the same time. The Financial Times recently reported that Thailand is offering 10-year visas to attract skilled professionals working remotely. According to Investopedia, Thailand is not alone, with Germany, Mexico and Norway – just to name a few examples – trying very hard to attract these digital nomads.

Sir, the Minister for Manpower answered a Parliamentary Question yesterday on foreign remote workforce employed by Singapore-based companies. He highlighted how it is important for Singapore to continually transform ourselves and help our local workforce perform higher value jobs.

I cannot agree with him more. But the reality is that digital nomads are competing for higher value jobs – jobs such as creative professionals, coding specialists and data science analysts. Simply put, companies today need not hire people based physically in Singapore to fill jobs here and our PMETs are particularly at risk of being displaced by an invisible competition, sitting by the poolside of a resort in Phuket.

While the increase in minimum qualifying salaries for Employment Pass and S Pass holders may be a short-term measure, I urge the Government to study this trend and review if our existing labour policies would continue to remain relevant in the years ahead. Do we need to adjust our policies and economic strategies to account for this invisible global competition for local jobs?

According to data from MOM, Singapore had a record high of 98,700 job openings in September 2021, with the number of job vacancies more than double the number of unemployed people. On the ground, however, the Labour Movement has received feedback from PMETs, particularly those in their mid-career, that they find it difficult to land these jobs.

Jobs looking for people. People looking for jobs. What could be the reason for the disconnect? One answer is likely a mismatch in skills.

Our NTUC's career coaches have found that many mid-career PMETs often neglect to go for skills upgrading because they were too caught up with day-to-day work schedules and very wide-ranging family responsibilities.

That is why I am glad that the Government is committing $100 million to scale NTUC's company training committees (CTCs). The CTCs help address the two most common questions that workers have when it comes to training – train what and train for what – by aligning the training needs with the company's future business and operations roadmap. Therefore, I encourage all companies in Singapore to work with NTUC and partner with us to create and implement training programmes that are suitable to upskill and reskill your workers effectively.

Lastly, I would like to touch on workplace burnout, a real but often invisible threat to the well-being of our workers.

Over the years, I have been speaking both inside and outside of this House on the importance of maintaining good workplace mental health. I am glad that the Government has worked closely with the Labour Movement on various initiatives, notably the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Well-being at Workplaces back in November 2020, which provides guidance on after-hours work communications. For the first time, the Workplace Safety and Health Council will introduce a new workplace mental health category at this year's Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Awards.

However, there remains much more to be done.

According to a recent NTUC survey of 1,000 young working adults, over 40% reported poor work-life balance and work stress due to longer working hours and heavier workload since the start of the pandemic. Forty-two percent of the respondents felt that there was insufficient mental well-being support at their workplaces.

Clearly, our tired working professionals deserve a right to disconnect so that they can have protected time to rest and recharge after work. I urge the Ministries and our Government agencies to lead by promulgating clear directives on after-hours work communications for their staff.

Good workplace mental health is good for productivity and business. I hope that the Government can provide grants to encourage more employers to implement Employee Assistance Programmes at various workplaces to support its workers with mental health needs.

Mr Speaker, the coming years are fraught with challenges. Rising energy prices, inflation and a rapidly ageing population are just some of the difficult hurdles that Singapore and Singaporeans will need to overcome.

At NTUC, we believe that every worker matters and the best way to protect them through these challenges is through better jobs and better wages. We will continue to walk alongside our brothers and sisters and help them take advantage of all the help that are available. We will chart our way forward together. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Heng Chee How.

4.28 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Heng Chee How): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this Debate. I support the Budget.

Earlier, the hon Member Mr Melvin Yong spoke of the threat of shrinkflation, which is that the price is the same, but the items get smaller. That is the pressure that inflation can put on consumers.

But, Sir, not everything, however, is going in that direction. There are certain things which are going in the opposite direction and one of them is the longevity of Singaporeans. Singaporeans are living longer and there are implications, and it is to this direction that I will now turn.

Sir, I wish to speak on measures to further strengthen the retirement adequacy of present and future generations of older workers.

First, I thank the Government for beginning to implement the recommendations of the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers. In January this year, the first step to improve the CPF contribution rates for older workers aged 55 to 70 was carried out. This is part of the journey to harmonise CPF contribution rates for workers up to age 60 by the year 2030, as part of overall measures to help strengthen the retirement adequacy of Singaporean workers.

I, therefore, welcome our Finance Minister’s announcement in this year’s Budget that the next tranche of CPF contribution rate improvements would be carried out in 2023. It is important for these steps to be undertaken while conditions permit, because 10 years might sound very long, but it passes much faster than one thinks.

Sir, while improving CPF contribution rates for workers aged 55 to 70 will, indeed, help increase their retirement savings to some degree, it is not a silver bullet to achieve retirement adequacy in and of itself. For workers to be able to maximise their CPF retirement savings gained from work, they need to be in work for as many years as they are willing and able to, and for them to be able to qualify for both employer and employee CPF contributions as pay levels change with time.

Hence, there should be periodic reviews of the qualifying criteria for employer CPF contributions to ensure that, as pay levels improve over time, the proportion of pay that qualifies for CPF keeps pace and does not become materially eroded, of course, taking into account prevailing economic conditions. This will enable us to strike and sustain a fair, judicious and necessary equilibrium between employers’ legitimate cost concerns and workers’ legitimate need for retirement adequacy.

Sir, each year of additional work would mean that an older worker earns at least 12 months of additional pay and, for many workers, they have that 13th month as well, so, at least, 12 months. Clearly, this would greatly help with an older worker’s financial position and retirement savings, much more than any other measure.

This was why the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers had recommended increases in the statutory retirement and reemployment ages to be accomplished within this decade, moving from 62 to 65 and from 67 to 70 by the end of the decade.

The Government had previously announced that the first step in this journey is to add one year to both the statutory retirement and reemployment ages in July this year, that is, in July 2022. I fully support this step as our economy is projected to grow this year at a still healthy clip. Just like the improvements in CPF contribution rates, we must take incremental steps while we can, so that we will reach the goal within the timeframe that the Tripartite partners had agreed upon.

The enactment of the Retirement Age Act and its subsequent expansion to encompass Reemployment represent overt Government and legislative intent and support for older Singaporean workers. I, therefore, look forward to the outcomes of the Tripartite Workgroup on Workplace Fairness and, in particular, its recommendations to safeguard and strengthen the interests of older workers for fair consideration and treatment at work, including for training.

The Government has also put money where its mouth is to spur the continued hiring of older workers through a range of policy incentives: training subsidies, hiring incentives, CPF offset measures and so on, all stacked in favour of the hiring of older workers.

The combined result of tripartite and Government resolve and action has been a steady rise in mature workers' employment rates. It improved from 27.6% in 2019 to 28.5% in 2020 to 31.7% in 2021. This is all the more remarkable, because these improvements happened even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic that we are experiencing here in Singapore. When we compare this achievement with the large-scale shedding of older workforces in many other countries over the past two years, then we know that we must not take this support and investment in our older workers for granted. This did not come naturally and it is not by chance.

That said, I want to point to two areas that I urge close attention and coordinated action on in the coming years, to make sure that these hard-won gains are sustained and not eroded.

Sir, in 2019, the proportion of Singaporeans aged 60 outnumbered Singaporeans aged five for the first time. We have also heard that the proportion of Singaporeans aged 65 and above has grown from 9% of the population in 2009 to 16% in 2019 and will reach 25% in 2030. These figures all, basically, show that Singapore is ageing very rapidly.

The implication of that on healthcare costs is clear and has been extensively discussed, including in the Budget speech. So, I will not dwell on that one. But there is another significant implication, which is the implication on mature workers’ employment rate, that we must not miss.

As I had said in previous Budget debate speeches, there is a significant trend of departure from work among female workers from around middle age. By some estimates, there could be some 30,000 such work-able persons in our population. This is likely to be due to care responsibilities, that is, the fact that they had left work is likely to be due to care responsibilities at work, and such care responsibilities, given that if they are leaving at middle age, are likely to be related to caring for senior members in the family.

This trend, we must expect, will intensify as our population bulge of baby boomers age into their 70s and beyond, and that would trigger a corresponding increase in pressure on middle-aged family members, especially women, to have to leave work in order to care for their senior family members.

If this happens, the impact on household income and the retirement adequacy of caregivers on the one hand, and the implication on the availability and mix of our workforce to companies on the other, will be big.

Traditional measures to help retain more middle-aged workers with care responsibilities either at work or to allow a return to work include the promotion of flexible work arrangements. This is correct and must, of course, continue. But I believe that this is not sufficient and we have to do more.

I believe that it is timely for a very thorough study to be carried out on how to enable appropriate affordable senior day care services, whether they be homecare or day-focused institutions, to be made available, at scale, that would also be sustainable for the service providers to provide.

Conceptually, this would be similar to the thinking behind providing affordable childcare services so that the parents, especially the mothers, can have a practical option of choosing to work, rather than, out of no choice, to have to stay at home to look after the babies. So, if you flip it to the other end of the population, conceptually, it is the same. Of course, the details are different and the conditionality for providing such affordable and accessible senior day care at scale is not identical but will have to be studied.

But we must study this expansion of such day care services in earnest and, through policy direction, implement a scaling up of such services with appropriate conditions so that we can forestall a surge in local workforce departures in the medium term, or a huge further increase in demand for foreign domestic help to look after the seniors. But that, in itself, brings about its own complexities. Doing so will also allow us to create viable jobs in this sector, turning the unavoidable population ageing into an opportunity.

I turn now to my final point, which is that we need to focus attention on jobs and occupations that employ significant numbers of older workers that we know will be impacted significantly by fast changes in technology. In this regard, we must pay special attention to the subset of such jobs and occupations that our switch to a low-carbon economy will likely put additional pressure on.

The vulnerability of older workers in such settings is quite self-evident and I think, earlier on, my colleague Mr Melvin Yong and, before that, Mr Patrick Tay had also given examples of how the middle-aged PMEs are also facing these difficulties and pressure, including the three invisibles that Mr Melvin Yong spoke about.

For older workers, if they are displaced, then their risk of structural unemployment will be higher than the rest. Even if they are rehired, their earnings will likely be lower and, therefore, negatively impacting their retirement adequacy.

To forestall this, I call for a specific tripartite focus to identify such priority sectors and occupations for re-skilling so that older workers holding these current jobs roles can be reskilled and be part of their firm's future even as their companies transform. Such efforts can certainly tap into NTUC’s growing network of Company Training Committees (CTCs) in order to systematically, deliberately and proactively do so. In this regard, I join my colleagues in thanking the Government of the investment of $100 million to work together and support NTUC's efforts in this area. And where there is ultimately an excess of manpower, parallel efforts to help the older workers reskill and convert to other job possibilities elsewhere will be equally crucial.

Sir, the theme of this Budget is “Charting Our New Way Forward Together”. This means that we must look at what is coming ahead and rally the whole of Singapore society to face it together and thrive, leaving no one behind. As for NTUC, we will continue to champion better wages, jobs and work prospects for all workers. Every worker matters and we believe that this is the best way to care for their present and to uplift their future. Our older workers are a valuable and growing part of our local workforce. Let us work together with them to shape that better future.

Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

4.42 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget.

The past two years had been like a roller-coaster ride in the dark. We do not know where the twists and turns are but we have, together, shoulder-to-shoulder, ridden over one peak after another, and it seems like we are now in the midst of another one. This has never been a fun ride, especially for our frontliners.

To Team MOH and the healthcare workers who are once again called up to the fore, thank you, and I salute you for valiantly keeping our country going, not forgetting my fellow educators, who face students every day to provide normalcy amid a dynamic landscape. Alongside our Public Service officers, our healthcare workers and educators have taken up multiple, varied and new roles, which underlie their unwavering commitment. I am grateful as they give us the much-needed confidence to see the light at the end of this dark roller-coaster ride. I urge that we continue to provide our Public Service officers, especially our healthcare workers and educators, with the best support and work-life balance possible.

Firstly, I ask that their workload and work scope be reviewed. How many hats can one person wear to remain effective? Perhaps, it is also time that we set clear guidelines on work hours, introduce timeouts and enforce the time for disconnect. Replying to non-urgent emails can wait but our families cannot.

We must also continue to create and upgrade channels for communication between staff and this does not include the bi-annual staff appraisal.

I am also aware of the abuse they face and the pressures of work from the stakeholders, and we should do more to create practical ways to allow them to come forth and be provided with the necessary support and protection.

Mr Speaker, while the fight against COVID-19 is far from over, we are in a better position to chart a new way forward together. I support the Finance Minister's call to renew and strengthen our social compact. It resonates strongly with me and I will touch on two areas: education and mental health.

Mr Speaker, I am a firm believer in lifelong learning. To sustain something lifelong requires us to acknowledge that one may be susceptible to physical and mental burnouts. In my previous speeches, I mentioned that one way to mitigate this is to provide opportunities or rather, phases for individuals to: discover, re-discover and re-invent themselves.

I will cover two of them today, although all three are aptly represented in this year's Budget announcement.

The first phase, "discover", begins from early childhood. Within this phase, we must provide our children with the opportunities to discover their strengths and interests. Opportunities for deliberate play and exploration will allow children to pick up social interaction and problem-solving skills beyond what books can offer.

Therefore, I welcome the announcement that we will be investing more in our children to scale up the KidSTART programme nationwide and expand into a nationwide UPLIFT Community Network to support more children in disadvantaged families. However, I hope that we can also curate programmes for those in the middle class in the future, especially those who may be struggling or facing sudden change in their situation. As shown through the pandemic, being on a balance means that one can be tipped over fairly easily.

Nevertheless, the move for an enhanced KidSTART and upscaled UPLIFT programme underlines our strong commitment to tackle inequality at the earliest juncture possible and ensures that every child is given the opportunity to discover the joy of exploration and play and importantly, stand a fighting chance when they enter Primary school.

Mr Speaker, when I recall my Primary and Secondary school experience, it was all about the PSLE, the "N" and "O" levels. I understand the need to hold these major exams, but I think we can do with fewer exams in between. If we are serious about redefining success, then it can start by redefining what exams mean. I urge this call in unison for a "whole-of-society approach" to change the mindsets on education, from daily school issues to major examinations and how we perceive success and learning as a whole. It is about time to change this "Assessment of Learning" culture to a "Journey of Learning".

We must create a culture of appreciating the joy of learning and the challenges such a journey presents, be it easy or difficult, whether we get success or failure and accepting that there are multiple paths to achieve success. In removing the minor exams, we can nurture an optimal lifelong learning concept and this, in turn and hopefully, result in a better mental health environment.

Sir, the second phase, "re-discover", is at the Polytechnic or University stage. We have done well to create multiple pathways. There are now numerous courses that a student can enrol in that matches their interests. However, one lesson we learnt from the pandemic was the inability of some of our fresh graduates to be agile in a volatile job environment. This is not their fault. Who could have predicted that certain sectors can be so affected by the pandemic?

In my previous speeches, I emphasised the need to give our graduates broad skills that can be generalised across other disciplines. This will put them in a better footing and give them the confidence to apply their skills across other sectors. I would now go a step further and ask if we could allow greater flexibility to allow students to choose modules outside their main course and pursue side interests. I could be a sports scientist with a good foundation in entrepreneurship. Or an engineer with graphic design skills.

Inevitably, time is a factor. Polytechnic students, for example, have three years to complete the course. Perhaps, it is time to review if a slightly longer duration would allow students to develop better, to get that much needed time and space to equip themselves and pursue these interests.

Mr Speaker, many PAP Members, past and present, have touched on the importance of mental health and support. In my previous adjournment motions, I highlighted several suggestions to destigmatise mental health. These include a push for mental health and social media literacy in schools and workplaces, improving accessibility at community touchpoints, providing regular mental health screening and introducing time-outs for individuals to recharge, re-organise and come back stronger to school or work. I also called for the Government to expand our mental healthcare infrastructure, expand community support network and to make mental healthcare and support affordable.

Beyond Parliament, with support from other PAP Members, as well as the Young PAP, we drove the #452TooMany campaign and conducted dialogues to bring community partners like Total Wellness Initiative, ItAllStartsHere.sg, IMH, the Muslim Healthcare Professionals Association and many more, as well as volunteers and residents together.

Within my constituency, we have also organised workshops for grassroots leaders so that they can better support our residents. That is why I am very happy to hear our Finance Minister laying out broad plans to enhance and integrate mental health and social services in the community. The setting up of the Inter-agency Task Force shows that the Government is committed to taking action towards mental health stigmatisation and supporting the needs of Singaporeans.

In November last year, MOH published its National Population Health Survey and found that younger adults aged between 18 and 29 had the highest proportion of poor mental health, for about 21.5%. Therefore, I call on the task force to expand outreach and support for this particular group and hope that with the rising numbers as a whole, we can also increase the number of psychiatrics services that we made available.

Mr Speaker, while the Government can enact policies and guidelines, it does not have the monopoly of solutions to make Singapore a caring and inclusive nation. We need all hands on deck. Here, I would like to call upon three groups to play their part.

The first: employers. I spoke previously about the need to be more compassionate to our workers and provide them with periods to recharge, therefore I urge employers once again to review their mental wellness programmes, encourage regular health screening, both physical and mental and consider using time-outs. Like some say, a happy employee is a productive employee, but most importantly, an even happier employer.

Secondly, is family and friends. While I am grateful that our mental healthcare infrastructure is robust and sound, it is sad that many of us are still not stepping forward to receive help. Stigmatisation remains a pertinent issue. Mental health issues are varied in nature. Some are obvious, others are silent and almost unnoticeable. It would be unwise for one to generalise. Therefore, a strong support system of family and friends play a key role in helping a loved one. Thus, the need for mental health literacy for everyone remains important to eradicate stigmatisation and create a more caring support system.

Thirdly, is our community. With Singapore having one of the highest internet penetration rates globally, almost every adult and youth are connected to the internet and social media. Cyberbullying, the woke culture and online shaming are becoming more rampant and have a detrimental effect on the mental health of those affected. Therefore, it starts with us, not the Government alone or social media platforms, it begins with us – the community – to set a good online and offline code of conduct to create a more caring and inclusive home for all of us. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I was happy to see this caring and inclusive Budget delivered by the Minister of Finance. I support his call to renew and strengthen our social compact.

In my English speech earlier, I spoke about three issues. First, comprehensive support for workers; second, education; and third, mental health.

Allow me to summarise. First, I urge that we provide a more comprehensive support for workers, especially healthcare sector workers and teachers. I call on the Government and employers to review their workload and job scope to ensure a quality Work-Life balance. This includes setting clear guidelines on working hours and introduce time-outs for workers to come back stronger to their workplace. As for education, I welcome the announcement to scale up the KidSTART and UPLIFT programmes. It underlines a strong commitment to tackle inequality as early as possible and ensures that every child is given the opportunity to fulfil their potential.

In my previous speeches in Parliament, I highlighted several suggestions to eradicate stigmatisation and increase support for mental health. Beyond Parliament, other PAP MPs and I have organised campaigns on social media and discussions to raise awareness about mental health. Therefore, I am heartened to hear the Minister laying out broad plans to enhance support for mental health.

The establishment of an Inter-Agency Task Force shows that the Government is concerned and took action against mental health stigmatisation and supporting the needs of Singaporeans. I urge employers and everyone from all walks of life to join us in this endeavour.

United we stand, divided we fall. Many hands make light work.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I can only say that change in the only constant and if we, as Singaporeans, are committed to creating a caring and inclusive Singapore for our generation and the generations ahead, we need to continue to take decisive actions and remain agile in a dynamic, volatile landscape.

With the Government reiterating its commitment and the community stepping forward to co-curate these solutions, I am confident that we can be the shining light for other countries to emulate as we "chart a new way forward for Singapore together". Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

4.58 pm

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, there are many measures announced in this year's Budget Statement that we welcome. We welcome the further tightening of foreign manpower, the increased focus on re-distribution through the introduction of higher income tax rates at the top tiers and higher taxes on properties and luxury cars.

We think that more can be done but are happy with the direction we are taking.

However, we object to the raising of GST. Firstly, this is a bad time to be raising GST, and we do not need the revenue now. Singaporeans are concerned about the rising cost of living. Additional worries are on the horizon over the inflation outlook. The Federal Reserve Chairman and the European Central Bank's President articulated their expectations of high inflation this year.

Oil prices rose by 50% in 2021 and the war in Ukraine is likely to worsen the picture. According to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), food prices rose by 28% in 2021 and in December 2021, fertiliser prices rose to more than double the price from a year ago. This is expected to put further inflationary pressure on food prices.

Closer at home, MAS has revised their inflation expectations upwards. Bus, train and taxi fares have been raised. Electricity tariffs has been rising steadily every quarter since the first quarter of 2021. The GST hikes will further exacerbate inflationary pressure. While for the time being, the rebates given out is more than the expected additional GST to be collected, it is only a matter of time before most Singaporeans have to pay more in GST; for that is the whole purpose of raising GST – to raise additional revenue.

The fact that the Government is giving out rebates in excess of the expected additional GST to be collected over the next few years underlines the fact that we currently do not need the additional revenue now.

If raising GST is to fund the additional healthcare and other social spending in future, how much would we have to raise GST by? The Finance Minister has shared that healthcare spending could increase from $11 billion in 2019 to $27 billion in 2030 based on current trend. So, does this mean that we would have to raise GST by 11% just to fund the additional healthcare spending? Are we looking at 18% to 20% GST by 2030?

This is an alarming prospect which brings us to our second point: we need to look at other ways of raising revenue.

GST was introduced to enable Singapore to cut corporate income tax and personal income tax rates to make Singapore a more attractive investment destination. GST started at 3% in 1994 and gradually increased to the current 7%. Over the same period, corporate income tax rate was gradually cut from 27% to 17% and personal income tax rate was gradually cut from 30% to 20%, before being raised to 22% in 2016. This tax development benefited the rich more than the poor and middle class. With the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative, not only will we lose tax revenue, using low corporate tax as a tool to attract investment will also become less effective.

It is, therefore, time to review our previous approach of raising GST to cut corporate and personal income taxes. Income taxes are progressive while GST is regressive. The pandemic has also worsened inequality by hitting the poor more than the rich.

In light of new tax developments and the current environment, we should reverse our earlier moves. Instead of raising GST for additional revenue, we should look at raising corporate and personal income taxes.

We are happy to note that the personal income tax rate for the highest tax brackets will be raised, but we believe there is room for more. While our corporate tax rate is 17%, there are tax incentives that lower the effective tax rate of many companies. Even if we were to raise our corporate tax rate to 20%, it would still be low compared to the region.

The pandemic has affected different sectors differently. Some sectors suffered, others weathered it better, while some sectors actually benefited from the pandemic. Corporate tax is applied only on profitable companies and hence is a more discerning way of raising revenue. Loss making companies will not be affected by an increase in corporate tax rate but some will be hit with increased cost due to a GST hike.

Moreover, many companies have benefited from the generous COVID-19 packages offered by the Government, including companies that remained profitable throughout the pandemic. It is only fair that they now pay a higher corporate tax. This is simple give-and-take.

Next, I will talk about land sale proceeds. Currently, land sale proceeds are not treated as revenue, but are put into reserves. The Government considers this just a change in the form of the asset – from land to money – not an income. If the land is sold on a freehold basis – once sold forever gone – then I would agree that this approach makes sense. However, it would be a different matter if land is sold on a leasehold basis.

The issue of using land sale proceeds as revenue is not new. My colleague Mr Leong also mentioned this yesterday, but we are aware of the Government’s long-standing position on this matter. Today, PSP would like to suggest an alternative way of treating land sale proceeds.

Currently, the Government typically sells industrial land on 20- or 30-year leases, and residential land on 99-year leases. After the requisite number of years, the land returns to Government and it can be sold again. The land sale proceeds are, therefore, more akin to rental income over the length of the lease.

In Budget 2018, Workers' Party suggested that up to 20% of land sale proceeds be used as revenue. Then Finance Minister Heng said, with reference to land sold on 99-year lease, that, I quote, "If you are rigorous about it, you really ought to be spending no more than 1% of that land sale proceeds". This statement, while true, paints an incomplete picture and is, therefore, misleading. It does not address what happens over time.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout illustrating the revenue stream over time?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Ms Hazel Poa: Thank you. PSP proposes that land sale proceeds be taken as revenue over the period of the lease. In other words, if a piece of land is sold on a 99-year lease, then the sale proceeds should be taken as revenue spread over 99 years.

Take for example industrial land sold on a 20-year lease.

Suppose the sale proceeds were treated as revenue over 20 years, then each year, the revenue would be 5% of the sale proceeds for the next 20 years. In year 1, the revenue would be 5% of the sale proceeds in year 1. In year 2, the revenue would be 5% of the sale proceeds in year 1 plus 5% of the sale proceeds in year 2. In year 3, the revenue would be 5% of the sale proceeds in year 1 plus 5% of the sale proceeds in year 2 plus 5% of the sale proceeds in year 3.

For the sake of simplicity in illustration, if we were to assume that land sale proceeds remain constant over the next 20 years, by year 20, the revenue amount would be equivalent to 100% of the land sale proceeds for that year. This is illustrated in the form of a table in the handout.

The same principle applies to land sold on 30- or 99-year leases. The revenue stream is cumulative and builds up to a significant amount.

PSP, therefore, contends that treating land sale proceeds as revenue over the term of the lease does not compromise on financial prudence and is also a significant revenue stream.

Thirdly, we need to look into cutting expenditure. We should not have this thinking that when cost increase, we just increase revenue to pay for it. If expenditure increases in one area, let us first look for ways to cut costs in other areas. This is how most individuals and businesses deal with cost increases

Finance Minister Lawrence Wong shared that since FY2017 the budgets of all Ministries have been cut by 2% and, from FY2023, a further 1% cut will be implemented. However, a look at the actual Government expenditures from FY2017 to FY2019 showed them to be higher than the figures in FY2016. Can the Finance Minister explain how this is a budget cut?

From FY2022 to FY2028, the Government is subsidising the F1 race to the tune of over $80 million per year and that works out to be over $560 million. If the race brings economic benefits, should the private sector not be paying for it? Why do we need to raise revenue to subsidise F1?

Another dubious expenditure is the $900 million payment to SPH Media Trust over five years. If SPH had not been restructured, the losses from its news operations could have been covered by the profits from its property operations. With the restructuring, taxpayers end up with a $900 million bill!

These are instances where we feel that our tax revenue is not being used judiciously. We disagree with such voluntary wealth transfers from the Government to commercial entities. They result in the costs being paid by taxpayers and the commercial benefits kept by the commercial entities.

Each year, HDB pays about $3 billion to $4 billion to SLA for purchase of land. This internal transfer amongst different parts of the Government is treated as an expenditure on one end, but not as revenue on the other end. This means that we need to raise tax revenue to fund this transfer of land from SLA to HDB.

While the land was most probably acquired under the Land Acquisition Act back in the 1960s to 1980s at low prices in the name of national development, the transaction between HDB and SLA is made based on current land prices. In other words, even though Government had acquired the land at low prices using tax revenue in the past, taxpayers have to now pay for that land again at current prices. This state of affair does not seem reasonable to us and further strengthens the point that land sale proceeds ought to be treated as revenue over the lease period.

In conclusion, PSP objects to the GST hike. We do not currently need the revenue and when we do, we have other revenue sources and we should cut expenditure first.

Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

5.11 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of Budget 2022. The delay and staggering of the GST hike and the slew of subsidies to soften the blow on most of the population are a relief.

I thank Finance Minister for the decision to continue with the CDC Vouchers scheme so that every Singaporean household, regardless of abode or income, can tap on them. I thank also the CDCs’ partners such as the Merchant Associations, the Heartland Enterprise Centres, the People’s Association, GovTech, Enterprise Singapore, IMDA and several other partners for developing and supporting a scheme that:

(a) allows not only residents but also heartland merchants to benefit from the money injected into the heartland economy to spur enterprise;

(b) allows participating merchants to be reimbursed in the next day instead of having to wait;

(c) allows for the printing of CDC Vouchers for the elderly who are non-tech-savvy so that they can personally use them.

So, thank you very much.

Now, I wish to touch on three topics today. I call it PCR, namely P for Principles of stewardship; C for Cost of doing business; and R for Resourcing of charities.

On "P", Principles. Budget 2022 is a clear articulation of the principles of how Singapore stewards its resources. Former US President Dwight Eisenhower once said, "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."

What are the principles that undergirds the Budget of 2022 and by this Government. There are many. I will name three. One, the principle of Prudence. Two, the principle of Preparedness. And three, the principle of Inclusiveness.

The principle of Prudence. It explains the conservative and cautious stand by which Government builds up and draws down its reserves. We spend within and sometimes below our means. We do not easily borrow nor freely tap on past reserves. We save for the future; for rainy days such as that during the Lehman Brothers collapse and the COVID-19 pandemic. And when we draw down on resources, we will return it back promptly when we are able to for the use of future generations and for future rainy days – the principle of Prudence.

Next, the principle of Preparedness. This Government invests highly in the education and training of our people through initiatives – proactive initiatives – such as SkillsFuture and capability building schemes for businesses across the private, people and public sectors. We are ready and able to defend ourselves so as to prevent ourselves from landing in a position such as the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war. It is the principle of Preparedness.

The principle of Inclusiveness. This Government no intent to leave anyone behind and intentionally develop measures and programmes to uplift the low-wage workers, households and the vulnerable amongst us.

So, these three principles of Prudence, Preparedness and Inclusiveness. The extent that we as a people agree on these principles is the extent of how united we are to forge ahead.

So, PCR. The next is "C", the Cost of doing business. Like all things, Budget 2022 is never perfect, though the undergirding principles of this Government are clear. Let me share touch on one of several areas that is, to me, worth reviewing and that is on SMEs' concerns on cost of doing business.

Matters of cost of living and cost of doing business are not new topics, raised in and outside Parliament. But it is still noteworthy to hear out the local enterprises who are struggling, despite doing their best, especially in such a time as this.

One case in point is rise in energy cost. Mdm Tan, a resident of mine, and I am sure her plight is heard elsewhere too. She is a supplier of container packaging to industries ranging from food to paints to solvents. She told me her struggles arising from not only supply chain disruptions during the pandemic but also high global energy costs. A loyal Singapore PowerGrid customer for a long time, her business was subject to fluctuations in electricity rates since last September, from 14 cents to 75 cents per kilowatt. It has gone down recently.

Hope came in the form of MTI’s very popular Temporary Electricity Contracting Support Scheme, or TRECS, which offered monthly fixed price plans. Alas, utility supplier after supplier turned down Mdm Tan's application citing full subscription and to try in July 2022. Mdm Tan fears that cost of doing business for SMEs like hers might further escalate with news like the carbon tax increases and the war in Ukraine and Russia. She certainly has no intent to close her business, this being a family business and doing quite okay for a long time.

I have discussed the matter with Minister Tan See Leng in his MTI role and I know that he too – and he is a very earnest Minister – is mulling over the issue. Would MOF be willing, would the Government be willing to consider providing an energy rebate equivalent to, for example, the U-Save Vouchers given to residents, if expanding the TRECS programme is not viable?

Still on "C", cost of doing business, the rise in qualifying salaries of the foreign workforce. Another major input heard from SMEs concerns the well-intended increased qualifying salaries of S Pass and E Pass holders. The policy intent is this: to bring in the right calibre of imported talents and to make it more attractive for companies to employ Singaporeans. The anecdotes I heard from the ground caused me to wonder if Government has been too blunt in this approach and if the policy intent, in this instance, has been achieved.

Some employers claim that the increase in qualifying S Pass and E Pass salaries have pushed up not only the salaries of the foreign talents, but also local staff as well and, hence, cost of business. It is not that bad but there is also this nagging issue that even if firms choose to hire local staff, some candidates are simply difficult to come by. I am referring to candidates for jobs such as preschool Chinese Language teachers, educators, speech and occupational therapists, even cybersecurity and IT professionals who are also in high demand by multinational firms setting up business in Singapore.

In this regard, would Government direct a think tank to study the impact of this particular policy and decide: one, if this S Pass and E Pass policy is still effective to deter foreign hires and promote local hires; and two, if ways can be found to increase the pool of local talents in higher demand?

So, PCR, and lastly, "R", on Resourcing of charities. I wish to end off with suggestions on how Government can play a more effective role in resourcing charities to build a more caring and inclusive society – one of the strategic thrusts of Budget 2022.

The Singapore Government has long adopted a "Many Helping Hands" approach to deliver a range of social services and assistance programmes, primarily, to work with partners who know the ground better. This has been the adoption of this strategy for a long time.

There are more than 2,300 registered charities in Singapore. About 200 of these are large charities with more than $10 million in receipts. Larger charities often fill important gaps where Government and the rest of society have not stepped in sufficiently. There are gaps which are also well-known and highlighted time and again in this House. In the world of disability, for example, these include issues such as the "cliff effect" for many special-needs graduates who literally stop learning after the age of 18; the need for a continuum of residential housing options for especially disabled adults; the pleas for support by elderly parents too afraid to die for fear of what might happened to the ones they leave behind.

Some of these programmes such as residential homes and day care centres for the disabled are known to be high-ticket items that cause high operating deficits on charities, in the millions, and often insufficiently covered by Government grants, and these are spaces that only the lion-hearted or the clueless will enter. Government should play an active role in resourcing charities that provide essential services that Government would otherwise have to undertake.

Resourcing, of course, can be facilitated in three ways. One, by providing grants, hopefully sufficient grants, to the partnering charity.

Two, by strengthening the nexus between top needs and potential top donors. Can local multinationals such as DBS, Singtel, and so on, be persuaded by Government to take ownership or adopt some identified, and maybe unfilled, top needs agreed upon by Government and its charity partners?

Three, Government can help by simplifying or facilitating fundraising requirements to help charities help themselves. One case in point is Government’s partnership in this Budget to extend the Tote Board’s Enhanced Fundraising programme, or EFR, to incentivise fundraising. Because of the way the programme is currently designed, charities large and small, their behaviour is shaped by how the programme is designed, they are largely driven now to organise, for example, to meet the rule, maximum five campaigns a year, up to $100 per campaign. They have to organise five campaigns in a year if they wish to obtain maximum matching.

I feel there ought to be flexibility in the current EFR scheme, so that charities can focus to organise just one large successful fundraising campaign, be done with fundraising for the year, and focus their resources and their energy on the core business of serving their beneficiaries.

Another way that Government can facilitate is also to help social enterprises, especially those which are owned by charities themselves. The proceeds do not go to any private pockets, it is back to the charities. If social enterprises owned by charities can be allowed to qualify for fundraising, and then being the arms of job creation and service creation, that will really help as well. So, I really hope Government will help to look at the ways by which charities can be resourced, so that these charities can partner Government even more effectively.

In conclusion, Sir, I have brought up the issues of PCR – Principles, Cost of doing business in Singapore and Resourcing of charities by Government. I seek the Minister’s favourable consideration for my suggestions. Thank you for a well-crafted Budget 2022, which I support.

Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.

5.23 pm

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget gives Singaporeans an insight into the ways which the Government stewards and allocates resources to help Singapore and Singaporeans grow. It acts as a steer and a benchmark for Singaporeans to understand where we are going and how we intend to get there.

History has shown us that societies tend to stratify as they develop. With development comes a difference in wants, needs and aspirations. If left unaddressed, some of these differences may ultimately cause irreconcilable tensions. We see this happening all over the world and how we negotiate these differences in Singapore is imperative to our collective progress.

While we cannot completely fight it, we can try to stave off the undesirable outcomes that it can bring, by ensuring that people, regardless of background, have a seat at the table to share in inclusive economic growth.

Access to opportunities is key. While there is much in Budget 2022 to talk about, I will focus on two areas for my English speech: support for mental health and social integration, and a stake for our youth.

From our frontliners to students, healthcare workers to teachers, seniors to caregivers, battling COVID-19 has taken its toll on Singaporeans. A survey reported by TODAY in October 2021 indicated that 68% of respondents in Singapore said they found 2021 to be the most stressful year they have experienced. More than half said they felt like they have lost control over their future. In 2020, Singapore reported 452 suicides, a 13% increase compared to 400 cases the year before. For seniors, we saw the highest number of suicides since 1991.

Unlike physical health, the effects of poor mental health often go undiagnosed until too late, it starts to interfere in significant ways with one’s life. Even if diagnosed, there is still a lack of social understanding on how a person who on the outside might seem okay, is not able to function because of what is going on in their minds. It is easier to see the difficulty someone faces in climbing a set of stairs, for example, if their leg is broken, but it is not as easy to understand that the same or even seemingly simpler tasks like getting out of bed, also can present a challenge for someone with mental health challenges, much less keeping up with the pace of life.

Is it no wonder, that many hide their conditions away? On their own, already they may feel like they are a burden, without society’s reminders that they are not where they want to be in life.

Mental health challenges do not fit in a neat little box. The implications of being diagnosed or having a loved one who is diagnosed with a serious mental health condition spans financial, familial and social considerations. As such, I am glad that the Government in 2021 announced the formation of the inter-agency task force and I certainly look forward to hearing more about the next actionable steps and plans.

Besides the Government, it is really civic society and ground-up groups who have made great strides in promoting mental health awareness to reach different pockets of society. Awareness and education is but the first step towards destigmatisation. From Campus Psy to Silver Ribbon Singapore, Over the Rainbow to Hayaa’ Network and Samaritans of Singapore, youth, volunteers, suicide survivors and even religious teachers are telling stories of the complex realities which those who face mental health challenges are going through. And I am deeply appreciative of their work.

But this is not enough. Mr Speaker, Sir, we must take the next steps in becoming a more mental health ready society. In particular, increasing access and affordability for people seeking mental health treatment and working towards better protections and integration of life for people with mental health conditions.

Currently, patients seeking mental health treatments can lean, to a certain extent, on MediSave and Government grants. We know that other than stigma and shame, cost can often be a prohibitive reason why people do not seek help. Furthermore, mental health challenges can be recurring and, unfortunately, the road to recovery is not always linear.

Options in the private sector for insurance coverage are few. A CNA article in September 2021 notes that there is rising interest in mental health insurance, but options remain inadequate. AIA, which launched the first insurance policy in Singapore to cover mental illness in January 2019, said the take-up rate for its Beyond Critical Care plan rose by more than 470% compared with the same period in 2020.

Other than reviewing the withdrawal limits, will the Government consider working with the private sector to incentivise more options for the provision of mental health insurance coverage?

We must go beyond mental health awareness and towards integration and acceptance of people with mental health conditions, including skilling, literacy and a more inclusive workforce.

As an example, how do we ensure that people suffering from mental health conditions are given a fair shot and not turned away simply because of their conditions at a job interview? How do we also ensure that the caregivers may apply for discretional time-off to take care of emergencies that may arise. Having to rely on informal processes and the grace of colleagues to secure the foregoing can be extremely stressful. Many people living with a mental health illness do want to work and can contribute to the workforce if they are adequately supported. For those who are not able to work, would we be willing to explore how social assistance can be more nuanced to tide over different demographics of people during difficult times? These are complex issues with many considerations but it is an important step for us to take sooner, rather than later.

Mr Speaker, Sir, over the last two years, our youth have faced unprecedented challenges from their experience of going to school, graduating and entering the workforce during a pandemic. A TODAY Youth Survey found 55 % of 18- to 35-year-olds felt a dent in their financial prospects as a result of COVID-19. In my chats with youth on Zoom, via Instagram DM and in-person, many share their worries for the future.

A commentary piece written by final year University student, Natalie Tan, was published in January 2022. She notes how the pandemic has short-changed young people in financial, professional and social ways. In Natalie’s words, “For graduating cohorts last year, the absence of in-person graduation ceremonies was like a nail in the coffin. It felt like we ran the race, won the prize but we are not there to collect the medal and hug family and batchmates.

"It’s also tough to transit from attending classes on Zoom to searching for jobs in this floundering economy. With limited doors open, we went about in circles trying to figure out the next stage of our lives. Those of us who managed to find jobs had to contend with a lonely onboarding experience. Others weren’t so lucky.”

Incentivising employment is something the Government has done. From employers to employees, many appreciate these efforts. In 2020, for example, the Government set aside $100 million to fund a traineeship scheme as a stop-gap measure to help new graduates increase employability amid a weak job market due to the pandemic. In Budget 2022, a total of $500 million for a Jobs and Business Support Package will be set aside to support workers and businesses in segments of the economy that are facing slower recoveries.

How will our youth be supported through this package? The lack of internships and in-person opportunities have made it difficult for some to even figure out what they want to do. And there is little we can do to replace those years.

I also know of youths who have turned to the gig economy as a means of generating an income. Some now consider this to be their full-time job, while others use their freelancing skills as a side hustle for the time being. As more turn to these roles as viable options, how can we work with companies to ensure better protections for these workers in the long run?

Artists, musicians, dancers, actors, physical trainers and many others have been unable to generate an income at different points of the pandemic. Some of them have been able to return to work in a limited capacity, others not so much. While frequent testing is important, ART kits also come at a cost from already reduced incomes.

One hard hit group includes live musicians such as bands and DJs who previously held residencies at nightlife institutions. Since March 2020, many have not been able to continue their residencies and some hotspots have shuttered. Like many others who have seen the large bulk of their incomes slashed, many have tried to pivot, some have taken their skills online and others have transitioned into other careers, but they remain hopeful that they will able to earn a living once again by doing what they know and love best.

I have two questions. Workplaces such as gyms have been able to operate with restrictions for some time now, in an attempt to mitigate the risk of transmission. Are there ways in which we can limit the risks of transmission of performing on stage at an eatery that serves food and drinks, so that live music can return? Will the Government consider introducing balanced measures that enable this? With watchful eye on Omicron, as measures relax in stages, can the Government give some clarity, what are some sort of circumstances and conditions we will need to see before members of this community will be able to return to work? Mr Speaker, Sir, in Malay please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] MAS and MTI recently reported a 2.4% increase in Singapore's core inflation compared to a year ago. This increase was driven by increases in the prices of food, electricity and gas. As a small country, Singapore cannot escape geopolitical shocks and incidents that occur globally.

Although our economy is still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, this year's Budget has demonstrated the Government's concern to continue supporting and enhancing the capabilities of Singaporeans. Nonetheless, COVID-19 and the rising cost of living have presented even more challenges for our community, particularly in terms of access & opportunities to prepare for an uncertain future.

Last year, the Population Census report stated that the number of Malay families living in 1-room and 2-room rental flats had more than doubled over the past decade. And this is due to several factors such as the increase in the number of rental homes that are provided especially for families that need it. Each family has different needs and problems. They usually need help from various quarters, and we have to look for a holistic strategy and way.

We should engage this group more closely. Therefore, I am glad that efforts such as the Commlink and the DIAN@M3 project are available, in which the Government, agencies and volunteers can coordinate efforts to reach out to residents living in rental houses and help them achieve their dreams and a brighter future for the next generation. Social service agencies such as the South Central FSC have provided innovative and holistic approaches such as the Keystart Home Ownership where they offer assistance which includes housing mortgages and the cost of shifting to a new home.

This pandemic has also reminded us that with time and changes in technology, it is possible that the jobs we have now will no longer be relevant in the future.

A study by NTU last year showed that only 58% of women with STEM qualifications had embarked in careers in STEM-related fields, compared to 70% of men with the same qualifications. We should definitely encourage more people within our community, especially women, to venture into STEM and the growth industries. I hope the Government can open up more channels and opportunities so that our community can participate in these fields.

If we want to chart a new direction for Singapore, let us uphold our pledge to progress together, and emerge even stronger so that each generation can benefit from our nation’s progress.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a precarious balancing act, managing the needs, wants, ideals and aspirations of citizens. Singapore is no stranger to cater to these differences, while at the same time rallying our people towards common goals and purpose.

Decades ago, the idea of a multiracial, multi-religious society, was thought to be impossible given the times and our geographical context. In many ways, even today it remains an anomaly.

From increased healthcare spending to care for our seniors, to heeding the call to tackle climate change despite the increased complexities that threaten to pull us in different directions, I support the steps taken in Budget 2022 and believe we can and will find common ground to work together, despite our differences, towards progress for all.

In the words of our talented artists, Linying and Evan Low in last year’s NDP song, and do not worry, I will not scare you by singing, "Come whatever on the road ahead; We did it before, and we'll do it again."

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan See Leng.

5.38 pm

The Minister for Manpower and Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the Budget. The Minister for Finance has put out a comprehensive suite of measures in his Budget Statement. Today, I would like to speak mainly on three issues. The first is on Workfare Income Supplement, the second, to assure our business community, especially the small and medium enterprises (SMEs), of the direction and the pace of our foreign workforce policy. Finally, I would also like to address the points brought up by the Workers' Party Members on the distribution of tax burden.

First, on Workfare. Earlier in this debate, the Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Gerald Giam and Ms Jessica Tan, raised concerns about the $500 minimum income criterion for Workfare. I would like to correct the misconception that this is a cutback for lower-wage workers.

First, we estimate that around 20,000 Workfare recipients will be affected by the criterion, all of whom are casual or part-time workers.

The Leader of the Opposition has estimated that the number of affected recipients is 46,600 by referencing the number of employed residents aged 15 and above earning below $500 in 2021. This is inaccurate.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

Not all of these 46,600 qualify for Workfare due to criteria such as age, spousal assessable income and the annual value of their place of residence. So, in other words, nothing to do with the salary that they earn. Some would be students earning extra pocket money while they study or some of them are actually from higher income households. They are not the intended targets of Workfare.

Furthermore, 46,600 is based on 2021 data and does not take into account the expected wage growth from the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) expansion. And also, the new Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) requirements that would uplift many employees beyond the $500 threshold.

Should any of these 20,000 workers subsequently work more and earn more than $500 per month, they will automatically re-qualify for Workfare. Second, the $500 per month is a reasonable and achievable wage for most regular workers under our Progressive Wage Model approach. With the new LQS requirement, firms that hire foreign workers must pay all of their locals working part-time at least $9 per hour. At this wage, a part-time worker only needs to work about two working days a week to meet the $500 minimum income criterion.

Third, we also recognise that there may be some workers who want to work more, but are unable to earn $500 per month, due to their personal circumstances. This includes persons with disabilities and ComCare recipients. We will provide them concessionary Workfare payouts so that they will not be excluded from Workfare. Hence, if Ms Jessica Tan's resident requires additional financial assistance, she can apply for ComCare and if she qualifies she will receive concessionary Workfare as well.

In short, for workers who are earning less than $500, the best way to help them is to help them find a job of the appropriate quality and quantity of working hours to earn at least $500. Then, Workfare can come in to provide an additional boost to help such workers. We have a whole suite of employment facilitation programmes and initiatives, ready to assist.

Moving onto my second point that I would like to raise and that is on the foreign workforce policies.

The Minister for Finance has laid out a multi-year road map to increase the qualifying salary for Employment Passes; increase the qualifying salary and levies for S Passes; reduce the Dependency Ratio Ceiling; dismantle the Man-Year Entitlement (MYE) system and adjust levies for the Construction and Process sectors.

I will speak more when MOM’s budget is debated in a few days' time. Today, let me touch on and elaborate on our thinking behind these moves, and how we will walk with businesses through these changes.

Businesses, especially our SMEs, have expressed concern about rising costs. I want to assure SMEs that we understand these concerns and we have taken great care when designing the timing of our moves. We are well aware that if businesses do not succeed, there will not be good jobs for Singaporeans.

Besides SMEs, foreign companies are also quietly observing our moves. Even foreign publications have been speculating that Singapore is now less welcoming to talent. Members of the House, we must not allow such perceptions or such misperceptions to take root, because this will be very damaging for us.

Hence, I want to be very clear that the changes we announce are to ensure that Singapore remains open to foreigners who can complement our workforce, so that our businesses can assemble the best team of locals and foreigners to compete on the global stage. Indeed, this strategy was affirmed by the House last year.

We recognise that having foreigners working alongside us and living amongst us can cause discomfort, even some tension, amongst Singaporeans.

My assurance is that we will be vigilant in managing the social frictions that may arise from time to time. We will also guard against anti-foreigner and xenophobic sentiments. Singapore has always been a multicultural society and we intend to keep it so.

Our foreign workforce policies will have to balance the needs of businesses and workers, and this has been MOM's core guiding principle.

The announced changes to the qualifying salaries for Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass are part of this series of adjustments to maintain a balance. The wages of our local workers have risen over the years. This reflects the growth of our economy and the deepening of skills in our local workforce. This also means that the quality of the EP and S Pass holders that we bring into Singapore must go up. That is why our EP and S Pass qualifying salaries are adjusted regularly to keep pace with local wages. If we do not do so, firms may choose to hire foreigners simply because they are cheaper than locals. There will not be a level playing field. Our efforts to upskill our workforce and sharpen our business competitiveness will, therefore, be diluted.

We know that businesses would want more lead time to adjust before these changes take effect and this is exactly we have done. We announced the moves early but incorporated a long runway between the announcement and implementation dates of all of these moves. We are being transparent so that businesses have ample time to adjust and certainty to plan ahead.

Let me use the S Pass changes to explain in greater detail.

We have given businesses six months' notice for the first move to take effect. This first move will increase the qualifying salary to $3,000 for new S Pass applications. In other words, come September this year, 2022, all existing S Pass holders are still not affected – the existing ones that are here, they are still not affected. Only the new applications are affected. We will only apply the new qualifying salary 18 months later, from September 2023.

The renewals will also not all happen at the same time in September 2023. It will take another two to three years, so, up to 2026, before the last S Pass employee on the old qualifying salaries comes up for renewal.

So, in reality, businesses will have a minimum of 18 months' notice. But it could take up to four and a half years before all existing S Pass holders have to be renewed under the new rules.

The same goes for the levies. The Tier 1 levy will be gradually raised to $650 by September 2025, in not just one step but three steps. And that is around three and a half years before the changes take effect fully.

I know these adjustments, they take effort, and change is never easy. But at the same time, it is only through continuous innovation and improvement that our businesses can and will grow from strength to strength.

Rest assured that we will walk this journey with our businesses.

I am particularly mindful of the many SMEs in our economy. SMEs account for more than 70% of employment. This is a very significant proportion of employment, and they are a very important contributor to our economy. I personally know and I have also met with many SME business owners and have heard their concerns. Some are worried that they may be hit more than the multinational companies (MNCs) because they have more financial constraints. They find it more difficult to compete for workers and they are concerned that higher costs for foreign and local manpower will just mean higher business costs.

How can our SMEs make the necessary adjustments and emerge stronger?

We have been regularly and progressively making updates to our framework. Each time when we made these adjustments, SMEs have taken advantage of the support schemes that we have available to transform, to pivot and to adapt. The result is that our firms have a more sustainable and robust business model – they continue to thrive and they continue to be able to tap the labour market for their manpower needs.

With this round of changes, we will continue to support businesses. I would like to offer and submit some suggestions and share some examples of Government support that businesses may wish to tap on.

Businesses can review, of course, their wages. They can look into redesigning jobs to make jobs more productive and attractive for employees. Businesses can tap on schemes, such as the Support for Job Redesign under the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG-JR) for job redesign consultancy support to complement and drive business and workforce transformation.

In addition, businesses can expand local hiring and upskill their local workforce. The extended SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package and the Jobs Growth Incentive will continue to provide a significant boost to the hiring of locals.

Together with the tripartite partners, we will make sure that SMEs which are prepared to transform their businesses and increase local hiring will receive the support they need.

Some business owners told me that it is hard to find manpower even with the support, given that our unemployment is so low and that our labour market is tight. They say they need manpower across all levels, from the Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMET) level to the Rank-and-File (RnF) levels.

Yes, our unemployment rate is low. This is something that we are happy and very glad for. But there are still untapped sources. One such group is women outside the workforce. For a whole myriad of reasons, there are about 20% or 260,000 women aged 25 to 64 who are not in the labour force. There are vacancies across all occupational levels with varied qualifications and needs which could potentially be filled by this group.

In order to tap on this segment of our population, businesses will need to consider how the jobs they offer can be more flexible and attractive to locals. As flexible work arrangements can come in various forms and some may be more relevant for certain jobs than others, businesses can adopt the most suitable flexible work arrangements that suit their organisations' as well as their employees' needs, including for those in frontline or shift work. Some businesses are already doing so and we should press ahead as best and as fast as we can.

Some SMEs also tell me that they wish to hire at the Work Permit level to manage their manpower needs but are unable to do so because of the rules, such as source country restrictions. These rules are there for a reason. But we can find a way to offer some flexibility. It is something that MOM has been working on. I will address this at the upcoming MOM's Committee of Supply (COS) in a few days' time. And I think it will be good news.

Lastly, as we continue to refine our policy levers, we will ensure that there will not be a disproportionate impact on SMEs. For instance, there have been suggestions for the Government to look beyond qualifying salary in our Employment Pass (EP) framework, which may be a blunt tool. We have considered and taken the feedback very seriously. I will elaborate further in MOM's COS debate about how our refinements of the EP framework have taken into account the size of the firm.

We know that businesses are trying hard. They are exploring various options to transform to adjust to the changes. We know that border controls have made things more challenging. As of end January 2022, there are around 46,000 approved Work Permit holders who have yet to enter Singapore due to border controls. But with our border reopening in a calibrated manner, some of this pressure will be relieved.

This should help in the interim. But SMEs and businesses alike need to start to plan ahead on what works best for their business model and their workforce. Training and restructuring take time. So, I hope that our businesses will take a longer view on this. To support businesses in their planning, we have laid out our foreign workforce policy moves for the next few years so that businesses have greater certainty, predictability and time to adjust.

Finally, Mdm Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to also address some of the points made by the hon Members from the Workers' Party.

They oppose the Budget because of the GST increase. But they agree with the moves we are making to shore up the social compact. They accept greater Government spending. In fact, they would like us to spend even more.

I believe their position is – agree with all the good and nice things that we propose and then say, "not enough, ask for more". But what they oppose is how we intend to do the difficult thing and, that is, to raise the revenues to pay for all the good things that they like so much that they want even more.

The Workers' Party suggests that we can do away with the GST increase if we raise more taxes through other means. That is a revenue shortfall of $3.5 billion. They say, "put a heavier load on some Singaporeans" so that we do not have to have a GST increase. It sounds very simple and attractive but ask yourselves – is it really doable?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, there is a fundamental philosophical difference in our approach. Make no mistake. This Government's approach is that the rich should carry a heavier load. We are raising income taxes on the top earners, property taxes on higher value properties and the additional registration fee (ARF) for luxury cars.

That was the mantra in my colleague, the Minister for Finance's Budget speech this year. The well-off will pay more and receive less, and the less well-off will receive more and pay less. Let me repeat that. The well-off will pay more and receive less and the less well-off will receive more and pay less.

But there is a significant difference between what constitutes a fair load and what constitutes a punitive load. It is not possible to get the entire GST amount – the $3.5 billion – by loading it entirely on all those just at the very top.

Amongst the revenue options proposed by the Workers' Party, they have suggested increasing personal income tax and property tax even more. If we were to do that, we will have to raise the tax rates on income and property even more substantially and we have to make more people, including middle-income earners pay more. Why? Because it is not possible to have extremely punitive taxes on just the top 1% or the 5%.

So, the consequence is that we will have to raise income taxes for not just those at the very top but it will percolate down to our middle, our upper-middle income, including those who have benefited from our educational system, our years of social mobility, those who have toiled, who have laboured, who have worked very hard all through the years to move up from more modest circumstances.

We will have to apply higher property taxes to a larger base of properties, not just your landed properties, your Good Class Bungalows, your semi-Ds, your terrace houses, your luxury condos – which will already, by the way, see a significant increase – but it will also go to all condos, perhaps Executive Condominiums (ECs) and, perhaps, even eventually even larger HDB flats. Residents from across the country, the whole island, my residents in Marine Parade, residents in the nearby East Coast, Joo Chiat, Bukit Timah, Thomson, Upper Thomson, Bishan – you name it – Upper Bukit Timah, including even in Sengkang, in Aljunied, too. They will all be hit.

These are the people who may have to make up the difference. So, this year, this debate, the impression I took away of what the Workers' Party want is two things. One, they said loud and clear; the other may not be so loud or, perhaps, it is hidden somewhat and, perhaps, they could clarify.

Loud and clear: "I like all the nice and good things you are proposing but more will be better."

But what they are not saying, and I am baffled and, as a consequence is, "I like it that you are raising taxes on the wealthy and more of such taxes would be better". However, have they considered the burden would inevitably have to be borne and applied to a wider group and variety of Singaporeans and taxpayers?

So, the first "more", they shout from the rooftops; the second "more", relatively muted, hoping that, perhaps, people would not notice that inevitably, that could be a consequence of what they are proposing.

Deputy Speaker, we fundamentally disagree with what the Workers' Party's proposal will imply for our society. It will ultimately result in a system where our approach to revenue is just to squeeze anyone who does well from the middle-income upwards, potentially; where we tell Singaporeans, "Look, there is someone better off who can afford to take on all of the burden, you don't have to put in your share, or you don't have to put in your fair share."

That is not good nor is it sustainable for our social compact. All of us have a stake in our society and we benefit from public services and from progressive policies. In fact, those with less would get back much more than what they pay in additional GST and we give generous help to those who need the help while everyone pays something. It is both an individual and our collective responsibility.

And if we do what has been proposed and suggested, the middle-income, the upper-middle-income, those who have worked hard, who have done, perhaps, better than their parents' expectations and aspirations, they will feel betrayed.

If we take the Workers' Party's approach, we will, as a consequence, have to increasingly shift and raise the tax burden onto the middle-class. That, I believe, is the surest way to unravel and destroy our social compact and trust in our society and Singapore will not hold together.

To conclude, Mdm Deputy Speaker, it is not an easy task ahead for all of us. There are difficult things that we must do together. But as long as all of us – workers, unions, businesses, fellow citizens and Government – are prepared to play a part and work closely together with the long-term interest of Singapore and Singaporeans at heart, I believe we will continue to live long and prosper. With that, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.

6.06 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Let me just deal with some of the points raised by the Minister for Manpower. I take his point with regard to the number of workers who could be affected by the changes to the Workfare Income Supplement that a more accurate number would be 20,000, as he suggested.

Let me just come back to what the Minister for Finance said in his speech. He said, "I will introduce a minimum income criteria for Workfare at $500 a month to encourage part-timers and casual workers to take up regular full-time work". So, that seems to be the policy intent to move them into regular full-time work. Can I clarify from the Minister, even for these individuals who may continue to earn less than $500, going forward, can the Minister confirm that they still will not qualify for the Workfare Income Supplement?

And Minister spoke about concessionary Workfare. What does that entail? Is that a lesser amount of Workfare for these individuals who cannot do full-time work, which is the policy intent as it would appear from the Minister for Finance's speech, that he wants to transit these people into full-time work. Does the Minister not agree that there are individuals who just cannot do full-time work for a variety of reasons?

Minister then moved on to some other subjects and in the course of moving on to those subjects, he was drinking some water and he wet his shirt. I do not know whether that was in anticipation of some of the points he was going to make. There were some words that were used: like the Workers' Party wants to put a heavier load on Singaporeans, a fairer, a more punitive load. I think the point of our suggestions really is a more equitable load. How do you balance things in a manner which is more equitable for society, going forward, for a more fairer, more sustainable and more inclusive society? That is the thrust of what the Workers' Party had put forward.

And to just make the point Minister spoke about a number of taxes, for example, property taxes, alluding to residents in various parts of Singapore who would suffer with raised property taxes. But does the Minister not agree that there were a number of proposals put forward by the Workers' Party? And on a Monday, yesterday, a Business Times article made the point in a different way – that the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) is unlikely to hurt competitiveness and may net Singapore gains in tax revenue.

So, I think in the spirit of seeking a more equitable tax distribution, amongst various segments of society, I think the Workers' Party is fully entitled to raise alternate forms of revenue, which we have. So, I disagree with the Minister's characterisation. I also cannot understand why he is baffled because it would be in the course of this debate that the Workers' Party would propose alternate revenue sources. And you have cherry-picked some and criticised them. I think you are entitled to. But if you look at the proposals holistically, you would understand that the Workers' Party has put up alternatives for a rise in GST.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Dr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Pritam Singh for the concern on spilling water on my shirt. It was actually because of the fact that it is a new flask, I did not figure out exactly how to press the right buttons yet.

He has put up a series of questions, some of them, we will cover, for example, Workfare, in the upcoming debate under the MOM COS so I do not want to give too much of a preamble.

In terms of the individual who works and gets less than $500, the current construct is that yes, in the absence of any other things, he or she would not qualify. But there is an entire plethora of help schemes available. There are also help groups available to try to understand where the bottlenecks are in terms of them being able to get a higher income or even get to that $500 mark.

Suffice to say, the whole policy construct is to encourage, to nudge our local able-bodied Singaporeans towards gainful employment and also a higher sense of achievement.

As far as the point about the taxes, the whole crux of this was for your team to consider that what you are proposing, consequentially, could result in very, very high disproportionate burden on the top 1% to 5%, that it is not sustainable and it is punitive. And, eventually, for us to sustain it, consequentially, this would end up percolating or pervading down to the upper middle-income and eventually affecting the middle-income as well.

I am pretty sure the Minister for Finance in his round-up speech will cover more aspects of it. For the moment, I want to assure that our policies take a very measured and a very calibrated approach, designed for most people to be able to adjust and also be able to absorb some of these measures.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mdm Deputy Speaker, just to follow up on the point on the WIS. Indeed, Minister has accurately stated the policy purpose. I am sorry he did not accurately say it; you added something more to it. You said the policy construct is to nudge able-bodied Singaporeans towards gainful employment. I understand that.

What I am suggesting is that part-timers may well be able-bodied, casual workers may also be able-bodied, but for various reasons, they cannot take up full-time work. And it is in that spirit that I would forward and advance that they should not be denied the WIS. I hope the Minister can reconsider this because if the number is already smaller, less than half the number that I quoted, I think it is figure 28 of the Labour Force statistics, then all the more, the impact, the fiscal impact is even less. And if we can help this small number of workers and why should we not?

Dr Tan See Leng: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will give a bit of the preamble and then, perhaps, can I request, I think Senior Minister of State Mr Zaqy Mohamad has a response as well.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Dr Tan See Leng: I think that Mr Singh missed my point. That may be a whole myriad of reasons why able-bodied Singaporeans cannot or are not prepared to commit to just two days of work a week. But we have already started the Progressive Wage Model. We have also gotten some of the other measures to help to uplift the lower-wage workers. And many of these schemes will take effect over the coming months.

The $500 is fixed at this particular point in time. When that rising tide comes up, we will certainly see where this group of Singaporeans, who are still not affected, would fall into. I think that we can then review the policy. Just like what we have done constantly. If you look at the last few years, we have been constantly reviewing, improving and uplifting the framework. I will invite Senior Minister of State Mr Zaqy to further add to it.

The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his clarification. On the minimum income criterion, I just want to say quickly that: one, it is not meant to discount any of our lower-wage workers from receiving Workfare. When Minister Tan spoke about concessionary Workfare, what it means is that: if you are receiving ComCare, or if you qualify for ComCare, then automatically you will get Workfare as well. Even if you are a part-time worker, earning less than $500. So, that is one assurance that today.

As Minister Tan shared, the number is about 20,000. This is because with the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) coming into play, the number that Mr Pritam Singh cited will certainly reduce, because the hourly rates will go up.

And therefore, we will see less. Like the example that Deputy Speaker raised, for someone like that, if they are truly low income, if they are on ComCare, they will automatically get Workfare. I hope this clarifies.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Pritam Singh: That clarifies. Can I just confirm if they are not on ComCare, they would not get the WIS?

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Indeed, yes. So, as I shared, if you are on ComCare, means you are low income and most likely, if you are earning less than $500, part-timer, you will get it. And that extends to all our persons with disabilities too, to ensure that no one gets left behind. This separates our truly low-income part-time workers who may be constrained for whatever reason, whether caregiving or other constraints, that they are still provided assistance, not just from ComCare. Holistically, they also get Workfare.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to clarify a few points. And I understand that by peppering Minister Tan with more questions, we might end up making him yet more thirsty, but it is important, I think, to get some of the points that we made right.

I will start off by pointing out that I wonder whether he could clarify where he thinks there is such a large philosophical difference between our particular approach of raising revenue relative to that of the Government. I say this because, if you look at the four levers that we have described, only one of these – what we had called "the wealth tax" lever – actually approaches the high-income, high net worth individuals. And even within that particular scenario, we had made very modest recovery assumptions, amounting to something in the order of $1.2 billion on wealth taxes alone.

Of course, the hole is $3.5 billion and so, it is important to understand that the rest of that hole would have been met by much more broad base forms of taxation. Similarly, for the corporate taxation lever, when we made that proposal about raising the rate of corporate taxation to what would be compliant with the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) agreement, we also made very clear that the target of that would be the multinational firms and not the small and medium enterprises.

Keeping with that particular scenario, we would have kept the corporate taxation rate on them at the effective rate of 3% or so.

The reason why I think it is important to clarify that we are not philosophically seeking a very narrow tax base. We are, in fact, seeking alternative revenue levers that subscribe to the general principles of public finance, which are, as much as possible, to spread the revenue schemes in as broad a manner as possible.

But at the same time, recognising the importance, as suggested by Minister Wong in his speech, of a certain degree of fairness and equity, and that is precisely why we have some components, in fact, one third of one of our four levers, where we do include wealth taxation. I hope that clarifies and perhaps Minister Tan can clarify a little more.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Tan.

Dr Tan See Leng: Again, I thank Prof Lim as well as the Leader of the Opposition for their concerns. I am fine to take any number of questions and happy to engage because it is also good to clarify the points. As I have shared earlier on, in my speech, what the impression that we have taken in terms of where you have decided to load this is on the wealth tax portion, which seems to put a huge burden on a certain very small group of Singaporeans, and I question its sustainability.

And hence, if you noticed that in my speech, I said consequentially, this will eventually end up having to be more spread out, in terms of having to be borne by more people.

In terms of the philosophical differences, therefore my point to perhaps Assoc Prof Lim and the Workers' Party is that: do they now, having heard our explanation, decide that they support the GST hike and support the Budget.

The other point is that Minister Wong will address a number of your points in his round-up speech tomorrow.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Madam, I think I understand the policy intent of encouraging able-bodied people to work more, but has the Government done studies on what they think would be the best way, or what would be the best way to achieve this policy intent? How did it arrive at the conclusion that imposing a $500 minimum income would encourage, rather than discourage, them from working?

Because to me, it seems to fly against the logic of the WIS which is the whole purpose of the WIS is to supplement the income of low-wage workers, so that they would be encouraged to work more. So, why would you have a cut-off such that the lowest income workers are not encouraged in that way to work more. And if the Government is still intent on keeping this $500 dollar minimum, can I get an assurance from the Minister that the Government will adopt a more flexible approach to take into account the various constraints faced by workers that prevent them from earning more than $500 dollars.

For example, some may have caregiving responsibilities who just cannot spare the time to work, to earn more than $500 dollars a month, or to work more than two days a week. So, can this group of people be extended some flexibility so that they can also get Workfare?

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Zaqy.

6.25 pm

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his question. So, I responded earlier and as I responded to Leader of Opposition, every low-wage worker who is working part-time, who is also receiving ComCare, will get Workfare. Whether there is a bar or not, as long as you are low-income, part-time, working and getting a sum less than $500, you will get Workfare. So, to some extent, I hope that clarifies and responds to the Member's question.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I am sorry, Senior Minister of State, I do not quite understand how those who earn less than $500 will get Workfare still. Can you explain a bit more please?

Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State Zaqy.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: As what I have shared that as part of the concession given, for as long as you are low-income, you get ComCare, you will get Workfare. So, that differentiates our low-income workers from the casual workers who may not necessarily come from low-income households. There is a difference. And also, from some of those who are doing vacation jobs and so forth, this puts a differentiation and puts our focus on our social compact that you are low-income, and you need the money, you would not be left behind. I hope that answers.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Okay, we will move on. Leader.

Debate resumed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Just a quick one, it is not a clarification. Just to confirm with the Minister, the understanding that he had of the WP's alternate proposals are incorrect. And we will clarify in the course of Minister's wrap-up speech, depending of what Minister for Finance says. It is just important for me to put that on the record, because otherwise the media may interpret your interpretations of what we are proposing to be correct. And I just want to put it on record that it is not correct.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Dr Shahira Abdullah.

6.28 pm

Dr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, this year's Budget has brought to focus on the worries Singaporeans have regarding the rising cost of living and their ability to cope with it. Official statistics taken from MAS and MTI indicate that Singapore's core inflation in January rose to 2.4% on a year-on-year basis, the highest level in more than nine years. This increasing inflation rate is contributed in no small part by the cost of food, electricity and gas in our country brought about by supply chain disruptions caused by the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic.

Now, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine causing the prices of oil and natural gas to skyrocket, as well as imminent threat of further global supply chains disruptions occurring down the road, Singaporeans are no doubt worried that the cost of living will continue to increase to a level greater than they can grapple with.

This worry has also trickled down to the youths: "Will I be able to earn enough in future to keep up with these increases?", "Am I reskilling or upskilling enough so I can earn better wages?", "Can I support my family?" These are just some questions that the youths ask. And lastly, "how do we ensure those more vulnerable are not left behind?"

This Budget's theme, "Charting Our New Way Forward Together", demonstrates that everyone has a part to play for us to progress as a country. This Budget is noteworthy, because it tries to uphold the values of care and inclusivity. This Budget introduces measures to ensure that those with more contribute more, to help build a more balanced society.

For example, I am highly encouraged by the recent moves to increase the personal income tax, property tax and luxury car tax levied on the more well-off in Singapore. It sends a strong signal that Singapore wants to re-distribute its wealth and reduce wealth inequality. More importantly, it sends a signal that Singapore priorities efforts to ensure that our social mobility framework remains agile.

It is a good start and one that I am sure was only made after careful research and calibration. While the wealthy should not be made to shoulder the entire of the society's tax burden, at the same time, it is only equitable for those with more to also contribute greater to the society they have benefited from.

I do hope these measures are but the beginnings of a more progressive tax system in Singapore. As the Minister stated in his Budget speech, "Everyone chips in and contributes to a vibrant economy and strengthened social compact, but those with greater means contribute a larger share."

The COVID-19 pandemic has already affected low-income families in rental housing disproportionately compared to the rest of the population. The Singapore Longitudinal Early Development Study, published in November 2021, found that lower-income families were hit the hardest by the pandemic due to the economic impact, job losses, struggles with adapting to work-from-home and home-based learning as well as social distancing measures, affecting them physically and mentally. The combination of rising costs driven by this period of heightened inflation and the newly announced GST increase will hit the low-income families hard.

I am therefore heartened to see that this Budget has boosted social support for Singaporeans, especially those from the low-income. The Budget promises a top-up of the ComCare Fund by $5 million over five years, with another $12 million awarded over four years to self-help groups to better support low-income families.

I am also heartened that the GST Voucher (GSTV) will remain to help defray some of the cost of living and that the assessable income threshold for GSTV will be increased to enable more Singaporeans to qualify for the rebates. However, I would like to enquire if the Government will be prepared to reconsider how it awards the GSTV. Currently, GSTV is only awarded after review of both assessable income and the annual value of recipients' property. It is also only awarded to Singapore citizens aged 21 years and above. This ignores the fact that residents of houses with identical annual values may have vastly different financial needs and require greater rebates based on the number of household members and children under 21, who maybe residents.

In the same vein, would the Government also be relooking at the eligibility criteria of each social welfare scheme, especially in the backdrop of rising costs? If it is assessed that it is not the time for such a review, then would there be clearer guidance of when the Government will decide to review the eligibility criteria and amount of benefits under each social welfare scheme?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Malay, there is a proverb, "Hati gajah sama dilapah, hati kuman sama dicecah". When there is more, everyone will get more, when there is less, everyone will get less.

Scaffolding vulnerable groups are something youths also feel strongly about. The National Youth Council's regular sentiment polling showed that in the area of supporting vulnerable populations, the top issues youths feel need to be addressed include the empowerment and social safety nets for lower-income communities; the rights, treatment and policies for migrant workers; and capability development and empowerment of persons-with-disabilities.

In this regard, I wish to highlight that the migrant worker population is set to be more vulnerable than ever to the effects of the rising costs and GST increases. The GST increase will affect them from the onset and at the same time, they will not be able to qualify for the GST Vouchers. They are also less able to adapt to these increases due to their low wages and debt. They do need help.

The migrant workers have been integral in our nation-building. Our streets, houses and skyscrapers are built by them. Does the Government have any plans on reviewing the social support schemes to ensure that their well-being is also looked after?

For the persons-with-disabilities, I am pleased that we are launching the Enabling Masterplan 2030 and am looking forward to hearing more details about it.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will now speak of the environment. In this Budget, Singapore has taken a bold move forward and it is something I support. In terms of carbon taxes, aiming to increase it to $80 per tonne in 2030. This may inevitably lead to the rise of electricity bills and coupled with the effect of inflation, many families and businesses are concerned about how they can cope. It is comforting that additional U-save rebates will be provided to cushion this transition. However, as seen by how electricity prices may be affected by many factors, recently by geopolitical changes, could I ask if the Government is considering more support for households and businesses if the electricity bills increase more than expected?

Likewise, green technologies are more expensive in the short-term. As Minister Fu answered in my Parliamentary Question in the last sitting, and I quote, "Green products and services may cost a bit more. But in a competitive market, businesses will compete to provide consumers with the most value-for-money products and services. As sustainable products and services become more mainstream, economies of scale could bring down costs." This means, however, that, in the meantime, costs will trickle down to consumers. Will there be monitoring on how the costs are trickling down to consumers, similar to the safeguards and monitoring that will take place by the Committee against Profiteering for the GST hikes?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, another issue of importance that I would also like to bring up is mental health. The rising cost of living may lead to greater mental anxiety and strain among Singaporeans about the future. This is exacerbated with the impact of the pandemic on mental health. A new study by BMJ suggests that catching the COVID-19 virus increases the risk of developing mental health problems such as anxiety, depression, stress and adjustment and substance use disorders. As you know, as significant proportion of our population is infected with the virus.

It is significant that a Minister mentioned mental health and the inter-agency task force for mental health in the Budget. It signals the seriousness of the Government to tackle the issue and its recognition that all segments of the society have mental health needs.

Our SG Mental Health Matters, which is a community of mental health policy advocates, comprising individuals who also have lived experiences of mental health challenges, recently advocated for a whole-of-Government approach to mental well-being. I agree with this approach as it would consolidate all efforts between Ministries, public agencies, social service agencies and ground-up initiatives to plan for the short, medium and long term more effectively. Can we therefore go one step further from a transient inter-agency task force, to the formation of a permanent mental well-being office under PMO, such as one inspired by SNDGO?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, it seems that there are many concerns facing Singaporeans. The youths may be especially worried about their future. Even before the pandemic, Singapore youths were already concerned about job prospects, the climate crisis, inequality and mental health. The World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2021 also showed a worsening of mental health since the start of the pandemic, leaving youths vulnerable to depression, anxiety and disillusionment.

In China, we have the "lying flat" movement. Though I do not think Singaporean youths are at this stage yet, how do we prevent this from happening and wearing out the potential of our youths? Especially when bad news seems to come from all sides?

I hope that the youths can find comfort that this Budget demonstrates how the Government places importance on improving social mobility and reducing inequality in the rapidly changing global economy.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, even with all the disruptions facing Singapore and the world, in my engagements with youths, I discovered something else: hope. Hope and optimism that together as one Singapore, when we make the effort to look out for one another, regardless of our differences, we can make sure that no one gets left behind.

There is a common Malay Saying, "Berat sama dipikul, ringan sama dijinjing". It means when we face challenges, we surmount them together, because together we are stronger. Together, even the greatest of challenges make light work. This is exemplified by a "pantun" written by then 12-year-old Iman Solihin Bin Mohamad Fariq which won an SG50 poetry competition.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The first quatrain (pantun) refers to the student himself, who, when asked where he was from, he replied proudly that he was from Singapore. In the second quatrain, he describes Singapore as a peaceful and prosperous country, where all the communities get along with one another.

The final quatrain is a declaration of his love for his motherland and his readiness to sacrifice everything for Singapore.

(In English): Therefore in these times of uncertainty, I would like to say to the youths, have courage. As it takes courage of heart, will, mind and spirit to face the headwinds of tomorrow. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

6.40 pm

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Madam, last year, I spoke about our social compact. So, I am glad to hear the Finance Minister say that this year's Budget is "a first step in renewing and strengthening our social compact".

"Renewing and strengthening our social compact", precise choice of operative words and a profoundly important aspiration. And today, I wish to offer three key reflections.

First, a renewed and strengthened social compact must be about the state playing an even more activist role in healthcare, to ensure quality and affordability for all. And we have to find a way to fund this.

Over the years, we have invested billions in our public healthcare system. Because we have decided early on, that quality and affordable healthcare would be a key pillar in our social compact in Singapore. And because we cannot rely only on the free market to achieve this, the Government has been playing an activist role.

To have kept that commitment and stayed the course, investing billion after billion, year after year, this is something that should not be taken for granted. Yet, as we look ahead, we need to do even more.

This is because our future healthcare challenges will be different and amidst these challenges, Singapore must continue to be a nation where all Singaporeans can aspire to take good care of their parents while providing the best for their children and where every Singaporean can have basic peace of mind for him or herself.

More advanced diagnostics and therapeutics are becoming what we call standard care. Take total knee replacements (TKRs), for example. These can drastically improve quality of life, as patients who have actually gone through TKRs would know. And TKRs are indeed becoming more and more common. But the real cost of a TKR is thousands of dollars. The question is, how can we help all Singaporeans who need a TKR and opt for one in future to afford it?

Take cancer, as another example. In my House Visits, I have met many residents, either in remission, or even on active treatment and management. They show that it is now possible to live well with cancer, because of incredible advances in cancer care. But again, there is a real and high cost. How can we help all Singaporeans and their caregivers and their loved ones, afford such life-giving care, if cancer finds them one day?

There are many other examples. Inevitably, with many more seniors with advances in standard care. In the years ahead, we must spend much more on healthcare. Billions more. And so based on that scale of what is needed, some levers of revenue generation, on their own, are simply not going to be enough.

In this Budget, the Government is sharply increasing tax on the highest-end properties, but this will only raise a few hundred million more each year, not the billions that we need.

Realistically, two key levers that can meet our needs come to mind: one, GST; and two, the contribution of returns from investing our reserves, or what we call NIRC.

A higher NIRC means we take more of the investment returns to spend today and plough less of these returns back into future investments for future returns to benefit future generations. Today, the NIRC rate is 50% and if we increase NIRC to say 60%, we can raise enough to fully fund future healthcare. This was a specific suggestion by Mr Louis Chua yesterday, who by the way, I think made a very good and insightful speech. So, increase NIRC to 60%, rather than raise GST. That is the suggestion.

And I have heard a compelling argument for this. It goes like this: "The younger generation wants to earn its own keep and is capable of earning its own keep. And so the money available today, let the older generation spend it and make full use of it, today. No need to save it for us. No need for the older generation to leave anything behind." Many kids today would tell their parents the same.

But parents will want to leave something behind for their children. It is who parents are. It is a basic instinct, a basic desire. Parents want to gift a legacy for their children.

And, in my view, it should be the same for a country's finances. Each generation must want to leave something behind for generations that follow. Our forefathers have left much behind for us. It is the most precious thing and Singaporeans should carry this on.

So, I think the current 50-50 formula for our NIRC is just right and we should resist the urge to spend more of NIR today, leaving less for tomorrow.

On the other hand, for GST, because and only because of the specific way in which GST has been designed here in Singapore, I believe that increasing GST is the fairest way for us to raise the revenues that we need.

It is the fairest way because a large proportion of GST – more than half of GST – is paid not by the average Singaporean but by foreigners working and living here, by tourists visiting Singapore and by a minority of Singaporeans who spend more.

So, all of them contribute to most of the GST. We then take some of this to return back to most other Singaporeans a portion, if not all, of the GST that they pay and, whatever GST revenue is left for the Government in this way, the net GST revenue, we spend on healthcare for all Singaporeans.

In other words, if we look beyond the theoretical nature of consumption tax as being regressive and an undue burden to the middle- and low-income, if we look at the specific design of GST here, where non-Singaporeans and a small portion of Singaporeans, some high-spending Singaporeans, pay most of the tax that we then use to benefit all Singaporeans and, when we return the GST paid by the middle- and lower-income to make the tax effectively progressive, if we look beyond the theory and recognise the uniquely Singapore design of GST here, in practice, we can conclude that it actually works for all Singaporeans.

Therefore, we should really be looking at our GST system as a lever of first resort in our fiscal toolkit, rather than a lever of last resort, as it is being framed, I think, from time to time in this House.

To be clear, I am not saying that we cannot and should not do more on other levers like personal and corporate income taxes. Mr Louis Chua has also raised salient points about these and I agree with him. We can do more and I do hope that the Government will do more in good time.

But my basic point is to let us look at all our revenue levers as a whole mix and recognise that we are already moving on property and personal income taxes as part of this mix but, at the same time, higher GST must also be an essential part of the same mix. In fact, because of the way in which we have designed it, GST should be a lever of first rather than last resort in the mix.

Getting this consensus right is important for our renewed and strengthened social compact. Madam, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In this year's Budget, what attracted the most attention is the GST hike. If we were to analyse the pros and cons of this move, we must first understand the fundamentals of our unique GST system. Under this system, many of those who pay GST are foreigners and tourists. GST collected from them are also a big chunk of the total tax revenue.

Hence, our GST system is a two-pronged one. First, it gets substantial tax revenue from non-Singaporeans; second, they are spent on Singaporeans, especially in healthcare.

Therefore, our GST system is on the side of Singaporeans. It is our friend, not foe. Coupled with the Government's support measures, the impact on lower- and middle-income Singaporeans will be minimised.

(In English): Madam, my second reflection is that in this social compact, those with more will be contributing even more to support those with less even more strongly. The higher taxes on property, luxury vehicles and top individual earners send a strong signal that, in our social compact going forward, those with more will contribute even more. At the same time, those with less will get even stronger support than before.

In terms of cushioning the impact of GST, this Budget provides both transitional and permanent support which, when added up, amounts to a very significant level of support, perhaps, the most in our fiscal history.

I did the sums. Based on MOF's example, for a typical lower-income family – a couple with two young children in a 3-room flat, the husband the sole breadwinner – they will receive $5,010 under the Assurance Package from 2022 to 2026.

But this is only the transitional support. If we include enhancements to the GST Voucher scheme, which is permanent and permanently helps Singaporeans with higher GST, then, for the same period from 2022 to 2026 alone, the couple will receive an additional $1,800 in GST Voucher cash. Actually, the absolute cash amount is more than $1,800 but the incremental alone is $1,800, thanks to enhancements to the scheme. And on top of that, around $590 in Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) rebates, which have also been made a permanent feature of GST Vouchers.

So, transitional support and permanent enhancements combined, this typical family will receive additional support totaling almost $7,400 over the next five years. Very significant.

Another example – an elderly couple, retired, in a 3-room flat. The total additional support they will receive for the next five years comes up to $9,200 – very, very significant and I think a very strong signal of how we are strengthening our support for those with less.

Another major move is enhanced Workfare. Workfare is effectively a negative income tax for those at the bottom. It makes our personal income tax regime highly progressive and what this Budget does is to enhance Workfare to make the overall regime even more progressive.

Specifically, a 50-year-old getting $2,500 per year in Workfare support today will get $3,600 per year in future; a 30-year-old young worker who has not been eligible for Workfare today will get $2,100 per year in future; and all persons with disabilities under the age of 44 who have been getting $1,700 per year today at the lowest tier of Workfare support will, in future, get the highest tier of support at $4,200 per year. These are major advancements for those with less.

In fact, coupled with the Progressive Wage Model, which, essentially, is about getting the whole of society to chip in to supplement and uplift wages at the bottom, when this Progressive Wage Model works alongside Workfare by the Government, the combined boost in gross wages for our lowest-wage workers will be almost $1,000 every month by 2025.

This is, in my view, an overdue but nonetheless decisive move that will profoundly transform jobs and lives at the bottom and form a key part of our renewed social compact.

On this note, I also urge the Government to consider raising the chargeable income ceiling for the zero-rated personal income tax bracket from $20,000 today to $30,000 in a future Budget to ensure that our tax regime continues to keep pace with wage developments and stay progressive.

Madam, my last reflection is that a renewed and strengthened social compact is not and cannot be about asking only those with more to contribute. It cannot be about "what can you give to me" because all of us, we, are in this together.

So, while those with more will contribute even more in future, we must be careful not to take it to the extreme. We will have a very different ethos if we devolve into a state of "what can or should you do for me".

Hence, everyone pays GST and we put in place large transfers to achieve net effects but the same GST rate applies to everyone in the first instance rather than a tiered system or a system of exemptions by segments, by categories, at the outset. I think it sends an essential signal that, in the first instance, we are all in this together.

A related issue here is rising prices. Cost of living is a very real concern and, yes, a small minority of businesses may be using GST as a pretext to raise prices, perhaps, even ahead of the hike itself.

But the reality is there are many other forces, apart from GST, pushing prices up. In fact, there are many businesses as well who are trying their best to absorb what they can even as they have no choice but to pass on some of the costs to consumers by charging higher prices.

We are all in this together.

So, I hope that, on cost of living concerns, all of us – consumers, businesses, workers, the Government – can recognise the part that everyone else is playing to help address the problem. And I urge the Government to continue monitoring the situation closely and provide decisive support, as necessary, even beyond this Budget.

But let us start with all of us seeing the cost of living issue objectively and quite apart from GST factors because, ultimately, we have to refrain from making GST a strawman or a convenient scapegoat stopping us from doing what we ought to do as a people.

We can address both GST and rising prices with separate appropriate measures and this is what this Budget has done exactly.

Madam, to conclude, I have laid out how in renewing and strengthening our social compact, healthcare will remain central, and why raising GST in our uniquely Singapore design is the fairest way ahead and how, while those with more will contribute even more, ultimately, we all need to be in this together.

Actually, on further reflection, another key phrase by the Finance Minister struck me and, that is, that this Budget is the "first step". So, it means there are more steps to come. What steps then? We may ask.

Well, it may be future policy moves in the same direction. But I believe that a key step or, indeed, steps going forward, must be the discourse that we have on these very important issues. The discourse, the process, beyond policy pronouncements, are key steps ahead in renewing and strengthening our social compact.

As fellow Members have said, it will show who we are and what we value.

To this end, I hope our discourse ahead can be based on facts where we explain and correct misconceptions where we must, instead of propagating and reinforcing these. I hope our discourse ahead will recognise and be rooted in our own local context where examples of other countries are thoughtfully analysed and interpreted. Above all, I hope our discourse ahead will seek to elevate us collectively to an ever more mature, more inclusive democracy.

Raising taxes is one of the hardest things to do for any Government. If the alternatives are really so straightforward, this Government must be mad to want to press on with GST. I think Singaporeans understand, deep down, that all options have been fully considered and raising GST is necessary – alongside other levers, of course, but raising GST is necessary.

So, let us focus our discourse ahead, our next steps, on how we can make this work, on what else we can do, on how we can all play a part, using this Budget as a “first step”. And that, I think, will make for a truly renewed and strengthened social compact that all Singaporeans can be proud of. Madam, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Parliamentary Secretary Mr Eric Chua. Sorry, hold on. Mr Leon Perera.

7.00 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Just a very quick clarification. I thank Mr Xie Yao Quan for his speech. I just wanted to ask a clarification on one point. Mr Xie said that we seek to leave behind something for the next generation and he spoke about the NIR ceiling, and he made a few very interesting points. I just wanted to ask him if he would acknowledge that if we have a 50% cap on the NIR contribution, that is, a cap of 50% that can be taken into the Budget every year, would the hon Member acknowledge that if we increase that cap from 50% to 60%, for example, there is still 40% that goes into the reserves and that gets compounded so that, therefore, you are not actually decreasing the reserves. You are just increasing the reserves at a slower rate and you still will leave behind something more to the next generation, because that amount gets compounded and compounded as the years go by. So, in other words, I am just asking is there anything magical, is there some special methodology that leads us to say that 50% is the Goldilocks zone, that it is exactly right, but 60% is irresponsible or 65% is irresponsible and so on. That is my clarification. Thank you.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Xie.

Mr Xie Yao Quan: Madam, I thank the Member for his clarification. I will keep this short in the interest of time. I listened to Prof Hoon Hian Teck yesterday and he spoke about every society having to find its own judgement about where is the sweet spot. And, so, to Mr Perera's question, I think it is really a question of judgement. And if we look at the entire revenue mix, our NIRC rate now as it currently stands of 50/50 is, in my view, the right balance and we should look at other revenue levers in the first instance. Thank you.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Parliamentary Secretary Mr Eric Chua.

7.02 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua): Mdm Deputy Speaker, Budget 2022 hits the refresh button on the social contract that Singaporeans have with our country, our home. Through the Budget, we seek to achieve a more equitable distribution of finite resources we have so that those who need more help, get the assistance they need; and those who can afford to spare some help, do so.

Enough has been said about how, in Singapore, our people are our only resource. While I applaud the focus on strengthening our social compact, we can do much more for our young people. Every youth has potential. And this applies equally to youths who are on the fringes of social norms and the law, many of whom would come from the more vulnerable segments of our society.

I would like to speak on two broad trends of (a) youth sexual offending, and (b) youth attitudes towards drugs.

The overall number of youth offenders has fallen by 43% in the past decade. In numerical terms, that translates to 4,174 in 2010, to 2,367 in 2020. The overarching statistics look dandy but there has been a worrying upward trend in the number of youth offenders who committed outrage of modesty and rape offences between 2016 and 2020. More specifically, from 109 cases in 2016 to 162 in 2020. What drives our young people to commit these offences?

A 2015 study of 168 male youth sex offenders provided glimpses to better understand the motivations behind youth sexual offending in Singapore. The study notes that the most common motivation behind youth sexual offending in Singapore appeared to be attempts at “seeking pleasure”. While there are no surprises here, given adolescence is often associated with exploration, sensation-seeking and impulse activity, we need to better understand the potential triggers behind such offences.

All in all, the devil is in the details. There are plenty we do not yet comprehend. What are other contributing factors that feed the youth’s impulse to commit a sexual offence? For instance, how does the consumption of pornographic material impact our youths' behaviours? Singapore is a hyperconnected digital city. Being digital natives who navigate the virtual world with perhaps much more ease than those amongst us who are digital migrants, the risks and dangers that our youths face are real.

A recent study by Google found that at eight years of age, the Singaporean child is among the youngest in the world to receive his or her own first Internet device. Couple that with a study by social service agency, Touch Cyber Wellness, which found in a recent survey of over 800 youths aged 13 to 15 that as many as 50% of those surveyed have watched or read sexually explicit materials, and some were as young as seven when they were first exposed to such materials.

On a related note, how many amongst us Asian parents have the courage to start the conversation with our children about the birds and the bees? Members will agree that, for many parents, the butterflies that such conversations bring to our stomachs, probably means that many will choose to shun it completely.

Our youths' interactions with sexually explicit materials and how families choose to deal with this awkward issue are but only a couple of slices in what is a complex, multi-dimensional but, unfortunately, little understood issue. And we will need to invest much more to better understand this nascent trend, so that we can better design appropriate upstream interventions.

Our youths’ liberal attitude towards drugs is also a cause for concern. Between 2016 and 2020, a noticeable uptrend in the total number of youth drug abusers was observed. This number rose from 277 in 2016 to 376 in 2019. The dip observed for 2020 to 305 could have been a function of border closures and movement restrictions brought about by the pandemic and that could have impacted supply and demand. Anecdotally, my conversations with both youths and youth workers have been alarming, as many shared how "soft" or recreation drugs were being pushed in venues familiar to our youths. A 2015/2016 survey by the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA) also found that, over the years, youths were increasingly permissive when it came to drugs.

Such a trend, though concerning, should perhaps not come as a surprise. Globally, attitudes towards drug use have been shifting. Our digitally savvy youths consume a vast amount of what they know about the world through social networking sites. A 2017 Youth and Public Perception survey by NCADA found that, amongst youths aged 13 to 21, 16% “were open to trying drugs for a new experience, if they are overseas or if it does not affect their daily routine”. Clearly, youth attitudes towards drugs appear to be slowly but steadily liberalising.

But make no mistake. There is nothing soft about soft drugs like methamphetamine, otherwise known as ice, glass, crystal or cannabis, otherwise known as marijuana, pot, grass, weed. These substances are not less addictive, nor are they less harmful, as many young abusers misunderstand. The Central Narcotics Bureau’s preventive drug education programmes have reached out to youths both within and outside of schools. Despite our best efforts, how else can we drive home the message amongst youths of the harms that drug abuse brings? This is, hence, a second area of concern for which, I propose, we will need to resource more heavily in the coming year, so that we do not lose our younger generations to the scourge of drugs.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I do not purport to have any quick answers to the two broad youth trends I have highlighted above, but our response will have to be one that is not merely led by the Government alone. To ensure that our young ones do not fall prey to the perils of drugs and sexual offending, our response must be one that involves a much deeper understanding and appreciation of our youths’ psyche, a coordinated and deliberate movement across society to combat these ills afflicting our future generations and an openness in evolving our approaches to engage and empower our young people.

Notwithstanding the points I had raised above, I support the Budget.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

7.10 pm

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon Finance Minister for a very well-thought through Budget 2022, which balances dealing with immediate needs and preparing for future challenges and opportunities. Several parts of the Budget deal with developing our manpower resources to ensure we remain competitive, as well as how we can uplift our lower-wage workers. My speech will centre on two key themes: first, ensuring that our workforce remains motivated and enterprising, and making sure we level up the working conditions of and opportunities for our lower-wage workers.

There has been an inexorable global drive by employees to seek work-life harmony. This has dominated the headlines recently. Employees, especially new job entrants and younger workers, are drawn to workplaces that offer flexible work arrangements, like work-from-home and compressed work weeks, and that can guarantee freedom from work considerations outside of contracted working hours. It has even been suggested in this House that we consider implementing a four-day work week and the right to disconnect.

This move to find workplaces that are more accommodative of workers’ personal pursuits and aspirations has been called the “Great Resignation” or the “Great Re-alignment”. A 2021 talent trends report by Michael Page indicated that 56% of Singapore workers see themselves searching for new jobs post-pandemic. Although the statistics bear out that this may not have happened yet, it appears that the trends underlying the Great Re-alignment are likely to become the new norm. To give effect to such aspirations, the Government has, amongst other things, introduced the Tripartite Advisory for Work-Life Harmony and instituted an Alliance for Action for Work-Life Harmony.

Madam, I fully support these initiatives that help employers adopt good and progressive employment practices. It is, however, easier for larger corporations and those with deeper pockets to put in place work-life harmony initiatives. SMEs may need to be more creative since – and this is something that Minister Tan See Leng mentioned earlier – they have less resources and could do with experts assisting them to design and implement such measures. In this regard, I would like to suggest that Enterprise Singapore’s Enterprise Development Grant include work life harmony as a specific fundable area, so that SMEs can avail of the grant to help them formulate work-life harmony programmes for their employees.

Notwithstanding my support of these initiatives, I have some reservations on how we are approaching work-life harmony and this has to do with, first, how we can continue to encourage high performance and, second, how it applies to lower-wage workers.

I read a recent survey by recruitment agency Randstad Singapore that showed that an equal number of respondents ranked “work-life balance” and “attractive salary and benefits” as the most important employee value proposition they looked for in an employer. In other words, employees’ expectations are to find a workplace that offers both work-life balance and an attractive salary and benefits. This is, of course, aspirational and, on the face of it, it is a good aspiration.

However, there will always be workers who wish to do more, to go the extra mile, who take additional pride in their work and desire to do a good job. Sometimes, this may take them beyond their working hours. I refer to these people, Madam, as “dedicated workers”.

There are also workers who upend and buck the trend of work-life harmony, who are willing to forgo their benefits and their rights. They are ambitious, driven and committed to achieve and surpass their organisation’s goals. They want to do more because they want more. They are hungry and their professional goals have become their personal goals. I refer to these people, borrowing a phrase from professional sports, as “elite performers”.

Both these types of workers go beyond their contractual obligations and they do so not because they are asked to or because they are pressured to. They do it out of a sense of responsibility and commitment to their job roles. They still feel that they have work-life harmony, just perhaps a different form, because work-life harmony means different things to different people.

As we move towards balanced workplaces, we need to make sure that, inadvertently, these dedicated workers and elite performers are not discouraged from wanting to be the best and, if they wish to forgo their rights and benefits, we should not judge them, dissuade them or, even worse, ridicule them. Importantly, we must not allow a culture to develop that is against hard work and hard workers.

A case in point is the varied reception that Twitter's new CEO Parag Agrawal received when he announced that he would be taking "a few weeks of paternal leave" after the birth of his second child. Twitter offers its employees up to 20 weeks of paternal leave. Many applauded him, seeing his move as helping to normalise the taking of paternal leave. But there were some who questioned why he had taken only a few weeks and not the full 20 weeks he was entitled to; and others yet who criticised him when he said he would still be taking meetings while he was on leave and keeping up with the company's business. It is almost as if the responsibility and dedication to his work was being vilified.

Now to be clear, I am not saying that everyone should strive to be an elite performer. A recent article on Rice Media titled "Everyone's Progressing, but I Lack Ambition. Is That So Wrong?", carried a quote as follows: "Just because I'm not ambitious doesn't mean I'm lazy or lagging behind. I don't need a big house, for example. I don't need to travel the world too. If I'm earning enough and happy, it's my choice". Madam, I agree with this and indeed, it is everyone's right to make choices about how they want to live their lives and how they want to structure their relationship with their jobs. And this is equally so for elite performers and dedicated workers.

But the difference may be felt ultimately in promotions and increments, and employees who decide to enjoy the fullness of their benefits should temper their expectations. This is not because they are being punished – it is because it is fair, just and equitable to reward dedicated workers and to reward elite performers. The hard truth is that those who do more, especially if it exceeds expectations or contractual obligations, will get more. And yes, this will inevitably spark others who also want to get ahead to go the extra mile. What is important is for employers to put in place mechanisms to prevent their elite employers and dedicated workers from burning out or suffering from mental health issues arising from work. But employers and peers should never hold them back.

As regards to elite performers, we must make special effort to identify, nurture and promote them. They pull their organisations forward; in the private sector, they drive profit and growth, attract and keep clients, and they help to create more jobs. They include business leaders, entrepreneurs, admin service officers in the Government, senior counsels. They include Razer CEO Tan Min-Liang, Singapore's youngest self-made billionaire, who recounted at a Singapore Management University commencement ceremony that he was spurred on by his parents who told him that he needed to just go get what he wanted out of life through hard work, attention to detail and responsibility. They include Carousell CEO Quek Siu Rui who has said that he had not taken a holiday in years due to his obsession with his work and with doing things well and good.

For a country that has nothing but people as our resources, we need these captains of performance to continue to be motivated, to continue to push the boundaries and ultimately to expect, see and feel the rewards of their hard work. And while we raise awareness about the importance of balance and mental health, an extremely critical endeavour, we should not forget to concomitantly celebrate our elite performers, to fortify them and to recognise them.

This is because their successes are the successes of their organisations and ultimately, of Singapore. While striving for work-life harmony, we should not lose our culture of meritocracy and our system of meritorious rewards. In this regard, I am happy to hear Minister Wong’s announcement of the new Singapore Global Executive Programme and I trust that our elite performers will be identified to be involved in it.

Separately, I call on the Action for Alliance for Work-Life Harmony and TAFEP to consider how to make sure that even as we adopt work-life harmony principles as norms at our workplaces, we do not at the same time unwittingly discourage elite performers and dedicated workers from putting in hard work and effort, and rising above the rest nor should we allow a culture of complacency and adversity to work to foster, because Singapore cannot afford it.

I will now move on, Madam, to my next points on lower-wage workers, before which I declare my interest as President of the Security Association Singapore.

The narrative on work-life harmony is weighted towards flexible work arrangements. This is more suited to office workers and those whose work can be done remotely. We need to consider the work-life harmony of employees who are in jobs that require them to be at their workplace, many of whom are essential workers like nurses, or in lower paying jobs like bus captains, cleaners and security officers.

In particular, Madam, I would like to raise the issue of the unearthly working hours of security officers, who generally work 12 hours a day, six days a week. I raised this last year, but I feel compelled to raise it again this year.

Security agencies, who are the employers of security officer, can only do so much to change the norm of 12-hour work shifts, because as an outsourced service, supply follows demand. Hence, if a buyer stipulates 12-hour work shifts, that is all that an agency can bid for. Most security contracts in both the private and public sector are based on 12-hour shifts.

We need to seriously think about whether this pattern of work is reasonable. Put ourselves in an officer's shoes. Her shift starts at 8.00 am. If we cater one and a half hours for her to wash up, have her breakfast and commute to work, it means she has to wake up at 6.30 am. She ends her shift at 8.00 pm. By the time she gets home, it is 9.00 pm. If she has young children, she has barely an hour or less of time with them before they go to sleep. After she has her dinner, spent time with her family and done some chores, she goes to bed at 12.00 am. If she needs more time for these things, she sleeps later. This routine then continues, Madam, for the next six days before she has one day off and this day off may well be a weekday.

So, Madam, amidst all this hullaballoo about work-life harmony, where is the work-life harmony for this security officer? Where is the work-life harmony for the 50,000 security officers who live this life right now? In fact, more than 50,000 if we consider ad hoc workers and many of them, Madam, older workers.

So, the private sector will take some convincing to move away from 12-hour shifts because it involves costs. In this regard, I would like to ask the Government, as one of the largest buyers of security services, to take the lead by changing the working hours for security officer in all Government tenders to eight to 10-hour shifts. This will have a knock-on effect on the shift durations for security officers in the private sector.

Achieving work-life harmony for our lower-wage workers means challenging and changing their working conditions. The chief issue in working conditions for security officers is that of unreasonable working hours. I plead, Madam, that as we take steps towards achieving better work-life harmony generally, that our security officers, low-wage workers and older workers are not left behind.

Another group that may be left out in this drive to improve working conditions and work-life harmony are workers in outsourced services. These are sectors where workers do not work at their employer's premises, but at third party sites that their employers are contracted to supply manpower. As such, these employers do not have much control over their employees' physical working conditions. Working conditions and how these outsourced workers are treated are dictated by the service contracts between their employers and the service buyers, not the employment contracts. Outsourced workers are not even parties to these contracts and have no say in how they will be treated at their workplaces. Pursuant to the service agreements, they often face the threat of summary immediate removal from their workplaces or discrimination. And they have no recourse nor protections under the law.

This issue must be addressed urgently as it affects a large proportion of our outsourced lower-wage workers. To address this, I call on the MOM to ensure that the upcoming legislation enshrining the TAFEP guidelines includes obligations on buyers of outsourced services, in that, service agreements must not contain clauses that result in unfair or discriminatory working conditions for outsourced workers. This is similar to the Workplace Safety and Health Act, which imposes obligations on building owners and managing agents. If we fail to do this, Madam, we are leaving the employment conditions of almost 100,000 outsourced workers to be subject to the whims and fancies of service buyers and managing agents without recourse.

Madam, the current Progressive Wage Models (PWMs) have been very successful in raising wages and I thank the Tripartite Committee on Low-Wage Workers for their recommendations, as well as MOM and the tripartite partners for their hard work and commitment. However, prices in the PWM outsourced sectors continue to lag wages, as Minister Wong noted in his Budget speech and the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme (PWCS) has been introduced to support businesses in the short term. But the PWCS may operate ultimately as a crutch, in which service providers use it as leverage to bid lower in upcoming tenders. The net effect is that these companies will find themselves in a similar position when the PWCS tapers off: that is, providing services at a rate that is unsustainable vis-à-vis the PWM wage increases.

Furthermore, in order for companies in these sectors to meaningfully transform, including implementing work-life harmony schemes and adopting technology, they will need to earn enough to afford these measures. If prices continue to lag wages, SMEs will invariably forego transformation initiatives for day-to-day operational needs.

In this connection, I would like to ask how the Competition Act applies to the PWM outsourced sectors, given that in the outsourced services sectors, fixing wages is essentially fixing the cost of supply. On a related note, will the Government consider working with the tripartite partners to set out reasonable prices that service buyers can expect to pay for each of the PWM outsourced sectors, derived from objective costs, for example, insurance and costs of replacements, so that prices can keep in tandem with wage increases.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

As regards the extension of the PWM to in-house cleaners, security officers, landscape workers, administrators and drivers, I would like to urge the tripartite partners to adopt a unitary PWM for the same professions, regardless of whether these workers are employed in-house or if they are outsourced workers. This is because the PWM prescribes not only wage increases but also a skills and progression path. In-house and outsourced workers in these sectors do identical work and differentiated wage ladders based on who their employers are, in my view, does not make sense.

On a related note, the current PWM sectors tend to have a fairly large number of ad hoc or part-time workers who choose to be ad hoc workers. In fact, many of them work every day, often with the same employer but do not take up full employment. This would appear to be antithetical to the PWM, which provides a career progression path with concomitant skills upgrading. In this regard, efforts should be made to encourage workers in these sectors to be employed full-time, instead of doing jobs on an ad hoc basis.

Finally, I would like to propose that SSG consider putting in place a system to recognise apprenticeships alongside Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) framework, because not all skills can be imparted through a classroom setting. Some skills and professions, like that of gaffers, artists, technical crew, woodworkers and hawkers are best acquired through a period of apprenticeship.

Sir, before I end, I would just like to respond to a point that Member Mr Fahmi Aliman brought up, where he suggested that TACs be funded to employ consultants to develop outcome-based contracting guidelines. I am happy to support what he has said and also to inform him that for the Security Association Singapore, we have received funding from Enterprise Singapore to go beyond just creating guidelines but to create an outcome-based tender generator and repository that will help buyers create outcome-based tenders. This will first be implemented for the security industry but we will very soon then make it available for other industries as well.

To conclude, Sir, I support this Budget and all it will do to help our businesses and workers. But despite our best efforts, some may still fall through the cracks. I have sought to identify some of these areas and have made suggestions as to what we could do. Together with the cooperation of the tripartite partners, I have no doubt that we will not only chart a new way forward together but that we will also leave no one behind. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.

7.29 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is our third year into the COVID-19 pandemic. As Singaporeans adjust to the new norms and with borders opening up progressively, our economy has also gradually improved, and the outlook is optimistic. Although I am heartened to hear that the MTI's projection of a 3% to 5% growth in Singapore's economy in 2022, I continue to be mindful of the uncertainties in the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential downside risks it has on our economy and our people, especially with also now the war in Ukraine.

Last year, I rose to speak about safeguarding and improving the welfare of three vulnerable segments of our population – persons with disabilities, women who are caregivers, and seniors living alone or with their spouse only.

Given the 2022 Budget's focus on charting a new way forward together, I intend to highlight three areas where I feel there are long-term implications to pay more attention to as our nation moves forward to living with COVID-19. These three areas are: (a) social mobility amidst COVID-19, economic restructuring and digitalisation; (b) managing long-term healthcare needs; and (c) fulfilling the housing aspiration of our younger generation.

First, I would like to raise the issue of social mobility amidst economic restructuring and digitalisation.

COVID-19 has exacerbated the need for economic transformation and digitalisation. We know that this is important as we strive to thrive in a volatile, unpredictable and fast changing world. Yet this may also bear a considerable impact on vulnerable groups including the lower-wage workers, middle-aged workers, persons with disabilities and their families.

While Singapore's overall unemployment rate saw a decline from 3% in 2020 to 2.6% in 2021, we know the recovery in the labour market remains uneven, especially for those that are more impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Families with members in these sectors would likely have experienced a greater loss of income or job insecurity and their children may face a host of obstacles in their social mobility.

A study in the UK assessing the social mobility implications of COVID-19 has shown that a fall in earnings can reduce the options available to displaced workers as they have less resources to finance reskilling and to lean on while they search for re-employment. For their children and young who are still in education, a fall in parental income or job loss has been shown to reduce attainment in school and through this, have long-run impacts on future earnings.

I am thus really glad to hear in the Minister for Finance's Budget speech that we will continue to invest and upskill our workers and encourage companies to do so through skills development initiatives, increase in support for continued training and SkillsFuture Career Transition Programmes. These will certainly go towards helping our people remain employed and to transit into new growing industries and the digital economy.

Programmes such as the Fresh Start Housing Scheme, KidSTART, UPLIFT Community Pilot and scaling up of ComLink are also helpful in ensuring that our children in disadvantaged and low-income families have opportunities to improve their lives.

However, I note that many of these schemes will take years before they can reap their full benefits. I would thus like to ask how will the Government monitor and ensure that the families these schemes are targeted to help are making the transitions in these few years of rapid and intense changes?

I also observe that families, for example, with parents who are trying to upskill, find new employment and manage their transition into new jobs while raising young children all at the same time would be struggling in juggling multiple demands. I would like to ask how would the Government help to streamline all these programmes and help the family in a more wraparound holistic manner for them to navigate between social and manpower schemes that are targeted to help them?

The second topic that is close to my heart is the issue of managing the long-term healthcare needs of our ageing population.

The COVID-19 pandemic showed us the importance of building a resilient healthcare system. Singaporeans, healthcare and frontline workers have rallied together and through the cooperation and efforts of everyone, we have avoided overwhelming our hospitals. I take this opportunity to salute all our hardworking healthcare workers and frontline workers.

We need to continue to strengthen our healthcare systems and build capabilities to ensure that our frontline workers would remain adaptable in responding to future crises. Besides being able to be prepared for future pandemics, a resilient healthcare system should also meet new challenges and changing healthcare needs.

The 2020 population census report showed that residents aged 65 and above has increased from 9% to 15.2% over the last 10 years . At the same time, the National Population Health Survey 2020 highlighted that diabetes prevalence increased with age where more than 20% of adults aged 60 and above are diabetic.

Despite Singapore's effort to tackle diabetes, the crude prevalence of diabetes showed an increasing trend from 8.6 % in 2010 to 9.5% in 2019 to 2020. Although the crude prevalence was partly attributable to population ageing, it is nonetheless important to know that more than one in every five older adults aged 60 to 75 are diabetic.

Furthermore, the numbers of patients with hypertension does not fare well either, with an increase of the overall crude prevalence of 24.2% in 2017 to 35.5% in 2019 to 2020. Similarly, the age-standardised prevalence also showed an increasing trend from 21.9% in 2017 to 31.7% in 2019 to 2020.

This data shows that we must do much more to manage chronic diseases in an ageing population. In my Committee of Supply cuts for health, I will also elaborate on my suggestions on activating more primary care general practitioner's (GP) clinics as well as the use of technologies to help our population manage chronic diseases. I look forward to hearing from the Ministry of Health their overall plan for managing population health.

Lastly, I would like to speak about helping to fulfil the aspirations of our younger adults and the challenges that they are facing in building a home and a family.

COVID-19 has accentuated the challenges of home ownership amidst the supply crunch in the construction sector and the rising cost of utilities due to the increase in energy prices. Many young couples in my constituency have written to me or approached me at Meet-the-People Sessions about their difficulties in successfully balloting for a Build-to-Order (BTO) flat although they want to settle down and have a family.

In Singapore, a study conducted by the Asian Development Bank has shown that the idea of "no flat, no child" is prevalent among our young generation. Thus, it is definitely important for us to engage Singaporeans more, especially during these few years where housing remains an issue for many of the young couples who want to settle down. This, in the face of our continued declining rate, is an important issue that I feel should be addressed.

There are two suggestions that I would like to suggest for better meeting the housing aspirations of young Singaporeans.

Firstly, I would like to suggest for MND to consider extending greater interim subsidies or housing loans to young couples who are trying to get a resale flat if they have immediate housing needs and cannot wait for the longer waiting time for BTO flats.

Secondly, I would also suggest for MND to consider reviewing some of the criteria of the current schemes to give more flexibility for young couples to be able to find their flat if they do not meet all the criteria immediately.

Mr Speaker, as the economy gradually recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic and we move towards the goal of an endemic Singapore where Singaporeans coexist with the virus, it is timely that this year's Budget focuses on how we can chart our new way forward as a nation. As we strengthen our resilience from the shadows of COVID-19, my hope is that the Singapore Dream – where opportunities and care continue to be available to all and aspirations of all Singaporeans can become real – will remain alive in the many years to come. On that note, I support Budget 2022.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang.

7.38 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, every year during Budget season, we ask ourselves how we can best support the most vulnerable members of our society. Let me start this time with one story of what vulnerability looks like.

Allie – not her real name – is a girl who used to live in my constituency. When I first met her in 2016, she was just eight years old. She was like a big sister to my daughter Ella, and they used to play together. Her family had little and lived in a rental flat, but she gave what she could. She gifted Ella her toy car. She patted Ella on her back whenever she coughed. One could not wish for a sweeter, kinder child.

But all this changed when in about a year later, Allie was sent to live in a place of safety – to protect her and to help her. But it also made her a completely different person. Torn from her friends, her family and her home, she shrunk into her shell. When I visited her, she barely spoke a word. She just sat in the room and stared into space. This was not the lively child I once knew, and it was heartbreaking to see how much she was affected and how she had her childhood ripped from her.

It is hard to blame the social workers at the place of safety. I saw firsthand how much they cared. They tried their best with the limited resources they had. When I was there, I saw a little boy climbing the fence and the barb wires, trying to escape. The social worker was trying so hard and so gently to calm him down.

Children like Allie need all the help they can get. I spent a lot of time thinking about what we can do to help children like her. I raised questions in Parliament about places of safety and about intergenerational incarceration.

I thought, surely, we can launch new programmes, more programmes, to help. But as we deep dived into the issues, I realised we have plenty of programmes. The issue might be that social workers had too much on their plate and many were burned out.

Over the past year, I talked with many social workers. I met with social workers every month. I spoke to senior social workers and junior social workers. I spoke to those in the frontlines and those who have left the profession. I spoke to those from family service centres (FSCs) and from other voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs). I also carried out a public survey and reached out to over 120 social workers.

I listened to their concerns, their worries and most of all, their deep passion in wanting to help others. But Sir, they too need help, especially during this pandemic.

A study found that nearly 60% of frontline social workers were affected by anxiety at the height of the pandemic, with 45% facing depression. The study also found that social workers in FSCs faced higher depression rates.

These findings mirror what I was hearing from social workers in my dialogues. One after another, social workers described their heavy caseloads and exhaustion. I heard the same requests over and over again: requests for more time, more resources and more help.

Today, I want to focus on social workers at our FSCs. FSCs are often the first port of call for those in need. Many see them as a clearing house for all social services. They advise and support families with financial, housing, employment, social and emotional resources. Families rely on their support when applying for financial assistance, seeking housing assistance, requesting food donations, seeking new employment, solving marital problems and much, much more.

It is no surprise that active cases handled by FSCs skyrocketed during the pandemic, increasing from 17,000 per quarter to 20,000 cases – and cases are also getting more complex.

Sir, we need to do more for our social workers who are just as much at the frontline of this pandemic and are in a tight situation like our healthcare workers.

Today, I have three recommendations to give our social workers the time, resources and support they need.

My first recommendation is to set a cap on the number of cases that each social worker can take on at any given time. Currently, too many social workers are forced to juggle an excessive caseload. According to MSF data from the past five years, the average social worker at a FSC handles 22 cases a year.

If 22 cases was the maximum, that might be fine. But 22 cases is the average. This likely means many social workers are out there working far heavier caseloads. I met many of them during my dialogues who told me that they often have 30 to 50 cases at any given time. This is a shocking number. Maybe they are outliers but their views are important too.

Social workers have told me that excessive caseloads directly hurt their ability to do a good job. A FSC social worker shared with me that they feel that they are shortchanging their clients who so desperately need help and they feel bad.

Another social worker shared this quote with me to explain how they feel, "If you ever wanna know what a social worker's mind feels like, imagine a browser with 2,857 tabs open. All the time."

With a huge caseload, they obviously have to give less attention to each case. Often, they end up doing what they call "firefighting", which means tackling only the most urgent problems. This firefighting makes it hard for them to give 100% to each case. It also denies them time to attend courses, mentor junior staff and create community programmes, equally important tasks that build organisational capacity, transfer knowledge and support communities.

Ms Elizabeth Quek, a community social worker, shared about "the helplessness social workers feel when we don't have the time or resources for someone who needs more support." This is not a sustainable solution and many social workers are reaching or have reached their breaking point.

We need to have a cap on the number of cases that social workers can take on.

This is nothing new. In many industries, caps are set to ensure service quality remains high. Schools, for example, limit the number of students in each class so teachers can dedicate more attention to each student.

In a survey I carried out, 87% of social workers felt that there should be a cap on the number of active cases a social worker handles. Ms Quek, whose quote I shared earlier, said that reducing caseloads will improve social workers' capacity to help their clients.

I know this cannot happen overnight and it is not easy to implement. It will require changes in FSC human resources (HR) practices but this cap is absolutely necessary. The actual number of the cap should also be decided in consultation with social workers from across the profession and take into consideration the wide spectrum of cases – Group 2, Group 3 and Group 4 cases – a social worker handles.

Sir, my second recommendation is to increase the time, resources and headcount for research work at FSCs.

Social workers told me they spend a significant part of their work entering data from their cases into the Social Service Net, or SSNet. This might sound like a miserable task but many social workers I spoke to talked about SSNet as a treasure trove of data. They think the rich information stored on SSNet could provide useful insights on the communities they serve.

Some social workers have spent their personal time, after work hours, to trawl through and crunch the data in search of insights. One enthused to me about how it would be possible to run a sentiment analysis by applying natural language processing techniques to the data, to surface trends across cases in the same community.

Sir, our social work degrees are rigorous. Their graduates emerge with research and technical skills. It would be a waste for them to let these skills atrophy. As I have mentioned, the only barrier is that FSCs often do not allocate time or staff to do research. The same social workers who beamed about unlocking the insights held in the SSNet data were also the ones frustrated by how they never had the time or support to do so. About half of the social workers that I surveyed shared that their FSCs do not have dedicated manpower for research work. About 85% wanted Government funding for headcounts dedicated to research.

I know MSF is trying to help and recognises the importance of research work. It does provide FSCs with data from SSNet whenever a social worker request for it. But we can cut the administrative workload of social workers making these constant requests by having in-house researchers.

I hope MSF will respond positively to this appeal by social workers. I know it can provide funding for this through the new Community Capacity Trust which will open for applications from 1 April 2022, and I hope MSF will ensure that all FSCs use this funding and hire in-house researchers.

With funding support and dedicated headcounts, our FSCs can arm themselves with data about the vulnerable families and communities they serve and they can go upstream to solve these issues within the community.

That brings me to my third and final recommendation today – to increase the time, resources and headcount for community work.

I spoke earlier about how social workers do not have the time to do things like create community programmes. Indeed, when I met them, some social workers described community work as their CCA, as something secondary to case work, something they dabble in during their spare time. But it is something they feel is crucial.

Sir, community work, in fact, has two important contributions.

First, community work is prevention. It enables FSCs to reach at-risk families not yet clients of theirs. This improves outcomes as the families can receive support before their problems worsen significantly. Easier to put out small fires than raging infernos, after all.

Second, community work builds social bonds. No man or woman is an island, and everyone needs a robust social network to succeed. Often, families working with FSCs lack friends and neighbours they can count on. Through community work, FSCs can link their clients with others in the same community and enable them to provide mutual support. This reduces the family’s reliance on institutions such as FSCs, helps them succeed in a sustainable way and also offers a way for families themselves to support others around them.

Community work will also help to slow the inflow of new cases which will give social workers the space and time they need. It might help to break the vicious cycle some social workers are in.

There are other NGOs that do community work and, indeed, many do excellent work. But why not empower FSCs to do the same? FSCs are located in the heart of the community and they have their finger on the pulse of their community. FSCs are already working with many of the people in the community, already meeting with them regularly and have the data on the trends and needs on the ground that many other NGOs do not have.

There might be worries about duplication of work but there is so much to be done. We should be concerned but I think we hardly need to fear the duplication of work currently.

About half of the FSC social workers I surveyed said their FSCs do not have dedicated manpower and resources for community work. About 84% wanted Government funding for headcounts dedicated to community work.

I know MSF will agree that community work is important and, in fact, they already provide funding to FSCs for two headcounts for group and community work. But there is a lot more we need to do.

First, social workers need to know there is existing funding for this. During my consultations with social workers, many were surprised to hear that funding for this headcount existed.

Second, we need to increase the funding available. Many social workers shared that funding for two headcounts is hardly sufficient.

Third, MSF needs to work closely with FSCs and ensure they use this funding available to them and hire the headcounts required to focus on community work.

Sir, in conclusion, let me end my speech by returning to Allie’s story. She has been released from the Place of Safety and I brought her out for a meal and a day at the arcade with my daughter recently. I hope that one day Allie will be able to lead a stable and fulfilling life within the community in spite of everything she has gone through. I hope no other child has to go through what Allie went through. To do this, we need to help our social workers.

In summary, I am asking that the Government introduce a cap on the number of cases each social worker can take on, provide funding for dedicated headcounts and resources for research work and provide more funding for dedicated headcounts and resources for community work.

For all these recommendations, we need to make sure that it is not just rolled out as guidelines but that FSCs should follow and implement them, and MSF should help FSCs in the implementation.

Sir, I recently met with MSF to discuss and share the concerns that social workers have shared with me. I appreciate the important work that MSF is doing and I could feel the passion in the room when they spoke about how they were helping FSCs and social workers. I thank them for their hard work and dedication.

Let me end my speech with a quote, "Being a social worker is easy. It’s like riding a bike. Except the bike is on fire. You’re on fire. Everything is on fire".

That is the reality. That really is what some social workers are feeling. In fact, I met up with social workers right after the Budget Statement. I shared this speech with them and one social worker shared with me in the most simple terms, "just tell everyone we are just very tired and frustrated".

Sir, our social workers are our social safety net but they truly want to be more than that, to not just address the symptoms of the problem but address the root of the problem, to go down into the community to co-create solutions and address the real needs of the community. Social workers want to be the social safety trampoline that Senior Minister Tharman spoke about.

If we value our social workers, I hope MSF seriously considers the recommendations I have made on behalf of the social workers. We can and we must do more to help our social workers and empower them to help make Singapore a better place and more inclusive place for all.

Mr Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.

7.52 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans and families have been facing higher costs of living prices, from food to daily necessities to utilities and all these costs have increased quite significantly for them. I think, so far, from yesterday to today, we have heard many hon parliamentarians in this Chamber talk about this. This impact is especially salient for middle- and lower-income households, both financially and psychologically.

According to the Department of Statistics, Singapore’s overall CPI, inflation, rose 4.0% from January 2021 to January 2022, although MAS’ core inflation measure was 2.4%. Household income growth barely matched the CPI growth in the same period for these households, as median monthly household income from work grew by 3.6% in nominal terms from 2020 to 2021.

So, at first glance, middle- and low-income households may feel pressured that their incomes are only barely matching the rise in prices. But after taking into account Government transfers, middle- and low-income households would have seen higher real income growth. With Government transfers and taxes considered, the Gini coefficient in 2021 evidently fell from 0.444 to 0.386, the second lowest level since 2000.

Hence, I am glad that the Government has multiples schemes, such as the CDC vouchers, education accounts top-ups and enhanced U-Save rebates, in place to support these households.

However, we must not undermine the psychological factor of the public, even if income is still outpacing inflation in reality. It is not always immediately obvious how Government transfers have buffered the impact. It takes multiple steps to calculate the net impact. Moreover, there remains much uncertainty in how costs can fluctuate in the future and, therefore, how families can or cannot cope.

The psychology of uncertainty, if left unaddressed, can severely affect one’s well-being but, more importantly, threaten our nation’s ability to stay together, overcome crisis together and progress together.

Rising global demands for the same products that we demand with the arrival of COVID-19 vaccines, oil and gas supply crunch made worse by geopolitical turmoil, and global supply chain woes are driving costs up. Clearly, these are macro factors beyond our control. But these are hurting Singaporeans.

For example, the sudden spike in energy price forced a few of the open energy market operators out of operations. Customers are transferred back to grid operator SP Group. Or, they could choose other private operators that survived. Regardless, energy prices have increased significantly across the board.

During a house visit in January this year, I met a MacPherson resident who runs a small shop and she shared her frustration and anxiety with me. She had subscribed to Best Electric, one of the open energy market operators that went bust last year. Her monthly electricity bill doubled from $1,800 in the first month after SP took over her account, and this monthly bill further increased to over $8,000. It was more than a four-fold increase.

For small operators with a modest margin, such a shocking increase drives them into the red. Needless to say, these small operators, many of whom are Singaporeans with families, will see their household disposable income being affected as well. Could the Government have stepped in more strongly in such extraordinary instances to help mitigate the increase? Perhaps, to put a cap to the amount of increment for these affected small businesses and household in such instances where the impact or the increase was not of their own doing.

In another example, an elderly couple in MacPherson in their 70s live on their CPF payouts and allowance of a couple of hundreds of dollars per month from their three children. They are typical middle-income Singaporeans who have retired and are living in a flat of their own. One may argue that this is not too bad and they certainly receive subsidies and benefits from various Government schemes as well. But both elderly have chronic medical conditions that incur recurring medical costs. MediSave savings are also fast depleting for them. They tried and are still trying to be self-reliant but rising food, groceries, utilities and public transport costs in recent times are really testing for them.

While Singaporeans understand that some factors are beyond Singapore’s immediate control, and that self-efforts are important, the pressure from fast rising costs stress them. Successive news or observations of price increases in a short time frame are unsettling.

I sincerely appreciate Government’s efforts in introducing various support packages to help households and retirees cope with living costs, as well as uplifting workers to uplift wages. The latest measures announced in Budget 2022, along with those introduced in the past, will help to push down the “bottomline” costs and push up “topline” income for households.

Government transfers through various help schemes help to offer buffer, but households are uncertain how much the costs will rise further, how long might they be eligible for Government subsidies or assistance and whether the assistance is even enough for them to cope. For retirees who no longer have active income, this worry intensifies. What happens after the Assurance Package expires in five years? What happens if the oil price spikes again or if the oil price and, therefore, the electricity bill stays high?

Singaporeans must not feel that they are left to deal with the pressures alone as this can erode our sense of togetherness and undermine the social compact in Singapore. Hence, our Government must continue to assure Singaporeans of its support through words and deeds.

Next, I would like to speak on the national reserves. Again, I am thankful that our past and present leaders have been judicious in managing our reserves, painstakingly saving up for "storms" like this COVID-19 pandemic. Money drawn from our past reserves has been put to good use as we battle the crisis and provide tangible support for Singaporeans.

The Government’s total draw from past reserves is now revised to $42.9 billion for the period of FY2020 to FY2022, less than the initial draw of $52.0 billion from past reserves announced at the Fortitude Budget in May 2020. Drawing less than expected is encouraging as it signals stable economic growth and prudent spending.

My question now is – from this point, what is the Government’s plan for our national reserves?

Our Pioneers took more than 50 years to save up this pot of gold because they want to protect their children and future generations. Similarly, we have a duty to use this pot of gold wisely and make sure that we put back what we took once we can, so that our children and their children can continue to have this asset to fall back on when they face the crisis of their generation.

Lest I get misunderstood, let me state that I believe it was necessary for us to draw on our reserves to help Singapore and Singaporeans get through this COVID-19 storm. I also believe that at this juncture when Singaporeans are struggling with escalating cost of living, now is not the right time to put money back into the reserves.

Still, we must keep in mind that we cannot deplete our reserve, that must guard it judiciously, and instil a discipline to put back what we took at the earlies opportunity when we can afford to do so – if not all at once, then in phases.

Therefore, could the Government share what circumstances or indicators need to be met for money to be returned to the reserves, and is there a timeline that the Government is looking at?

My next point is on building up for the future. Many of the problems we face today are not novel. We probably already have the solutions to these old problems and we need to accelerate the implementation. For instance, our energy needs are over-reliant on oil and gas that we import. We benefit from processing these imported natural resources but our electricity prices are almost totally dependent on the prices set by oil export countries. One solution is to diversify to use clean energy so as to dilute the impact of oil prices on our own energy cost, and I believe this topic has been very passionately debated by fellow colleagues yesterday and today. And I am also aware that the Energy Market Authority is also actively exploring these solutions.

Another possible solution is to actively deploy smart technology that allow us to move from reactive to predictive maintenance, so that we can save energy and reduce waste. This also includes other types of green technology as well. The upfront CAPEX could be costlier, but the longer-term savings could be worth it. Therefore, the problem is not without a solution, but could we hasten it?

We need to build future-ready infrastructure that can last. And we need to build up enterprises and talents that are skilled and versatile.

Hence, I am supportive of the plan to strengthen our digital capabilities and invest in next-bound infrastructure. When others are looking at 5G, we must look at 6G. When others are looking at Web 3.0, we must start imagining Web 4.0. The current S-curve is already saturated, we need to get onto the next. And to do so, of course, we need good people.

Therefore, I am definitely also very supportive of the plans to invest in our people throughout the stages of their lives, from when they are young and in school to when they have entered the workforce and can benefit from mentorship to when they reach mid-career and to when they have become mature workers. It used to be that one’s career is a straight-line progression, hardly changing jobs or industry. But it will increasingly be commonplace for one to change path multiple times in his/her working lifespan.

Hence, by investing in our people, we not only help Singaporeans to achieve their many aspirations but also recognise them as our nation’s key asset. I will also speak more on this during the Committee of Supply debate.

By building up for the future, we can better take advantage of the opportunities and rise comfortably above the challenges that we now face. To move away from quibbling over small margins but changing games altogether.

Singapore’s social compact have evolved over time. From focusing on survival as a nation in the 1960s to the 1980s, to the "Many Helping Hands" approach that encouraged a greater sense of collective responsibility, and that was from the 1990s to the mid 2000s, to now recognising that Government and the community need to play a bigger role to complement individual and family efforts. Singapore has done well so far.

As we look ahead, the world is getting chaotic again, Singapore’s society is also getting more complex with more sophisticated needs and issues. There are still many challenges and uncertainties ahead.

Therefore, to continue keeping our people and Singapore together, we must have sufficient guardrails, sufficient support and very importantly, mutual trust that we will be there for each other in good times and bad.

As the Government draws from our treasury and reserves to provide financial stimulus and put in place the various schemes and legislation to distribute help fairly and boost failing sectors and groups that need help, businesses have to do its best to survive, to transform, to keep jobs for workers, to make space, to create capacity, to help groom our workers. And workers too, will need to be willing to accept concessions during tough patches and also be willing to learn and keep learning to always be better than who we were yesterday.

At the society level, the more abled must also be willing to take less and give more. And the less abled need to also be willing to keep trying their best to adjust, to change track, to upskill and to progress. If we can all be more accommodating, a bit more give and take, try a bit harder for each other, I am sure there is no storm that we cannot overcome or weather through. Singapore will definitely emerge much stronger with every generation. Therefore, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

8.05 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Budget Statement, Minister for Finance said that we need to transform our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) which include the six Autonomous Universities. I agree. This is because IHLs need to keep pace with industry changes.

I would like to share two personal anecdotes that would support the need for the transformation of IHLs.

The first was at my workplace. A candidate applying for an IT support position in his 50s did not have any diploma in IT or a degree in IT. So, the HR department did not think he was fit to join as an executive using the conventional wisdom. But this candidate had a lot of work experience in running an IT infrastructure and support business. He self-learned over the years and was competent in IT support. Eventually, the IT head decided to hire him, and he performed very well thereafter.

Clearly, his skill sets, real-world experience and knowledge about current IT practices trumped whatever IT diploma or IT degree he may have gotten 30 years ago, which would be obsolete by now. This episode reflects the need for continuous training and lifelong learning and IHLs need to play this role.

The second case is closer to home. When my son was about to complete his full-time National Service last year, he was searching for a temporary job before commencing university this August. While serving his National Service, he started diving into the rabbit hole of blockchain, cryptocurrencies, decentralised finance and stablecoins. With his deep knowledge about cryptocurrency, he managed to land a temporary job with a cryptocurrency firm as an analyst despite having no official training. All things related to cryptocurrency is developing very fast and is hard to imagine how the subject can be taught in the university with sufficient currency.

After working for a few months, he wants to defer his university education to pursue his interest and continue working in the same field. He does not want to miss the swift developments in the cryptocurrency industry.

As his father, I was quite concerned. I am old school and very much believe in the notion of having a university degree to fall back on.

But taking a step back, I am amazed that these days, young people without a university degree can do very well in certain industries especially in technology and make a very decent living. From my understanding, a significant number of young people working in the cryptocurrency industry are earning more than a hundred thousand dollars a year despite being in their 20s or early 30s.

These days, even without a university degree, skill sets, personal experiences and knowledge can take a person very far. Young people may have their own ideas about their professional development. Taking this into account, our universities need to evolve to remain relevant.

Unlike my time in the university, the main pillar of the curriculum was to impart knowledge and learn how to search for information in the library. But today, knowledge is abundant with the help of the Internet. The demise of print encyclopaedia reflects this reality. What is important about university education is to learn how to search information, verify the information and organise the information to present in a coherent, concise and simple manner.

University education is also about sharpening the presentation skills, collaboration skills, social skills and other soft skills through project works, through tutorial seminars and internship, both locally and overseas.

So, do we still need a four-year full degree course? Should we shorten the degree course? Should we have extended and more purposeful internships as part of transformation of IHLs that Minister for Education is thinking about? How do we involve industry leaders in shaping the curriculum of the IHL education so that the professors and students are more in touch with the industry’s needs and development? Can we have the flexibility of converting the second half of the full-time degree course into a part-time degree should the students want to extend his internship or even start work earlier?

Above are food for thoughts as we transform our IHLs. It is always evolving, and we cannot be static.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we look at the job prospect of university graduates over the past three years, graduates of information and digital technologies are well sought after and command the highest starting pay, comparable or even higher than the starting pay of lawyers and doctors. People with tech skills are high in demand. Will this trend last? Or will it burst just like the dot.com bubble did 20 years ago?

Given the trend of how digital technology has disrupted many industries, there is a high chance that this technology craze will continue for quite a while. In fact, every company has to be tech company to survive. Even the media companies that are reporting our speeches in Parliament have to be tech driven as declared by the chairman of the newly formed SPH Media Limited.

I know of a family where the daughter, a fresh graduate of computer science, is earning close to the pay of her mother who has been a teacher with MOE for more than 30 years. Is this an anomaly? Is the job of a teacher of less important? No. This is just market forces at play.

There is an acute shortage of IT staff in Singapore and worldwide. If our IHLs are still sticking to four years to churn out IT graduates, we might not be able to close the gap in the short to medium term without importing more foreign IT talents.

At the same time, we have many recent Polytechnic and University graduates that cannot find jobs. There are also many mid-career PMETs who have lost their jobs and aspire to earn the starting pay of the recent IT graduates.

So, what can we do? I had the privilege of visiting Tata Consulting Services (TCS) SG United Program with Minister Iswaran about two years ago. I also recently had lunch with the Asia Pacific Head of TCS. I understand that the trainees go through foundational and specialised training courses in areas like cloud adoption, artificial intelligence, machine learning, coding and getting on-the-job training by working on projects with TCS clients. Most, if not all of their hundreds of their trainees, found good jobs after the course. We need to work with more industry partners to expand the programme to produce not hundreds but thousands of such IT personnel.

If we believe in the notion that every company has to be a tech company to survive, then almost all key personnel in the company, ranging from HR, customer service, marketing, procurement, all have to be IT savvy and be able to adopt technology that can make their work more efficient and effective.

That being the case, the IHLs have the urgent need to incorporate tech components in almost every course in the university. More importantly, the IHLs have the mission to provide continuous training to existing professionals to equip them with technology and skills so that they can keep up with the industry trends.

If we take a step back, we may need to examine if we need to put a time stamp on the degree conferred by universities. What do we mean by time stamp? One radical idea is to put it as a requirement that the graduates have to attend upgrading courses every five years or so. If you do not upgrade, your degree will fade over time and you no longer can claim the degree as your credential after a while. Does it sound scary?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if we are serious about continuous training and lifelong learning, we have to be radical about transformation. It may not and should not happen overnight. But, we have to start to transform our IHLs. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Budget debate over the past two days has seen two consensus and one difference. The first consensus is that the Members of Parliament all agree that the country's spending needs to be increased, especially the budget for MOH. This is because our population is ageing, healthcare costs will go up year by year. The second consensus is that so far, no Member of Parliament has suggested cutting our defence spending to pay for the increase in healthcare costs. Because of the war in Ukraine, many people realised the importance of national defence. If we cannot ensure our territorial integrity, there is no need to debate this Budget here.

Therefore, I am heartened that Members of Parliament who have questioned why defence spending is so high in the past, or have asked the Government to freeze or even cut defence spending, are no longer making the same request.

However, the biggest difference now is that several Members of Parliament have called for using more Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC). Currently, half of NIRC is spent on Government spending and the other half is used for topping up our reserves to increase investment capitals, thus increasing the returns on our net investment.

Due to COVID-19, we have spent nearly $43 billion of our national reserves. Without this $43 billion, the NIRC will also be reduced. At the same time, the Finance Minister has also said that it is difficult to plug this big hole with current Government revenue, especially taxes. Without the trees planted by our forefathers, we would not have the reserves to help Singaporeans to cope with the impact of COVID-19 in the past two years.

Singapore is a small country. We do not know how many other crises like COVID-19 or the Financial Crisis will happen in the future and whether or not we need to use reserves. Therefore, I suggest that for the sake of our children and future generations, we should use half of our NIRC to slowly top up the $43 billion reserves that have been used. We cannot afford to sit idle and use up all our savings.

(In English): I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Leader.