Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [16 February 2024] [1st Allotted Day],

"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025." – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

11.33 am

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, it is not mere coincidence that the slogan of Forward Singapore is "Building Our Shared Future", while that of Budget 2024 is the substantially similar "Building Our Shared Future Together". The Government intends for Budget 2024 to be a step towards Forward Singapore.

The Forward Singapore exercise has three major goals for the decade and the next. Singapore must: first, have a strong and growing economy; second, develop a fairer society; and third, deepen our sense of unity. In doing so, the shared future that was distilled from various engagement sessions with the public was a Singapore that will be vibrant, fair, resilient, inclusive, thriving and united.

Sir, it would be fair to say that these are broad strokes that capture the Singapore that all of us seek. In the way it fleshes out the direction of the Government, Budget 2024 is not objectionable, and so the Workers' Party (WP) supports the Budget.

The real challenge to the People's Action Party (PAP), however, is for it to be open, and the extent to which it is prepared to accommodate the diverse views of Singaporeans on how to journey towards the destination envisaged by Forward Singapore. No doubt, PAP has asked for diverse views by demanding that the Opposition come up with alternative proposals, although one suspects they do so rhetorically. WP has responded sincerely and we have not been short of proposals that have ultimately been accepted by the Government in some shape or form, albeit after initial and sometimes significant resistance.

Indeed, this year's Budget includes WP proposals; the announcement by the Finance Minister of a temporary financial support scheme for our workers is a case in point. While the details may differ, the philosophy of supporting our involuntarily unemployed is one which WP championed.

The same can be said for the WP proposals for anti-discrimination legislation to better protect our workers. Unlike PAP, WP clearly stated these proposals in our election manifesto, and our Members of Parliament (MPs) have systematically and repeatedly raised these points along with others in Parliament.

Mr Speaker, let me now put forward five points which form the basis of my response to the Budget.

First, the Government needs to be more forthcoming with information so that Singaporeans can participate more actively in policy discussion. Second, there is a growing mismatch in Singapore between aspirations and reality, which must be addressed. Third, the Government must improve retirement adequacy. Fourth, employers need to show more support for employees. And fifth, we must work towards further strengthening unity among Singaporeans in this uncertain world.

My first point is that the Government needs to be more transparent and forthcoming with information so that there can be meaningful participation by Singaporeans in the most critical matters affecting us. This is a recurring theme in my speeches, but I am by no means the only Singaporean to hold this view.

The Straits Times carried an article dated 19 February 2024 titled, "Economists applaud 2024 Budget but some worry about sustainability." The economists quoted were concerned about the combination of large cash handouts with the lack of information about the sources of Singapore's fiscal strength. In the report, one former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) called on the Government to provide more information on how it funds its expenditures.

Another economist noted that Singapore is unique and does not follow standards set by global bodies, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), with regard to the difference between revenues and expenditures in the management of the fiscal balance. Yet another economist was quoted as saying, "As a society, we now have some very important choices to make and, unless we are well-informed, we will not be able to make those choices well." Sir, the latter point was about the Reserves, a subject which we debated earlier this month and where WP set out its five points of principle.

On 20 February, an opinion piece in The Straits Times was titled, "It's getting harder to project future Government revenue". The author noted that it would become more difficult to achieve Budget marksmanship as there could be variations of 17% to 27% in specific tax collections. His view was that gone are the days when Budget marksmanship of 2% was normal.

Two Budgets ago, I asked what the total estimated amount collected by the carbon tax would be. The Government did not tell us, even though the preliminary numbers would not have been difficult to estimate and probably had already been tabulated by the Ministry of Finance. Similarly, in 2016, the Government announced a $4.5 billion industry transformation roadmap. No proactive update on how monies were spent on these programmes was provided until Parliamentary questions were put to the Government. Surely the Government can do better here.

I have spoken about the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Base Erosion and Profit Sharing regime, or BEPS, for some years now. The Finance Minister has laid out two possibilities that could affect us: one, of more corporate income tax being collected; and another of some multinational enterprises (MNEs) leaving Singapore. Both could happen at the same time, if recent media reports are anything to go by: one, predicting the move of more MNE headquarters to Singapore from Hong Kong; and another reporting on the move of Electrolux's regional headquarters from Singapore to Bangkok.

In view of the implementation of Pillar 2, what are the estimated collections in either an optimistic scenario or a conservative scenario?

At the first Budget debate of this term, WP called for the setting up of a Parliamentary Budget office, which was rejected by PAP as an idea that would only benefit the Opposition. In the spirit of Forward Singapore and in view of a greater need to track the effectiveness of Government policies and their expenditure outcomes, such institutions should be a feature of our democracy and the Singapore that the Forward Singapore report demands.

One economist quoted in the 19 February The Straits Times article said that Singaporeans outside this House desire to analyse and understand to a deeper degree what the Government is doing. These examples I shared put into relief the types of differences we can expect between the political Opposition in this House and non-politician Singaporeans outside of it on the one hand, and the PAP Government on the other. Such calls for information cannot be set aside as red herrings. If the Government was doing well on this score, we would not have private sector economists making the arguments and the points they do.

These calls represent a desire to shape a political environment that is fit for Singapore's purposes. Singaporeans need to know how much there is to spend and where the money comes from. These are basic requirements for having rational discussions on fiscal matters and for realistic alternative visions to emerge. In any democratic society, the Government must facilitate such discussions and it should do so proactively by declassifying more information if necessary. Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member Ms He Ting Ru will speak on the themes of deliberative democracy, transparency and accountability in her speech.

Coming back to the financing of Forward Singapore's goals, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that $5 billion of this Budget has been set aside for Forward Singapore policy moves, with around $40 billion to be used by the end of the decade. Will the Government spell out these initiatives in view of the commitment made in the Budget Statement, since some thought appears to have been applied to how much it will take to fund Forward Singapore plans?

Sir, PAP must tell us how the Government will deploy the $40 billion for Forward Singapore policies so that Singaporeans can understand what PAP believes the social compact of tomorrow requires. Just as PAP calls on WP to lay out its alternatives, surely PAP must lay out its proposals, too.

Mr Speaker, my second point is that there is a growing mismatch between the aspirations of Singaporeans and the reality facing them. Steps must be taken to address this. A reference in the Forward Singapore report to the 5Cs of decades past was scrutinised by some in the media. The 5Cs captured the aspiration to have cash, car, credit card, condominium and country club membership. The Forward Singapore report calls on Singaporeans to move beyond the 5Cs towards wider definitions of success. Surely, that is an admission, perhaps unintended, that a fair number of the 5Cs are unattainable for most Singaporeans today.

But I would go further. The reality is that things are very difficult for not a small number of Singaporeans, regardless of what definition of success one deploys. A Business Times article from late 2023 reported the findings of an OCBC financial wellness survey. Fewer Singaporeans can comfortably spend on things beyond the basics. And more do not have sufficient emergency funds or savings to meet their families' needs. Just 40% of Singaporeans can afford to spend beyond the basics most of the time, down 8% from 2022; and 23% can only afford the basics; while 79% of Singaporeans either do not have a retirement plan or are not on track with their retirement plans. This was a rise from 71% in 2022.

If the sentiments captured in this survey are anything to go by, there is a likelihood that the social compact may be precarious and uneven, particularly if the middle of society feels insecure about their financial future. To address this possibility, the structural moves to invest more in the future, particularly through SkillsFuture, are important and critical, even as the temporary cost of living support with the Budget are acknowledged and welcomed.

The WP foresees a need for even greater investments in our human capital in future, especially in view of how rapidly the workplace landscape is changing and with more well-paying jobs requiring high-order skillsets, a point that will be further expanded by Sengkang GRC Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

The $4,000 SkillsFuture credit, which is ringfenced for selected programmes with better employability outcomes, can be used for part-time diploma, post-diploma and undergraduate courses as well as PWM-specific courses. The WP sees the deployment of SkillsFuture credits towards economically productive courses with employment outcomes as an important policy initiative of this Budget. But we believe that many of the courses are likely to cost more than $4,000.

To further facilitate skills training and help Singaporean workers, the Government should introduce an interest-free SkillsFuture education loan. The WP put this proposal front and centre in our General Election 2020 manifesto. To start with, these loans can be calibrated towards courses, in either high-growth industries that lack Singaporean manpower or in other economically important areas.

Sir, my third point, is that the Government must improve retirement adequacy. The changes to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Special Account (SA), announced by Deputy Prime Minister, will be addressed by Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament Mr Louis Chua.

However, I speak of retirement adequacy more broadly and as an ongoing concern for the decades to come. It did not escape many Singaporeans, that all three core components of the Majulah Package: the annual earn and save bonus, the one-time retirement savings bonus and the one-time MediSave bonus, for Singaporeans born between 1960 and 1973, involved CPF top-ups. The Merdeka and Pioneer Generations will also get them. In total, 1.4 million Singaporeans will see CPF top-ups.

From the vantage point of the WP, Sir, these moves make it clear that sufficiency of CPF balances for retirement is a serious and ongoing concern. The moves to raise employer's CPF contributions through to the year 2030, must also be seen by employers in this light – of ensuring that all the workers are not left behind when retirement beckons. Employers will have to redesign jobs, so that seniors can continue to work for far longer if they wish to. The real risk of more redundancies in the years to come, arising from job displacement, adds impetus to the need for job redesign.

Recently, in a social media post, the Minister for National Development celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) Home Ownership Scheme. History shows that the reception to the HDB Home Ownership Scheme, per se, was initially lukewarm. The popularity of HDB flats exploded only when the CPF Act was amended in 1968, allowing Singaporeans to use their CPF funds for down payments and mortgage instalments of HDB flats.

It would not be hyperbole to say: that the CPF changed from a statutory board in charge of Singaporeans' retirement to a subsidiary of the HDB, with the aim of helping Singaporeans purchase property. Of course, many aspects of CPF policy have evolved since then.

But what is clear, is that Singapore is in a far different place compared to where it was in the early years of Independence. Specifically, younger Singaporeans cannot expect the same home equity appreciation that Singapore experienced from the 1990s. Today, HDB affordability continues to remain an ongoing concern in the minds of many Singaporeans, in spite of the new Build-To-Order (BTO) classification system – which adds new restriction and increases subsidies for new flats.

In substance, the Government appears to acknowledge the point that affordability is an ongoing concern. A point made by the WP in our speeches during the Housing Motion that was debated in Parliament last year, when we sought to bring focus to the People's Action Party's (PAP's) amended Motion.

It was not coincidental that the Prime Minister in his 2023 National Day Rally, referred to the now infamous $877,000 five-room BTO flat in Ang Mo Kio as an example of a BTO flat that should become slightly less expensive under the new Standard, Prime and Plus BTO classification system – thanks to added taxpayer subsidies.

More money set aside for HDB flat purchase means less funds available for retirement, notwithstanding options to downgrade. If property prices and general inflationary trends rise faster than wages, plans for retirement will have to start later for many – since they would have less to set aside for their nest egg, with mortgages to serve today.

It is time to closely examine how much CPF money should be set aside for housing. But if HDB prices continue to escalate, any move to reduce the CPF funds that can be set aside for housing, in favour of retirement adequacy, may backfire.

The Government may then have to commit itself to making HDB flats even more affordable by increasing subsidies further. Make no mistake, direct subsidies for HDB flat purchases do not make HDB flats cheaper. They merely transfer the cost to current taxpayers. The WP will continue to closely monitor PAP's moves on this point. We will be sure to hold it to account, if it allows HDB flats to continue to rise in price beyond wage growth and if it allows the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans to be compromised. My colleague, Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament Mr Faisal Manap, will make some related points covering housing and low-income households in his speech.

Mr Speaker, my fourth point, is that employers need to show more support for employees. Business groups have expressed concerns about the new Local Qualifying Salary cap of $1,600, which is widely considered as the de facto minimum wage.

However, if Singapore really wishes to embrace the philosophy of Forward Singapore, then we need to show stronger support for our financially vulnerable workers. This is such an important ingredient of the future social compact. Increases of the de facto minimum wage, should be seen as a step towards an inclusive and fair Singapore. If we have a shared future, where there is a lack of support for paying our lowest-paid workers in step with economic fundamentals, that would reflect very poorly on Singapore.

When the economy grows or when support measures are extended to companies, workers must also benefit. But consumers too, must be prepared to pay more for goods and services and it cannot solely be left to businesses to absorb the additional cost of wages.

The strongest social compact promised by Forward Singapore, also offers an opportunity to think about protections for our workers beyond wages. Much has been said about the lack of recognition in Singapore for all blue-collar workers who use their hands to perform skilled work. As the next step, Singapore should legislate retrenchment benefits or introduce redundancy insurance for these workers. I will speak more about this in the Committee of Supply (COS) debate for the Ministry of Manpower.

But there are areas where some employers have done well and displayed solidarity with the Singaporean worker. For example, by implementing Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) in concert with the demands of a more modern Singaporean workforce. But FWAs are just one area. We must also improve workplace culture and change attitudes towards skills upgrading and training, if Forward Singapore is to become a reality.

In a recent Ipsos survey titled "What Singapore thinks, feels and does", it was revealed that three in five Singapore employees – or 60% of Singapore employees – said that they were proud to work for their employer. But this was some 14 to 19 points below the global average; 29% said that they plan to leave their current employer in under two years – nine points more than the global norm.

While pay is one reason, feeling unrecognised and a lack of career progression, are the two additional factors that drive employees to leave. With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and the need to improve productivity, this is as good a time as any to significantly review HR policies: to align them with national imperatives and the lived experience of Singapore workers. Member for Aljunied GRC Mr Gerald Giam, will speak more about productivity improvements in his speech.

A citizens panel on employment resilience concluded, as part of Forward Singapore, noted that many workers did not proactively manage their careers until a need arose – due to a lack of awareness of resources for upgrading; or to there being too much information that is too daunting to navigate.

The SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit aims to encourage employers to invest and enterprise, and workplace transformation. It covers an array of programmes, including support for job redesign under the Productivity Solutions Grant. These initiatives can be superimposed on the key HR workplace pain points identified by employees – particularly older workers. Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament Ms Sylvia Lim will speak more on this subject.

This year's Budget sees the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit extended for another year. As in previous years, the WP calls on the Government to report on the success, or otherwise, of these enterprise schemes that cause huge amounts of money. Reporting on outcomes is a fundamental requirement for accountability. Please give us information on what outcomes, if any, have been achieved on an industry-wide level. Please let us know so that this House and industry experts outside this House can give inputs on how these schemes can be improved, if necessary.

Sir, I move to my final point. In this uncertain world, Singaporeans need to be committed to being united even as we must remain multiracial and multicultural.

The Budget speech By Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, sought to put into focus an important message that many of us overlook as we remain peaceful and far removed from the prospect of conflict. The segment of the Finance Minister's speech that stood out for me was the assessment of the uncertain outlook for Singapore. Some language was particularly strong. These include, and I quote: the international outlook has darkened dramatically; the post-Cold War era that fostered three decades of peace and stability is over; we are now in a new era of conflict and confrontation and there is no turning back; what can we expect in this new world? It will be more violent, it will be more fragmented, it will be messier and more unpredictable.

At the same time as the world is seeing rising political polarisation and disenfranchisement, due to economic displacement, the world continues to struggle with common global problems, such as climate change, a subject Hougang Single Member Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Dennis Tan will touch on.

If Forward Singapore seeks to refresh the social compact to keep our society strong and united and to prepare for a difficult road ahead, all of us in Singaporeans – regardless of our political persuasion – will have to be our siblings' keeper. More so than ever before.

But this will not be easy. Immigration and integration are good examples of where potential challenges lie. Earlier generations of immigrants had little choice, or less choice, but to integrate. They could not live hermetically sealed off from their host population. Only 30 years ago, it was prohibitively costly to make an international phone call.

Current immigrants can easily stay connected to their networks and countries of birth. One can be a new Singaporean or PR physically present in Singapore, but removed from Singapore society. Better integration between the races and communities must be an important feature of the new social compact. We ignore this social objective at our peril, given how immigration is a permanent feature of Singapore's society.

The prospect of constant information operations undertaken by state and non-state actors, is an acute threat facing all multicultural societies. As a multiracial and multi-religious society that relies on immigration to top-up the population, our bonds as one united people may be severely tested in the years to come.

The reality of online misinformation of foreign interference, particularly if framed in nationalistic terms, or in the form of identity politics, can be insidious and highly damaging to Singapore.

Even as we seek more space to passionately advocate our views, including those on race and religion, we should be mindful lest we denigrate another group. More communication is certainly needed, but we should never forget our common humanity. None of us chose to be born into our race or religion, so kindness and empathy must be a dominant feature of the multiracial Singapore spirit.

As an opposition party with elected Members of Parliament (MPs) in Parliament, the Workers' Party will not self-censure but commit ourselves to bring up matters responsibly. Once mistrust between communities take root, we will not know what hit us.

The WP agrees with the posture taken by the Government, that polarisation must not happen in Singapore. And as a society facing an unpredictable world, we should not dismiss this potential reality. We must gird ourselves against this prospect by deepening our commitment to fellow Singaporeans and representing them and their views faithfully.

A potentially more volatile outlook also reinforces the importance of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and Home Team and the importance of National Service. Our security agencies may be tested or challenged in ways that may not just be kinetic, but asymmetric, and we cannot afford to fall short. All Singaporeans must give our men and women in uniform our full support.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, there is broad agreement on the outcomes sought by Forward Singapore.

But the call for a fair, inclusive and united Singapore must also accommodate and respond to citizen demands for greater transparency and civic participation. Otherwise, Forward Singapore could easily fall victim to political cynicism.

The WP has, on numerous occasions, proposed how these calls for greater transparency can be better addressed. Such calls will not grow softer and they are not inconsistent with the findings and the desired outcomes of the Forward Singapore exercise.

Some of the differences between the PAP and the WP are of methods and approaches, and we must agree to disagree. But there may be a few issues where there is consensus on the final outcomes, and yet, others where there is none. This is how a parliamentary democracy works. A Singapore with a contested and balanced Parliamentary system, with a robust opposition presence playing its role in making for a fair and inclusive society, and ultimately, what it does is that it makes us a better, more confident and an authentic Singapore. Sir, the WP supports the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

12.01 pm

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this year's Budget sets out the first instalment of policy moves to remake Singapore's social compact, as envisioned by the Forward Singapore exercise.

We can see the imprints of Forward Singapore in many aspects of this year's Budget, including the various fresh approaches and moves to provide assurance to Singaporeans. There are major initiatives to develop our people, to invest in medium- and longer-term capabilities and security, to support families and seniors, and to build a fairer and more equitable society.

We are moving forward amidst a more uncertain, more contested and more volatile world. To adapt and thrive under this environment, we need to keep on reassessing our propositions and norms, but also, critically, to stay cohesive and united.

Sir, let me start with the Budget measures to tackle the immediate challenges. And in keeping with one of Forward Singapore key thrust that we are in this together and that we have got each other's back, this Budget continues to enhance the packages to help Singaporeans cope with the cost of living.

The $1.9 billion enhanced Assurance Package (AP) may come across as "more of the same", but this is a much welcomed "more of the same", where it is actually more than "more of the same". Even though there are other measures and tools to help mitigate rising costs; nothing beats having more direct payouts and assistance from the Government. And fortunately, we continued to have the fiscal capacity to dish out such upsized packages.

For the businesses, while the 50% corporate tax rebate and the Enterprise Financing Scheme, among others, may also come across as more of the same, the minimum cash payouts of $2,000 to all companies that employed at least one local employee is clearly a new feature and, if I remember correctly, first of its kind in our Budgets. It will go some way to provide relief to the small enterprises and helping to mitigate some of the incremental costs.

In addition to the AP, there are also other helpful features in this year's Budget that help Singaporean households and businesses cope with rising costs, such as the Workfare Income Supplement, the Silver Support, the preschool fee caps, the Progressive Wage Credits Scheme and so on.

So, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister for his continuing assurances to help Singaporeans to manage the cost pressures.

Besides the annual Budget measures, in September last year, the Deputy Prime Minister also came up with an additional off-budget $1.1 billion Cost-of-Living Support Package. In that package, there was also an additional one-off public transport subsidies of $300 million to moderate the fare increase in 2023. And this is over and above the $2 billion annual subsidy that the Government provides to keep public transport affordable.

I hope that that the Government would continue to monitor the costs situation, including keeping an eye on the public transport fare; and to consider another one-off assistance to moderate the fare increase if the Budget position permits.

Sir, let me now speak on the part of the Budget that I am most delighted with – that is developing our people.

Our people must be at the centre of any policy formulation and intent; whether it is to grow the economy, to build capabilities, to strengthen our securities and even why we manage our finances prudently. We want our people to live a full and happy life. A major part of our life's pursuit is livelihoods. We work to earn income to provide for our families and ourselves; to live good lives and to have the financial means for contingencies and retirement.

As a Government, nothing can be more of a priority and worthy than to help provide good and fulfilling livelihoods to our people. That must be the foremost key performance indicator (KPI) for the Government. However, with the rapid technological advancements and a more competitive and disruptive economic environment, long-term job security will be an increasing and ongoing challenge. The skills set that we acquire in schools and in the workplace now has a shortened shelf life. Some old jobs will become obsolete, while new jobs that require new skills will be created. And coupled with that, on the labour supply side, with an increasing healthy life span, we can now have a longer career runway. We are living longer and we have more healthier years in our life; thanks to the quality of life that we enjoy today.

Singaporeans understand this imperative and know that there may a time in their career where they need to do a pivot, in response to the changing landscape. The introduction of SkillsFuture 10 years ago opened up our mindset about continuous learning throughout life. Budget 2024 provides a major boost and a significant funding upsize to the SkillsFuture movement; with the aim to nudge Singaporeans in their forties, fifties and even sixties to embrace career resilience and to stay up to speed on their employability.

The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, with various subsidies, can greatly help to reduce the economic costs for training, a perennial pain point for the working mid-careers. The monthly training allowance, equivalent to 50% of one's average income, capped at $3,000 and over 24 months, helps to significantly buffer the economic costs for workers when they embark on career transition programmes.

The $4,000 top-up of the SkillsFuture Credit for Singaporeans aged 40 and above is a sizeable uplift and a clear signaling in the way forward. It is now more targeted in scope; and would only apply to programmes that can achieve the desired employability outcomes.

Sir, another notable shift in Budget 2024 is the change in our education subsidy policy; where Singaporeans aged 40 and above can pursue another diploma at our polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs) at subsidised fees. The Deputy Prime Minister called it "another bite" of the education subsidies. I hope this new subsidised back-to-school full-time diploma programmes can also help produce more professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs); and hence, reduce the future need for more S Passes and Employment Passes (EPs).

Sir, these are substantial moves. Committing the funding is just first step and, of course, a critical enabler. The real heavy lifting is in operationalising the entire value chain, where workers seek training that the employers sought; the educators being deeply plugged into the needs of industries and businesses and curate the skills proramme that matters; and the work unions and Government closely monitoring, facilitating and anticipating the next few bounds ahead.

Sir, I welcome another shift that was mentioned in the Budget, with details to be provided later this year; and that is the temporary financial support scheme for the involuntarily unemployed. This is in keeping with the current reality, where we will see more disruptions that will impact businesses and jobs. I am glad that we are now ready to move on this. It is very much part of what we meant a functioning, social compact and that we have got each other's back. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] There is a saying that people have no fixed position and water has no constant form. The rapid development of technology today has led us into an era of constant change in the workplace. The transformation of economic operations has directly impacted the workplace, changing the employment model and shortening the value and lifespan of skills and knowledge. In response to this situation, this year's Budget has also strengthened a response strategy, enhancing and introducing new policy measures.

In addition to the enhanced SkillsFuture subsidies of up to $4,000, the Government has also adjusted education subsidies, allowing middle-aged Singaporeans to re-enter educational institutions to pursue professional diplomas and enhance their employment potential.

Workers who wish to attend qualified full-time work courses, can also receive training allowances of up to $3,000 per month. From these measures, we can understand the Government's intention to enable Singaporeans to maintain employability, expand employment opportunities and have a better future.

Learning and upskilling is a challenging endeavour, with economic cost and personal time commitment. This is why the Government is investing significant financial resources and strengthening policy measures to alleviate this burden on the individual.

Ultimately, whether we can achieve results depends on whether workers have that willingness and passion to seek skills and knowledge, and whether employers have a flexible, rewarding and long-term mindset to support this.

In this process, we also need to curate more courses that can be applied to enhance employment opportunities. This will be a very difficult road, but we have no choice. I can see the Government's determination, and in the future, it will require everyone and the entire system to work together to implement these enhanced upskilling policies.

(In English): Sir, on the economy, I fully agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that we need to continue growing the economy, so that we can improve the collective well-being of Singaporeans.

And given the inherent constraints stacked against us, such land, labour and carbon, our next phase of growth has to be productivity and innovation driven. It is not going to be easy, as bigger countries that are better resourced and with the scale of domestic economy are also doing the same.

The strategy that we have adopted to overcome our limitations and which has placed us among the top economic value-add country per capita in the world, is by continuously attracting high quality and high value investments to Singapore.

Attracting such investments help us leapfrog the riskier and the capital-intensive build-up phase; and enable our economy to always stay at the frontiers of cutting-edge technology. Hence, anchoring high value and innovative MNEs to base and hub here continues to be a compelling strategy for an economy like ours with minimal scale.

And thanks to our best-in-class investment attracting agencies like the Economic Development Board (EDB), the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and Enterprise Singapore (ESG), we have been able to attract these high-quality investments, despite the intense competition.

I often read the annual reports of EDB, to get a sense of how much investments we are attracting each year. Besides reporting the fixed asset investment (FAI) commitments and the total business expenditure per annum (TBE), EDB would also report the jobs expected to be created and the value added to the economy.

For example, in 2023, the EDB attracted FAI of $12.7 billion, TBE of $8.9 billion and these are expected to create more than 20,000 jobs with a projected value-add of $26.7 billion. I am heartened that our economic investment agencies never lose sight on the ultimate motivation on why we bring in investments, which is to create good jobs and to contribute to our gross domestic product (GDP).

Sir, we have to keep strengthening our propositions; among others, to always be a business-friendly destination of choice, having a diverse talent pool, excellent infrastructure and connectivity, trusted jurisdictions, strong financial standing and, of course, an able Government and political stability.

How could our local enterprises benefit from the presence of MNEs? The key is in finding ways for our local firms to be the suppliers and servicers of the MNEs; and playing a part in their value chain.

The enhanced Partnership for Capability Transformation aims to increase the range of modalities for MNEs and small and medium enterprises (SMEs), to collaborate and to help the SMEs up the game. This could be the pathway for our local enterprises to break out of the size trap, level up to be the emerging regionals or niche champions.

Sir, besides attracting high quality investments and developing our local enterprises, we have also got to invest in our capabilities and build longer-term competitiveness. The Deputy Prime Minister announced a series of significant investment into our capabilities in this year's Budget; for example, the $3 billion in Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 (RIE2025), $2 billion in the Financial Sector Development Fund, $100 million to upgrade our Nationwide Broadband Network.

To enhance our longer-term energy security, the Government will also inject an initial $5 billion to set up the Future Energy Fund. These are massive funding commitments. Sir, I look forward to the details in the upcoming COS debate.

On AI, I am glad that Singapore has a head-ups in developing AI capabilities with our National AI strategy. It has not gone unnoticed internationally.

Last December, I happened to be in Taiwan for the holidays, with my family. At that time, the Taiwanese Presidential and the Legislative election campaign were in full swing. And out of curiosity, I popped into a couple of election rallies in Taipei and watched the local news there, to hear what are the issues that the candidates were talking about.

It is not uncommon in Taiwanese elections, to hear opposition politicians there using Singapore as an example to criticise their government for not doing as well as Singapore. So, in this election there, it was again not surprising that Singapore got a few mentions. One of them was where the opposition politicians ridiculed their government on why tiny Singapore can be listed as the top 10 countries in the world, leading in AI research and technology; and Taiwan is not there. They lamented that Taiwan is losing out in this AI race and will severely impact its overall competitiveness.

Sir, I am pleased that we are now into version 2 of our National AI Strategy; and in this Budget, the Government has committed to invest $1 billion per year for the next five years. The investments will be used to work with leading companies to set up AI Centres of Excellences in Singapore as well as secure the much needed advanced chips for AI development.

Sir, we need to keep up with the momentum in our AI development; and I support the additional funding announced by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my final point is with regards to the adjustments to the corporate income tax; to incorporate the BEPS 2.0 Pillar 2 changes. Under Pillar 2 of BEPS, a global minimum effective tax of 15% is required to be applied to large MNEs. Many jurisdictions including Switzerland and Hong Kong has announced their plans to implement it in 2024 and 2025.

BEPS 2.0 will reset the level playing field for global competition for investment and that is why it is critical that we keep improving our overall offerings such as introducing the Refundable Investment Credit to strengthen our competitive position.

One issue of considerable interest is the revenue impact from introduction of Domestic Top-Up Tax.

In the near term, it is expected to provide additional revenues to the Government. In an OECD report released in January 2024, OECD provided estimates that imply a revenue gain of around 15% to 40% in corporate income tax for investment hubs. Using our revised FY2023 corporate tax revenue base of $28.4 billion, this would mean an additional $4 billion to $11 billion of revenue.

In February 2024, Hong Kong which will introduce Pillar 2 in 2025 has estimated its own revenue impact to be around HKD 10 billion, or S$1.7 billion. There was another estimate by Switzerland in August 2023 which estimate the impact for Switerland as CHF 1.6 billion, or S$2.4 billion. Both the Hong Kong and Swiss estimates seem to be point to a lower revenue impact than what the OECD estimates would imply, which is up to about S$10 billion for Hong Kong, up to about S$15 billion for Switzerland.

Of course, OECD has cautioned that there is a wide range of uncertainty in their estimates.

Sir, Pillar 2 is an unprecedented change in tax policy and there are significant limitations in the extent to which previous experience and studies can inform on the "behavioural reactions" by governments and MNEs and therefore the revenue impact.

Furthermore, the OECD report does not factor in the impact of Pillar 1, which will have a negative revenue impact for Singapore. When both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 are taken together, it would be difficult to pin down on the net revenue impact.

The more important point is BEPS 2.0 is a key challenge for Singapore which we must navigate carefully.

And which is I why, I support the Budget 2024 measures to enhance our investment promotion toolkit through the Refundable Investment Credit; as well as the various investments in our workforce, in innovation and in infrastructure.

Sir, to conclude, a good Budget is not defined by just about how we spend, how big we spend, how many more areas we spend but also how we fund our expenditures on a sustainable basis. This discipline about a balanced Budget is of critical importance especially where the trajectory of our spending is heading higher.

Often, commentators would like to use characterisations such whether the Budget is left-leaning or right-leaning or centre-left or centre-right to describe a Budget. But it may not be that straightforward for this year’s Budget.

Rather than to characterise the budget as being more left or right-leaning, I would say this is a budget that is forward moving and upward progressing. We have every determination to move Singapore forward; and in this forward journey ahead to ensure that there will be upward social mobility and cohesion and importantly upward progress for everyone. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.

12.20 pm

Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Budget 2024 is a budget notable for its wide-ranging support measures. These include generous assistance to meet cost-of-living pressures to taking forward-looking steps to ensure Singapore and Singaporeans continue to thrive in a fast-changing economic and social environment.

Sir, I wholeheartedly support this year’s Budget and I thank the Government for listening and being responsive to needs on the ground. There are significant progressive moves announced in this Budget, such as the SkillsFuture Credit top up of $4,000 for those 40 years and above to level up; as well as moves to better calibrate policy such as easing of property tax burden for many home owners who saw their tax bills spike.

We even see policy innovation where the Government provides Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme Vouchers for families to rent an HDB flat in the open market for one year, to supplement the strong demand for temporary housing whilst families wait for their BTO completion.

Sir, I would like to focus my speech on three key areas where Budget 2024 helps with cost pressures, sharpens Singapore’s competitiveness as well as addresses retirement adequacy.

First, on cost pressures. Sir, riding on the better-than-expected Government revenue in Financial Year (FY) 2023, individuals and families stand to benefit from a mix of cash, vouchers and rebates under the $1.9 billion boost to the Assurance Package.

Companies, especially SMEs, also stand to benefit from the $1.3 billion Enterprise Support Package with a slew of support measures, including the generous corporate income tax rebate of 50%, capped at $40,000 in the year of assessment FY2024.

Those with less will receive more, but there is something for everyone.

Sir, I applaud the Government for their concerted attempt to shore up individual and company cash flows. However, we must be very careful to calibrate handouts to ensure that these are sustainable, as people may grow to rely on them over time. It may become a challenge to wean them off expectations of such broad-based support in the future.

Also, the generous direct transfers to cushion residents from elevated inflation may, ironically, add to further demand and reverse early signs of moderation on inflation.

Last year, I had raised similar concerns about Government handouts increasing demand and creating a vicious escalation in prices. Helping people cope with rising costs is a worthy policy but it must be balanced against the risk of prolonging inflationary pressures. After all, it would be unsustainable to dole out assistance to fight inflation if such help ends up keeping inflation higher for longer. So, I call on the Government to keep a close eye on this.

Next, sharpening Singapore’s competitiveness. Mr Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced an ambitious target of two to 3% GDP over the next decade. The economy grew by only 1.1% last year, down from 3.8% growth the previous year. Real income declined 2.2% for the first time in over 10 years. Singapore’s continued growth in the new era of global development is not guaranteed.

We face challenges in an international tax environment where global minimum tax regulations are upon us, and where countries around the world are fighting for high-quality investments.

Sir, Singapore has evolved from a trading port to a global finance hub, logistics, and also for manufacturing. In order to succeed in our next phase of growth, we need to pivot towards high-value, innovative economic development.

This shift necessitates a profound change in our skills and capabilities, far beyond what has brought us success in the past.

In an era dominated by rapid technological advancements, our focus must pivot towards nurturing skills in innovation, research and development (R&D), digitalisation and AI. These fields have transformative potential to boost our economy, but require a new breed of industries and professionals who are adept in these cutting-edge domains. The magnitude of this transition cannot be understated. We are not simply adopting new technologies; we are required to reshape our economic fabric.

So, Budget 2024 rightly earmarked a substantial sum of $13 billion towards capability development – these include boosting productivity, research and innovation, green transition and AI transformation.

Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced the launch of a refreshed incentive toolbox with new fiscal schemes, such the new Refundable Investment Credit scheme and top-up of existing funds to further advance capabilities. This is 10 times the amount set aside to help companies cope with near-term challenges.

However, Sir, many of the initiatives will only be effective to the extent they are taken up. Significant effort must be directed to boost usage in order to achieve the intended outcomes of the respective schemes.

For example, even though SkillsFuture has been launched for close to 10 years, only three in 10 Singaporeans have used their SkillsFuture credits. The number of companies tapping into R&D grants is insufficient, and SMEs still struggle to decipher the multitude of schemes and the complexity and onerous application process.

Sir, even as I persist in urging the Government to intensify its efforts to stimulate adoption – a topic I will delve into during my COS speeches – it is ultimately incumbent upon companies and workers to seize these opportunities and to forge a brighter future for themselves. The support schemes available to us is a springboard, but the impetus to leap forward lies within us.

Embarking on a journey of transformation is akin to preparing to scale new and uncharted mountains. This journey compels us to traverse unfamiliar terrain and to overcome obstacles that are inherent in scaling any worthy peak.

We are comforted by the knowledge that, in this journey, we are not alone. The support schemes available are akin to tools, maps and safety gear, provided to ensure that our climb, our ascent is not only successful but also safe and secure.

These resources are designed to assist us in navigating the complexities of change, offering guidance, training and support at every step. But, ultimately, it is only we who scale the mountain; the gear alone cannot do it for us.

Next, retirement adequacy. Mr Speaker, Budget 2024 contains excellent initiatives to further boost retirement adequacy, such as the Majulah Package, enhanced support for Matched Retirement Savings Scheme, Silver Support Scheme Enhancement and others. But, unfortunately, the announcement to close the CPF SA for those aged 55 and older attracted the most attention.

Whilst I support the rationale behind the Government's move, the sudden closure of SA accounts affects many middle-income seniors. Based on established CPF rules, they have systematically saved and trusted this scheme to build up their retirement nest-eggs.

Many rely on CPF savings as a key source to fund their retirement. This sudden unexpected change disrupts their retirement planning. As a policy move, it may be fairer if the Government could grandfather the SA scheme for existing 55 and older CPF members.

Sir, the most exciting development within the CPF framework for me is the increase of the Enhanced Retirement Sum (ERS) to four times of the Basic Retirement Sum, reaching $426,000 in 2025.

Over the years, I have advocated for a higher ERS, enabling CPF LIFE to better cater to the retirement needs of middle-income Singaporeans, especially for those considering CPF as their primary source for retirement planning. This is really important that the CPF serves middle-income Singaporeans.

The rule of thumb for the income level required to maintain a similar lifestyle in retirement typically involves replacing a certain percentage of your pre-retirement income. It is commonly suggested that retirees will need approximately 70% to 80% of their pre-retirement income to sustain their lifestyle. This estimate of 70% to 80% as what they need in retirement, assumes the decrease in certain expenses, such as commuting, work-related expenses or mortgage payments, while anticipating an increase in others like healthcare or leisure activities.

If we consider the current median monthly income of about $5,200 for full-time working residents in the middle-income group, the estimated monthly payout under the new ERS would be approximately $3,300. This represents a 63% replacement income versus the 70% to 80% recommended for middle-income earners. This is a significant increase from the current monthly payout of $2,530, which only replaces about 49% of our median wage earner's income.

Sir, the introduction of the new ERS is a significant step toward closing the retirement adequacy gap for the middle-income earners, an issue I have persistently lobbied for over many years.

While CPF LIFE should not be tailored to meet the needs of the affluent, it must and it must serve as a primary source of retirement income for our low- and middle-income seniors, ensuring they have financial security and peace of mind in their golden age.

Finally, Sir, fiscal space and top up funds.

Sir, in examining the budgetary position for FY2022 and FY2023, I would like to seek clarification on several fronts.

Firstly, with regard to the Government's accountability on fiscal marksmanship. The final financial outcome for FY2022 diverged notably from the initial projections, going from an anticipated deficit of $2 billion into a surplus of $1.7 billion.

For FY2023, despite a revenue increase exceeding expectations by 7.9% and surpassing $104 billion, the fiscal deficit for this year is, in fact, revised to $3.6 billion deficit. This represents a significant widening from the earlier projection of $0.4 billion deficit.

In the light of these developments, I would like to ask how the Government projects revenue and expenditure to ensure a level of predictability that informs crucial decisions, such as the need to raise taxes to balance the budget.

Secondly, a significant amount of funds totalling $24.3 billion for FY2023 and $20.4 billion for FY2024 are allocated towards topping up endowment and trust funds.

While I appreciate the fiscal discipline demonstrated by setting aside funds that are committed for future programmes that we promise the people without burdening future budgets and generations, I want to seek clarification on several aspects.

Firstly, the rate of drawdown of the various funds. Secondly, how the Government determines whether expenditures should be funded from funds and endowments, as opposed to operating budget. Additionally, I am interested in understanding how undrawn amounts are treated and how drawdowns are optimised across funds to smoothen out expenditures. Sir, with that, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

12.36 pm

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the most noteworthy thing about this year's Budget Statement was the amount of support measures provided to Singaporeans without any additional major tax increases announced. This will come as a great relief to many Singaporeans who are still struggling to cope with the high costs of living and an uncertain job environment.

I will first address the support measures and how we can take bolder steps to support Singaporeans in coping with the rising cost of living. I will then discuss Progress Singapore Party's (PSP's) views on the proposals in the Budget to support lifelong learning and develop the full potential of Singaporeans.

Sir, those of us who walk the ground will know that the rising cost of living is the number one concern for Singaporeans and we have debated this issue at length in this House last November. Many Singaporeans are feeling that their wages are unable to keep up with rising prices, leading to feelings of anxiety and insecurity. This feeling is borne out in the wage statistics. After taking into account inflation, real wages rose by only 0.4% in 2022, but fell by 4.5% in the first half of 2023.

Furthermore, the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, which measures inflation, does not take into account loan repayments. This means that the higher interest rates which resulted in higher mortgage payments and other loan payments are not taken into account in the calculation of inflation and real wage growth.

The Government's response has been to provide subsidies and rebates that help households in the short term, for instance, the Assurance Package. While these short-term support measures are welcome, PSP has always maintained that these are not long-term solutions that address the root causes of the rising cost of living.

While it is true that rising prices are subject to global forces like oil prices, food prices, disruption to supply chains due to pandemics, wars or climate change, there are also domestic factors driving prices. These domestic factors include our property prices, Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices, population policy and Government taxes.

Today, I will only talk about property prices and Government taxes and leave the discussion on COE and population policy to another day. Suffice to say that COE increases our transportation costs and population policy affects the overall demand for all goods and services, thus putting pressure on all prices.

One root cause of the rising cost of living is rising rents.

In the retail sector, rent constitutes about 30% of the business costs. This means that when you walk into a shop to buy a product, 30% of the cost of that product is due to the shop's rental and this has not yet taken into account the suppliers' rental costs which had been built into the cost of goods sold. Similarly, in the food and beverage (F&B) sector, rent forms about 27% of business cost. Rent therefore has a big impact on the cost of living of most Singaporeans.

PSP once again calls on the Government to take action to moderate excessive commercial rent increases in Singapore. For a start, guidelines on reasonable annual rent increases can be issued, similar to how the National Wage Council (NWC) issues guidelines on wage increases.

If the rate of rent increases can be moderated, it will not only be beneficial for Singaporeans but it will benefit businesses as well.

In addition, Government is the largest landowner in Singapore and yields significant influence over the property market. If it has the political will, it can push outcome in the direction it wants.

Another root cause of rising cost of living is home prices. For most of us, buying a house is the single largest expenditure of our lifetime. PSP has proposed the Affordable Home Scheme in which HDB flat prices do not include the land cost component for home buyers upon first purchase, but deferred if and when they sell their flats. This will greatly ease the burden of housing costs on young people and allow them to more easily build up their retirement savings. It might even provide some with the leeway to take risks with their careers and pursue any entrepreneurial dreams without being shackled by large mortgage payments.

Government taxes form part of the cost of living, with the most obvious being the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

In Budget 2022, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said that healthcare expenditure is increasing due to the ageing population and is expected to hit $27 billion in 2030. GST therefore needed to be raised to fund the expected increase in healthcare expenditure. If healthcare expenditure hits $27 billion as expected and the increase is fully funded by GST, then GST would have to be raised by another 3.5% approximately by 2030, to reach about 12.5%.

Will the Government share whether there are any further plans to raise taxes to fund the increase in healthcare expenditure?

Currently, the Government helps Singaporeans cope with GST increases and cost of living increases by giving cash grants, rebates and vouchers, resulting in a situation whereby the bulk of the population are now in regular receipt of Government handouts.

In any society, there will always be people with different income levels and it is normal for Government to give grants to the lower-income families. But if the bulk of the population need Government handouts to cope with cost of living, then that cannot be a healthy situation. We should also be circumspect about the fact that the bulk of the population is getting used to the idea that it is a norm to receive Government handouts.

It may be the easier route to provide handouts to cope with the cost of living, but we must focus on taking steps to keep costs in check.

For a start, we ask the Government to reconsider exempting a list of basic necessities from GST. We can list specific products rather than broad categories to minimise classification issues and limit price levels to those generally consumed by lower- and middle-income families. The need for this measure will become more pressing as GST rate increases.

The way that the Government currently treats land sales proceeds and prices HDB flats is also adding to taxpayers' burden. HDB must pay Singapore Land Authority (SLA) for the land used to build HDB flats. These land sales proceeds are then locked away in past reserves and are paid for by large Government grants. These Government grants must be paid by taxpayers. So, in effect, taxes are being collected to be locked away in the reserves.

Further grants are given to HDB flat buyers in order to make flats more affordable. These grants must also be paid by taxpayers.

I have previously proposed that land sales proceeds be treated as revenue divided over the duration of the lease. It is heartening to hear the Prime Minister acknowledge that this is not an unthinkable proposition during the Public Finances debate earlier this month. As this measure can relieve the tax burden on Singaporeans, I hope the Government will consider it seriously.

Apart from containing costs, another way to cope with rising cost of living is through raising wages and ensuring that they keep pace with the rising cost. One major way of doing so is through education and training.

Before I talk about education, I wish to declare that I own a private education company.

PSP supports the introduction of the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme for Singaporeans aged 40 and above, which consists of a $4,000 credit, subsidies for another full-time diploma and training allowance for full-time trainees. We believe that full-time training will be more effective in enhancing the employability of our workers. These policies will also enable our middle-aged workers to switch careers more easily and move into areas with better or more job opportunities.

We are, however, disappointed that details of the temporary financial support scheme for the involuntarily unemployed are still not ready.

Retrenchments are becoming increasingly common. Temporary financial support would be greatly beneficial to retrenched workers seeking a new job. Any delay in the implementation of this scheme has real consequences on the retrenched employees. We hope the Government can finalise the scheme as soon as possible.

In addition, if a retrenched worker decides to enter full-time training a few months after they were retrenched, we hope that the size of their training allowance will not be impacted by their period of unemployment. We seek the Government's confirmation that their training allowance would be based on their last drawn pay when they were employed.

In his Budget speech, Deputy Prime Minister Wong announced his intention to ensure that the wages and career prospects of our ITE graduates should not be too far below their polytechnic- and university-going peers. He then announced a new ITE Progression Award, which provides a $5,000 top-up to the Post-Secondary Education Accounts of ITE graduates who enrol in a diploma programme; and a $10,000 CPF top-up for ITE graduates when they attain polytechnic diplomas.

We whole-heartedly support the intention of helping our ITE graduates, but feel that the ITE Progression Award does not quite fully meet that objective.

Today, about 4,000 ITE graduates – or about 28% of the annual ITE graduating cohort – qualify for polytechnics each year and about 4,000 ITE graduates enrol in the polytechnics each year. Since most of those who qualified already chose to progress into diploma courses, the Award has limited scope to encourage more to do so.

The $5,000 top-up to the education accounts does help to ease the financial burden of ITE graduates enrolling for diploma courses; but the $10,000 CPF top-up less so and, furthermore, is actually going to a group who are no longer just ITE graduates, but a specific group of diploma holders.

An issue of parity amongst diploma holders arises here. Giving $10,000 to some diploma holders, but not others, based solely on the route they took to enter polytechnics can get controversial.

We are of the view that a better way to help ITE graduates would be: one, help more ITE graduates qualify for polytechnics. Entry requirements can be reviewed to recognise the value of relevant work experience rather than just grade point average (GPA). Those who decide to take the "O" levels in order to qualify for polytechnics should also be supported. This can be done through promoting or expanding the ITE General Education course; or providing education grants to those doing so as private candidates.

Two, help those who enrolled in diploma courses successfully complete their programme by conducting bridging courses to cover the gaps between ITE programmes and "O" level programmes. A TODAY article in July last year, cited students who expressed the need for such courses in areas, like mathematics and essay writing.

The above support measures should also be extended to those who had dropped out of school even before completing ITE, but now wishes to return to the education system to upskill or upgrade themselves.

PSP hopes that the Government will consider our suggestions so that together, we can find a more permanent solution to the challenges faced by Singaporeans in coping with the rising cost of living.

Sir, the Progress Singapore Party supports Budget 2024.

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

12.50 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the measures in the Budget to assist our households so that they can tackle immediate challenges and face the future with more assurance.

With global tensions and conflicts exacerbating shortages of supplies and disrupting logistic chains, prices of goods and services have risen substantially and are expected to increase further. Unfortunately, it is challenging for our workers' wages to keep up with the pace of price increases and inflation.

In the face of an uncertain global operating environment, competing priorities and the need to balance our budget, I welcome the Ministry's decision to provide greater assistance for the lower-income group and bigger households with elderly and children.

Lower- and middle-income households would be heartened that the $6 billion top-up to the GST Voucher Fund will secure the permanent defrayment of GST expenses for them. Many will receive further support from the Cost-of-Living Special Payment, the U-Save rebates and Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) rebates; the additional $600 in Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers coming on the heels of the $500 recently disbursed, are appreciated.

On this note, I would like the Government to consider pegging this or future batches of vouchers to the number of persons per household. If three or four generations or an extended family live at one address, it could be due to financial limitations. Hence, all the more reason for a headcount-based CDC Voucher system. On the other hand, if the reason to stay together is to facilitate mutual care and support, the household should similarly not be penalised for this.

Today, I would like to take the opportunity to appeal for more middle- and long-term support for the sandwich generation – whom I would refer to as the group that has to provide for the care and expenses of children and elderly parents, while having to prepare for their own retirement needs. We have to factor in longer lifespans, which mean that they have to support their parents over a longer period even as they themselves become senior citizens. As family is the most important unit of society, we need to continue providing the relevant support needed by this group in order to safeguard our families and our society.

The raised per capita household income thresholds for healthcare and associated social support subsidy schemes, will be greatly welcomed by our families as more will be able to benefit from subsidies. I also appreciate the increase in the Silver Support Scheme, which provides quarterly payments to seniors who had low incomes during their working years and have less family support. I hope a similar scheme can be introduced for elderly with similarly low incomes during their working years but who are living with their family members, albeit in the lower- and middle-income brackets. Such a support programme will also help to alleviate the burden on the sandwich generation.

I would also like to speak about our families with genuine needs to ferry young children and elderly parents at this stage in their lives – who need cars but find car ownership difficult to afford. Would the Government also consider recalibrating our vehicle COE system to take into account the changing car usage patterns, including the rise in car-sharing services and yet continue to keep car ownership affordable for families who need it?

Finally, I would like to surface feedback regarding retirees living in landed properties. In recent years, their property taxes have been increasing, which affects this group of senior citizens living off their savings. While the annual value bands will be raised and they will be allowed to pay via a 24-month instalment plan without interest, some of them may still face financial issues. Hence, I would like to propose for an arrangement where IRAS will review, discuss with and advise affected landowners the various payment options and alternative solutions appropriate to their specific cases. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to surface feedback regarding retirees living in landed properties. In recent years, their property taxes have been increasing, which affects this group of senior citizens living off their savings. While the annual value bands will be raised and they will be allowed to pay via a 24-month instalment plan without interest, some of them may still face financial issues. Hence, I would like to propose for an arrangement where IRAS may review, discuss with and advise affected landowners the various payment options and alternative solutions appropriate to their specific cases.

(In English): This is a forward-looking Budget that is focused on steering the whole nation ahead while not leaving anyone behind. Sir, I would like to conclude with my support for the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

12.57 pm

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his Budget that, in my view, puts money in the right places, including investing in Singaporeans in the long term.

My speech today is in two parts. First, I will speak about the culture of work in Singapore. Second, I will speak about uplifting the wages of workers in the professions of the hands.

Let me begin by saying that I am heartened by the investments the Government is making in our workers – through the enhancements to the SkillsFuture Credit scheme and the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Allowance as well as the subsidy for mature workers to take another full-time diploma. This will help to ensure that our workers are able to keep themselves relevant and future-ready.

But these schemes will not bear fruit if our workers do not have the correct mindset and our culture of work is not conducive.

The culture of work in many countries, including in Singapore, is changing. I welcome some of these trends, like flexible working hours and working from home, as they can help to create work environments that are conducive to an ageing population and supportive of couples having more children. I am more cautious of other trends and suggestions – like a very short workweek and a right to disconnect from work.

Many of these trends originate and emanate from developed economies. Singapore is, of course, also a developed economy, but we are very different from many of these other countries – some of which have natural resources or hinterlands that they can tap on. Singapore's sole resource is our human resource, upon which all our success has been built. As the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, and I quote, "You know the Singaporean. He is a hardworking, industrious, rugged individual; or we would not have made the grade." The quote, of course, continues to say that he is also a champion grumbler. But that it is fine if he has worked hard, then he has earned the right to grumble.

Therefore it falls to reason that if our workforce weakens, our competitiveness and attractiveness as an economy weakens and this threatens our continued ability to sustain our way of life. As such, we should be very careful when we look adopting some of these trends and we should determine their sustainability for Singapore and the consequences of implementing them in legislation and in policy.

Take for example, the right to disconnect legislation recently enacted in Australia. Amendments made to the Fair Work Act will allow workers to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact from their employer or a third-party outside of their working hours, without penalty. Let us look at the practical effect of this legislation.

First, there will always be some workers who decide to forego their rights and to remain connected. These are people who simply do not want to disconnect for various reasons. And among these people, we may be likely to find the future leaders of organisations, future entrepreneurs, inventors, young lawyers who aspire to become senior counsel, workers who want to go the extra mile to delight their customers, administrative service officers who want to get their promotions. There is simply no alternative to hard work, putting in the hours, putting in the steps. And being in a global city in a super-connected world, a contactable and responsive worker is invariably a more valuable worker.

Second, while the worker that refuses to be contacted would not be penalised, the worker that remains contactable may get a boost in his performance evaluation. He may be more likely to get the increment and the promotion because an organisation must reward those that are more valuable to it and that are more willing to do more than they have to.

Third, there may be tensions that arise because the worker who exercises his rights strictly may have expected that he would have had spots as the worker who forewent his rights, who would in turn expects that he does better precisely because he had put in more work than is expected.

The legislation in Australia gives the worker an actionable right to disconnect. So, this means more litigation, more labour discord on something that may ultimately not be easy to prove. Such legislation creates more questions, more tension that could be disproportionate to any good that could conceivably come out of it. I hope that such legislation does not come before this House.

We should be careful as to what trends and fads we decide to champion in this House. They may have severe consequences on the productivity and competitiveness of our workforce. Let us not forget how the Great Resignation came and went as fair as doomed.

There is a trend promoting an aversion towards material success, as if it was some form of scarlet letter, in favour of a more relaxed attitude to work. Being overly materialistic is, of course, not a good thing. But I hope that this does not trickle down to become an aversion to hard work, ambition or the pursuit of success because we have to face it that many successful people are motivated by material success, and that that pursuit of it may lead to the creation of successful companies and jobs and opportunities for Singapore.

So, let us encourage those who want to work hard and who want to work more, in pursuit of whatever their dreams are and let us avoid a culture against work from forming in Singapore.

On a related note, at the last Sitting, we had a lengthy and very important debate on mental health. I am glad that Deputy Prime Minister Wong has stated that mental health is a national priority and that there will be an expansion of mental health services. I am, however, troubled with some narratives that suggest that mental health and hard work are on polar opposites and that they are mutually exclusive. I have heard people say things like: "I'm not going to put too much effort into this job because I am prioritising my mental health". Yes, excessive work stress can lead to mental health issues. But I am sure that there are also many people who work very hard, who take on a lot on themselves professionally, who have difficult working hours – and who also have good mental health. I imagine that there are many Members in this House who would fall into this category.

We should therefore avoid giving paid to such narratives even as we tackle very real mental health concerns amongst our workers.

I am concerned that the Singapore worker may be becoming complacent in believing that our way of life is a given. Singapore is not invincible. In fact, as Deputy Prime Minister pointed out in his Budget speech, we cannot afford to become complacent. We are vulnerable – if we have slow growth similar to what we saw in the previous year, Deputy Prime Minister said, we would be in trouble, and we would not be able to improve our collective well-being, and our standard of living would be affected. So, we must constantly work at it and we must guard against trends and ideas that can negatively affect our competitiveness.

But at the same time, there is no point working hard to maintain the lead and then not enjoying it ourselves. So, we need to achieve that balance. We cannot just live well in vacuo. We should not just work hard. And it is not about working well either. It is about working hard and living well. This is the work culture we should seek to promote amongst Singaporeans.

So, perhaps we can aim for our workers to have it all – and to put that forward as the ideal for our Singapore workers. My vision of a Singapore worker is someone who works hard and tries to do his best at his job. He is proud of his professional achievements and confident that he has the skills to take on future roles and to compete with foreign talent. He is compensated adequately to have a good Singapore standard of living, including spending quality time with his family and pursuing his personal interests. He is physically and mentally healthy. This is a vision of a holistic Singapore worker – one who does his best to work hard and is able to live well.

In fact, I would like to encourage our workers to use this as a mantra and a hashtag online: #workhardlivewell. You do not have to fell "pai seh" posting about your leisurely pursuits or holidays with your family, or just having gotten or bought something nice for yourself. Why? Because you worked hard, you achieved it, and you deserve it. #workhardlivewell.

Sir, all this having been said, and moving on to my next point, there are yet workers amongst us who work hard but who do not live as well as they should, primarily because they do not earn enough, and also for some, because of longer working hours and working conditions. They are in what may be called the professions of the hands, that is, jobs that are manual in nature and that do not have a high academic criterion for entry. Many of these are in Progressive Wage Model (PWM) sectors like cleaning, retail, F&B, security and waste management. I declare at this juncture, Sir, my interest as the President of Security Association Singapore, a trade association in a PWM sector.

In the first instance, Sir, I think that we need to recognise that these jobs require that workers have certain skills. We must recognise and accept that these are skilled jobs. Last week, there was some online chatter about a SkillsFuture course on washing toilets, which is part of the mandatory training for workers in the cleaning industry. A post that was widely circulated commented that these skills could be learnt during National Service or at home. I think this misses the point. Just because one can grow a cactus on their office table does not make them an arborist or horticulturalist.

This course teaches workers on how to clean toilets on a commercial basis. And there are many things that go into it, from safety elements like putting up a sign outside the toilet while it is being washed and when to remove it, to the use of various types of cleaning equipment, and chemicals, some of which may be dangerous if not used properly. It goes into basic custodial checking and time management because these workers have to manage the cleanliness of several washrooms in a day. So, let us not ridicule the work that people do or the training that they undergo.

The second thing that we should recognise is that these are jobs that are physically demanding. I would challenge naysayers to wait tables at a restaurant. It is not easy. I have done it myself. You are on your feet throughout your shift, walking from tables to kitchen or to the bar, carrying food and drink that can be heavy. There is a public relations element to the job because you should be pleasant with patrons and there may be some amount of entertaining that you may have to do as well. It is not as simple as some may make it out to be.

Third, there are significant shortages in the manpower supply for these jobs. In the security industry there is an estimated shortage of between eight and 18,000 officers at any one time. The shortages become worse when there is a surge of demand for security officers during major events, like the Formula One (F1) Race. We therefore need to be able to attract more Singaporeans to enter these professions and to pay them well.

Fourth, these jobs are important jobs that have integral contribution to what Singapore is and what Singapore aspires to be. If we look at the trademark physical attributes that Singapore is famous for – clean, green and safe. All of these are managed by PWM sectors. We are a food paradise. We want to be a shopping destination. All PWM sectors. The workers in these sectors may not hold very high academic qualifications but they are doing their part in the Singapore miracle and it is not a small part, and they need to be recognised and rewarded accordingly.

I was very encouraged when I read Deputy Prime Minister Wong's speech at the IPS Singapore Perspectives Conference in January last year. Amongst other things, the Deputy Prime Minister said that we should embrace a broader definition of a good job and recognise skills and competencies instead of overly focusing on paper qualifications. The Deputy Prime Minister said that we should embrace a broader definition of a good job and recognise skills and competencies, instead of overly focusing on paper qualifications. The Deputy Prime Minister said it is not just about re-shaping the labour market, but also about shifting perceptions about work.

I was further encouraged to see the Forward Singapore report include "respecting and rewarding every job" as one the objectives we would seek to achieve. It is important that we not only reward workers in these jobs, but that we also build respect for their professions, so that we can equalise how all jobs are viewed. The report also called for a further reduction of wage gaps across professions including through the PWMs.

In this Budget, there are also measures to bolster the PWMs through the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme as well as to support Institute of Education (ITE) graduates through the Progression Award. It is quite clearly a Government priority, which I applaud, to achieve a mindset change so that all jobs in Singapore are viewed as good jobs, and that the gap in the compensation for workers of different professions is made smaller.

The current PWMs look at closing the gap between lower-wage workers and the median income. I would like to call on the Government and the tripartite partners to go further so that we can achieve both the twin aims of reward and respectability. I ask that they consider setting as a long-term objective that the average wage of workers in each PWM sector rise to be on par with the average wage of fresh university graduates.

I make this suggestion because although the Forward Singapore report addresses the matter of increasing rewards, it does not touch much on how to improve respectability, aside from encouraging it through some form of moral-suasion. Pegging average wages of professions of the hands with that of academically-inclined fresh graduates could provide a more tangible indication that both these categories of jobs are equally worthy of respect and hopefully, trigger a cultural shift in how our society views these jobs.

I would also like to ask the Government and the tripartite partners to also accelerate the PWM wage increases so that our lower-wage workers can also live well and enjoy the fullness of the standard of living that Singapore should provide for its citizens. While the PWMs have achieved very significant wage increases that would have not occurred but for the PWMs, my view is that they need to go further.

We can look at, for example, the prescribed entry-level security officer wage in 2024, which is $2,650. For, say, a 40-year old officer, after deductions for CPF, he would take home about $2,120 – a sum that would go into supporting his family and himself. I am not going to go into the various calculations, that have been aired in this House before, of what is a minimum living wage in Singapore. But let us just be honest with ourselves and ask ourselves if $2,120 a month is this sufficient. Will such a wage entitle that security officer to live the life of a Singapore worker that I envisioned earlier? Will he enjoy the good Singapore standard of living? If we are honest with ourselves, I think we know that it would not be sufficient.

But the silver lining is that security officers will in fact see fairly rapid wage increases over the next four years. By 2028, an entry-level security officer will earn a minimum basic wage of $3,530 or more; security supervisors will earn $4,130 and senior security supervisors at least $4,430. I hope that the tripartite partners negotiating the security PWM beyond 2028 will consider my suggestion to peg the average wage of security officers across all the ranks with the average wage of fresh university graduates.

While my proposal may be seen as bold in the Singapore context, it is in fact a norm in many advanced economies. My research reveals that the average wages of cleaners, security officers and waste management personnel are not far from the average wage of a fresh university graduate in Sweden, Switzerland, Japan and Australia. In fact, the average wages of waste management personnel and security officers, in particular, tended to be higher than that of fresh university graduates.

So, it does appear that Singapore is somewhat of an anomaly amongst comparable advanced economies in the wages we pay our workers in these sectors.

Finally, Sir, I would also like to ask the Government to make further effort to persuade consumers to support wage increases by being prepared to pay more for the services that the PWM sectors provide. As Deputy Prime Minister Wong said at the IPS Conference, consumers must be willing to pay more for certain goods and services to uplift the wages of those who provide them.

I am on all fours with Deputy Prime Minister's observation that, and I quote, "We cannot demand for services delivered by our fellow citizens to be priced cheaply and in the same breath lament that their wages are too low. It is completely inconsistent."

But another observation is that the initial few PWM sectors were all in the facilities management sector and were servicing mainly private condominiums and commercial buildings. The buyers of these services actually can afford the increases in prices, but unfortunately, many of these buyers still retain the mentality that these services are manual services and therefore ought to be cheap. They have therefore been reluctant to increase prices in recognition of value and have largely continued to adopt a cheap-sourcing approach.

In this regard, I hope the Government will do more, in partnership with the respective trade associations and trade unions, to change buyers' mindsets.

Hence, Sir, to summarise. I hope that our workers will continue to have a mindset that is cognizant of our innate vulnerability. We have to put in effort in order to maintain our way of life. The corollary is that those who are working hard, including in professions of the hands, are able to get their just rewards. I hope that we will collectively be able to enjoy the Singapore standard of living, regardless of our professions and educational background. The reality of maintaining Singapore’s competitiveness and our prosperity is that, if we want to continue to live well, we must be prepared to work hard. And those who work hard should expect that they will get the rewards and respect that enable them to live well. Sir, I support the Budget .

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

1.16 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, as I have shared in my Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill speech on Budget Day itself, FY2023 did turn out to be another year of record tax collections, after significant increases in IRAS’ tax collections over the last two years, a jump of around 38% to $68 billion in FY2022.

Overall operating revenues increased by $13.3 billion in FY2023 compared to a year ago to $104.3 billion, and this is also $7.6 billion higher than projected operating revenues first revealed in Budget 2023 last year. What is noteworthy is that this is not solely on the back of volatile revenues such as stamp duties or vehicle quota premiums, but on the back of record levels of corporate income tax, personal income tax and of course, GST revenues, all of which continued to break new record highs. What was most impressive was the 23% jump in corporate income taxes in FY2023, even after a sharp jump of 27% the year before, with corporate income taxes set to be sustained at record high levels of around $28 billion. This was not surprising, given news of record profits from some of the larger Singapore corporates, from DBS Bank to Sembcorp Industries.

Positive revisions to FY2022 data also meant that instead of a revised deficit of $4.2 billion, FY2022 saw a surplus of $1.7 billion instead. While the overall fiscal position for FY2023 is still projected to be in deficit, this was largely due to an increase in special transfers, chief of which is the recent inclusion of the $7.5 billion Majulah Package Fund, without which FY2023 would have seen a $3.9 billion surplus instead.

It is important to put into context the record operating revenues and improved fiscal position of the Government against the challenging economic environment that we faced in 2023. GDP growth slowed to a mere 1.1%, while inflation was a source of consternation for many Singaporeans, which was what led the WP to raise the cost-of-living Motion in Parliament late last year, to share ideas and possibilities of reducing cost of living pressures by way of policy change, many of which are structural.

In line with the theme of providing constructive feedback and ideas, I have two revenue measures for the Government to look into, after studying the revenue and expenditure trends over the past years. This would be in addition to revenue raising moves that my colleagues and I have shared in past Budget debates, such as the issue of wealth taxes which I have raised previously, where even though we may have raised the highest personal income tax bracket and property taxes, the likes of wealthy individuals earning dividends and capital gains income from their vast wealth while renting luxury apartments in Singapore will still not be taxed directly.

Firstly, looking at revenue collections as a percentage of GDP from FY2018 to FY2024 in Table 3.2b, over the years, customs and excise taxes is one of few categories which has seen a decrease in contribution as percentage of GDP over the years, despite higher tobacco excise duties from last year and the inclusion of carbon taxes in this category. In line with the spirit of wealth taxes, there is room to study the potential to have liquors being taxed on an ad valorem basis, in light of our suggestion of raising so-called “sin taxes”. This need not result in any increase in duties on everyday alcoholic beverages, but it would be much more equitable if the so-called “atas” wines of the world, which easily cost thousands of dollars a bottle, incur a higher excise duty compared to the $20 a bottle wine found in the supermarket.

Second, I note that casino taxes were raised in 2022. In spite of this, betting taxes as a percentage of GDP have been flat in past years at around 0.5%. Given that gambling duties have been unchanged since 2014, there is room to look into raising the relevant gambling duties, which could also serve a deterrent function.

Moving on to the main body of my speech today, I will touch on the importance of structural changes compared to one-off handouts, where I will highlight the need for structural improvements to personal income taxes and corporate income taxes to better support individuals and businesses while keeping our tax system progressive and up to date, and also touch on the urgent and important topic of retirement adequacy.

Conceptually, I believe that: one, it is important to put in place structural levers in our system as opposed to relying on one-off schemes, which may either be new or have to be refreshed year after year, incurring a lot of administrative costs and resources to operate on the part of the Civil Service, and creating much uncertainty on the part of Singaporeans; two, it is also important to direct our resources to those who need them the most, rather than broad-based handouts to everyone, which could lead to allegations of Budget measures being part of an "Election Budget."

Take the CDC Voucher scheme, for example. While I am sure all Singaporeans appreciate cash handouts amid the cost-of-living crisis, the CDC Voucher scheme evolved from one aimed at helping Singaporean lower-income households defray their cost of living in 2020 to one where all Singaporean households are eligible. The amounts given have also varied quite significantly over the years, and it remains a question whether the scheme will be a permanent one, or if so, whether all households will continue to qualify and just how much are the vouchers going to be worth.

Moreover, as opposed to the existing GST Voucher scheme, there appears to be many operational challenges faced by Singaporeans when trying to claim the CDC Vouchers, such as those who are renting their flats and sharing the same address with other households, those living in shelters and also those who no doubt may belong to the same household but are facing difficult familial relationships.

On personal income taxes, I note a tax rebate worth 50% of tax payable, or up to $200 was introduced in YA2024, similar to YA2019. However, instead of a one-off rebate, we are better off raising the bottom-end of marginal resident personal income tax rates and increasing the tax-free threshold for the first $20,000 of chargeable income to reflect inflation over time. This was what I raised in a Parliamentary Question back in 2022.

Similarly, on corporate income tax (CIT), a CIT rebate of 50% of the corporate tax payable will be granted to all taxpaying companies, whether tax resident or not, for YA 2024. In my speech on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill in 2021, I suggested raising the level of progressivity in our corporate income tax regime to better support our local SMEs.

Even as other support for companies to build capabilities is being strengthened, I hope the Government would consider providing greater tax relief to our SMEs, such as by raising the tax exemption limits or by introducing schemes similar to the two-tiered profits tax rate regime in Hong Kong, which they introduced in 2018 to relieve the tax burden for SMEs in particular.

This is important given that in Budget 2018, the Government announced tighter restrictions around our tax exemption schemes. For an SME making $300,000 in chargeable income for example, total corporate income tax paid before any rebates would be close to $34,000 or an effective tax rate of 11.2%, compared to around $25,000 or an effective tax rate of 8.4% based on prior rules.

Having such corporate income tax reforms built into the tax regime would also provide for greater certainty, as opposed to the current CIT rebates which significantly vary year after year from 20% to 50% in terms of the rebate, to a cap of $10,000 to $40,000 in the last decade from YA2013 to YA2024.

It is critical to ensure that we continually re-invest in our local SMEs, the backbone of our economy representing 99% of all enterprises here and responsible for the jobs of 71% of employees, to enable Singapore to stay competitive in a post-BEPS world. Otherwise, we could well see a reduction in our tax base and employment levels, should our local SMEs shift more of their activities to other jurisdictions in response to the new business environment.

Touching on the topic of BEPS2.0, which I have also spoken about in past Budget debates, the time for introducing adjustments to our tax system is finally before us. Deputy Prime Minister Wong has also announced the introduction of two components of Pillar 2, the Income Inclusion Rule and the Domestic Top-up Tax.

As I have asked last year, while precise numbers may not be feasible, does MOF not have a range of blue sky and grey sky projections as to the impact of the implementation of a domestic top-up tax? Especially when we are looking at the Income Inclusion Rule and the Domestic Top-up Tax taking effect in less than a year’s time, for businesses’ financial years starting on or after 1 January 2025?

To put into context my question, the OECD has published a working paper earlier this year, which finds that the global minimum tax “can raise between US$155 to US$192 billion of additional CIT revenues per year, with revenue gains accruing to all jurisdiction groups”. Moreover, estimated participating countries categorised as “investment hubs,” which includes Singapore, would have the largest expected gains from the reforms, with corporate income tax revenues rising from 14% minimum to up to 34%. If this is factually incorrect, given that the MOF will have a better basis to make its own estimates, then I hope the Deputy Prime Minister can correct this in his round-up speech.

Instead, the Deputy Prime Minister shared in his Budget speech that he does not expect the new moves to generate “net revenue gains,” due to the “significant spending required to stay competitive.” To say so is just akin to saying any forms of tax rate increases, from personal income tax, stamp duties to the GST, is not going to generate net revenue gains due to higher spending needs.

I understand that this could be due to the introduction of Refundable Investment Credits and the net effect of BEPS 2.0 and the Refundable Investment Credit is to an extent also dependent on just how generous the EDB and ESG are in awarding these Refundable Investment Credits to companies.

I agree that only time can tell when it comes to the actual revenue gains, as we await the roll-out of Pillar 2 globally, but it would be a sad day if countries go against the spirit of the reforms in the first place.

The BEPS 2.0 reforms were introduced to stop the race to the bottom when it comes to sovereign tax policies, and to facilitate international collaboration to end tax avoidance. Let me repeat that the OECD has shared that with the two-pillar solution, all economies will benefit from extra tax revenues – all economies. I hope the additional tax revenues from BEPS 2.0 will not simply be in substance returned to MNEs through other forms.

Finally, let me touch on a topic which is close to my heart – and that is retirement adequacy. It is also a pressing issue which requires urgent and decisive action, given our rapidly ageing society. While there are several good moves to improve retirement adequacy, like raising the ERS and enhancing the Silver Support Scheme and MRSS, I am concerned about the closing of the CPF SA after the age of 55, and the lack of longer-term measures to help Singaporeans grow our retirement nest egg sustainably.

In itself, I do not have qualms about the closing of the SA. However, this is a step backwards when it comes to ensuring the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans, and much needs to be done to truly strengthen retirement adequacy for the seniors today and tomorrow.

When the compulsory annuity scheme CPF LIFE was introduced, the SA continued to provide flexibility to CPF holders to access or “touch” their retirement savings, while providing a decent interest rate floor of 4%.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong said in his Budget speech, “The remaining SA savings will be transferred to the Ordinary Account (OA). Of course, members can voluntarily transfer their OA savings to the Retirement Account (RA) at any time, up to the revised ERS, to earn higher interest and to receive higher retirement payouts.” Is this the full picture, though?

Singaporeans will know that funds in the RA will be used to pay the premiums for their CPF LIFE plan, meaning to say we can no longer withdraw the funds as we wish. It is also true that from the age of 55 to, say, the payout age of 65, these RA funds continue to earn the same interest rate floor of 4% as with the SA. So far, so good. But unbeknownst to many, from the moment payouts commence, any interest earned will not accrue to the CPF holder, but it is pooled together under CPF LIFE for all members.

An FAQ by the CPF Board says it best, that interest earned on CPF LIFE premium is not included as part of the amount paid to beneficiaries when one passes away. I understand that this is the concept behind annuity schemes to enable members to get lifetime payouts. But it also means that even though the stated interest rate of the SA and the RA is identical, the actual yield that is earned by the two accounts could not be more different. And that based on the latest average life expectancy of Singaporeans, it is unlikely that the effective yield for RA savings will exceed that of funds that would have been in the CPF SA.

Moreover, whenever I raise the issue of CPF interest rates in Parliament, the response by various political officeholders has been to stress the attractiveness of prevailing risk-free interest rate floors of 2.5% for the OA and 4% for the Special, Medisave and Retirement Accounts (SMRA) over the past two decades of protracted low interest rate environment. The closure of the SA from age 55 takes the shine out of such counter-arguments, in my view.

As Deputy Prime Minister Wong reminded us, we are facing a change in environment from very low interest rates to a more normalised period where interest rates will be higher for longer and the era of easy money is over. It is in the context of this sea change that we should look at CPF interest rates going forward. How then should we allow the laws of mathematics and compounding to work for our seniors’ retirement funds?

I continue to stick by what I spoke about in the Reserves Motion earlier this month, and that is to enable all Singaporeans, not just our reserves, to directly participate in the long-term returns from the Government's fund manager, GIC, with adequate safeguards in place. This is especially pertinent when we consider the source of funds for the GIC in the first place, a part of which is indirectly derived from CPF savings via the Singapore Savings Bonds (SSGS bonds).

As I have shared, based on the 20-year nominal returns of the GIC portfolio of 6.9% and the CPF-OA rate of 2.5%, based on a simple rule of 72, the number of years it takes for our CPF monies to double goes from about 10 years based on GIC’s returns, to 29 years based on the prevailing OA rate. The effects on our ability to save for our own retirement is tremendous.

I listened to Minister Indranee Rajah's explanation that in 2014, then Deputy Prime Minister Tharman explained in Parliament at great length how we set our CPF interest rates and manage CPF proceeds. I went to do a bit of research on this into the Hansard and realised I was far from being the first to bring this up. Then Deputy Prime Minister Tharman's explanation was in response to PAP Member of Parliament Mr Inderjit Singh, who also questioned whether our 2.5% interest rate paid out to the CPF OA is fair compensation for Singaporeans who have left their savings locked up for so long.

In fact, if I go back further in time, many MPs from the PAP, WP, NMPs, have all suggested allowing regular Singaporeans access to better investment returns from the Government's investment entities like the GIC. PAP MP, Dr Lily Neo, called on the CPF Board to work with GIC, and perhaps peg the interest rates at two percentage points below GIC's returns. NMP Mr Siew Kum Hong quoted an academic paper which stated that: "To the extent that the GIC's return on investments has been higher than the return actually credited to CPF members, a recurrent, highly regressive, largely implicit tax on the CPF wealth has been borne by CPF members." PAP MPs Mr Ong Kian Min and Mr Sim Boon Ann called on the Government to share with CPF members surpluses it makes on CPF monies. And Mr Ong even said, "I cannot understand how the Government can say it will not be responsible for providing for my retirement, but I must lend the Government my retirement savings for investments and any gains earned on my money is not my money." Finally, Ms Sylvia Lim from the WP also called on the Government to do more to boost CPF returns while managing the risks, especially after the 2002 Economic Review Committee's recommendations to do so via private pension plans.

These are all words of wisdom by those who came before me, and two decades on, continue to resonate so deeply with me. How many more Singaporeans today could have met their retirement sums, compared to the four in 10, five in 10 today, had we implemented these suggestions back then?

If for some reason the Government is still adamant that we are unwilling or unable to allow Singaporeans to share in the fund management expertise and returns of the GIC, then the least we can do is to urgently implement the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme (LIRS), something which I have been repeating in each of the last three years so that we can better support Singaporeans' retirement needs.

Let us remember that eight years ago, in 2016, then Minister for Manpower Mr Lim Swee Say, had then on behalf of the Government, accepted the recommendations within part two of the CPF Advisory Panel's report, which included the introduction of the LIRS as an additional investment scheme. To quote then Minister Lim: "These additional options will help address the concerns some Singaporeans may have with regard to the rising cost of living in retirement and the desire for higher expected investment returns for those who had to take on some investment risk."

One of our fellow MPs today, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, was a part of the CPF Advisory Panel too, where Chairman Prof Tan Chor Chuan articulated the limitations of the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS) and put it so aptly, that "the Panel believes that there is a need to provide an additional investment avenue that can better help such CPF members earn higher expected returns than the CPF interest rates in a simpler way than CPFIS."

The big question I have is, when will the Government finally be ready to roll this out? Is it still prepared to do so? I hope the Government is cognisant that the longer the delay, the higher the opportunity cost and real cost to Singaporeans' retirement savings.

To conclude, Mr Speaker, I appreciate the Government providing for one off goodies and handouts to Singaporeans and Singapore companies, on the back of yet another record high operating revenues, which were $13 billion higher compared to a year ago. However, it is important that we put in place structural levers in our system as opposed to relying on one-off schemes and I have suggested changes to our personal and corporate income tax systems to illustrate this point. And finally, we are all aligned with the urgent need to strengthen Singaporeans' retirement adequacy, so let us not shut Singaporeans out of attractive, sustainable and practical solutions to boost our retirement funds.

Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.

1.34 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2024 is a budget that is set against major global uncertainties. Singapore continues to remain vulnerable to macro forces that are beyond our control and influence. While we continue to keep an eye on global developments with trepidation, I am glad that this year’s Budget has reflected the Government’s commitment to the Forward Singapore movement by introducing specific and targeted support to areas of concerns highlighted by Singaporeans.

Sir, I will be focusing my speech on three main areas: (a) how the Government could refine the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) scheme for Singaporeans below 55; (b) SkillsFuture and Continuing Education and Training (CET); and (c) how the Ministry of Education (MOE) could enhance the personal learning device (PLD) scheme to cover more students, specifically those in primary school.

First, supporting “young seniors” and enhancing ABSD. I am particularly glad that the Government is providing additional support to seniors on ageing, healthcare and retirement during such times of uncertainty and rising cost. This is an assurance to seniors, including young seniors like myself, that the Government will provide older Singaporeans a social safety net during their silver years, particularly when senior Singaporeans are facing the twin challenges of ailing health and reduced incomes.

Many Singaporeans aspire to own a private property because in some ways, it is an investment with high potential returns that could be unlocked during their silver years. I am glad that the Government now allows senior single Singaporeans above the age of 55 years old to claim for a refund of the ABSD on a second private property when they are downsizing. I had asked a Parliamentary Question on this topic in July 2023 and I am grateful to the Government for responding with this policy change.

This would give senior single Singaporeans more flexibility to unlock the value of their initial larger properties, or more valuable properties during the later years of their lives, without having to bear the financial burden of ABSD, which under the previous policy would have reduced their retirement nest egg by a significant amount.

I believe that this this is an important policy change, assuming that single Singaporeans are unlikely to have the same level of economic support that married senior Singaporeans with children would have. Allowing a refund on their ABSD would help them to better meet their retirement needs.

In the same vein, I would like to ask if the Government would consider extending the same ABSD refund scheme to younger single Singaporeans who are buying a smaller second private property to stay in, if they sell their first property within six months of acquiring their second private property. I believe this policy will give younger single Singaporeans more flexibility in their housing options if they wish to unlock the value of their private properties, especially to meet unexpected financial needs.

The refund policy for younger single Singaporean could be scoped more tightly than that for senior single Singaporeans to prevent abuse and profiteering. For example, the younger single Singaporeans must hold their first property for a specific number of years before they are entitled to the ABSD refund on their second smaller property and, perhaps, such refunds can only be claimed once or a maximum of twice in their lifetime.

My next topic will focus on SkillsFuture and continuous education training (CET). Apart from supporting senior Singaporeans with their ageing, healthcare and retirement needs, I am heartened to learn that the Government is also putting increased emphasis on our middle-aged Singaporeans with the SkillsFuture Level-up Programme. In particular, I welcome the $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) top-up and the Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy for another publicly funded full-time diploma programme.

Sir, with the shelf life of skills declining rapidly, it is paramount that the skills that Singaporeans have can keep up with rapidly evolving industry needs. Having once spent many years working in Temasek Polytechnic, I am confident that our polytechnics and IHLs are equipped to design and develop CET courses that can help upskill our mid-career Singaporeans.

That said, with industry needs evolving at such a rapid pace, our educators at the polytechnics and IHLs might not be fully equipped with the latest industry knowhows and insights to design and conduct courses that meet industry demand entirely. At present, there are very few courses offered at polytechnics and IHLs that are co-developed, co-taught and co-certified with industry partners.

I would like to urge MOE to consider how we can incentivise our polytechnics and IHLs to work more closely with the industries to conduct co-certified Pre-employment Training (PET) and CET courses. Co-taught and co-certified CETs are especially important for mid-career Singaporeans in equipping them with the latest knowledge that can positively impact their career. After all, having attended a co-certified programme with a leading industry player sends a strong signal to employers that their employees have learned from the best in the industry, not just from the staff at the polytechnics.

On the same note, I strongly urge our polytechnics to co-create new diploma courses with industry partners to take advantage of the Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy. Rather than have mid-career Singaporeans join an existing diploma programme with PET students, specific industry-oriented programmes with different teaching methods, pedagogies and learning outcomes should be created for them.

It is important for us to recognise that adult learners have very different learning needs and learning styles from teenagers or younger adults. Putting adult learners on the same diploma programmes is unlikely to help them to acquire the skills needed for a career switch or career step-up, since both groups of learners have very different levels of industry experience and cognition. Similar to how the teaching methods and teaching styles must differ between in a Masters programme and an undergraduate programme, for example, the diploma programme for mid-career Singaporeans must be designed and taught differently as well.

I would also urge the Government to extend the Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy to part-time diploma courses as well, not just full-time ones. I believe this would encourage more mid-career Singaporeans to take up such courses since they can still be employed full-time while undergoing upskilling and retraining.

Sir, my final area will focus on Personal Learning Devices (PLDs) for primary school students. Almost four years ago, in June 2020, I made a speech that urged MOE to consider extending the provision of PLDs to all students in Singapore, particularly those in primary school. While MOE committed to providing PLDs to all secondary students by end-2021 to be used in tandem with the national e-learning platform Student-Learning-Space (SLS), would MOE now not also consider providing PLDs to children in primary schools as well?

I think it is timely for MOE to consider providing PLDs to our students in the primary schools given how the education technology landscape has changed significantly in the past four years.

With the procurement framework of PLDs for secondary schools in place, it is now a matter of extending the same procurement framework and financial support schemes to students in our primary schools as well.

To reiterate some of the arguments that I have previously made: the ownership of PLDs for all levels of learners in Singapore is a bold and ambitious step in realising Singapore’s ambition to embrace smart learning. Such a device will enable students from across all levels of education to learn everywhere and anywhere and is the textbook of the future where all forms of education and submissions can be made on a single unified platform.

Introducing the ownership of PLDs at an early age would help induct our students, our younger students, to the notion of self-directed e-learning, encouraging them to take ownership of their own learning pace and performance at a younger age. This undoubtedly, will have a knock-on effect when they are older, especially when e-learning and continuous learning on-the-go become second nature to them.

Mr Speaker, this year’s Budget has continued the trajectory of the previous Budgets, with the Government providing targeted support to assist specific groups of Singaporeans, especially to navigate this uncertain space, this uncertain world that we are facing. While a significant portion of the Budget is focused on providing near term support to cope with the cost of living in the form of CDC Vouchers, Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC), U-Save and income tax rebates, the Budget is also forward looking in providing support for seniors and mid-career Singaporeans.

With Singapore due to become a super-aged society by 2030, ageing in dignity is one of the foremost concerns for many Singaporeans. I am heartened to know that the Government is taking active steps to address this concern early through the Forward Singapore movement and the following policies that it is rolling out.

I hope the Government can accelerate the pace in which support programmes for seniors are being rolled out and to consider how to better cater to the needs of this group of Singaporeans who have contributed tremendously in early years to Singapore. Beyond providing top-ups to Medisave and direct financial support through the Silver Support Scheme, I also hope that the Government can also work towards building robust localised ecosystems that allow our seniors to age with dignity. With that, Sir, I end my speech in firm support of the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.

1.44 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget. Today, I would like to speak about two things: how to help our people thrive in their jobs; and how to support our seniors to age with purpose and dignity. I will also speak briefly about the cost of living.

We spoke about unemployment support in this House for years. Based on my conversations with my residents in Kebun Baru, it is not yet a top-of-mind concern for them. To give some context, four in 10 of my residents live in private estate homes. Why? Because the residents trust that the Government will support them if things get tough, as during COVID-19. I also want to point out that major insurance companies do sell unemployment insurance, but the take-up is not high.

But conceptually, I believe Singaporeans, including myself, are open it to if it is properly designed, as the world and the job market are changing at breathtaking speed. Two weeks ago, OpenAI stunned the world with their text-to-video capability, Sora. Sora was able to generate life-like one-minute videos from text prompting, where everything in the video obeyed the law of physics! Imagine that! Being able to ensure that every interaction in the animation abides by physics. This has some veteran Hollywood producers suggesting that in three to five years, generative AI can do the bulk of small screen television series production.

Great possibilities. But what happens to creative professionals globally, including in Singapore? The same story can be replicated across many industries, many countries.

We need to be prepared. We want our people to lead in this new wave of change. Most people do agree with the central idea, but yet, there are also many questions. Who will pay for it? Do we buy an insurance. Can we opt out? If the Government pays for it, how much tax do we all have to pay? Will they get abused? What will happen to personal responsibility?

To address this concern, we should be clear on what we want and what we do not want. Of course, we want our people to be confident in the face of change. We must focus on the central issue, which is an unanticipated cash flow challenge that most people face when they lose their jobs. We want this kind of support to be different from those who fall below the poverty thresholds.

Right now, we support Singaporeans only when they have exhausted their wealth and their familial support. But moving forward, when Singaporeans lose their jobs, we want them to focus on reskilling and upskilling by providing them with some financial peace of mind. Unemployment support should not only come when their savings have been wiped out.

Now, what we do not want? We do not want abuses or the shirking of personal responsibility. We do not want our people to make uninformed career reskilling decisions.

Factoring in the views of my residents, I propose a multi-tier approach towards unemployment support that balances three critical pillars of social support: one, a strong sense of personal responsibility; two, efficient risk-pooling through insurance; three, sufficient Government support, which is largely, let us not forget, largely funded by our taxes.

Let me first speak on efficient risk-pooling through insurance. I hope we can see a basic and not gold-plated unemployment payout for several months with an upper limit on one's lifetime, funded by unemployment insurance and, hopefully, we can pay for this insurance through the CPF.

Some of my residents also want the freedom to opt out. Of course, we have to think through this carefully. It will be easier to persuade people to join in in this insurance if the premium is affordable.

Two, we must preserve a strong sense of personal responsibility. As the cost of living differs widely, we should give our people a choice in how to manage their lifestyle in the event of a major cash flow disruption. To do so, we can offer them these options: fully or partially freezing housing loans and majority of healthcare, insurance premiums, taxes and fees, for a limited time to help with their cash flow, providing Government transfers, such as GST rebates ahead of schedule, that means, they can take their subsidies and transfers ahead of other Singaporeans and allowing them to borrow against their own CPF monies for those Singaporeans with healthy CPF balances already. The Government can also work with financial advisory associations to provide affected people with free financial advisory.

The third point is to provide sufficient Government support which is largely funded by tax. I hope the Government can offset some of the cost of the insurance and get things started. If there are specific industries or large companies that are going through a major downsizing, I hope the Government can step up to top up the monthly assistance, perhaps through a larger or longer payout, because when there is a large number of people exiting one industry, not everybody can quickly move into another industry.

In short, in implementing unemployment support, Singapore, we, must find our own way forward. We must do so by ensuring personal responsibility, risk pooling among our people, and Government support complement and not undermine one another.

To ensure support, I also hope we can actively consult the silent majority before rolling this out and move carefully, start with a modest programme and review that over time, because if we are to fund this programme through a further tax increase, there might be some fatigue amongst our taxpayers.

Let me switch now to Skillsfuture. There is broad support amongst people for the enhancement of Skillsfuture. Singaporeans are deeply appreciative of the monthly support for adult Singaporeans to go back to school full-time. This is something that Members of this House, including myself, have advocated over the years. It fills a critical gap in our efforts to upskill and reskill our people. Of course, our Government must also do our level best to ensure that the skills training in most industries is relevant and useful.

Now, let me move to my second topic, caring for our seniors. On behalf of PAP Seniors Group, I would like to thank the Government for delivering an A-plus Budget for seniors and for taking onboard many of the suggestions from PAP SG MPs.

I am also heartened that the Government is moving decisively on issues that I have spoken about over the years: seniors' CPF contribution rates, making our estates more senior-friendly and encouraging home-care services. Now, we must quickly implement these services as we are facing a silver tsunami. In addition, I hope the Government can consider the following.

First, quickly scaling up Age Well SG's caregiving home-care sandbox. The idea is straightforward. I hope the Government can support not just foreign manpower quota but also set aside spaces in HDB estates, so that the professional caregivers can be sited there comfortably, respond to our seniors quickly, without incurring too much transportation cost.

Second, even as we level up our Active Ageing Centres (AACs), I hope the Government can consider funding senior-related services in trusted nodes where our seniors gather, such as places of worship: mosques, churches and temples.

Third, to ensure that our nation's ecosystem of senior-related services always has a focus on serving our private estate residents as well. Our private estate seniors have caregiving and emotional support needs, even though they are better off financially. But through them, we can also get a preview of the needs of future Singaporean seniors.

Before I end my speech, I would like to speak briefly about cost of living.

First of all, I hope to see the Government provide more cost-of-living offsets in the next Budget, not just in this, especially to help our seniors and families, including those who are asset-rich and cash-poor, especially retirees living in the private estates.

I also hope that the Government can actively identify supply-side solutions and fixes, which can bring down the cost of doing business and, therefore, the cost of living. Let me give Members a few examples.

One, to reduce the manpower shortage, can we allow our companies to hire more foreigners, at a reasonable levy, in exchange for them creating even more flexible work arrangement opportunities, which will benefit our seniors, stay-at-home mums and caregivers? Can we increase the number of purpose-built dormitories and, in the meantime, allow for more onsite dormitories to ensure that our foreign manpower housing cost is manageable?

Also, once we implement the special economic zone with Johor, can we improve the connectivity of our more manpower-intensive operations and industries with our immigration facilities, so we can tap on more manpower from Johor to come over to work and go back to Johor daily?

Can we further re-energise our pro-enterprise panel to identify areas of red tape that cost the private sector time and money, so that we can reduce the cost of transacting with the Government?

Lastly, I hope the Government and my fellow Members in the Chambers can think through the cost-of-living implications when we pass new laws, regulations or ask for more enforcements. For many of us in business, we instinctively know that a higher quality or service level usually means higher cost. It is true for many governments, too.

Enforcement fairness costs money, too. Let me give an example using the upcoming rental fairness framework.

Yes, the law is more precise but it is also more complicated. Moving forward, most landlords will need lawyers to do contracting rather than let agents and landlords handle the drafting of lease as it is now. Moving forward, every time there is a change in the areas being surveyed, the landlords will need to hire a surveyor. These will cost landlords at least a few thousand dollars. What does it mean? Yes, it is harder for errant landlords to disadvantage the tenants, but all consumers will have to pay for the higher cost-of-living associated with higher rents.

Finally, I hope we can have a real conversation within our Chamber on how the issues we debate on and the solutions we propose have contributed to the higher cost of living, higher taxation or lower Government efficiency. I hope we can all be more measured when we call for more rules, additional studies and Parliamentary Questions, if it is only because we want to be seen conveying moral outrage after a tragedy or to signal virtue to a more particularly vocal part of our electorate.

I am fully aware that we speak up in Parliament to voice the views of our people. But let us remember that there is a real cost to society, through higher cost of living that the silent majority must bear when we pile on excessive regulations and enforcement.

In fact, I hope that when we speak about laws in Parliament in the future, we can speak clearly of the regulatory and enforcement cost imposed on society, businesses and our people. With that, I stand in strong support of the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

1.56 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2024 is a big Budget because the Government had a bumper year in 2023. Operating revenue in 2023 was larger than the original estimate by $8 billion because of the tax increases announced in 2022, high inflation and high property prices. This $8 billion excess revenue, together with the $23.5 billion Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) for 2024, contributed to surplus Budget resources of more than $30 billion to be allocated in this Budget.

As a result, the Government was able to make a record capital transfer of more than $30 billion to top up existing endowment and trust funds and create some new ones. Because of this, Budget 2024 will give some benefits to almost every Singaporean.

However, the monies in the endowment and trust funds will fund social spending over many years into the future and only a small amount will be spent this year. PSP has explained the workings of the endowment and trust funds during the Public Finance Motion three weeks ago and why capital transfers to these funds should not be considered as current-year spending.

Hence, Budget 2024 falls short on immediate spending in the current year. While we welcome the $1.9 billion Assurance Package and the effective reduction of the owner-occupier residential property tax increase announced in 2022 by the revision of the annual value bands of the properties, these supports are hardly enough for cash-strapped Singaporeans to cope with the current cost of living crisis.

The Government has also decided to close the SA for CPF members above 55 years old. This will impact the retirement plans of many Singaporeans who can no longer enjoy a higher CPF interest rate and withdrawal flexibility of their CPF funds at the same time. Can the Government tell us how much interest it is paying these SAs currently and how much will it save in interest payments?

On the other hand, we are pleased to note that Budget 2024 has addressed some of the issues that have been regularly raised by PSP in this House.

Firstly, the Government will now provide a Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) (Open Market) Voucher for one year, to support eligible families in renting HDB flats on the open market while waiting for their BTO flats. This will be a great help to young Singaporeans looking to form their own families and PSP strongly supports it.

Since Budget 2021, we have pointed out that the long waiting times to get a BTO flat is among one of the major factors pulling down our total fertility rate. As it is not possible to ramp up the BTO supply fast enough, PSP has always urged the Government to increase the number of rental flats and improve the quality of rental flats to enable young Singaporean couples to get a place to stay while waiting for their BTO flats.

While we support the PPHS (Open Market) Voucher, we are concerned that this scheme may negatively impact other groups of Singaporean tenants who are not eligible for PPHS. We urge the Government to go further to establish rental flats as a viable housing option going forward. During the COS debates, I will explain why the PSP’s Millennial Apartments Scheme is a superior and more all-rounded policy compared to providing vouchers under PPHS.

Secondly, the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) for full-time workers will be raised from $1,400 to $1,600 from this year. We recognise this increase in LQS as a step closer to the Minimum Living Wage concept that PSP has proposed.

PSP has long advocated for a Minimum Living Wage of $2,200 per month for all Singaporean workers, which translates into a take-home pay of $1,800 per month. While we support the increase in the LQS, we are mindful of its negative impact on SMEs which need Singaporean headcount in order to employ foreign workers. We hope the Government will introduce complementary measures to minimise the impact of the LQS increase on the business viability of our SMEs, which are operating in a rising high-cost environment.

Thirdly, a new SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme will be introduced to support mid-career workers with a $4,000 credit. My colleague, Ms Hazel Poa has already affirmed our support for it. It is good that the Government has now tied SkillsFuture training programmes to better employability outcomes. PSP has long argued that the SkillsFuture programme, which costs about a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money a year, has contributed little to the employability of Singaporean workers.

Much more still needs to be done to ensure Singaporeans have a larger share of good well-paying jobs. To that end, we would also suggest a level-up for the Skills Development Fund so as to co-opt employers into the process, thereby ensuring that the training undertaken by workers are relevant to raising productivity in their current jobs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2024 has continued with the traditional "handout approach" by the Government. The handout approach is characterised by the existence of around 60 support schemes and services, each offering short-term handouts for a targeted segment of Singaporeans. It is not uncommon, however, that multiple schemes are applied to solve one particular socio-economic problem for one recipient, which often, and very understandably so, makes it very confusing to the recipient.

For example, during Budget 2022, the Minister for Manpower presented an example of a low-income 65-year-old landscape worker who enjoyed a total income of $27,570 a year. While this figure works out to be about the same as the Minimum Living Wage that PSP has proposed, the total income was not paid from one source, but consisted of a base income of $17,400, presumably paid by the employer, and $10,170 paid by the government through seven different schemes, namely the Special Employment Credit, the Annual Progressive Wage Model Bonus, the Workfare Income Supplement, the Workfare Special Payment, Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) subsidies, the Care and Support Package and the U-Save and GST Vouchers. Hence, seven schemes were applied to achieve the one socio-economic objective of ensuring that the worker had more to cope with the cost of living.

Furthermore, such a system may contribute to lower self-esteem among lower-income workers because their basic pay is still very low and there are little incentives in the schemes to motivate them to improve themselves.

The handout approach also comes with a high administrative cost because needy Singaporeans usually need external help to navigate through the maze of eligibility rules to qualify for a particular support. For example, to deliver welfare benefits to a Singaporean, very often the Social Service Office (SSO), the People’s Association, the Silver Generation Office and many other private charity groups are involved at the same time.

Slightly more than half of the 60 schemes also require applications. Many needy Singaporeans are already struggling. They may not have the time or energy to pay attention to what schemes they qualify for, even if these schemes can help them. They also lack the English language proficiency to understand these rules.

Hence, despite the good intentions of the Government, the complexity of the handout approach means that many needy Singaporeans may not enjoy the benefits of the many schemes. Some of them may also not get the help they need fast enough, and this can be especially troubling when urgent help is required.

PSP is a strong advocate for more support for Singaporeans, but the taxpayer’s money spent must motivate Singaporeans to strive for higher goals and not breed dependency in handouts.

The PAP under the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew always sought to avoid breeding dependency. In contrast, the PAP Government of today is relying on a patchwork scheme of vouchers, rebates and top-ups that lower-income Singaporeans are increasingly dependent on, instead of pursuing systemic economic reforms such as reducing rent-seeking in the property market, strengthening labour protections, or introducing a Minimum Living Wage. Is this system dragging Singaporeans into a social trap rather than providing a social trampoline that allows Singaporeans to bounce back?

This may be the reason why although the PAP Government has increased social spending very significantly since about 2011, it did not seem to have improved the financial well-being of Singaporeans proportionately.

The main weakness of the handout system developed by the PAP Government, is that it does not empower the individual.

The objective of empowerment is to give the individual the means to take initiative to better his or her own life. PSP believes this begins with providing the individual with a minimum level of support and then incentivising him or her with attainable goals.

Once the individual has reached these goals, he or she will be motivated to strive for more. This whole process requires a "permanent scheme" approach and not a handout approach.

PSP’s permanent scheme approach will streamline and consolidate the Government’s 60 over schemes into a few permanent, national schemes which are easy to understand, provides a minimum level of support and an incentive mechanism for Singaporeans to work towards bettering themselves.

I have been advocating this permanent scheme approach since my first Budget debate in 2021, but my proposals were completely ignored by this Government. I shall repeat three of those that I have recommended repeatedly.

First and foremost, I have recommended the deferment of land cost from HDB flat pricing under the Affordable Homes Scheme (AHS). In our opinion, the AHS will be the beginning to many potentially positive socio-economic outcomes. For a start, it will immediately reduce the cost-of-living pressures on Singaporeans and allow them to have enough CPF savings without downgrading their HDB flats when they reach retirement. Most importantly, this peace of mind for housing and retirement will also apply to all future generations of Singaporeans.

With the AHS, we will not need to enhance the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans through schemes like the Matched Retirement Saving Scheme and the occasional top-up of CPF accounts. The resources in all these schemes can be consolidated into one permanent scheme namely the AHS.

Secondly, we have recommended the Minimum Living Wage which provides a minimum level of support to every working Singaporean permanently. As PSP have said in our manifesto 2020, anyone who puts in an honest day’s work should have enough to live with dignity.

The Minimum Living Wage is a social standard that we should establish that is not completely linked to the productivity of the worker. Thus, we have proposed the Minimum Living Wage to be co-funded by the Government. The co-funding can come from many handout schemes as mentioned before.

After ensuring a minimum gross monthly wage of about $2,200, we would like to recommend the Government to put in a permanent Progressive Wage Scheme to incentivise all Singaporean workers to continuously upskill towards higher gross monthly wages.

Thirdly, we have urged the Government to set up a National Health Insurance Scheme funded by it rather than having Singaporeans pay for their MediShield and CareShield premiums. To minimise moral hazards, Singaporeans will have to co-pay healthcare expenses from their Medisave accounts. The Government can supplement the Medisave accounts with a Healthier SG bonus every year. For Singaporeans who practise healthy living, this bonus will become excess MediSave balances which can be transferred to their Retirement Account to boost their retirement income.

PSP envisages that with the majority of Singaporeans covered under a few permanent schemes, the Minister for Finance will not need to distribute handouts to millions of Singaporeans during every annual Budget.

Our social welfare and security structure can also be streamlined and consolidated to focus on a much smaller group of needy Singaporeans. This is especially important as it ensures that this smaller group, who still need further help beyond that provided under the permanent schemes, receive the assistance they need expeditiously.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, you have a minute left.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have presented the "handout" approach of the PAP Government versus PSP's "permanent scheme" approach. The latter empowers Singaporeans with the certainty of help when they need it and encourages them to strive for higher goals with incentives.

PSP estimated that the shift to the permanent scheme approach will not consume significantly more fiscal resources – because the Government already has more than 60 schemes in place and has locked away tens of billions of dollars in endowment and trust funds.

PSP believes that we can do a lot more to improve the well-being of our citizens, work to combat future challenges, such as climate change and, provide support to worthy humanitarian causes abroad.

As owners of one of the largest sovereign wealth in the world, Singaporeans deserve better policies that can lead to better lives and a more secure future. We must be aware that we have the ability and responsibility to do more for ourselves, for Singapore and also for the world.

Sir, we support the Budget in hope that it is a step in the right direction. For country, for people.

Mr Speaker: Just for your information, I gave you an extra 30 seconds.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Kindly keep to the time that is allocated to everyone. Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

2.17 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2024 is a fair and progressive, Forward SG budget and continues the same overarching theme in the Budgets of recent years – to further improve socioeconomic equality but without stunting economic growth.

This ambition is easy to state but it is tricky to strike the right balance. There are mutual trade-offs in pursuing equality and growth together. It is also important to ensure that no one slips through the cracks.

While I have heard and read some opposing viewpoints, the general feedback from my residents is that the Budget payouts are generous and they can see that the Government is trying to transfer more from the well-to-do in our society to give to the lower- and middle-income segments in Singapore. But the message is clear. To paraphrase Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong from two Budgets ago, "those who have less, get more".

However, I am also aware of our budget constraints and, most importantly, we need to be aware of our sustainability issues going forward – especially in terms of our revenues and how we intend to spend going forward.

I will speak on three selected areas on our move to enhance equality in our economy and social space, which reinforces each other. First, enhancing transport welfare and supporting the middle and upper-middle group. Second, protection of vulnerable segments. Third, on our two-pronged approach to sustain our economic growth – attracting investments and talent to Singapore; and boosting our local enterprises.

Mr Speaker, in Malay please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This year, the Government continues its efforts to make Singapore a more equitable society. Just like the previous years, those who are successful will contribute a little more for the less well-off and less able. Deputy Prime Minister Wong's announcement for young ITE graduates to pursue diploma qualifications through the ITE Progression Award and the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme for Singaporeans aged 40 and above, is something that is welcomed. Support for preschool expenses and a one-year Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme Voucher for eligible families who rent a HDB flat in the open market are also significant and welcomed.

However, one important aspect of daily expenses that has not received the targeted attention is transportation and health costs. I will focus on the cost of transportation in my speech. The cost of owning and maintaining private vehicles in Singapore is recognised as one of the highest in the world. Even for public transport, fares have risen by 10 cents to 11 cents per trip in September 2023 and similar increases can be expected in the coming years. However, our transportation cost is still quite low compared to other major cities, with the Government providing support to reduce the impact of fare increases on commuters and ensuring that our infrastructure and transport network remain up to date.

May I ask whether the Public Transport Voucher (PTV) that was announced in December 2023 would be able to help their recipients offset 100% of the fare increase in 2023? More importantly, may I suggest that the Government consider extending targeted support for public transport, beyond those whose per capita household income (PCHI) is $1,600 or less? Can we further extend PTV as part of our budget transfers, such as CDC vouchers, in the future to help more Singaporeans?

Public transport assistance is more likely to benefit the lower and middle income groups, compared to the higher-income groups who generally use less of our buses and trains. However, if such assistance will encourage higher-income individuals to use public transport rather than private transport, that will still help us in our sustainable transport objectives. I have a resident at Toa Payoh who needs help in terms of public transport vouchers to go for job interviews and also to work in a location that is far away. There are some middle-income earners who were retrenched and are now looking for work but need temporary assistance in terms of transportation cost. So, I hope that the Government will introduce transport cost assistance in the form of a temporary financial support scheme for those who are retrenched and are now looking for jobs, for example.

(In English): We must also support the upper-middle income group, not just the low income. They are also experiencing the same rising costs but may not be getting as much in benefits compared to the lower- and middle-income groups.

One of the things in Budget 2024 that is also made available to the upper-middle income group, is the SkillsFuture enhancements. That must be correct, if we want continuous skills upgrading to be a key pillar in our social compact.

However, how likely will the upper-middle income group utilise the specific enhancements, in which are targeted at pursuing a diploma, degree or certification after age 40? Do we have data on the utilisation of SkillsFuture credits by income deciles? What do those trends tell us and will we be refining our approach to ensure that upskilling becomes a whole-of-society movement?

We must also ensure that schemes like SkillsFuture is not abused. Among other reasons, we do not want to allow those who are not in need to exploit and profit off these programmes, diverting away the help that should have gone to those who need it. It is scary to think that a criminal syndicate fraudulently made away with almost $40 million in grants between April and October 2017. While the more involved participants have each been sentenced to 13 to 17 years' imprisonment, are we still doing anything today to recover the $21 million that is still lost?

I also welcome the revision of the Annual Value (AV) bands of the owner-occupied residential property tax rates. When this property tax was raised in early 2022, it was not foreseeable that market rents would soar to the extent it did. The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Rental Index for private residential properties, saw a 35.3% surge from Q1 2022 to Q4 2023. As a result, more of our upper-middle income homeowners saw the AV of their properties and their property tax bill increase.

For owner-occupied residential properties, these homeowners would not have directly benefited from the bullish market rents since they are not renting their properties out. They were thus left poorer as a result as they had to pay property tax up to a higher bracket. Would there be more frequent and periodic reviews of our property tax structure, considering the volatility of market rents in Singapore? More fundamentally, is it time to stop pegging property tax for owner-occupied residential properties to AVs which are, in turn, pegged to market rent levels?

Second, our quest for socioeconomic equality must obviously include the protection of vulnerable segments. I will just focus on two such groups of vulnerable individuals.

First, our seniors, present and future. I thank Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong for the continued emphasis on the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans – especially after I dedicated almost the whole of my Budget speech last year to the topic as well as my 2022 Budget speech too. Among other things, the Government-supported increase in our seniors' CPF contribution rates, the raising of the ERS and the enhancement of support schemes, like Silver Support and Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS), which will boost the nest eggs of our seniors to retire and age with dignity.

In relation to the removal of the Special Account for those above age 55, I understand that such a move will get rid of a "shielding" hack – where wealthier CPF members are able to keep an amount that is more than their ERS in their Special and Retirement Accounts and earn the higher 4% interest on the whole of that amount. May I ask, prior to this year, how many percent of CPF members had balances in their Special plus Retirement Accounts that were more than their ERS?

But now that the Special Account will be closed, any excess funds above the ERS will be deposited back into the OA that only earns an interest rate of 2.5%. We note that. Would the Government be willing to reconsider relooking at the OA interest rate mechanism?

One suggestion would be to include some of the qualifying full banks, in addition to the three major local banks that are now being referenced. That may potentially shift the needle and is more reflective of funding conditions in Singapore. Another suggestion is to take into consideration the promotional interest rates that are offered by the banks instead of just the board rates. While it is true that a consumer might have to meet certain conditions to qualify for the promotional interest rates, that may not be a good reason to deny CPF members higher return on their OAs – especially given the cumulative size and certainty of the funds that the CPF Board is given to invest.

The Government can, of course, subsequently apply some negative credit spread or a slight discount to the interest rate – to reflect the lower risk of putting money in the CPF, as compared to bank risk. But my general point is that given the significant change or potential rapid changes in the global interest rate conditions recently and going forward, the longstanding calculation mechanism may be quite stale and no longer fit for current conditions.

For those who are unemployed – not by choice – I am supportive in principle of the temporary financial support scheme that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong had announced for the involuntarily unemployed. However, we will need more details to scrutinise if the scheme can be implemented without eroding our work ethic and design ways to mitigate the moral hazard of financing unproductivity. When does the Government expect these details to be announced and when do we expect the scheme to be implemented? Can Deputy Prime Minister and MOF share a bit more on how this scheme will be funded over time?

I await more information on this eagerly, as it is truly a big shift in principle by our PAP Government to help our Singaporean workers. I am heartened that this Government will not shy away from slaughtering "sacred cows", if it considers it to be in the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans. There is no shame in walking back if the circumstances so require.

While on the note of income volatility from unexpected unemployment, I would like to resuscitate my proposal again and again to give Singaporeans the option of assessing personal income tax on a current-year, pay-as-you-earn basis. As opposed to a preceding-year basis, this system can help taxpayers better manage their cash flow by matching tax payments with contemporaneous income.

Mr Speaker, in my next segment of attracting investments and talent. Our push for greater equality cannot come at the expense of our growth. To help Singaporeans cope with rising costs in a sustainable manner, we must focus on growing their opportunities and wages instead of relying on one-off distributions.

So, part two of my speech – therefore – turns to our two-pronged approach to sustain our economic growth: attracting investments and talent to Singapore; and boosting our local enterprises.

As a resource-scarce nation, our economic miracle has been built on attracting businesses to build up a base or some part of its operations here, even if it may service foreign markets or conduct substantial operations abroad. These inbound businesses and investments create employment opportunities and also downstream or partnership opportunities for Singaporeans and Singapore companies.

So, I am glad to hear the moves to enhance our competitive advantage in the semiconductor and finance industries, but why is there no mention of our entrepot trade and transshipment hub and specific initiatives to defend or stretch our lead? Possibly, it could be discussed in the COS.

But I note that Changi Airport's cargo flows dipped 6% compared with 2022, while other airports, like Incheon, are closing the gap to Changi, in terms of passenger flows. On the other hand, our seaport reached an all-time high in arriving ship traffic, recording over three billion annual gross tons in vessel arrivals in 2023. I will be filing related cuts during the COS debates and I look forward to hearing the Transport Minister's plans to preserve and enhance our status as an international aviation and shipping hub.

The implementation of Pillar 2 of BEPS 2.0 will also cause some loss of attractiveness as an effective corporate income tax floor is put in place across different jurisdictions. So, which of the financial incentives offered by the EDB and other agencies to draw foreign companies can we continue to offer under the global base erosion rules?

The new Refundable Investment Credit, based on the presently available information and announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, will be consistent with the Global Anti-Base Erosion Rules for Qualified Refundable Tax Credits. Companies will be able to receive up to 50% of support of each qualifying expenditure category, including capital expenditure, manpower and training costs, freight and logistics costs. This would help with the relatively higher land, manpower and transport costs in Singapore.

As the specific support rates for a project will be commensurate with the economic or decarbonisation outcomes that the project is expected to bring, what will happen if it eventually transpires that the project outcomes were never close to what was expected? Will there be a lookback period where support can be clawed back from those who can pitch and market a project much better than they can implement them?

More fundamentally, have we landed on a system of measuring and verifying decarbonisation outcomes? More than two years after we debated the "Low Carbon Society" Motion in this House, I do not think that any carbon measurement standard has achieved ubiquitous or common usage in this part of the world yet. Is there any preliminary indication of support from other countries for the playbook that is currently being developed by the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS), Gold Standard and Verra?

To attract businesses and investments, we must also maintain our attractiveness as a liveable city for foreign talent. It would be too parochial to assume that we know everything and have nothing to learn from others. That is why other countries have been taking some big steps to woo foreign talent to their shores.

Take the United Kingdom (UK), for example. In May 2022, it launched a High Potential Individual (HPI) visa which allows a young person who graduated from a global top 50 university to go to the UK with their family for two years to just "explore, work, study and invent". Thereafter, the UK government announced a £118 million skills package that includes a new visa scheme for AI researchers to be brought to the UK at the early stages of their career, as well as grants to help AI workers meet the costs of relocating to the UK.

How has our Overseas Networks and Expertise (ONE) Pass fared in attracting top global talent to live and work in Singapore since it was launched in August 2022? How does it compare, given the heated global competition, to woo talent through a mix of easier visa routes, relocation grants and other benefits?

It is well-known that we are also one of the most expensive cities in the world for expatriates. Besides the issue of soaring rents, foreign expatriates also do not enjoy the substantial healthcare subsidies and utilities support from the Singapore Government. Hence, there is a limit to how much we can tax these higher-income expatriates before they flee to a different country and we lose their tax base, their assets and their expertise. How does our taxation of expatriates compare to other talent hubs, such as London, Frankfurt, New York or Dubai?

Finally, Mr Speaker, in boosting our local enterprises, I suspect a number of my colleagues in this Chamber will have more to say about this, but I just have a narrower focus. As part of our $1 billion effort to develop AI computation, talent and industry in the next five years, will there be grants for Singapore companies adopting AI-based solutions or engaging in AI-related research in the near future? What are the concrete next steps following the publication of our National AI Strategy 2.0 in December 2023?

We cannot forget that AI goes hand in hand with data. Would we extend our AI-catalysing initiatives to activities that are data-centric, even though they might not be AI-centric? For example, research into large volume data processing or sustainable data collection and processing would be key enablers of our AI objectives. So, what are we doing and what are we planning to do for our data sector?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have alluded to in many of my previous speeches, we are in a new normal. The circumstances that we see today combine high inflation, high interest rates and possibly for longer, in an increasingly uncertain world featuring frequent shocks. This is not even considering COVID-19, which, today, seems more like a bad dream than a lived two-to-three-year experience.

But through the Forward Singapore exercise, we know where Singaporeans want to head. Help involuntarily unemployed jobseekers bounce back stronger, supporting families and seniors, empowering and uplifting those in need, this Budget hews closely to Singaporeans' aspirations to build a more equal society while not compromising on the economic growth that underpins our security. Sir, I support Budget 2024.

Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.

2.35 pm

Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Speaker, how do we value life? In Singapore, in the 1960s, those born then had a life expectancy of 64 years. In the 1980s and 1990s, it improved to 70 to 75 years. Today, we have a life expectancy of 84 years.

Over the last 60 years, our life expectancy in Singapore has increased by 20 years, a 31% increase. How do we value a year of good health? How do we value 20 additional years? Singapore has continued to invest more into healthcare, to take care of Singaporeans, from $789 per capita in 2011, to $2,674 per capita today, a 338% increase over the last 10 years.

How is this made possible? These consistent investments in building up capabilities of our healthcare workers, of our infrastructure, it is a complex and long-term commitment. These capabilities require a confluence of investments in infrastructure, equipment, training and education. There must be sound and sustainable healthcare policies, coupled with a culture of excellence and a spirit of innovation, pushing the edge and frontier of medical research and technology. What does it mean for all of us?

Five of Singapore's hospitals are in the top 150 in the world, with Singapore General Hospital being the top 10. A remarkable achievement. So, imagine, whenever our grandparents or parents are in need of medical care, a surgery or emergency medical treatment, have comfort that there is a team of highly competent and motivated healthcare workers who are one of the best in the world doing their best to deliver world-class care. For ophthalmology, Singapore National Eye Centre is ranked third in the world, and Singapore Eye Research Institute is ranked fifth in the world.

Today, Singaporeans continue to age well and are healthier than before. More can be done and the results are clear. In 2010, there were 700 centenarians and, in 2020, there are more than 1,500, more than double.

Today, most of our five-year-olds can expect to live up to the age of 100. And by 2050, living up to 100 will become a norm for our newborns. The question then again is: how do we value life? What would you do to have an additional year of good health, an additional 20 years of good health to do the important things in life?

If you have an extra dollar, where will you place it? How about the next dollar? And the next? Every marginal and incremental dollar, how would you spend, manage and invest it? How do we get the incremental dollar to live longer, better, healthier and more meaningful lives?

In 2022, ASEAN's foreign direct investments (FDI) have reached a high of $224 billion. Singapore comprised two-thirds of that, at $141 billion. I repeat: two-thirds of all the FDIs in ASEAN.

Singapore ranks eighth globally for inward FDIs and first in the Asia-Pacific. So, what are FDIs? It refers to investments made by a company or individual from one country, investing and having business interests in another. And how much advantage and wealth does that generate for Singapore?

In 2022, Singapore's FDI equals to 31.7% of Singapore's nominal GDP. That is particularly important for Singapore, as it displays the forward-looking economic trajectory. FDI creates quality employment, facilitates and encourages technology transfer. It spurs infrastructure development and increases our export capacities.

Singapore's economic achievement today is built over decades, with leadership, bonus and collective teamwork. This requires a confluence of economic and social factors, balance for sustainable future for all.

It is not by sheer luck that we could earn that one incremental dollar. It matters deeply. It matters because we must understand the difficulty and the amount of collective effort, as a nation, to be in a position of strength.

The investment climate, how connected and coherent is our infrastructure? How skilled and nimble is our workforce? Our legal frameworks, technology and innovation, our international agreements? How accessible are our market and trade?

How ambitious and energetic are our citizens? There are also social factors that are equally important: our social and political stability, our healthcare systems, education and quality of life. All these factors are what attract companies and individuals to invest time and resources here in Singapore. It remains attractive because of what we have been doing for decades. It must be so for the next 50 years and it must be so for the next hundred years.

How do we value our future and our future generations? The lifespan of a country is 158 years, whilst an empire is about 250 years. This is historic data, and we are at our 59th year mark and approaching our 60th.

On this land that we stand and live upon for the last 700 years, it has been tumultuous. From the 13th century, starting with history from Palembang, the Srivijaya empire to Majapahit, to Melaya then to the British, then to the Japanese, back to the British, Malaysia and then Singapore – all these in the last 700 years.

And we must remember our vulnerabilities as a nation-state. History is replete with lessons to be learnt and relearnt. The ancient Republic of Venice, the Republic of Genoa, Carthage, Sparta, the Byzantines – where political fragmentation and external pressures eroded state powers and the Hanseatic league.

How determined are we, that after a hundred or 200 years, that we are still a sovereign and independent state, against all odds and statistics, to surpass beyond the average lifespan of empires and countries?

Some estimate that our Reserves are just below $2 trillion. To put things in perspective, assuming that our estimation is accurate, our Reserves are worth less than Apple. It is worth less than Microsoft. It is worth less than Google and, more recently, Nvidia decided to be more valuable than us. So, when you make your next purchase of an Apple product, Microsoft or Google, or the next graphics card with Nvidia, remember that their market capitalisation is higher than our entire national Reserves.

Our Reserves are worth less than the companies that I have mentioned. It is worth reflecting on how we plan to save, invest and allocate our resources for the future. We are fortunate to have the Reserves that can power a Budget that we have today. It is made possible because of the prudence and the value of our founding and past generations. It is this consistent act over numerous decades that enabled us to take care of all Singaporeans, for all to lead a longer and better life.

How do we value the lives of our children? Save the Children ranked Singapore the best place to grow up. We give our very best to our children and our future generations. In 2013, Singapore spent and invested $8,550 for every primary school student. In 2020, the Government invested $13,350.

Everyone has access to quality education. We have the basis to debate about education every now and then because we have gotten the basics right. Remember that we are of that generation 20 to 30 years ago where we had much less resources and knowledge. It is not perfect, but we progress and make relevant.

We embark on lifelong learning, instil adaptability and self-learning to ride the tides of changing technological advancements and build resilience to our relevance of skills and competencies. In the past, work was more linear and the pace of change was gradual. We saw how we restructured again and again, securing one generation after the other and building on one another's success.

Today Singapore's workforce stands amongst the most proficient in terms of management, vocation and technical skills. According to INSEAD's annual Global Talent Competitiveness Index, Singapore ranked number one in global knowledge and skills, which included management and communication abilities; and third in vocational and technical skills. And this is out of 134 countries.

This year ITE celebrates its 32nd anniversary and it continues to build strength to strength. We do not say that we are doing well, that we have accumulated enough capabilities and that we can invest less in our education system. We do not say that we are too high in our rankings and that we can afford to drop a little, because this is insidious.

Is there space for a city state to be a bit lower in our commitment to the future – to our future generations?

We cannot.

We cannot because as Singaporeans deep within our core, we know what it takes to be relevant and we know what it takes to take care of our future generations.

How do we value life? More importantly, how do we cherish it, respect it and be good stewards of the life given to us?

Gaza has one of the youngest populations in the world. Forty percent of Gaza's population is 14 years and below. The median age is just 18 in 2020. Those age 65 years and above are less than 3% of the population. In Ukraine, the male life expectancy has decreased from 67 years before the war to 57 years after, or right now. For women, it has declined from 76 to 70 years.

And it is not just about war and conflict alone. Countries with high levels of violence experience lower levels of life expectancy more than peaceful ones, estimating a gap of around 14 years – between the least and the most violent countries. It is not just conflict related, but also many other factors – homicide, violence, quality of life, education and all. We are building version 1 and version 2, just like how internet browsers and applications evolved, with progressive and improving versions. We must do so and build better versions ourselves and for Singapore.

We cannot expect to be perfect in all we do. But we try. And we try harder, in delivering better capabilities for better life every day. It is called building – building for the future. Today's capabilities were built by past generations. And as we build for today and for future generations – a life that is longer, healthier, more meaningful, more fulfilling and inclusive for all.

Just like our shining examples – Singapore Airlines and Singapore Changi Airport. It is not an achievement of probability. It was not a rare occasion marked by a cosmic alignment of constellations. It requires effort – collective effort from all Singaporeans.

So, let us all build together for a better tomorrow. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.

2.49 pm

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Budget and may I also stand in support of the speech by my immediately preceding Jurong Group Representation Constituency (GRC) colleague, Mr Shawn Huang.

Just the other day, I met a young Clementi family – daddy and mummy with their little girl, just a few months' old. We talked about how the world has become more dangerous; more uncertain; full of challenges – a dangerous world. A world where big countries bully small countries and sometimes invade them – invasion and occupation. A world where small nations and small communities can come under siege, have their water supply cut off; electricity supply cut off; food and access to medicine blocked. A world where climate change is accelerating, where sea levels are rising and that means a world where some islands in 50 to 100 years' time, will be underwater; a world where some island-nations may not exist by the end of this century.

And as we were talking – this Clementi family and I – we realised that their little girl and her children and her grandchildren will know whether our generation today made the right choices. And the choices before us will require much imagination and resolve.

Eleven years ago, in the TODAY newspaper, I wrote about how we need to imagine the unthinkable before it happens – not just bigger versions of yesterday's challenges, but new challenges which did not exist before. Today I will speak about three of these challenges. Challenges which in our time, will require fresh thinking – a fresh approach: artificial intelligence (AI); Singapore's energy security; and keeping Singapore's society together as a people.

On artificial intelligence. Less than two weeks ago, just before the Budget Statement 2024 by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong – our Finance Minister, there was another announcement, halfway across the world from Singapore. A tech company which is already changing the world – a tech company called OpenAI, which brought you ChatGPT not too long ago. That company announced a new AI platform, called Sora. Sora allows you to key in text – type in some text, a prompt – and it can produce videos, which are indistinguishable from what Hollywood can produce today and what smaller studios can produce.

Just one year ago, during the Debate on the President's Address in April 2023, I had spoken in Parliament about the age of AI and how fast things were changing – how software, like ChatGPT, GPT-4 and Midjourney V5, had appeared in the market within less than a year or so.

AI which can hold a conversation with you and can write an essay for you – that is ChatGPT. AI which can take high-school exams, advanced placement exams in the United States curriculum and outperform many humans – that is GPT-4. AI which can create photo-realistic pictures of events that never happened – that is Midjourney V5.

Just one year ago, I had spoken about how with increases in computing power, once you go from generating one make-believe image to 30 images a second, you go from AI-generated photos to AI-generated video. At the time April 2023, I had expected the technology to take another two to three years. As it happened, it took place faster than I had imagined. Within 10 months, OpenAI had announced the Sora platform-produced AI-generated video.

So, that is the world today – technology disruption happening very quickly. New challenges everywhere. The unexpected, increasingly the norm. And so, we cannot hide from these changes. No country, no economy can hide from these changes in the world with AI. Even if an entire country tries to prevent AI from entering its borders, other economies will do so – your competitors will do so. So, we have to accept the world as it is, the way the world is going to be and look after, support, empower and uplift our people.

This is why the new subsidy for Singaporeans age 40 and above to pursue another full-time diploma in higher education – this new subsidy in the Budget, that is why it is so important. Because it recognises that in a world that is changing so quickly, what you learn in school – in education – at age 20, may have changed, transformed and have been replaced by a new world by the time you are age 40. It recognises that change and supports middle-aged and older workers.

And having mid-career workers learning new skills alongside younger workers – a middle-aged mid-career worker alongside someone who is 18, 19, 20-plus years' old, learning together, that will also transform the education experience in our IHLs because older workers bring life experience, life skills and living wisdom into the classroom. Even as they bring that into the classroom, they also learn new skills, together with the younger students. These students, by working with each other, they lift up one another. They will transform the classroom even as it allows the older and younger worker to form new friendships, new networks and new opportunities together.

On energy security.

Another major challenge for Singapore is energy. Our electricity supply today does not just keep the lights on at home. It does not just keep our workplaces and hospitals going. It also keeps our water supply going.

Our energy supply is needed, so that our NEWater plants can expend energy to purify water and make it fresh and consumable again. Our energy supply is needed, for desalination plants to work against the salt gradient and produce fresh water without the salt that comes with the seawater. Our energy supply, our energy security underpins our water security. And all of us know what it means for Singapore if our water supply is ever called into question. And that means, we have to consider our energy security the same way too.

Two years ago, in the 2022 Budget debate, I had spoken about this: why we need to diversify our energy sources; why 95% energy generation from natural gas is not good enough for the future era; why 95% can be a concentration risk? I also spoke about how we need to go beyond looking at importing low-carbon electricity through a cable from overseas – because in a challenging world with all kinds of dangers, a cable may break down; a cable may have a technical incident; many things can happen to a cable anywhere in the world. And looking beyond to the future means that we have to consider new low-carbon technologies, such as hydrogen or even the newer next-generation of nuclear technology as well.

I called upon the Government to look at moving ahead of the market – especially for hydrogen – and for Singapore's potential as a hydrogen hub. Looking ahead, because in a market where you may not have room for too many hydrogen hubs, it matters whether you are first mover, second mover or too late to move. It matters in that market. It matters for us in Singapore.

So, the Future Energy Fund in this year's Budget – the Future Energy Fund, with its initial injection of $5 billion is a significant decisive move. It puts money where the mouth is. It will allow Singapore to move quickly and seize opportunities in the energy sector, especially new low-carbon technologies – that in the future will help us secure our energy supply and, in turn, secure our water security for another generation.

Having a stronger supply of low-carbon energy will also help Singapore with our AI ambitions. Today, data centres are energy-intensive yet so essential for AI. You can keep a data centre offshore for cloud computing in the commercial sector. But in a world where major economies sometimes do not get along; in a world where, sometimes, you have derisking or decoupling, it makes sense to have more of those data centres, more of that computing power onshore in Singapore. And having low-carbon energy – a greener energy future – more secure energy supply will be key for that AI ambition as well.

On social togetherness, Mr Speaker, no amount of fiscal firepower, no amount of policy prescriptions, is going to be sustainable or implementable, if we, as a people in Singapore somehow become divided, fragmented or splintered. I have said this before. If we are splintered, we are going to be less than a dot in the world.

And there are deep forces around the world, driving people apart, forces that change societies because with digitalisation, more digital world, it means people are less likely to meet, face-to-face naturally. The social media algorithms that almost everyone has on their handphones, the social media apps; many of these algorithms feed you more of what you have seen before. They bring you to listen more of what you have heard before, leading to echo chambers and, as a result, sometimes, leading to polarisation in society as well.

Also, there will be troublemakers outside Singapore, trying to undermine our unity, cohesion and togetherness. In the world today – and we have seen many case studies far away from Singapore, some a little bit nearer – the first shock in a conflict may not be kinetic. It may be an op to undermine the social unity and trust in a society. see how in other countries, certain players are trying to polarise and divide societies. It will be even more challenging in the age of AI.

What happens when deepfakes are able to create videos of events which never happened? What happens when you have deepfake videos of public figures on any side of the House, saying things they never said, doing things they never did?

What happens if there is a deepfake video of people from different communities arguing or even fighting, a deepfake video of something that never happened but which has the potential to be spread widely and undermine our social harmony and social togetherness?

What happens when deepfakes become so similar to reality that people no longer trust what they see or hear even when it comes from a reliable source?

What happens when people can no longer tell the difference between what is true and untrue, what is fact, what is falsehood, its big implications for societies, big implications for democracies around the world?

There are no easy solutions in a world where anyone has access to the computing power to create a deepfake.

But Singapore is small enough that we have a fighting chance. Singapore is small enough that we can bring our people more closely together, build more face-to-face interactions, deepen human relationships. We can do this in a way that larger geographically spread countries are not quite able to do. Singapore is coordinated enough. We have the state capacity, governmental capacity for agencies to work together in teamwork, in cohesion, something that many other countries cannot quite do. We saw that during the pandemic and it will be essential for this next challenging future that we face.

So, we must keep building that sense of togetherness so that amidst different views, different backgrounds, different dispositions, everyone in our community sees ourselves as fellow citizens, fellow brothers and sisters, in that Singapore dream, in the idea that is Singapore.

That means, across Government, urban design and social policy must actively lean in, to encourage people to meet face-to-face in day-to-day life. All this can help maintain social trust, cohesion, togetherness, even amidst a wave of AI and the deepfakes that will come.

So, we must ask ourselves, when a new HDB development is built without the traditional void decks and in a shape that makes it harder for neighbours and their children to naturally meet one another, naturally play with one another, on the way to work, to school and coming back, we need to ask, are we inevitably weakening our social reserves, compared to the older HDB void deck designs? Are there revenue-neutral ways of designing an HDB block differently, so that people are more likely to meet, connect, get along, in a very organic and natural way?

When a neighbourhood centre is being built in a new estate, do our planners lean in favour of having more hawker centres, more coffee shops and getting these amenities to start up and activate sooner rather than later?

When we design our education policies and education system, do we encourage our younger generation, in addition to their Mother Tongue, to learn the language of another Singaporean community, not as an examination subject, not just because of the economic opportunities near us in Southeast Asia, but also because it builds understanding and helps deepen our identity as Singaporeans?

These are questions that have to be asked not just for these policies but in every policy in Government, moving ahead. And so, I suggest for this Government to set up an SG Togetherness Office (SGTO). I know it sounds like more alphabet soup, amidst many acronyms, but SG Togetherness Office, the SGTO – I suggest for this Government to set up the SG Togetherness Office which can be part of the Prime Minister's Office Strategy Group (PMOSG), which has approached major issues, like climate change, in the same coordinated, whole-of-Government way.

The SG Togetherness Office could have an inter-ministry steering committee, chaired by a senior member of Cabinet, a Co-ordinating Minister or a Deputy Prime Minister, with that experience of Ministries and connectivity and links to help drive the agenda. It should have a secretariat, a team of public officers actively looking at the net impact on social togetherness for every policy and every programme across Government.

This ethos of strengthening social togetherness and social cohesion, strengthening our social reserves, safeguarding our social reserves, has to be looked at with the same discipline, deliberation and attention that we give to the fiscal bottom line and to Singapore's financial reserves. Because just like fiscal reserves, our social reserves can take generations to build up, much effort to maintain and yet, are so important when a crisis hits. And the world ahead will have more than its fair share of troubles.

Mr Speaker, in my maiden speech in this House in 2016, more than eight years ago, I said and I quote: "… imagine this perfect storm: a global downturn lasting many years, divisions of race, language, religion, social class, inequality and culture. A fractured national consensus with divisive politics. And at the same time having to face a major crisis – a terrorist attack at home, a pandemic, or a regional conflict where two old friends ask us to choose between them."

Sir, we do not get to choose when the next crisis will hit or for that matter, what the next crisis will be. But we can choose how we deepen our togetherness, how to prepare today. We can choose how we strengthen and deepen our social togetherness, strengthen Singapore's social reserves so that in a world of troubles, no matter what comes, nothing and no one will ever knock Singapore down. I support this Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.

3.09 pm

Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a student of history and currently chairing the Asian Civilisation Museum, I am inspired by our museum's artifacts that reveal the legacies of past civilisations. Insights from works like Ronald Wright's "A Short History of Progress" and Arnold Toynbee's "A Study of History" underscore the vital lessons history teaches us about the risks of unchecked progress that had collapsed civilisations.

Understanding why civilisations collapse is a complex matter, with no singular cause universally recognised. However, several critical factors have been identified that contribute to such declines.

The first factor is climate change and environmental degradation. These elements played crucial roles in the decline of various ancient societies, including the Anasazi, Maya and the Roman Empire. The second factor is inequality. This factor contributes to social unrest, erode social cohesion and weakens a society's ability to effectively tackle societal, ecological and economic issues. The third is complexity. As societies become more complex in their attempts to solve emerging problems, they may reach a point where the costs of complexity outweigh its benefits, ultimately precipitating collapse.

In the context of Budget 2024, these lessons from history underscore the importance of a balanced approach to progress. It is not enough to pursue growth for its sake. We must ensure that our growth is sustainable, inclusive and even resilient to the tests of time.

This is why the Budget's focus on advancing business and worker capabilities, building for the future and caring for society is so crucial. Commitment to green innovation, renewable energy investments and the development of resilient infrastructure that can withstand the challenges of climate change ensures that our progress today does not come at the expense of future generations.

Let me start with the advancing of businesses' and workers' capabilities. The Enterprise Support Package, with the 50% Corporate Income Tax (CIT) and minimum $2,000 cash payout signals that the Government is serious about supporting SMEs through its cost challenges.

Targeted support for SMEs is provided for through the permanent increase of the SME Working Capital Loan, capped to $500,000. The SkillsFuture top-up for mid-career workers, the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, and extension of the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit are positive moves towards building up the long-term skills stock of our Singaporean workforce.

Second, building for the future. The $2 billion top-up to the Financial Sector Development Fund and the new Refundable Investment Credit will enable Singapore to build capabilities in new areas like FinTech and green finance and attract investment in high-value and substantive economic activities.

I particularly like the enhanced Partnerships for Capability Transformation (PACT). PACT will provide support for companies to partner each other on capability training, internationalisation and corporate venturing. Such partnerships with large companies will help our SMEs grow and become industry leaders in their own right, providing more good jobs for the future.

Third, caring for society. The enhanced Assurance Package will provide much needed relief for lower- and middle-income households. Improving the affordability of preschools and special education schools, enhancements to retirement support schemes, introduction of a new unemployment support scheme and the new ITE Progression Award will enable us to advance social mobility and create a Singapore that everyone can contribute and belong to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many of the great ruins that grace the deserts and jungles of the earth are monuments to progress traps, the headstones of civilisations which fell victim to their own success. Collapse, however, is not absolute and history has shown that societal resilience may be able to delay or prevent collapse. Evidence from around the world indicates that "economic diversity", the range and complexity of a country's exports, is linked to the skill level of its population, suggesting that a more skilled populace is better equipped to tackle crises as they emerge.

The Singapore business sector acknowledges the importance of collective efforts to advance the Forward Singapore vision and strengthening societal resilience.

Let me just say a few ideas of what the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) has done. As a Council Member at the SBF, I have seen first-hand how in 2019 SBF launched a business-led initiative, proposing six recommendations to support the employment of the elderly, the less well-off and those at risk of job disruptions in Singapore.

This Sustainable Employment initiative engaged over 50 business leaders, representatives from trade associations, Government, IHLs, non-government organisations (NGOs) and foundations, showcasing a nationwide effort to uplift disadvantaged and vulnerable workers. Today, SBF manages the Progressive Wage Mark accreditation scheme and has partnered trade associations and chambers (TACs), like the Association for Catering Professionals, the Singapore Fashion Council, the Restaurant Association of Singapore and the Environmental Management Association of Singapore, to encourage companies to be part of this movement. I am proud to share that close to 4,500 companies have since been accredited.

In 2022, SBF established the Alliance for Action (AfA) on Business Leadership Development, aiming to prepare Singaporean talents for global leadership roles. Engaging with over 200 business leaders, human resource (HR) experts and young professionals, the AfA produced a report with recommendations for individuals, businesses and Government to foster the next generation of leaders.

Just this month, the Human Capital Action Committee within SBF has been tasked to implement these recommendations, ensuring that the report's insights are effectively put into practice.

Lastly, TACs have now offer over 100 Career Conversion Programmes, supported by Workforce Singapore, targeting various sectors, such as construction, marine and offshore engineering, electronics and manufacturing, alongside specialisations in internationalisation and sustainability.

To achieve our annual growth rate of 2% to 3% over the next decade, our economy and businesses will have to keep focusing on productivity, innovation and labour growth while keeping business costs competitive. I have four broad recommendations for this. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government is boosting productivity by significantly investing in SkillsFuture, aiming to cultivate a skilled workforce. At the same time, in addressing our Manufacturing 2030 vision, there is a pressing need for more local talent in manufacturing. Our first recommendation is that training should extend beyond introductory topics to include advanced technical domains, and sector-specific modules, ensuring it meets the real needs of workers, businesses, and the economy.

To further enhance employability and cultivate a skilled workforce, more emphasis on workplace training is needed. Workplaces should be qualified as extensions of our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), so that learning can be more practice-based and application-oriented. For SkillsFuture to be successful, not only employers should be responsible, workers must also have the right attitude and upskill voluntarily. This approach will enable workers to gain deepened industry skills beyond basic and general skills, boosting employability for the long term.

Our next recommendation is centred on driving innovation in new areas of AI and sustainability within our SMEs.

The allocation of $1 billion for National AI Strategy 2.0 and $5 billion for the Future Energy Fund in Budget 2024 highlights the Government efforts of fostering growth in these new sectors. The recent introduction of the ESG/IMDA AI Sandbox, which aims to involve 300 SMEs to participate, is a testament to ensure SMEs remain at the forefront of innovation.

To further support SMEs in adopting these technologies, the Government should consider implementing a tiered grant model. This model will enable businesses eager to innovate beyond basic level ‘plug and play’ solutions to do so, without being constrained by cash flow issues.

Additionally, it is essential that we provide SMEs with support beyond technology access, particularly in developing governance frameworks and ethical guidelines for the responsible use of AI.

To support SMEs in sustainability efforts, more assistance and education are essential. We urge the Government to collaborate with sectoral TACs to create and improve sustainability programs. Grants for consultancy, implementation, and training can help SMEs effectively manage and report emissions in compliance with sector standards.

Our third recommendation is a continual call for responsible labour growth to sustain Singapore's growth ambitions According to the Singapore 2030 vision and updated Industry Transformation Maps, we aim to create 8,400 jobs in manufacturing, 2,000 in logistics and 1,600 in environmental services, among others. This is against the backdrop of a declining resident labour force, which saw a reduction of 1,800 last year.

Given our aging population and persistently low birth rates, while businesses continue to reskill and upskill our local workforce, we can work closely with government to identify and unlock untapped manpower pockets. By harnessing smaller labour pockets, like gig workers looking to transit back to traditional economic jobs, women and older workers who are keen to re-enter the workforce, and students who might be incentivised to take on relevant part-time jobs or acquire real work experience that can count as academic credits offsets, we can collectively expand our labour force to support our economic growth targets.

However, pursuing our growth objectives necessitates a harmonised alignment of both local and foreign labour forces. The business community continues to advocate for strategic augmentation of our workforce with controlled foreign labour growth, tailored to specific sectors and job roles, where either local talent or local workforce participation is scarce. Such targeted augmentation is crucial for driving industry transformation and ensuring the long-term economic prosperity of Singapore.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, at the beginning of my speech, I have highlighted that societies can falter under the weight of their own complexity.

My final and fourth recommendation is for the Government to engage with the business community closely, working together with various Government agencies and unions with the aim to reduce bureaucratic complexity and expediting efficiency towards co-curating a conducive environment that fosters business competitiveness.

I wish to conclude by drawing to two additional factors contributing to the collapse of civilisations, which I have not previously mentioned.

First, external shocks. Often symbolised by the metaphorical "four horsemen" – war, natural disasters, famine and plagues. Second, randomness or just simply bad luck.

Singapore's advantageous position today, bolstered by our substantial reserves, grants us a unique capacity to mitigate the impacts of these external shocks and the uncertainties of randomness.

Observing Budget 2024, I am reassured by its prudent and balanced nature, which thoughtfully avoids excessive depletion of our reserves, but rather strengthens our ability to secure a resilient and prosperous future for Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have the unique advantage of being able to learn from the wreckages of societies past. Societal resilience can prevent collapse and Budget 2024 is a step in that direction in building this.

Let us continue to take inspiration from the past, a country born from mud flats and swamp and now a shining metropolis. Let us muster the will together to ensure Singapore will not simply fade out of existence and not be a nation that began with a bang and end with a whimper. Together, let us be confident to create a Singapore that stands as a beacon of sustainable progress and inclusive prosperity for generations to come. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I will suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.25 pm until 3.45 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.45 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

3.45 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. Today, I will shift away from talking about mental health and focus on discussing how the Budget lays the foundation of a resilient and inclusive society, focusing on education and lifelong learning as a vehicle for social mobility.

These are not just policy areas, these are the lifelines that will propel our nation forward, ensuring that every Singaporean – regardless of their starting point in life – can thrive in the face of adversities. In my vision, education transcends traditional learning. It is about equipping our youth with the ability, the agility to navigate the complexities of a future that we can only imagine. Lifelong learning is our commitment to every worker, ensuring that their skills remain relevant, that they are capable and robust in an economy that is perpetually evolving.

In our pursuit of social mobility, we reaffirm our promise to every citizen that their dreams, aspirations and hard work – not their circumstances at birth – will define their future.

Lifelong learning through SkillsFuture enhancements. In this era of relentless change and disruptions, safeguarding employability through strategic investments in skill development and productivity, enhancement is a paramount concern. Recognising this, Budget 2024 introduces the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, to me, it is a visionary initiative aimed at future-proofing our workforce. The substantial increase in SkillsFuture credits highlights the imperative of ongoing training and upskilling in navigating the complexities of a contemporary job market. A person who stands to gain from this opportunity is Mr Thomas Tan. He is currently working in a beverage company and has recently completed a certificate in business analytics. On hearing about the top-up, he is now eager to get back to study and complete a few more modules so that he can obtain a diploma. But what excites him most is not just getting that diploma, but the chance to learn new skills that he can apply in his work. Budget 2024 supports Singaporeans aiming to pursue another subsidised full-time diploma and a mid-career training allowance to further this commitment.

I recall my own endeavours, when I decided to take a two years leave to pursue my studies full-time. I was already married and I was about to have my first child – to be born that year – and I had to use my savings and spend money prudently. To add to the pressure, there was a stigma that goes along with it: how could he go and study and burden his family like that?

So, I am glad – I am glad that this Budget has set an allowance for up to 24 months, which represents a tangible investment in mid-career professionals. I also believe the allowance and two years of full-time studies could positively impact one's mental health. This is especially so for those who may feel burnt out and want to move to a new sector or industry. Those who come back are often refreshed and ready to share new ideas that they would like to apply in their new job.

Despite these enhancements, concerns persist among individuals and businesses. Individuals need guidance on what is the right programme for them: what could help them in the future, what could propel them further? On the other hand, businesses seek assurances that whatever training the individuals go to, they would benefit the company and, in turn, fostering productivity and innovation. To address these concerns, a multi-faceted approach is necessary. We should and must continue to engage industry leaders and businesses from various sectors through advisory panels and feedback mechanisms to further enhance the SkillsFuture courses with emerging demands.

We could also enhance career advisory services to help individuals select courses best suited for their careers. We also probably need to shift towards what I call an outcome-based training model, where the success of training programmes is measured by tangible outcomes, such as employment rates, career progression and salary increments. This ensures the courses deliver real value to participants.

Finally, I would like to suggest: continue to explore innovative ways to increase flexibility and accessibility to the courses and programmes further to accommodate the diverse needs of learners, including those who are doing it part-time, doing it online or through modular options that allow for balancing training with work and family commitments. Addressing these concerns can significantly shift lifelong learning participation and employer recognition.

Next, I would like to talk about the ITE Progression Awards, Sir. The introduction of the ITE Progression Award marks a significant milestone in Singapore's education and workforce development landscape. Now, this move is not merely about financial incentives. It is a profound statement against the stigma traditionally associated with skills-based education, reaffirming its value and indispensability in our economy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have often mentioned the issue of the widening wage gap in Parliament. The wage gap, as in many parts of the world, reflects not just economic disparities, but also the value placed on different types of education and skills. The median gross starting pay for ITE graduates has increased – signalling a positive momentum – yet the gap remains significantly different compared to their university peers or from other Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs).

Far too long, pursuing degree qualifications has been seen as the only path to success – sidelining the immense contributions of those with technical talent. The ITE Progression Award challenges this outdated notion by creating more robust career pathways for ITE graduates, ensuring they are not unfairly capped in their career progression.

As Singapore's economy diversifies and specialises, the need for technically skilled professionals in advanced manufacturing, IT and healthcare, for example, is growing. With the hands-on training and industry relevant skills, ITE graduates are well-poised, well-positioned to meet these needs. Recognising these values is essential for us to narrow the wage gap and ensure our economy has the skilled workforce it needs to thrive.

Therefore, I welcome the ITE Progression Award as it is the step in the right direction. But its success will depend on the collective efforts of all stakeholders to embrace and implement these changes. So far, many of my students who are in the polytechnic came from ITE and have queried whether the award can be given to them. I told them I will ask in Parliament. But it just shows how much interest and positivity this move has generated.

One such person that would benefit from this award is Mr Adil. He is a part-time ITE student, who is also currently working as a manager at a pizza outlet. Upon hearing of this, he quickly checked what courses are available for him. He believes that this is an opportune time for him to pick up a new skill in automation and he is raring to go.

By ensuring the ITE graduates have equitable opportunities for career advancement and adequately compensated, we signal a broader shift in societal values towards a more inclusive appreciation of skills diversity. This paradigm shift requires not just policy adjustments but a collective change in mindset from employers, educators and society at large. To that end, ITE should no longer be stigmatised as "It's The End". In fact, we should now rename it, "It's The Evolution". It reflects the evolutionary process of personal and professional development the students undergo and a change in mindset in the community. I believe that we all have our strengths and there are pathways to success for each and every one of us and this, in turn, helps us in our mental health.

Sir, I had often brought up the importance of preschool education and providing every child with a strong foundation. In my maiden speech, I highlighted the pivotal role of early childhood education as the cornerstone of lifelong learning and a vehicle for social mobility that cannot be overstated. Recognising its foundational importance, this year's Budget significantly bolsters support for preschool education – ensuring that children from every socioeconomic background have access to high quality early-learning experiences. By lowering fees at Government-supported preschools and increasing subsidies for lower income families, the Budget aims to make quality early childhood education more accessible and affordable.

But despite these positive steps, some concerns still remain. For example, questions are asked about the quality assurance. How are we able to maintain high standards of education? At the same time, questions also arise about teacher retention and the training to ensure that we have quality teachers and we have enough teachers out there.

But for me, I have always questioned about the enrolment rate of preschool education and the attendance that comes with it. Therefore, to address these concerns and fully realise the benefits of increased support for preschool education, I would like to suggest the following.

Firstly, of course, we need to strengthen the quality assurance mechanisms. That means we need to establish a more robust quality assurance mechanism in our preschools, against standardised benchmarks. We also need to enhance support for teachers – through comprehensive programmes and professional development opportunities. But finally, and this is something I have always mentioned – the need for compulsory preschool education. The reason is simple. We want to force a mindset change. And this can only come if you make it serious enough for them to take it seriously. Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In today's dynamic economic landscape, lifelong learning has emerged as a stepping stone for social mobility, as well as personal and skills upgrading.

By embracing lifelong learning and mastering new skills continuously, especially in the growing sectors such as technology, green energy, and bio-medicine, individuals can respond to the challenges of a rapidly changing job market and seize new opportunities. I admit that it is quite difficult for us to encourage individuals to continue their education because they are concerned about their advanced age or are busy taking care of their families.

Therefore, the support provided by this year's Budget towards lifelong learning initiatives is a proactive step to encourage all levels of society, and this includes our community, to continue to grow and adapt to the needs of the present and future workforce. Through the enhancement and expansion of the SkillsFuture programme, this year’s Budget offers various pathways for individuals to acquire and renew their skills and expertise that are relevant to current industry trends.

Among the initiatives in Budget 2024 are the SkillsFuture Credit Top-up specifically for those aged 40 and above. This provides specific impetus for individuals in this age group, to learn new skills or further develop existing skills.

For example, a worker in the service sector can choose to learn about information technology to further enhance his digital capabilities.

Secondly, the Mid-career Retraining Programme, which targets individuals who want to make a career transition or enhance their skills in certain areas. For example, an employee in the manufacturing sector can attend courses in the management of green economy projects, and thus enable him to take advantage of job opportunities in this rapidly growing industry.

Thirdly, subsidies for full-time diploma courses. This initiative provides opportunities for those who wish to pursue further education but have financial constraints. For example, an assistant preschool teacher may take advantage of this subsidy to obtain a Diploma in Early Childhood Education, strengthen her professional qualifications and see more career opportunities open up for her.

To harness lifelong learning, as a society, we need to promote a culture that values and promotes lifelong learning. This requires us to support those who are be bold enough to make the leap to study again, and they need to be steadfast and patient when embarking in a new field.

My hope is that our community will take advantage of these budget initiatives to actively engage themselves in lifelong learning.

This is not just about improving oneself but also about contributing back to society, family and country. By leveraging on the opportunities provided by this year's Budget, we can together build a brighter and more inclusive future for all.

(In English): In conclusion, the initiatives outlined in this year's Budget represent a cohesive and comprehensive approach towards forging a future where every Singaporean, irrespective of their starting point, can thrive and contribute meaningfully to our nation's prosperity.

From the foundational significance of early childhood education to the transformative potential of lifelong learning through SkillsFuture enhancements, an equitable advancement of opportunities provided by the ITE Progression Award, these measures are intricately linked in their common goal to build a resilient, inclusive and forward-looking Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

4.01 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Deputy Speaker, for my Budget Debate speech today, I would, first, like to speak on certain issues relating to the support for our seniors followed by the issue of support for adults with disabilities and, finally, like in my previous year's Budget Debate speech, I will continue with the issue of green transition.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lawrence Wong said in his Budget speech that preventive care is especially important for seniors, that loneliness can do great harm to a senior. They need to stay active and socially connected. Hence, the Government will set aside $3.5 billion to start the Age Well SG for the next decade. There are several components to this, and one component is that there will be an expanded network of Active Ageing Centres (AACs) providing a wider range of programmes.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as always, the devil is in the details and I look forward to hearing more details from the Ministers in charge on the changes and plans for AACs but, in the meantime, I have several comments and questions.

First, I would like to ask the Ministry of Health (MOH) what is the current situation with the staffing as well as the recruitment efforts for our AACs? How will MOH assist our AACs to recruit and maintain additional staff to tackle the manpower needs for a bigger scale AAC landscape? Does the Government have a guideline in mind for the manpower staffing per centre under AAC 2.0, of course, taking into consideration that requirements for clusters may vary according to the size of the cluster? AACs have a mix of staff and volunteers while staff strength of AACs may vary from centre to centre and volunteers are also an integral part of AACs. Volunteers may not always be able to take over the roles, expertise and, indeed, professionalism of the professionals in our AACs.

Next, for the group of seniors who do not wish to be involved in their AAC activities or do not desire to keep in contact with their AACs, I would like to know what are the plans that Age Well SG may have for them as far as outreach and keeping in contact are concerned? This will be in line with tackling loneliness and addressing the need for seniors to be socially connected, as mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister Wong.

I am especially concerned with those who live alone, keep to themselves and who are not close to their families or neighbours. Beyond having more or more varied activities, we need to study what approach can be taken to better enable AACs to keep in regular contact with this group, at least to provide support when it is needed.

Studies should also be done to see how AACs can attract better male participation.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong also mentioned in his speech of silver upgrades to our residential estates to enable seniors to live more independently and safely in the community by way of amenities, such as therapeutic gardens and barrier-free ramps and senior-friendly home fittings, such as wider toilet entrances and shower seats. I look forward to more details from the Government, including how these amenities will be made available to residents in their homes and in our common spaces.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong also mentioned that there will be improvements to infrastructure for seniors' mobility and safety, such as more sheltered linkways, bus stops with senior-friendly features as well as safer and more pedestrian-friendly roads. I welcome these. As recently as August 2022, in an answer to a Parliamentary Question, the then-Minister for Transport said that there were no plans to expand the criteria of Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) existing covered linkway programme covering a 400-metre radius of major transport nodes, such as MRT, LRT stations and bus interchanges. I hope that there is now a rethink about this approach for covered linkways, especially on lands administered by LTA or other state lands. LTA should consider linking at least the heavily utilised bus stops to nearby housing estates. For example, working with Town Councils to link up such heavily utilised bus stops with the nearest covered walkways within the HDB estates.

Still relating to seniors, the Budget will give all Singaporeans born in 1973 or earlier a MediSave Bonus of $750 and double this at $1,500 if they are part of the Majulah Generation and their residence has an annual value of not more than $25,000.

For seniors with especially multiple chronic illnesses and frequent medical appointments, this MediSave top-up will not help much as long as the annual MediSave withdrawal limit remains at $700 a year for patients with chronic illnesses. Can the Government look at increasing the cap for the MediSave withdrawal limit for seniors with multiple chronic conditions so that such seniors, especially seniors who are retired and not working or are unable to work, will be less out of pocket when paying their bills? I know that the MediSave withdrawal limit was revised in January 2021. Would it now be timely for the limit to be raised, at the very least, to keep up with elevated inflation?

Given that the quarterly quantum of Silver Support Scheme will now be raised by 20%, can the Government consider raising MediSave withdrawal limits from, say, $500 to $600 and from $700 to $840 for chronic cases as well and that those suffering from multiple illnesses be granted further extension of the caps on a case-by-case basis? Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Lawrence Wong emphasised in the Budget that the Government would strengthen its support for the elderly. I hope the relevant Ministers can share more details on this.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong mentioned that the refurbishment and enhancement of senior-friendly facilities in neighbourhood to enable the elderly to live more independently and safely in the community. This includes expanding sheltered walkways and bus stops with elderly-friendly features. In August 2022, the then Transport Minister stated that the Land Transport Authority (LTA) did not have plans to expand existing sheltered walkways. Currently, LTA’s sheltered walkway coverage is limited to within 400 metres of MRT stations and bus interchanges. I hope the Government can reconsider this strategy, especially in LTA managed or state-owned areas. For example, LTA could consider collaborating with the Town Councils to connect HDB neighbourhoods with sheltered walkways to busy bus stops.

Furthermore, the Budget also includes a one-time MediSave Bonus for eligible Singaporeans. The amount is determined based on age and the annual value of the individual's residence, ranging from $700 to $1,500.

For elderly individuals with multiple chronic illness would need frequent outpatient care, especially those who are retired or unable to work, if the annual withdrawal limit remains at $700, this top-up may not provide much help to them. The withdrawal limit was last revised in 2021. In times of rising prices, will the Government consider raising the withdrawal limit for MediSave to reduce the cash outlay for retirees?

The Silver Support Scheme is set to be increased by 20%. Will the Government also consider increasing the withdrawal limit for MediSave by the same 20%?

(In English): I will next touch on the issue of support for adults with disabilities.

I welcome Deputy Prime Minister Wong's announcement that he will provide more support for adults with disabilities. He said he will expand spaces in sheltered workshops and day activity centres where they can undergo skills training and launch more enabling services hubs to provide community support to persons with disabilities and their caregivers. I believe that, as a society, there is a lot more we can and should do for adults with disabilities among us, in particular, adults with serious special needs as well as their caregivers.

Earlier this month, I filed a Parliamentary Question asking whether the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will consider increasing the number of day activity centres and residential homes for adult persons with autism. Minister Masagos replied that there are currently eight day activity centres serving adults with autism spectrum disorder with over 300 clients enrolled in these day activity centres and about 80 referrals pending enrolment. He also said that there are four adult disability homes funded by MSF serving adults with autism spectrum disorder. There are about 50 residents with autism spectrum disorder in these adult disability homes which have the capacity to house about 100 residents, and about 20 referrals are pending enrolment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe there is such a need to increase our day activity centres and residential homes. I believe that we really should increase our resources to provide continuous training for adults with disabilities, including but not limited to special needs adults, such as those with moderate to severe autism beyond their time in the SPED schools. In my view, there are multiple possible benefits. We should continue to think of ways to improve long-term post-SPED school education or training, providing further education and skills training, if possible.

More studies should be done to increase the possible range of work training these adults can undergo and the range of work they can undertake in society. This will enhance their lives and promote better integration with society. At the same time, spending time at day activity centres rather than at home, with structured programmes, activities and interaction with others will enhance the mental well-being of such adults.

My heart also goes out to senior caregivers and their special needs adult children, wondering what is going to happen to the care of their children when their health gives way one day. Even when these parents may have other children who are non-special needs, is it appropriate to expect them to take over care of their siblings when their parents pass on? Should we not provide adequate residential homes for these adults with more structured care and development? And can we also consider for these homes to allow some of the special needs adults to be able to go home to their families on weekends, providing some balance between residential care and home care, allowing family members suitable respite in the process?

Minister Masagos also said that MSF has been working with the sector to develop plans to better support adults with autism and their families, given the increase in awareness of autism and in the clarity of its diagnostic criteria and that MSF will share more details in the coming months. Indeed, I hope that MSF is able to share such details during COS, including details of any studies undertaken recently.

In November last year, I filed a Parliamentary Question asking the Minister, among other things, whether the Ministry keeps a record of the current number of elderly caregivers who are caring for adult persons with intellectual disabilities and whether the Ministry will consider developing and implementing early identification and support programmes for such caregivers. Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How mentioned in his reply that MSF does not directly track the number of elderly caregivers who are caring for adults with intellectual disabilities.

In December 2023, news broke that one of my Hougang residents, an adult with special needs, stayed in his flat with the body of his elderly father after his passing for five days while continuing to attend day sessions at the day care centre. While I am extremely thankful that the authorities and stakeholders were commendably quick to assist and arrange for care for the son thereafter, this case reinforces the need for us to consider developing and implementing an early identification and support programme for elderly caregivers who are caring for adults with special needs.

Such a programme could adopt a multi-agency approach that involves our AACs, day care centres for adults with disabilities, healthcare providers and even service providers like lawyers who may have interactions with family members in the course of their related work, for example, doing Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), as well stakeholder agencies like Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and MSF, such that each party can trigger another party to provide necessary checks or support for the family concerned. Studies should be done to see how contact and support can be appropriately maintained by one or more stakeholders for both elderly caregivers as well as the special needs adults.

Last year, I said in my Budget debate speech that we should work towards AACs, which cater to the different needs of seniors, whether social or medical, or for more specialised areas like mental health or disabled persons who are seniors. The centres should still be referring centres even if other organisations or sub-units are involved. Indeed, an expanded AAC can also perform the coordinator or contact role for elderly caregivers of adults with disabilities.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me know move on to ongoing efforts for green transition. Last year, I said in my Budget debate speech that we need a detailed roadmap for retraining workers in these sectors as Singapore decarbonises. I asked whether we have sufficient sustainability-related courses that businesses and workers can afford to attend, both in terms of time and money. In my speech today, I will go on to talk about the quality of the education to be provided.

Mr Deputy Speaker, capacity building is a core concept of development. In the context of climate change and sustainable development, upskilling is now necessary to ensure a just transition and that no worker is left behind.

Singapore has been investing heavily in lifelong learning and upskilling since SkillsFuture was launched back in 2015. Government spending has shifted towards adult education and training to accelerate the nation's green transitions. IHLs form the backbone of this shift and there exists a multitude of courses available to build capacity and upskill the existing work force in areas such as environmental, social and governance (ESG) and carbon services and trading.

However, growing our talent pipeline must also include investing in primary, secondary and tertiary education. I am pleased to hear of a new Master of Science (MSc) in climate change and sustainability programme at the National University of Singapore (NUS). The MSc programme in data science for sustainability was also launched in NUS to train data scientists who can integrate their knowledge and skills with an understanding of sustainability issues. The Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has the Asian School of the Environment and offers majors in environmental and earth systems science, public policy and even a second major in sustainability. These are examples of positive development in Singapore.

But to ensure that graduates are well equipped to meet the demands of the times, all such courses must go through sufficient policy and industry validation. For instance, IHLs should, if they have not done so, internalise the SkillsFuture reports to assess SkillsFuture needs in these areas and assess what skill sets they have to teach undergraduates and graduate students. We should also encourage our course providers to ensure that all courses provide adequate time, emphasis and coverage on Singapore, so that students can really understand how to green Singapore and the challenges that Singapore face.

Do knowledge providers have the right people to teach and impart such knowledge and skills? How do we ensure this? Some form of impact assessment is necessary to track lifelong learners' progress, comprehension and application.

Second, knowledge and content providers across the IHLs also need to be given adequate support to do this important work of providing the knowledge and skills for the workforce. Hiring practices at university need to reflect contribution to society beyond traditional publication and impact factors. If Singapore is to succeed in our green transition, more emphasis needs to be placed on hiring experts that have real-world experience in solving complex sustainability challenges.

Demand is also growing for Singapore to help build regional and international capacity. Overall, there is growing demand for Singapore's experts to be ready and available to impart valuable knowledge. To do so, we need more Singaporeans to step forward with the right knowledge, skills and attitude to help grow our local, regional and international sustainability talent. Indeed, we need to actively grow our pool of educators.

Climate change demands urgent action from everyone, across all sectors of society. As we focus on upskilling and capacity building of workers, we must also not overlook the support and training we need to give our educators. We need to grow our pool of sustainability educators and we need to do so fast in this quick journey of manpower transition, so that we do not lag behind our 2030 and 2050 goals.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing, I look forward to the replies to the concerns I have raised.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

4.19 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Budget 2024 is a well-stitched effort to tackle both immediate challenges and longer-term issues affecting our citizens and businesses. Whilst it is not flawless, it does stand as evidence of our Government’s commitment to listening and understanding ground realities.

I am very grateful to my residents, grassroots activists, fellow volunteers and my Central District CDC councillors and partners for sharing their insights on Budget 2024 with me. Many of them have expressed admiration for its comprehensive suite of benefits to individuals, households, seniors, businesses and families with children in preschools and special education schools. The Budget’s positive features are widely recognised and appreciated.

In my speech, I wish to focus on three areas of concern: firstly, the need to scrutinise if the intended outcomes of Budget 2024’s initiatives will be met; secondly, the sustainability of escalating social development costs; and thirdly, the need to foster a more robust ecosystem of partnership to make the Budget theme of “Building our shared future together” a tangible reality.

First, on the need to ensure intended outcomes are achieved. Let me provide one example that is close to my heart. I applaud the Government’s bold and potentially game-changing investment in two target groups within the Singaporean labour force: one, our young ITE graduates below the age of 30; and two, our mid-career Singaporeans.

However, the devil, as they say, is in the details. For instance, while attractive financial incentives are provided for ITE graduates below age 30, to pursue further diploma studies, several questions remain unanswered. It is unclear to me how many are eligible for these targeted diploma courses and whether the potential opportunity costs of not working will deter them, and if they will receive adequate career guidance to ensure alignment with their strengths and job market needs?

The same questions also apply to the mid-career reskilling plan for Singaporeans aged 40 and above. This is also a profile who similarly needs to be urged to undertake the reskilling initiative for better future employability.

I therefore would urge a careful study of the response of the target pool of ITE graduates and mid-career Singaporeans to further improve the chances of success of this potentially game-changing investment by the Government. Government can consider an even more aggressive move of specifically approaching the lower-skilled gig economy workers, for instance, and others whose industries or jobs are at risk of being obsoleted by technology, including AI.

The investment in our younger ITE graduates and mid-career Singaporeans is not the only ones that need careful eyeballing and tweaking if need be. Some initiatives such as the corporate income tax and personal income tax for everybody, the reduction of fees in preschools and SPED schools are blunt measures that signal Government's care and empathy. Yet, they may or may not be needed or appreciated by some Singaporeans. An option for those not in need to redirect their benefits for a common pool for those more in need should be considered. Much like how unused CDC Vouchers are channeled to charities with an Institution of Public Character (IPC) status.

I therefore urge Government to undertake a proactive mitigation strategy to guarantee the effective execution and success of Budget 2024's well-intentioned initiatives.

Next, I would like to touch on the worrying trend of rising national expenditures, especially in what is categorised as "social development costs". More than 50% of the total Budget allocation is dedicated to social development. Receiving the largest shares are health, about 17% or about $19 billion; education at 13% or about $15 billion; and national development at 8.1% or $9 billion. This investment in social development reflects Government's priorities and commitment to improving the quality of life for all Singaporeans.

Yet as we increase spending in these vital areas, we must also consider innovative ways to sustain this investment. Our Singapore society is not accustomed to higher personal and corporate income taxes for various reasons. And this is unlike countries such as Australia and the Nordic countries, where high levels of citizen welfare are funded by tax regimes with high tax rates.

So, one innovative way that the PAP Government has used is to tap on the National Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) to fund expenditure, which in the last seven Budgets from FY2018 to now, has been increasingly relied upon. How sustainable this funding model is remains to be seen. There must constantly be found ways to pay for the ever-increasing expenditure. Some people I have spoken to call for an even more resources, for example, to be channeled to GIC and Temasek Holdings for them to invest, so that the NIRC base can be enlarged. The two investors have, over the years, delivered decent medium- and longer-term returns. And others call for more public-private-people partnerships for more innovative and flexible funding.

Whatever it is, the concern over the sustainability of the current funding model for our ever-rising national expenditures should not be underrated and underestimated – and that is my second point.

Finally, the need to foster a more robust and cohesive ecosystem of partnership to make the Budget theme of “Building our shared future together” a tangible reality. Deputy Prime Minister Wong’s clarion call through Forward Singapore and through Budget 2024 to “build a shared future together” is an important call to action for every sector of society. Already, Singapore is working with partners in areas such as community hospitals, hospices included, special education and other social services.

I refer to hon MP Dennis Tan's lament about the adults with disabilities. And I just want to share that all of us have a role as well. In my Kampong Glam division, for example, we have tested and piloted in the last two years with the People’s Association (PA) grassroots and CaringSG, a special programme that is called "Purple Hearts". It is a special needs families' network, where more than 20 volunteers from the ground, led by some of our grassroot leaders and me. We regularly visited, befriended, tried to find out the needs and then referred and directed the needs of these 200 families to the different agencies, some of them in Government and some are non-government. And almost two years now. I am very happy to share with Mr Dennis Tan and also other MPs, if they are interested, to at least make this happen in their area.

Already, Singapore is working with a lot of partners in this space. But let me just propose some ways by which our Government can take a better lead in ensuring the building of a shared future together, especially in the non-profit charity sector, where I actively volunteer. I need to declare. This is a sector that is full of heart but is fairly fragmented.

First, the Government can play a crucial and more helpful role in facilitating this ecosystem to ensure more informed decision-making and impactful outcomes. In recent years, substantial resources have been allocated to governance of the partners, which is vital of course – audits, governance and so forth.

However, there needs to be a deeper understanding among both donors and recipients about the landscape – identifying the key essential services, causes, beneficiary groups, key gaps and expectations, as well as clarifying the Government's participation in these gaps and how others can contribute effectively. For example, major donors in Singapore, such as Ngee Ann Kongsi and various foundations, could be better supported to invest in the essential areas sustainably.

Second, support for back-end functions. The back-end of any effective social service ecosystem lies in its operational capabilities. Currently, many social service agencies and charities face challenges due to fragmented support structures in governance, procurement, risk management and internal controls. Not their fault; it is just that they are operating with very limited resources. They are not the Government. They cannot afford to pay for what one Member called “bureaucratic complexity”.

So, operating with limited resources, these charities and partners often find it very difficult to establish systems that meet Government operating and audit standards. Improving support in these areas therefore is crucial. For instance, enabling IPCs to access Government procurement networks such as the GeBiz or Demand Aggregated vendors; this could significantly reduce operational burdens for charities. For instance, having good senior public servants from the Public Service for Good movement started by Minister Chan Chun Sing to sit down with key sector leaders and help set reasonable standards and install cost-effective back-end functions – this is one way of moving forward for a shared future.

Next, on supporting manpower needs in this non-profit charity sector, the Government can play a pivotal role by being sensitive to and supportive of the workforce dedicated to its non-profit partners. The manpower challenges faced by organisations, for example, like Dover Hospice, which I just visited, where healthcare staff, despite their experience, face tenure limitations; and partner homes, nursing homes, residential homes, which see staff leaving for other sectors, for example, the public sector, due to more attractive connect plans or compensation packages. All these underscore the need for a more supportive and sensitive framework by the Government, together, working as partners.

Fourth, in tiered matching and tax exemptions. The Government should implemented tiered matching for donations and offer more attractive tax exemptions for contributions to essential under-resourced social sectors. Essential and emerging needs should be carefully identified and receive more support. These include healthcare, lifelong education, care facilities for adults which Member Dennis Tan has mentioned also, and I raised many times in the House here and outside, for persons with disabilities and their families, especially the adult ones, and also support social enterprises that lead to job creations for the vulnerable, such as our neuro-diversed, disabled and lower-educated Singaporeans. While I appreciate that tax exemptions will now be offered for overseas donations, I urge for local investments to be given priority and granted more attractive tax incentives over overseas donations.

Fifth, empowering social enterprises. Instead of relying only on donations and grants, charities as the Government's partners should be encouraged to fish rather than being fed in the long term. Social enterprises play a critical role in addressing societal challenges through business solutions. But social enterprises are some of the most difficult businesses to run, having to achieve both financial and social output bottom lines. Supporting these organisations by prioritising them in procurement processes, offering set-up assistance and providing more tax exemptions and grants can amplify their impact, especially for those that are run by charities. The money goes into the charity and not into any individual's pockets. So, this approach will not only foster social innovation but also contribute to the economy in a meaningful way. Public procurement policies that favour social enterprises can create a more inclusive economy and drive social value creation.

Sir, I have proposed five ways by which the Government can be more sensitive and appreciated in its aspiration to build a shared future with stakeholders in the area of social development. And I look forward to the Government double-clicking on what I have shared on these five items, so that we can build a shared future together. And I also look forward, of course, to its considered responses in this Budget season.

In conclusion, Sir, Budget 2024 is not merely a financial plan. It is a blueprint for a compassionate, inclusive and resilient society. There are some brilliant programmes that ought to be further scrutinised to ensure their well-intentioned goals are achieved. Social development costs are rising in terms of dollars and proportion. Only with a vibrant ecosystem can each one play their role to the best and bring to reality the spirit of ForwardSG and Budget 2024.

Budget 2024 calls upon each one of us – the Government, Government officials, corporate leaders, philanthropists, social service agencies, citizens, residents, all of us – to contribute towards a shared future. Notwithstanding my inputs, I strongly support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

4.34 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, close our eyes and imagine Ah Ma, a silver-haired hawker, her smile fading as she sees the rising cost of ingredients threatening her livelihood. Now picture Encik Ali, struggling to choose between essential groceries and his medication due to inflation. These are not isolated stories. They represent the daily struggles of a sizeable number of Singaporeans, both young and old, feeling the squeeze from rising costs of living across the board. I meet some of these residents at my Yio Chu Kang Meet-the-People Sessions.

While Budget 2024 deserves recognition for its priorities, the affordability crisis casts a long shadow, threatening not just the financial security of our seniors but the very fabric of our diverse society. Let us act before affordability becomes a barrier to opportunity and well-being for all Singaporeans. We can do more to make Singapore an affordable place to live in, particularly in transport, housing, CPF and social support schemes.

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need to ensure affordable and accessible transport for Singaporeans. While our public transport network continues to expand, car ownership remains a critical aspect of life for many Singaporeans. Families with young children, seniors, individuals with limited mobility and those with special needs often rely on private vehicles for their daily commutes.

Despite its world-class efficiency, our public transport system experiences sizeable crowds at most hours. During peak periods, the situation intensifies, with limited seating availability for vulnerable passengers. While private hire vehicles (PHVs) offer an alternative, their costs and waiting times are rising, not to mention that there are peak-hour surcharges. Recent experiences during festive periods like Chinese New Year, with reported waiting times of 30 minutes, raise concerns about their reliability. Of course, this is understandable as PHV drivers have families, too, and will join in the celebrations during this festive season. But this also means that there is a certain market failure in the PHV network which may require some intervention.

Skyrocketing Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) threaten to push car ownership out of reach for the average Singaporean. This is not a luxury car problem; it is a family car problem. The recent Parliamentary debates on this issue demonstrated the urgency of addressing the affordability issue.

The ongoing review of point-to-point travel is encouraging. I urge the Government to seriously consider separate COE categories for PHVs. I have raised this issue in Parliament on several occasions. This issue centres around the fairness and impact of placing PHVs and individual buyers in the same COE pool. Firstly, the demand patterns differ significantly. PHV companies often have access to greater financial resources and can be more aggressive bidders, ultimately, passing on the cost to passengers. Secondly, for PHVs, cars are essentially business tools. Companies are likely to prioritise higher bids, compared to individual buyers purchasing for personal use, knowing that they can recoup the money in the future. Hence, creating a separate category addresses this imbalance between corporations and individual buyers, ensuring a fairer and more equitable system.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to protect our seniors from seemingly unfair property tax increases. While the recent adjustments to AV brackets and property rebates are a positive step, their delayed implementation presents a pressing concern for our retired seniors. Can the Government hence implement the changes earlier?

Also, many retirees are "asset-rich and cash-poor". They have acquired their private properties decades ago and lived in them for a long time. A sharp property tax increase can devastate these retirees who lack the income to absorb the cost. We need a fairer system that protects our seniors. They lack the readily available cash flow to absorb any significant rise in property tax associated with increasing AVs. One retiree I know told me that her property tax has increased by almost three times. Perhaps the Government should provide more assistance to retirees with no income who possess a single owner-occupied home. By all means tax more for those with a second property, a third property and so on. What the Government is doing now is essentially asking retirees staying in their own home who cannot pay their property tax to sell away their home and uproot from the environment that they are familiar with. This will put stress on our seniors and affect their mental health. It might even cause dementia to set in earlier.

We also need to implement a fairer property tax system considering residents' unique circumstances, especially for owner-occupied homes. Can we encourage our banks and financial institutions to have reverse mortgages? Monetise some of the lease of the houses, but with the option of paying back when the house is eventually inherited. This may create a market and allow price discovery and competition, too.

We also need greater clarity on the relevant physical attributes that are being considered when calculating the AV of the home. How will IRAS assess the condition of houses, both private and HDB, that are located in districts with higher property value but have not been renovated in many years? Moreover, can the Government also consider introducing a maximum annual increase cap on property taxes, up to 50%, for example?

Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need clearer communication and targeted support for CPF changes. While the closure of the Special Account (SA) and the transfer of funds to the RA simplify the system and offer potentially higher interest rates, I seek clarification on the 1% of members who cannot transfer their SA savings to RA. Can the Minister elaborate on who falls under this exception? Will moving funds from the OA to the RA be voluntary? How will members be informed of this option, its benefits and drawbacks, and receive assistance on this if needed?

Moreover, the imminent closure of SA raises concerns and confusion among many residents, especially those in their 50s who have reached the full retirement sum. Numerous residents have expressed concerns that they have to replan their retirement due to this change. Years of financial planning based on the SA's higher interest rates are disrupted, leaving them with limited time to adjust. The limited withdrawal options from RA raise concerns about accessing emergency funds, unlike the SA, which has more flexibility. Conversely, leaving funds in OA means lower interest earning and retirement savings, impacting our seniors' long-term financial security. I urge the Minister to address these residents' concerns and explore ways to minimise the impact of the SA closure on members aged 55 and above, particularly regarding withdrawal flexibility.

Furthermore, while I acknowledge the move to raise the ERS to allow members to benefit from the high interest rates in RA, I emphasise the need to focus on lower-income earners who struggle to reach even the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS). Can the Minister elaborate on specific measures to help them grow their retirement savings?

Lastly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need to refine means-testing processes for essential schemes to ensure inclusivity. While the Silver Support Scheme (SSS) aims to help seniors who have low incomes during their working years and now have less in retirement, using housing type to determine Silver Support payouts may unfairly disadvantage seniors who have shared their flats with their families. I would like to suggest the removal of this criterion. Seniors in larger flats may face other financial limitations. They may share the roof with many family members and do not have the option to downsize or monetise the house. Hence, it may not be right to equate housing type with wealth.

Likewise for hospital bills and subsidies. The current means-testing based on housing and family income might not accurately reflect the true financial situation of all seniors. With the increasing trend of later marriages and singlehood, many young Singaporeans live with their parents while striving for financial independence or waiting for their BTOs. Denying subsidies based on these further disadvantages young Singaporeans and impacts their decisions regarding marriage and family planning. It also deters seniors from seeking necessary healthcare due to the fear of burdening their children. We, hence, need to consider removing housing type as a criterion, refine means-testing processes to consider a more holistic view of individual and family income.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us open our eyes. Let us view Singapore as a grand, age-old tree, deeply rooted in our values and traditions, providing shelter and sustenance to all who seek refuge beneath its branches. Just as we cherish and nurture our seniors, so, too, must we ensure that they are sheltered from the storms of uncertainty and hardship. They grew the tree, and now it is their time to enjoy the shelter it should provide. It is evident that action is needed to address the affordability challenges facing Singaporeans.

I have made several suggestions in my speech.

Firstly, in transportation, we must ensure accessibility and affordability, particularly for families and vulnerable individuals like seniors. We need to explore separate COE categories for PHVs.

Secondly, regarding housing, a fairer property tax system, considering the unique circumstances of residents, is imperative. Tailored policies and capped increases can alleviate the burden on seniors and home owners.

Thirdly, in CPF, greater awareness of policy changes and targeted support are critical to help seniors grow their retirement savings, especially for lower-income earners who struggle to reach the Basic Retirement Sum.

Lastly, in social support, refining means-testing processes for essential schemes like Silver Support and medical subsidies is necessary to ensure a holistic view of individual and family income.

I urge the Government to prioritise these measures to ensure affordability for all, especially for our seniors. Let us not wait until rising costs become insurmountable barriers for Singaporeans of all ages. By working together, we can build a more inclusive and equitable society where everyone thrives, regardless of their circumstances. Together, let us make Singapore a truly affordable place to live in, and a nation where everyone can chase their dreams without being crippled by financial hardship. I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.

4.45 pm

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, the fate of a country through the ages has been that it either rises, falls or stagnates. We are lucky that in Singapore – against massive odds – we have continued to do well. Budget 2024, which is a part of the Forward Singapore movement, aims to keep the upward trajectory going. But even as we grow our economy, the immutable fact is that resources will always be finite but wants unlimited.

Our needs rise with each generation and their aspirations for a brighter and progressive future imply we have to keep adapting and evolving. We need to take deliberate actions to stretch every dollar we spend to ensure we continue to meet the growing aspirations of our citizens and expand our economy in a holistic manner. Thus, strengthening key areas and preventing unnecessary resource wastage, while ensuring that our wealth and social equality keep pace across different segments in society, is necessary.

In this Budget 2024 Statement, there are four areas stood out for me. First, I agree with the need for our economy to continue growing at a healthy pace, but not at all costs.

I applaud the Government in planning for the future of economy and setting a direction of what industries and jobs will anchor this little red dot beyond a decade or two. However, we have to be careful not to be blindsided by the potential unseen structural and social costs that such development could bring. We have to plan for such economic activities in a holistic and calibrated manner and, most importantly, as part of a whole-of-Government effort to ensure we consider all dimensions of each plan.

For example, as we pursue new high value activities, such as R&D, we should not neglect strengthening our foundational engineering capabilities or to continue encouraging our high value-add manufacturing base. The pandemic has shown that over reliance for core parts of a supply chain globally has its downside.

Offshoring some of these jobs not only impact our blue-collar workforce, but it could also risk Singapore losing our ability to effectively translate innovation into market-ready products. On the long run, this limits Singapore's capabilities of being a "one-stop" shop for such innovation deployment.

Deliberate planning of lifelong learning and scoping career transition pathways through the newly launched SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme will help develop our workforce to deliver products and services in the new economic growth areas. However, we must continue to support capability development in tradecrafts and some blue-collar domains, to ensure we have a holistic workforce to drive our economic plans forward.

I am happy about the new ITE progression award to support students to upskill in more practical and hands-on areas. I hope similar schemes would continue to support and enhance our workforce to develop mastery in key skills which are needed to drive some fundamentals in Singapore's growth forward.

To be clear, I am in full support of our future economic thrust, such as preparing for the digital and green transition, continuously moving up the value chain and finding niche areas where we can be globally competitive and differentiated.

But while we push the frontiers of innovation – and it is critical – it is the ability to imagine the future of Singapore's economy that presents hope and possibilities to all segments of workers that will keep our economy going.

Second, I am enthused that we will be allocating budget for key infrastructure development to support the transition towards clean energy through the Future Energy Fund. These spendings are important to ensure that Singapore remains a good participant of global climate action and potentially be a beacon to other countries in transiting towards cleaner energy.

These infrastructural developments are, however, costly; and could entail higher risk of being stranded, given the uncertain energy landscape. A prudent allocation of these funds must go beyond just evaluating the capital. It requires Government leaders to make good judgement calls on the risk of such investments and to consider the potential high recurring cost and approach to maintain such infrastructures for usability over a defined lifetime; so as to prevent wastage both now and in the future.

In the same vein, we should follow this philosophy when developing any infrastructure projects to ensure we can stretch every dollar spent. Take, for example, many sheltered linkways have been constructed to provide increased convenience to our citizens and give them the comfort during the hot and wet weather. However, some of the sheltered linkways are not built at areas with heavy footfall and they are under-utilised.

The lightings that are required to keep them bright for usage at night is also drawing more energy from the grid when it is already lighted by parallel streetlights. To ensure the safety of these structures, especially the ones spanning across the roads, are both expensive to construct and maintain. Have we considered how to minimise high recurring expenses to maintain these assets for decades? Were there options to modify the usage of these sheltered paths to serve a wider community, or other innovative and cheaper ways to provide such shelter? Such decisions do require some level of judgement.

Given our limited resources and the possibility that some day, we will have little foreign workers to serve our daily needs, will the public works regulatory evolve to allow citizens to volunteer their expertise or knowledge on potential technology and designs that can be used?

Third, I welcome the move to help address the immediate cost of living and to enhance the AP. Our GDP per capita stands at about S$91,100, according to the World Economic Outlook in 2022 and ranks amongst the top three globally.

For a young nation with relatively high median income, it is hard for some to apprehend that we have amongst us the low-income workers, a sandwiched middle-income group and seniors or retirees who may not have sufficient financials to support their retirement. With impending global headwinds that may adversely affect our economy and our ageing population, I am concerned for the future for this group of citizens, especially given the uncertainty it may bring. While the country prospers, a key topic we have to face squarely is whether our wealth and social equality is keeping pace across the different segments in society.

The prices of essential goods and services have increased over the past year and the provision of the CDC and U-Save vouchers would go some way to help many Singaporeans cushion a part of the escalating cost burden. While such schemes have instant effect to address current inflation challenge, the long-term deployment of such schemes, likewise places a fiscal burden on the Government. There is a need to continually track the impact of such packages and to regularly benchmark it with the intent of the package or the policy.

With Singapore's continued investments into new high value economic growth areas and as we continue to support upgrading our workforce to undertake higher value jobs, I am hopeful that the real wages for Singaporeans will continue to grow. I am not against the provision of financial support for targeted groups of individuals who have needs and are unable to support or manage without additional support or truly needs a helping hand in that manner.

The question I have for the Government is whether the plan is to continue making some of these support schemes, like the CDC Vouchers and AP a permanent one, and how are we intending to fund these. Everybody likes "free money", but it is important that we always prioritise our fellow Singaporeans who might need a bit more help and continue to support them as a national family.

And this brings me to the last aspect of helping those who need more support and in a targeted manner. I am very encouraged by the announcement of the increased support to be provided to families of persons with special needs.

I believe that inclusivity is an important pillar in our social fabric, and we should continue to aspire and rally more Singaporeans to support and integrate people with special needs into our community to the largest possible extent. Lowering the cost of monthly fees at special education (SPED) schools and increasing support for employment and integration of special needs individuals are moves in the right direction.

To be a caregiver for someone with special needs is not only a matter of financial cost, but it also takes a toll on the entire family as their lifestyle completely changes beyond one about affordability, to one that focuses on how best to enable the special needs person to live a life.

One resident who approached me for help recently had an issue with her daughter's application for a transport concession card. The issue of not getting the approval was one around definition of disability and the assessment criteria. The fact of the matter is her daughter has been diagnosed with varying degrees of disability since young. Now at 20, her condition has not improved, and she faces other societal challenges and the lack of opportunity to participate in the workforce. What her parents are concerned about is not merely about a transport concession card, which is lesser in value than GST Voucher or even the CDC Voucher support that were generously given. The concern they have is that the availability of options their daughter has for rest of her life is determined by what others are willing to provide and the decisions to support rely on rulebooks that are seldom exercised with a sense of understanding.

I do ask if there are more we can do as a community to support such individuals. I am heartened to see that there are more commercial facilities setting aside space and adjusting their operational procedures to make spaces that are more welcoming to those with special needs.

Places like Gardens by the Bay plans to have a quiet hour for people with autism and an inclusive playground for children. Other similar efforts are also taken by corporates, such as Frasers Property and its tenants, who chose to be the inaugural "Inclusive Champions". Proliferation of such community, as well as commercial-led efforts are essential to ultimately mainstream the inclusivity of special needs individuals into Singaporeans' daily way of life.

I hope the Government will expand its support for such ground-up efforts, both in the commercial and the community space to help those with special needs.

Deputy Speaker, to conclude, I am optimistic about Singapore's growth ahead despite the global headwinds. Budget 2024 provides a view of how we can shape our economy to embrace a new demand, which also ensures our workforce can be better placed for future job propositions.

While the Government plans for the nation, I also seek fellow Singaporeans to take an active role in our path forward. This country can only benefit from our collective wisdom, efforts and willingness to see it succeed. Success is not simply a definition of being the best, but one where we feel proud and comforted that our success includes those who are needy and vulnerable in society as well. And with that, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.

4.57 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a lot to unpack in Budget 2024. It takes care of the immediate cost-of-living challenges, provides support for families and our seniors, supports individuals and businesses to be future ready for growth and jobs. The introduction of measures to anchor quality investments, invest in new economic sectors and major moves to decarbonise the economy, are welcomed but require large funding.

Our spending needs continue to rise. The question is, will we be able to continue to afford such large funding. Deputy Prime Minister Wong outlined that our medium-term fiscal position is tight, but assured that if we remain in the range of projected spending increase, we should have sufficient revenues to maintain a balanced Budget.

So, I hope that we continue to be able to share as we progress on our specific initiatives. My speech will focus on four areas: better growth; jobs and opportunities; healthcare and senior care and the property tax adjustments.

With the continuing geopolitical situation, slower economic growth and decline in real income, Singaporeans and businesses have been challenged in coping with inflation, higher cost of living and of doing business. The cash support and grants announced for the AP and Enterprise Support Package will help families and businesses cope with current cost and inflationary pressures.

But we do need to give focus to growth and quality growth. This is vital if we want better lives for Singaporeans and for businesses to be able to thrive. This point was aptly articulated by one of our residents in Changi Simei last year during our Budget dialogue.

As we were discussing budget measures to support cost-of-living pressures, he reminded us that while support measures are needed, we must also "grow the pie". If we do not grow, we will be worse-off in the long run as we will be relying on a shrinking pie and there will be less to count on. This is the stark reality and a timely reminder.

We cannot do more of the same. Global uncertainties, disruptions and structural shifts, driven by technology and climate change, require us to make fundamental shifts and innovate to achieve good and sustainable growth. Singapore needs to continue to remain an attractive hub for businesses to invest their high quality projects, as this brings cutting-edge capability, knowledge and technology, and more importantly, it creates good jobs.

The introduction of the Refundable Investment Credit, investments in AI, upgrading of our Nationwide Broadband Network, and the further boost to the RIE2025 plan, are some of the important measures that Budget 2024 is investing in for Singapore to continue to remain competitive and attractive for companies to invest in.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

But to realise the full potential of the growth will require our businesses, including SMEs, to have the capability to be part of that growth. Having strong local businesses will also improve Singapore's attractiveness for investments, as businesses looking to invest will require a strong base of companies to partner. It is critical that our local enterprises transform to remain relevant and the changes, we must realise, will not be easy as it will require new ways of doing business, harnessing technology, building new skills and adopting energy-efficient solutions. The measures and enhancements in the Budget will support our local enterprises in their transformation efforts. But it will come down to whether our local enterprises will commit and make the investment to do so while continuing to run their current businesses.

When I was working in MNEs, I personally witnessed the synergy and benefits of collaboration between MNEs and local businesses, especially SMEs. SMEs can level-up by tapping on the technical know-how, expertise, financial strength and access to markets of MNEs. Many MNEs have initiatives to develop local businesses as MNEs understand the value of working with and building a strong network of local businesses to provide local market insights, tapping on the potential of the local markets and address gaps. It is a win-win for both the MNE and local businesses. Hence, it is important that our local businesses make the necessary investments to transform and be ready to partner and play a key part in the value chain of MNEs.

The Partnership for Capability Transformation scheme and the enhancement that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced in the Budget will promote partnerships between MNEs and our local businesses. But our local companies can only do so if they have the capability.

Let me now touch on an equally important point. For growth to be possible, businesses need people, people who have the relevant skills and knowledge to take on the jobs. The disruptions are impacting businesses structurally and, in turn, jobs.

In an Adjournment Motion that I raised in 2022 on senior employability, I shared the findings of work that the PAP Seniors Group embarked on to better understand work and senior employability.

One of my recommendations was the need for structural intervention in how we support learning and organise work. As people live longer and healthier, we continue to learn, are productive and desire to be able to continue to work as we age.

But we will progress through our life stages in a non-linear way. Just as we allow for different pathways of our young in formal education, I highlighted the need to rethink how we structure learning for those in the workforce to enable continuous learning and work. Individuals, as well as employers, know the value of continuous learning. The challenge is the opportunity cost and making the time to substantially invest in it. Hence, the vicious cycle of talents gaps and skills relevancy affecting both businesses and individuals. I had asked that we find ways to allow a period of maybe a few months of work-related learning every few years. Then, we can really build skills.

The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme announced in the Budget is significant. It will support all Singaporean mid-career workers aged 40 years and above with $4,000 SkillsFuture credits for selected industry-oriented courses in sectors with good hiring opportunities; subsidise full-time diplomas at the polytechnics, ITE and arts institutions and give training allowance capped at $3,000 a month up to 24 months throughout one's lifetime. These measures are meant to offset income loss during the period. It also signals a recognition of the structural shifts impacting employment and the need for the right support for mid-career workers to proactively take the step to reskill and to enable them to deal with changes in employment by being future ready to take on new and good job opportunities.

SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme is indeed a structural change in supporting mid-career workers. It will cushion the cost of retraining and I believe will go some way to encourage individuals to make the commitment and take charge of their reskilling and career. This will require a mindset shift and support from employers, educational institutions and family for reskilling and work and managing the transitions. It will require adjustment to all stakeholders including the mid-career worker as going back to formal education after some years can be daunting. There will be other considerations, such as finding and deciding on suitable courses that will lead to better employability and better jobs and for those who are not taking full-time courses, the ability to manage work and study. But ultimately, for SkillsFuture to be meaningful for workers, reskilling must align to business needs so that the result is really indeed securing better jobs.

If we are successful in making the shift to reskilling, as advocated in the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, I am hopeful that it will make learning as systemic for workers in the workplace as it is for our young in formal education.

Let me now touch on healthcare and senior care.

With household facing higher cost pressures and cost of healthcare, I welcome the Government's revision of the monthly per capita household income (PHCI) criterion for means-tested healthcare and associated social support subsidy scheme. As stated, with the revision, more than one million will benefit from the higher subsidies.

I would like to seek clarification on the revised thresholds and subsidies for Ministry of Health and Ministry of Social and Family Development long-term residential and non-residential care. The details provided make no mention of AV. Is AV no longer a criterion? In the case of retirees who have no PHCI, will AV be used as the means-tested criteria to determine eligibility? If the AV is even slightly above the AV threshold, they would not be eligible for any subsidies.

I made this appeal in last year's Budget debate for a review and refinement of the means-tested criteria for senior long-term residential and non-residential care. If AV continues to be a means-tested criterion to determine eligibility, at risk of sounding like a broken record, I ask the Government to review how we support Singaporean families to care for their seniors, just as we support all Singaporean families with the care of their young children as announced in last year's Budget, without means testing.

I am not asking for no means testing but a refinement of how AV is used to determine eligibility. The cost of eldercare services is not insignificant. Without subsidies, daycare services can cost from $945 to $1,430 per month. Dementia care services range between $1,260 to $1,575 per month before subsidies. For families that have both young children and seniors to care for, these expenses do add up. For retirees, the impact is even greater.

Finally, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for recognising the challenges faced with the increase in property tax in 2024 for owner-occupied residential properties with the sharp increase in the AV and for making the adjustment to widen the AV bands for the property tax for owner occupied properties. This means homeowners will pay less property tax in 2025 and following years if AV remains unchanged.

As shared by CBRE Research, the adjustment to the AV bands will benefit the lower- and mid-tier properties the most with lower property tax payable in the range of 20%-30%. The adjustment will help homeowners, especially retirees, who may not be well-off. Together with the 24-month instalment plan without any interest, this will help retirees who are unable to make the lump sum payment for their property tax.

Budget 2024 is a comprehensive Budget. It lays new foundations and building blocks for us to build our shared future together. To achieve the bold ambitions set out in Budget 2024 will require everyone, Government, businesses, individuals and community to take an active role and play our part. Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

5.08 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Singaporean workers aspire towards making a good living and engaging in meaningful work that uplifts not only their own families, but also their communities, their nation and the world.

One inescapable reality of work is competition.

We have always had a very competitive culture in Singapore. This has served us well in many ways, from the excellent performance of our students in schools to our efforts the top global rankings and everything from corruption perceptions to business friendliness. However, competition also has a darker side.

Singaporeans are not looking to the Government to shield them from global competition. However, we detest unfair competition where people who do not play by the rules or follow local norms, still get ahead. For example, when Singaporean workers see colleagues getting hired and promoted not on the basis of their ability or hard work nut because their manager prefers working with people who share his cultural background, this creates a profound dissonance in them.

Why? Because Singaporeans have been brought up to believe that meritocracy is a guiding principle in our society. We want a Singapore which rewards workers and professionals based on their competence and hard work, not connections or tribal loyalties.

Nevertheless, while we strive to shape the Singapore that we desire, we are but a small drop in a vast ocean. We have to teach our children and students to deal with the world as it is, not how we wanted to be. They must be taught at home and in schools to speak up when they have something to contribute, not stay silent in the background. They must be encouraged to ask for what is due to them and not simply accept what others decide for them without question. And they must be willing to network with a wide spectrum of people from different cultures and nationalities and understand what motivates them.

Singapore is often viewed as a nation of excellence. In local parlance, we do things "swee swee". Give Singaporean a task and when they say they have done it, we can trust that it has been done well. We must never let this culture of excellence slip. It is our advantage in an increasingly competitive world.

AI and robotics both have both burst into mainstream consciousness in recent years, with the launch of generative AI and self-driving cars. These technologies could provide a path to boosting Singapore's productivity by enhancing the speed, accuracy and efficiency of various tasks and processes.

There are many studies of AI's measurable impact on productivity. For example, a joint study by BCG and Harvard found that consultants using GPT-4 completed 12% more business tasks 25% more quickly with 40% higher quality than a control group without AI-access.

These are amazing opportunities for Singapore to take advantage of. The Government can spur a broader uptake of AI and robotics, not only for our scientists and businesses, but also for general purpose use by ordinary citizens.

In November 2023, I asked about whether the Government plan to develop indigenous capabilities in creating and deploying AI foundation models, including establishing a national Foundation Model Research Institute.

In February 2024, I proposed the creation of a national AI Healthcare Foundation Model which can be used to predict and intervene in a broad spectrum of diseases. I would like to repeat these calls here.

These are not just national initiatives but possible precursors to greater regional scientific cooperation. Singapore needs the right institutions and opportunities in order to attract and retain the best minds, including talented Singaporean students, scientists and entrepreneurs.

I am under no Illusions about the potential of these new technologies to cause job losses. This is why in January 2024, I asked the Government for its plans to proactively retrain workers who are at most risk of displacement from AI. We need interventions to steel our citizens against AI-driven job redundancy. It is better for us to be the architects of our own disruption than to allow technology to change us for the worse.

It is tempting to pull out the old playbook or pouring money into training programmes and encouraging workers to attend courses. However, this approach may not succeed in upskilling an entire workforce in disrupted new technologies.

We must also embrace tacit learning, through the hands-on use of AI and robotics. Tacit learning is learning by doing. Using AI tools or robots needs to be made as easy and as commonplace as goggling for answers on a web browser or operating a television remote control. Robots should be deployed more widely in our environment so that the public get used to seeing and using them every day.

Giving every Singaporean hands-on practice with AI and robotics will better ensure that the gains of these technologies go to everyone, manual workers and knowledge workers, civil servants and entrepreneurs, MNCs and SMEs.

SkillsFuture must also support tacit learning. In February 2024, in my Adjournment Motion on global AI leadership, I called for the subscriptions to cutting edge AI tools to be subsidised by SkillsFuture credits.

AI tools make workers more productive and we should give our people more opportunities to use them. We must strive for the whole breadth of Singapore society to have contact with the best AI models and robots. Only by trying them out as a first mover and being willing to accept and learn from failure can we gain and retain the thousand points of knowledge that no instructor can teach.

In his Budget Statement, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong rightly pointed out that we are now in an era of armed conflict, confrontation and terrorism, with major powers prioritising national security over international cooperation and that there is a diminished willingness to tackle global issues. These are stark realities. We must work within the realities of this new world order as the old order is probably not coming back anytime soon.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong said that we will pursue better jobs and better growth. He made a commitment to improve wages across professions. In particular, he said that the wages and career prospects of ITE graduates should not be too far behind polytechnic and university graduates. I fully support this. I hope the wages of skilled tradespersons will come much closer to par with knowledge workers, because of the value they bring to our economy and our society. I will elaborate further on this during the Committee of Supply debate on MOM's budget.

The introduction of the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, which injects another $4,000 into Singaporean SkillsFuture credit is welcome. Deputy Prime Minister Wong said it is to be used for selected training programmes with better employability outcomes, including part-time and full-time diplomas and undergraduate programmes. In addition, workers 40 years and above will have the opportunity to pursue another full-time diploma at subsidised rates.

Can I ask the Minister, how did the Government arrive at the conclusion that these diploma and degree programmes have better employability outcomes? Is there empirical evidence to support this and if there is, are the better outcomes due to the greater skills that these graduates have acquired or because local employers continue to emphasise paper qualifications over skills and experience?

In fact, it has been recognised that one of the most effective ways to pick up employable skills is through on-the-job training (OJT) and apprenticeships. As such, I would suggest that the Government subsidise OJT and apprenticeship programmes to the same tune as diploma and degree programmes.

In his Budget Statement Deputy Prime Minister Wong mentioned briefly about how the Government will do more to support those whose jobs are made redundant, through a temporary financial support scheme for the unemployed. He said the Government will be working out the details later this year. Sir, this scheme was announced almost one year ago at the National Day Rally in August last year. How much longer will it take to flesh out?

More importantly, how fiscally sustainable will the scheme be? Will it include an insurance component, like what the Workers' Party has proposed through its redundancy insurance scheme, to ensure that premium contributions from employers and employees during times of plenty can be drawn down during economic downturns when retrenchment levels are higher?

Mr Speaker, social inclusion must be at the heart of all our economic policies. I am glad to note that the maximum monthly fees at special education (SPED) schools will be lowered to $90, with lower fee caps at all centres. However, Singapore should move towards equalising the fees for SPED schools and mainstream schools. While I am aware that the cost of providing education at both types of schools is different, the school fees should be the same.

Sir, mainstream primary school fees are only $13 a month. Then SPED school fees should also be $13 a month not $120, which is the current average. Even lowering it to $90, while commendable, is still not equitable. This is especially so considering the higher costs that parents of special needs children incur in many other areas besides education. The additional costs of SPED schools, should be socialised in the interests of creating a more inclusive and equitable society.

School bus fares remain another significant concern for the disability community. As of 1 January 2024, the Ministry of Education has increased the price cap of school bus fares for school bus operators at mainstream schools by up to 13%. But we know that SPED school students face a higher increase in their school bus fares, due to the smaller pool of bus operators who are able to meet their more complex needs.

I am aware and appreciate that there are various school bus subsidy assistance schemes, like the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) and the Enabling Transport Subsidy (ETS). While I understand the need to keep the school bus operators sustainable, the adverse impact of the cost of living crisis has made the cost of school bus transport an added burden for many parents of students with disabilities. Many rely heavily on school bus transport to commute to and from home, school and social service agencies to attend programmes, such as the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC), daycare centres, sheltered workshops and special student care centres.

Very often, there are additional costs involved. EIPIC, for example, is a half-day programme. So, the students also need to be ferried from their school to the programme, creating a double whammy in transport costs.

I would, therefore, like to call on the Government to increase the monthly household income limit for both the FAS and the ETS, especially for households with special needs members. In addition, more subsidies can be provided to match the inflation of school bus fares. This would ensure that more families can access and benefit from these subsidies to cover the ever-increasing cost of living.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, as we chart our cause through the rapidly changing global and technological terrain, our policies must embody a steadfast dedication to fairness, meritocracy and innovation. By nurturing an ecosystem that champions fair competition, leverages the transformative power of AI and robotics and places the welfare and progress of every Singaporean at its heart – we can secure a robust and flourishing future.

Let us remain committed to building a society with access to opportunities, a culture of excellence and the value of each individual's contributions shape the Singaporean journey for generations to come. Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Keith Chua.

5.21 pm

Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to share perspectives on this year's Budget – Building Our Shared Future Together.

Implicit, as I see it, are the key words – Building, Shared Future and Together.

In listening to Deputy Prime Minister Wong deliver the Budget on 16 February and subsequently reading his speech again, more than one time and reflecting, I feel very grateful that despite the uncertainties we will encounter, we are well-placed to face these together as one people.

Budget 2024 addresses immediate issues whilst continuing to structure our future social compact. Budget 2024 is the start of an estimated spending of about $40 billion towards our new social compact. Budget 2024 continues to encourage and support necessary economic growth, albeit at a slower pace.

Our Budgets typically attract the interest of the financial and business community. I do hope, though, that more Singaporeans will find time to read Budget 2024 in totality. I hope that even as the financial and business communities evaluate and debate the Budget from fiscal perspectives, that they will play a part in communicating the essence to a much broader constituency.

Possibly, one reason for the limited engagement in the Budget details by our broader population is a historical implicit trust in our Government. However in this age of misinformation, it becomes essential that every Singaporean increasingly appreciates facts and realities. It needs to be seen beyond simple statements, such as Government handouts, if we are to be a part of contributing toward our shared future together.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to offer my observations under three themes or headings.

Firstly, having been faithful and responsible in little and therefore being entrusted with much. Secondly, continuing to seek the welfare of our people and finally, recognising and appreciating our success and, in turn, sharing this both within and beyond our shores.

Much has been spoken in our recent debate on our reserves and the prudent fiscal stewardship exercised by our Government over the past decades. But we need to understand that we started building our reserves with what we can assume was a smaller initial sum and, over the decades, have grown this significantly. In terms of our own economy, we started our economy from a challenging base and today we have been able to attract significant international investments and also develop a strong local business sector.

Budget 2024 has acknowledged current challenges and has therefore provided support in a number of areas for both individuals as well as for businesses.

Growth in our local business sector will come organically and will also come from new initiatives. We need to ensure our SMEs continue to thrive. We need to encourage entrepreneurship to stay vibrant and relevant.

Innovative entrepreneurship can come from intentional support of budding social entrepreneurs. Perhaps some of the new and some of the enhanced funding provided under this Budget, including areas such as research and development, can be allocated to suitable social entrepreneurial initiatives that are not just seeking commercial return but also achieving social impact and social objectives.

Budget 2024 provides for the welfare of those in our community who are more needy and vulnerable. Owing to structural shifts in our domestic economy and also in the global economy, some of our workers will find themselves involuntarily unemployed.

Support may be helpful in conveying – they are not facing this alone and that both Government and the community are ready to help. I also hope and request that the approach we introduce will be wholistic. I would also encourage individuals who are unfortunately affected to try to stay positive in planning their future.

Some may become involuntarily unemployed owing to physical or mental incapacitation. There are some existing avenues to help this group. However, it is likely some will fall in the gaps. Would the Government, in developing this support framework, review how help can be delivered to cover as many individuals who become involuntarily unemployed besides through retrenchments or redundancies?

Our social sector must continue to retain talent and attract new talent to be ready to support both current and future needs. As we define success under our new social compact, I am hopeful that we will find many who will see this sector as a fulfilling vocation.

Our youths and seniors will need a variety of targeted support and interventions. This Budget has outlined support for our seniors to improve their retirement adequacy amongst other areas of support. In this area, employers need to step up and provide opportunities for seniors seeking to remain in the workforce. Many of our larger local companies are doing well. Would such companies continue to step up and lead the way to meaningful engagement and employment of seniors?

It is troubling that drug use is increasing amongst our youth. While enforcement may seem to be natural response, have we been able to identify what are the systemic issues that we may need to address? In a recent opportunity to hear from MHA, I am heartened that there is increased efforts to help early drug abusers rehabilitate and hope we can keep supporting this.

There is also the issue of decline in mental wellness and the recent increase in suicide rates amongst youth. Again, what are the possible systemic issues that we may need to address?

Thirdly, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been beneficiaries of economic and material success. We are also a nation that is one of the safest and, largely, most secure in this rather troubled world. Many of us will describe this as being a nation that has been truly blessed.

The proposed plan to help those who desire to help others is a tangible step to building a cohesive and generous society. It enables those in our community to play a part in contributing together toward our shared future. Engaging the Community Foundation of Singapore, MSF and Community Chest is an excellent starting position. So is the objective, which is to uplift the lower income members within our community with collaborative programmes and initiatives.

The proposed Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme is a positive step, as we seek to share our blessings beyond our shores. I would note that, as a country, we have responded generously to appeals over the years without the tax deduction. The Government is stepping forward to support acts of humanitarian assistance, which should see increase in our levels of response should such unfortunate events occur.

Last week, I had the opportunity to attend the City of Good Summit organised by the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC). One of the keynote speakers spoke on the issue of water and the continuing challenge of clean water in many less-developed parts of the world. Statistics quoted were about 700 million people – or about one in 10 – do not have access to clean water. Many communities could live their entire life with little or no access to clean water.

Our Embassy in Myanmar has helped communities access clean water. Clean water solutions have been initiated by Lien Aid in Cambodia, which I have had the opportunity to visit and to learn. I also had the opportunity to meet the Wateroam team in the Singapore International Foundation Young Social Entrepreneurs event, when they were in the early stages of startup. Wateroam was founded in 2014 by three Singaporean undergraduates while at NUS.

When Hyflux was still an operating business, I was able to promote their portable filtration system for use in rural communities.

When we talk about water solution, we also need to acknowledge the early efforts of Dr Jack Sim – founder of his very own WTO. For the benefit of Members here, WTO in this case is World Toilet Organisation. Dr Jack Sim has done a great deal in promoting clean water and proper sanitation.

Mr Speaker, we have an amazing array of water solutions currently developed in Singapore, by Singaporeans. Lien Aid is serving in four Asian countries. Wateroam products and solutions are in 44 countries. As access to clean water will require varied approaches across countries, much more will need to be done globally to resolve this problem and to help develop lasting solutions.

May I, therefore, propose that as we plan to pilot the Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme, we give some thought to starting a similar scheme for being a key player in actively providing and scaling global clean water solutions? Could such a collective project also be given the same tax deduction for our Singapore charities and social entrepreneurs, who can raise grants to scale up solutions for communities currently having little or no access to clean water?

Solving the global water challenges will transform communities, address health issues, generate improved economic standards and improve access to education. Singapore can play a key part – bringing together existing and new providers and delivering a coordinated plan to solve this global challenge as a partnership of public, private and people sectors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot afford to become complacent despite our significant achievements. There will be future challenges – some we may foresee while others may confront us suddenly, as with the recent COVID-19 pandemic. However, as Deputy Prime Minister Wong has mentioned, we have pulled through challenges over the past decades and often emerged stronger.

We are embarking on a new social compact that will shape future generations. Budget 2024 continues to support our shared journey together. It is imperative that we stay united and build collective resilience. Sir, I support Budget 2024.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

5.34 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the various vouchers, payouts and rebates in the Budget to help middle- and lower-income households cope with the rising cost of living. It is welcome news, in fact, based on the feedback of my residents. With such supporting resources to tackle immediate challenges, our families should be in better positions to take advantage of the longer-term programmes to upgrade and upskill – so that they can continue to fulfil good jobs and earn higher incomes.

There were some calls to dip into our reserves in the past so that more handouts and subsidies can be distributed. The House had debated on this issue recently. I would like to take this opportunity to express my agreement with many of my Parliamentary colleagues that, we should be prudent with the use of reserves and continue to make savings for future generations because they are our children and grandchildren. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our parents and even ourselves, will give the best food to our children. Even though it is food that we ourselves enjoy, we will tell our children that we are not hungry, or that we do not like this food, but this is not true. All parents would want to give the best and save the best for their children and grandchildren. Our young and future generations are our children and grandchildren. Therefore, we have the responsibility to give the best to them to take care of them.

With regard to the full disclosure of our reserves, it is in our national interest that the Government needs to guard against the ill-intended that may try to scheme away from us. In Hokkien, there is a saying, "capable or not, you will know once you try." In fact, in the past, there were more than one attempt by those with malicious intentions to attack our currencies. These attempts have all failed in the end. That was because we have strong reserves to deter attacks by the others.

(In English): Sir, as Prime Minister had said, our reserves is a precious resource which must be protected. We have to strike a delicate balance between meeting present needs and future emergencies.

For now, let us work with this balance and find ways to increase productivity and augment our economic pie, so that we can finance the needs of our own generation and have some extra to contribute to the next generation, as our predecessors had done for us.

Sir, we continue to face the threat of future pandemics and uncertainties. The war in Ukraine, Gaza and the resulting security threats in the Red Sea, disrupt supply chains. The invisible cybersecurity networks have further extended the dimensions of threats from land and sea, and to the air.

The lessons from the Ukraine war have given a new perspective and definition of warfare. It becomes clear that we are vulnerable to the use of the technology that we have used to our advantage.

Therefore, we need to continue to invest in R&D and support innovation. The family offices in Singapore should be encouraged to allocate resources to support the R&D and innovation initiatives in Singapore, including attracting top talents and scientists to Singapore to work with our researchers and scientists.

They may include projects to strengthen our food and energy security. I am supportive of looking into the latest and safer nuclear technology, such as small modular reactors for deployment offshore as the additional green energy solution for our energy needs. In fact, just before I came in, I saw that one country has even successfully launched satellite from a platform in international waters. So, we can look at that – onshore and including in the waters offshore – to meet our energy needs.

Next, about the employment of older workers. I support the Ministry's decision to continue with the planned CPF contribution rate increase for senior employees, age 55 to 65, by an additional 1.5 percentage points. This will enable our working seniors to build up more CPF savings for their retirement.

There is a perception that persons age above 50 face greater challenges finding employment. Based on statistics released in the 2023 Labour Force in Singapore Report by MOM, the unemployment rate for PMETs age 50 and above, is comparable those age 40 to 49 and those below 30, at 2.6%. For non-PMETs – at 2.7% – it is the lowest of all age bands.

So, I would like to urge for more job search support and matching for older persons who wish to continue working, especially those who have been retrenched. Of the employees retrenched in the last two years, does the Government have the details of their age groups, the duration of their job searches and how many remain unemployed presently? What are the success rates of retrenched workers age 50 to 55, 55 to 60 and those age above 60 respectively, in finding employment within six months?

While I am delighted that all Singaporeans age 40 and above will receive a top-up in SkillsFuture Credit of $4,000 to be used for selected training, I hope that the Government will go beyond ensuring that these will bring about better employability. Will the Government consider tie-ups with employers, including the Public Service, to place those who have completed the relevant training to meet the job requirements? How about providing incentives to employers to offer jobs to seniors? Can the Government provide more details about how it is helping workers who are actively looking for jobs and what are the measures to detect and minimise age discrimination in hiring practices?

Finally, about HDB flats – a topic close to my heart. While it is encouraging to note that about 100,000 units of public and private housing will be completed between 2023 and 2025, can more be done to shorten the waiting time for flats for young married couples? Subsidised rental housing under the PPHS and the one-year PPHS (Open Market) Voucher to support eligible families who rent a HDB flat in the open market are both excellent schemes. However, these flats are temporary accommodations. As moving house is one of the most stressful life events, it is no wonder that some couples choose to delay having children until they have moved into their own flats. With later births, couples tend to end up with having fewer children.

Hence, I appeal to the Government to review its long-term HDB policy and see if it could consider building more flats – a certain number of HDB flats – ahead of time so that the waiting time for couples, especially the young families, can be shortened to within one year or one and half years. With this, I would like to conclude with my support for the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

5.43 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget.

We are pleased with the Budget measures to support companies in Singapore, particularly the $1.3 billion Enterprise Support Package to build capabilities. When I speak with many business leaders, the key concern always revolves around manpower. Given our low birth rate, it is difficult to hire enough Singaporeans to support the growing economy. Additionally, many of the business leaders say that many manual jobs and roles outside air-conditioned environments are not favoured by Singaporeans. Companies tell us that they sometimes have no choice but to hire foreign workers. However, the strict foreign worker quota and the continually rising minimum salary requirement for S Pass renewals are pain points for SMEs.

It is commendable that the Government is encouraging SMEs to invest in technology, particularly in the fields of AI and green initiatives. For some SMEs, survival is paramount. I would like to suggest three areas in which the Government could assist our SMEs, which employ 71% of the entire workforce in Singapore. Before I proceed, I would like to declare my interest as the CEO of Strides Premier, a company that leases out vehicles and provides services to vehicles, including the maintenance of specialised vehicles such as fire engines, ambulances and oil tankers.

Firstly, regarding manpower: some Singaporeans shy away from the retail sector due to the need to work outside office hours and on weekends. We would like Singaporeans to have more time to date, get married, to have children, to spend time with the families or care for their loved ones. So, it is very essential for this retail sector to supplement its manpower with foreign workers.

Similarly, in environments without air conditioning, Singaporeans are also reluctant to work. Given these factors, I would like to call on the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) not to maintain and not tighten the foreign worker quota and foreign worker levy in sectors that are not favoured by Singaporeans, especially for the next three years where the world economy is very uncertain. In fact, many SMEs would like to appeal to MOM to increase the foreign worker quota for jobs that are not favoured by most Singaporeans.

In addition, many entrepreneurs among my constituents in Nanyang lament that they have to substantially increase the pay of skilled foreign workers when they renew their S Passes. For example, a motor insurance claims executive who consistently works in hot and humid workshops will see his pay increase from about $3,400 to $4,200 upon renewal of his S Pass and this translates to an almost 24%-pay increase. Most Singaporeans would unlikely experience a 15%-pay rise in a year, even with a promotion.

Such a significant increment for foreign workers' pay not only increases the costs of SMEs but also creates discord among their Singaporean co-workers. Thus, I hope MOM can consider a more moderate minimum salary adjustment for S Pass holders.

Secondly, on Government projects, it is commendable that many Government sectors have centralised their procurement functions across different departments. The Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HTX) is one good example, where the procurement needs of the Police, Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), Prisons and Central Narcotics Bureau are centralised for better synergies and transparency.

Many civil servants are diligent in protecting the Government's interests when writing the tender specifications. For example, some Government tender contracts specify that payments will only be made upon the full delivery of expensive items, tools, specialised vehicles or only big payment on completion of projects, and they do not give any down payment or make progress payments.

While this practice protects Government from receiving substandard products or reduces the risk of incomplete projects, it makes things very difficult for the SMEs. It is difficult for SMEs because with no down payment or progressive payment, it adds to the financing costs of SMEs. Given the current high-interest-rate environment, it will be challenging for SMEs to bid for such Government projects. Project tenders that do not offer deposits or progressive payments typically favour the large companies with deep pockets, especially MNCs. So, therefore, I urge the Government to review such practices to level the playing field for SMEs.

Thirdly, on land use: thanks to the Ministry of Transport, we now have more Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines. Residents in the West, including those in Nanyang, are excited about the upcoming Jurong Region Line. The Jurong Region Line is not an underground line; it will run on MRT viaducts similar to most of the lines in the North-South and East-West MRT lines. The space below the MRT viaducts along the current MRT lines is not well utilised, unlike in other countries like Japan. Currently, we do see some of the spaces below the viaducts used for cycling paths. But these viaducts are near MRT stations and they are valuable land so we hope the Government can allow the space below the viaducts to be used by the private sector, especially for SMEs that provide important services such as childcare and eldercare services for the convenience of the residents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, next, I want to touch on the topic of CDC Vouchers. I have spoken on this topic several times before in this House. Many residents, including those in Nanyang, are pleased with the 2024 Budget announcement of the additional $600 in CDC Vouchers for each Singaporean household. I have previously mentioned that CDC Vouchers are a better way to help Singaporeans mitigate the impact of inflation on two aspects. Firstly, the CDC Vouchers are to be spent in Singapore, mainly benefiting the heartland shops. The heartland shops benefit from these CDC Vouchers a lot. Unlike cash given under the GST Vouchers, CDC Vouchers cannot be spent abroad, especially across causeway. In addition, CDC Vouchers also have multiplier effects, as reported in the press quite widely. The only setback is that CDC Vouchers are given to each household, regardless of family size.

Hence, I propose that the Ministry of Finance consider doubling the quantum of CDC Vouchers for every three registered Singaporeans residing in HDB flats. For households that do not need the CDC Vouchers, they can choose to donate the vouchers to those who need them more or simply refrain from spending, allowing the Government to redirect the resources to other more urgent needs.

Lastly, I would like MOH and MSF to consider incorporating inflation or the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, into the formula used to determine the income criteria for various Government financial assistance schemes. The CPI component could function similarly to the price index used by the Energy Market Authority to determine electricity tariffs and how the Public Transport Council uses the price index in the fare adjustment formula to determine the adjustment of public transport fares.

This price index is crucial, as inflation has been high over the last three years and is likely to remain elevated in the next couple of years. In fact, the real income of Singaporeans has declined by 2.2% in 2023, even though the nominal income has increased. This is a double whammy for low-income Singaporeans. When nominal income increases, many Singaporeans no longer qualify for financial assistance, as the Government only adjusts the income criteria very infrequently. At the same time, these low-income Singaporean families require more financial assistance as their real income has decreased in a high inflation environment.

I understand that MOH and the MSF have promised to review the income criteria for blue CHAS card and financial assistance periodically. From experience in the past few years, "periodically" means once every few years. This is acceptable when the inflation rate was low in the pre-pandemic situations. But in the current high inflation rate environment, where periodic reviews are done every few years disadvantage low-wage Singaporeans very greatly.

Hence, I appeal to MOH and MSF to incorporate the price index into the income criteria for determining financial assistance to provide for low-income families. In short, the periodic review should occur yearly or even quarterly, rather than once in a few years' time. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the above, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.

5.55 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, I welcome the comprehensive packages in Budget 2024, with its focus on building our shared future together in the next decade as a nation that aims to remain vibrant and inclusive, fair and thriving, resilient and united.

Last year, I rose to speak on three areas in my Budget Debate speech to urge strong efforts by the Government to: one, support working adults; two, care for our seniors; and three, support our young couples and families. For this year’s Budget, I would like to continue focusing my speech on considerations and support for these three groups who made up most of the residents in my Jalan Kayu Constituency.

In the Jalan Kayu constituency, the largest segment is aged between 20 and 60 years old. They are mostly working adults who may be embarking on their first job to sustaining employment as far as possible in their senior years, all with the hope of retiring with comfort and confidence. As such, the Budget packages announced that can affect some of their career trajectory and opportunities are of great interest to them.

I am delighted to hear that the Government is introducing the new SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme to better support mid-career workers. This includes a $4,000 top-up SkillsFuture credit in May to encourage more mid-career workers to refresh their skills and progress in their careers.

However, I am concerned about the low take-up rate of individuals attempting to upskill or consider mid-career switches through the SkillsFuture Scheme so far. As data published from SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) last year showed, across all ages, seven in 10 Singaporeans have not yet used their SkillsFuture Credit since the scheme started in 2015.

I understand from some of my residents that despite the generous SkillsFuture Credit, time for attending approved courses is a major factor in them using up the credits. As such, I would like to ask the Government how it can further support employers to enable their employees who are motivated to upgrade, to be given more training leaves and time-off to pursue upskilling courses and more so, to embark on another diploma programme as the new top-up to the scheme will enable.

Another consideration is the age of the Singaporean interested to utilise the top-up credit to stay employable. Let me share the story of one of my residents, Mr Lee, who is 64 years old and looking for employment. Mr Lee came to my Meet-the-People Session and shared that he held a diploma in mechanical engineering from Singapore Polytechnic and an advanced diploma in manufacturing technology many years ago. He had also taught modules and given lectures to ITE students previously.

Mr Lee is healthy and hopes to continue working but he struggled in his job search due to his age. I worked with Workforce Singapore (WSG) to make referrals and tried to assist him in the journey. His case highlights the need for a more inclusive, flexible approach to career continuation for our older workers besides upskilling. For a case like Mr Lee, how likely would SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme help in his job search if he does invest time to take up another diploma? This is something in the mind of some of my residents in their 60s who are keen to continue to pursue life-long learning and to work well into their 60s and 70s, if they are in good health.

Next, let me move to another group of important Singaporeans, our young seniors in their 50s. During my house visits and grassroots events, many of these young seniors have shared with me that they welcome the move by the Government to introduce the Majulah Package to better assure their retirement needs. One of these is the Earn and Save Bonus of up to $1,000 annually to help young seniors accumulate more retirement savings.

A group of them are, however, full-time caregivers to their elderly parents who are in their 80s and 90s and who are frail. They shared with me that the Majulah Package would have been helpful for them too, but family caregiving is not recognised as a formal employment.

Will the Government be open to adjusting some of the criteria for the Majulah Package's Earn and Safe bonus, such as by establishing the family members' genuine needs for full-time caregiving, and the duration of caregiving provided, to include this group of young senior caregivers, who are also concerned about their own financial needs, so that they can also benefit from the package?

I also welcome the move by the Government to raise the Enhanced Retirement Sum from three times the Basic Retirement Sum, to four times, to allow more members, aged 55 and above, who wish to put more of their accumulated CPF savings to receive higher CPF payouts on retirement. Nevertheless, I would like to raise a concern for some single seniors, aged 55 years old and above whom I have met at my Meet-the-People Sessions, who have yet to settle their housing needs.

The latest Population Trend 2023 showed that the proportion of singles rose across all male and female groups aged 25 to 49 years, between 2012 and 2022. This would inevitably mean that we would have more individuals who are approaching the age of 55 years old, who are still single.

During my Meet-the-People Sessions, I have come across cases where the single seniors, who are 55 years old and above, who have finally succeeded in balloting for their own HDB 2-room Flexi flat, and were looking forward to having a home of their own as they reach retirement, but they are unaware that the sums from their Ordinary and Special Accounts, that have been transferred into their Retirement Account when they reached 55 years old, could not be used when their house came, for payment beyond the loan they can get from HDB at that old age.

Some of them were disappointed that the extra sums transferred into their Retirement Account could not be reversed when they needed the amount to pay for these BTO flats. Even though they have tried to appeal to the CPF Board for the withdrawal of their Retirement Account for their flat purchases, the recourse for them is limited, as the CPF Board also needs to ensure that the Retirement Account amounts are maintained to support their retirement needs.

Although the Enhanced Retirement Scheme is helpful for those seeking higher CPF retirement payouts, I urge the CPF Board to highlight and explain the policies for transfers into Retirement Account clearer and to work with HDB to advise those who have not yet settled their housing needs, to be more mindful of the amounts to be transferred into their Retirement Account.

Lastly, I would like to speak about the aspirations of our young couples and families, and how they can be better supported to achieve their dreams of home ownership and starting their own family. I am glad that the Government has introduced the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme or PPHS (Open Market) Voucher in this Budget for one year to support eligible families to rent a HDB flat in the open market.

I have encountered many residents coming to seek help at my Meet-the-People Sessions to secure HDB flats to start a family. They are usually young couples who have not been successful yet in their balloting for new flats – be it BTO or Sales of Balance flats – but hope to have a home to start a family soon or have a baby coming on the way.

In fact, the request for assistance in balloting for new flats usually forms the majority of my Meet-the-People Session appeals to HDB for my young residents, especially during the BTO launch seasons. Could the Government consider extending the new PPHS (Open Market) Voucher also to couples who have been applying, but have yet to be successful in balloting for a new flat, especially those who are expecting their first baby?

Finally, I also believe that more needs to be done to alleviate the fear of having children due to the high cost of living in Singapore. According to a survey done by Channel NewsAsia and YouGov in 2023, 52% of those below 35 years old cited the affordability of raising a child in Singapore as the main reason for not wanting to have one soon.

As Budget 2024 looks towards supporting families at each stage of our lives, I hope that the Government can consider placing more importance on implementing comprehensive strategies, such as creating a social support ecosystem for mentoring young couples in financial planning, financial management, so as to reduce their financial anxieties associated with raising children in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, as we look towards building a shared future, we must continue to adapt and evolve our support for the diverse needs of our people. From working adults striving for career advancement, seniors navigating their golden years, to young families dreaming of a brighter future, our policies must continue to be inclusive, flexible and forward-looking as we prepare for the next decade.

Let us continue to work together to uphold the values of inclusivity, resilience and unity, ensuring that every citizen, regardless of age or life stage, can look forward to a thriving future, prepare for the challenges of today and the opportunities of tomorrow. Mr Speaker, I stand in support of Budget 2024.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

6.05 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, on 21 April 2023, during the debate on the President's Address in this House, there was an important agreement reached across the aisle between the hon Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Mr Lawrence Wong, and the hon Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh.

Both of them agreed that there is no place for populism in Singapore. Deputy Prime Minister Wong characterised it as follows: "Both sides of the House, we stand for a democracy that is maturing, a serious Government and a serious Opposition. But we say no to populism and political opportunism ever taking root in this House and in Singapore."

This was a laudable bipartisan moment. It is also recognition of the fact that in countries where populism has taken root, societies have become divided, people have become polarised and the trust between the people and the Government weakened. Singapore should not follow suit.

The agreement, however, presumes that we know what populism is. But do we? Most academics and commentators agree that the core feature of populism revolves around the division between the "people" on one hand and "the elite" on the other.

Cas Mudde stated, "It is a thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, "the pure people" versus "the corrupt elite"; populist politicians advocate that they represent the "whole people" whereas the elite represents "special interest", regardless of the truth of the matter.

The framing of issues is usually confrontational, antagonistic and emotive. This sort of populism – once we see it for the grandstanding and posturing – is really not very hard to reject. It is mere opportunism played out in the political arena. This is what I call "weak populism".

But there are two further elements to populism. First, it is not always easy to see through grandstanding rhetoric and recognise opportunism in its true face. Second, populism is not always mere words – it also reaches into real policy action with a specific approach, which I call a "fool's gold" promise.

Populism in action lulls people with the promise of easy money, soft compromises, zero trade-offs. These two elements – words and deeds – make up what I call "strong populism". And notwithstanding the forging of the agreement in Parliament, there remains no guarantee that this sort of populism will not take root in Singapore.

Structurally, we will always be vulnerable. This is because, as in all modern democracies, we have a representative government, where a minority – that is the elected – represents our people, the majority, and has the mandate to govern. The suspicion that this representation is imperfect will always be there.

We have seen several examples where people's fears, especially during crises, are capitalised by populist politicians espousing radical change. I will give two examples: one from the right and the other from the left.

In November 2023, in the Netherlands, the Freedom Party, a far-right political party that fanned Islamophobia and anti-immigration sentiments amongst its people, with promises to de-Islamicise the country, made huge electoral gains and was the clear winner by a wide margin. It is poised to feature in a coalition government. Should that happen, it would not be difficult to imagine the impact on the cohesion of the country across race and religion.

Let me identify the specific populist lever here – the use of religion and nativism to divide and polarise a country.

In 1998, the late Mr Hugo Chavez, a charismatic Venezualuan leftist leader, came to power after promising to use Venezuala's vast oil wealth to reduce poverty and inequality. As President, he launched programmes that offered free or highly subsidised goods. He passed away in office in 2013. His policies continued though. In the end, the country's economy shrunk and hyperinflation set in, despite it being an oil producer.

Again, let me identify the specific populist lever – which is to use price-distorting policies to give short-term, apparent benefits to people, at the cost of the country's long-term economic health.

Both these acts are forms of strong populism to me. From my research, I noted a number of writers, particularly Prof Simon Tormey, who have observed that in recent times, the world is facing a populist insurgency. The fact that such political opportunists have taken in so many voters across so many countries, shows us that it is no easy matter to see populism for what it really is.

We, as a country, therefore, need to develop the capability to recognise and emphatically reject this insidious and seductive form of divisive politics. If we do not do this, the consequences for us as a small nation will be serious.

Just last week, I learnt about a speech that our first Foreign Affairs Minister, the late Mr S Rajaratnam, made in the UN General Assembly in October 1971. He said to the effect that small nations need to keep their own houses in order, to be able to secure their places in the world. In other words, small nations need to ensure that they retain social cohesion and political, as well as economic stability for the long term.

The implication is clear. Unlike bigger countries, small nations like Singapore, when they fall victim to divisive politics that populism brings, they will be easy for the picking. They would no longer be taken seriously by their bigger neighbours. Once that happens, small nations would not have the ability to protect and promote their national interests in the international arena anymore. In other words, we will have a "double whammy", domestically and internationally.

Therefore, our commitment to reject populism in its strong form, must therefore carry a commitment to educate all Singaporeans to recognise it when we see it and call it out.

Which brings me to my second caution. Fool's gold and the easy choice.

The rejection of strong populism commits us to a specific duty. It is a duty to make hard choices, to be accountable to the people of Singapore, by way of political and practical solutions to the social imperatives of our nation.

The critical difference between this "hard choice" approach and a populist approach to policies is two-fold. First, this should be done without the histrionics that populism often attracts. I must say here that I am for even more scrutiny of policy proposals and performance from political leaders, from both sides of the aisle. What I am against here the chest-beating, sabre-rattling politicisation of issues that get in the way of true analytical discourse. Without the "noise", there will likely to be better engagement on the substance of the matter.

In the end, there will be clarity on what parties are agreed and what they are not. This is what we should aim for. I feel that this distillation process is essential. Otherwise, there is a danger of performative politics entrenching itself in this House.

Second, I believe details matter. We have reached a point in our country's development where solutions to most things are complex, and sometimes, finely balanced. It is characteristic for populist politicians to be short on details when advocating for a policy change.

We politicians, from both sides of the House, need to do the homework, understand the background facts, and also understand how the status quo was forged, highlight the trade-offs inherent in the policy proposals, separate facts from fiction and then, go on to make arguments as to why the balance should be struck one way or another.

I would also add one other point. Political leaders in office should eschew the tendency to just label policies as "populist", even though they may in fact receive broad support of citizens when what they really want to do is to make the policies sound unreasonable and irrational. This is a point that Francis Fukuyama made – and I agree with him.

It is incumbent on leaders to go beyond labelling, highlight the precise aspects of the proposed policies that they are concerned about. It is this process of responsible contestation and distillation of ideas and proposals which, in my respectful view, will serve as a bulwark against the emergence of populism in its strongest form in Singapore.

Through this process, there will be better accountability to our people. Our people, noting the areas where politicians are agreed and where they disagree, will be better placed to choose which future they wish to ascribe to through the ballot box.

Let me underscore the point by making reference to the debate at the last session of Parliament on the national reserves.

In opening the debate, the hon NCMP Mr Leong Mun Wai highlighted what he referred to as "social ills" that must be addressed. These included cost of living, social inequality, mental health and declining total fertility rate. To this list, the hon Leader of the Opposition, in his speech during the debate on the Motion added healthcare costs and intergenerational equity. Both hon Members advocated for the slowing of the growth of reserves so that more money can be spent on these areas.

I, for one, do not see these human conditions as diseases or "ills" but as imperatives for the Government of the day, as moral directions for us to apply our best minds and our utmost resources. These social imperatives cannot be denied, but they cannot be solved by mere handwringing, or by profligate spending. Our duty is to be accountable in the way that I have outlined above, by a serious political commitment and spending our time, energy and resources in formulating and explaining our policies.

Importantly, we need to be aware of the parameters of the hard choices at play and to reject the "fool's gold approach".

To explain its hard choice in rejecting even more spending of the income from the reserves, the Government has stated that the reserves provide substantial "passive income" for expenditure in the Annual Budgets and given our unique vulnerabilities, we need to grow the reserves to ensure that we have a chance of overcoming what future challenge that may come our way. These points were articulated so well in my hon friend, Mr Shawn Huang's speech which I heard earlier today.

Putting aside the use of monies from the reserves for the moment, I think there are two points arising from what both the hon Members have said that will find agreement on both sides of the House.

First, that the social imperatives identified by both of them are legitimate. These imperatives require the attention of this House and the Government. In fact, I would say, as a backbencher, much of what I do in my constituency for my constituents revolve around dealing, amongst others, with such issues.

Second, as responsible MPs, both sides of the House will reject spending for merely the sake of spending. This constitutes fiscal prudence. Hence, to make the case to spend more money will involve taking at least the following steps.

First, an examination of the existing programmes that the Government has for the imperative in question. Second, a calculation of how much the Government is committing or spending on these programmes. Third, a performance assessment or review of the programmes. And finally, the articulation of the case for more spending on the imperative which will have to include dealing with the Government's points on "passive income" that the reserves currently provide and having sufficient ballast for the future.

At this point, I would like to deal with the hon Leader of Opposition's point raised in his speech earlier that the Government should be even more forthcoming with information to make better decisions on the Budget.

With respect, this is a red herring. There is already sufficient information available. In fact, at the last Sitting, the hon Prime Minister gave us a Master Class. Hon Members may recall he asked us to take out the back of our envelopes and follow him in doing the sums. He projected that the returns from the reserves at about 4%; he then said if we were to spend 2% for the Budget, that means 2% for the reserves. So, the reserves will grow at a rate of 2% per year and that more or less, keeps up with the GDP. So, we roughly know what is the band of the NIRC which has remained stable and contributes about one-fifth of our revenue.

We also know that the variance of the operating revenue and the expenditures within a band of about plus or minus 4%. Of course, there would be situations where the predictability may be affected by, say, market situations. For example, for property tax, it went up because the AV went up and that is a function of the market.

For that kind of situations, all we can do is we make best predictions and then make adjustments as we go along. But these will be the inputs for which we would have available for the purposes of making sure that whatever we are articulating as policy proposals for more expenditure can be supported and fiscally prudent.

The hon Leader of the Opposition made reference to an article which appeared on 19 February in The Straits Times and he pointed out that some economists had also made the point about lack of information being forthcoming from the Government.

One point to note, as he had stated, is that most economists lauded the Budget. One economist had asked about the use of pre-funding Government programmes, for example, the Pioneer Generation package and he suggested that there should be more transparency in relation to this plan. But the reality is, every year, the statement of accounts is presented to Parliament. That statement of accounts is actually audited by the independent auditors. All MPs can ask questions and it is also subject to scrutiny of the Estimates Committee. And, of course, drawdowns are also subject to scrutiny of the Auditor-General.

Another economist felt that the amount of past reserves should be disclosed. This is something which, as we all know, the Government has a conscientious objection to. But most importantly, as I said earlier, the NIRC amount can be estimated and that is the important part for Budget planning.

For these reasons, I would say that there is no real obstacle for anyone of us in this House to articulate holistically why more money or more resources should be spent for a particular policy imperative.

I will now provide an illustration on the working of the framework that I suggested by dealing with the Cost-of-Living imperative.

In October 2022, the Government unveiled a support package to give Singapore households additional help to deal with rising prices. The amount of monies committed for these programmes is a matter of public knowledge – $1.5 billion.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong, in his announcement, said that the package was designed to fully cover the increase in cost of living for lower-income households and to cover more than half the increase in the cost of living for middle-income households.

It is entirely open to hon Members who wish the Government to spend more to tackle cost of living issues to make the case that the 50% mark is insufficient for middle-income households and argue that it should be higher, say, 60%, 70% or even 100%.

They should articulate how such a move would be in the better interest of Singaporeans and Singapore as a whole. What then this leads to is the crystallisation of a sum that is needed to fund the advocated policy proposal from the reserves or elsewhere with the accompanying reasons.

The political office holder responding to hon the Member's proposal, if he disagrees with the proposal, will be well advised not to simply shrug it off by labelling it as populist. Rather, he must tackle the proposal head-on and explain why the current spending levels are sufficient and should be maintained, having regard not just to the specific issue but the big picture as well. Through this, we will gain a clear understanding of the points of agreement and disagreement as well as the reasons in support of the respective contentions. Singaporeans will be better able to follow the debate and the implications of the policy proposals should they be implemented or rejected.

It is, of course, open to hon Members across the aisle to make their plans part of their election campaigns even if they may be rejected by the Government. That is their prerogative. But they must have such plans in the first place. If they do not, it is merely promising Singaporeans as a share of a piece of gold that disappears after election day.

I view this as healthy politics as both sides will then present their cases to our people. In the end, it will be fellow Singaporeans who will judge and decide through the ballot box. This is how we prevent populism from rearing its head in our politics. This is how a high level of accountability to our people will be maintained.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali, you have a minute left.

Mr Murali Pillai: Very well, Sir. If that is the case, I will just end off by saying that the social imperatives are upon us. We all know this and it is no great epiphany to point these out. If we are to really say that we have a serious Government and a serious Opposition, as exhorted by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, the focus must fall on the generation of solutions to such imperatives and a reasoned articulation of why these solutions create better outcomes for our people whilst being fiscally prudent. And by democratic acclaim, let us stand behind the ones which we believe, as elected Members, most benefit the people of Singapore for now and the future and by so doing, reject populism in its strongest form. I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

6.25 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank Mr Murali Pillai for his speech.

I have been trying to follow very carefully what he has been suggesting. I think the broad strokes, typical of Mr Murali Pillai, you would not really disagree with them. But in terms of populism, I thought it would be important for me to just come down to some specifics.

He mentioned some references in my speech to the 19 February Straits Times article. I think the point that I made in my speech was that article showed how people outside of this House, Singaporeans, in the context of the Forward Singapore exercise, were also looking at fiscal sustainability, fiscal balance, how the Government raises revenue and its expenditure policies.

And in that regard, the point I made was we had put forth a proposal to smoothen that conversation, to better that conversation for the benefit of all Singaporeans.

I understand he moved on later to talk about certain proposals that we have made for which the PAP has a conscientious objection. I think that is where I would like some clarification from him. If there is a conscientious objection, then what happens to the populism argument? Is it wrong for the Opposition to bring up those points?

The second clarification I have is, again, bringing it down to an example. In this debate so far, we have the PAP Members speak up about building BTO flats in advance. What sort of numbers would the Member expect from anyone across the aisle or even in his own party, raising in Parliament, to substantiate that argument? Some clarity on that would be helpful.

For the moment, I will leave it at these two clarifications.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Leader of Opposition for giving me an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of my speech.

Let me just take the point about conscientious objection. I would like to clarify that what I was referring to in my speech was in relation to the fact that we do not disclose the full entirety of the value of our reserves. So, that is the reference to our conscientious objection. And it was in the context of referring to one of the economists featured in the article which the hon Leader of Opposition referred to. There, the economist said that we should know the full amount; then, we would know whether the spending is high or low.

The reference to conscientious objection is really the arguments made by the Government in the Motion on national reserves which I am sure the hon Leader of Opposition is familiar with. But more importantly, I made the point that for the purposes of the Budget, if one can calculate the NIRC already and I made reference to the hon Prime Minister's masterclass, in relation to how the reserves are projected to grow and the fact that the NIRC contributions are relatively stable.

As far as the issue of the purpose of referring to the article itself, I take the hon Leader of Opposition's point. I understand that it is really with the view to provide further feedback on the Forward Singapore exercise and I welcome them.

Finally, the point that my hon friend referred to is in relation to the building project of HDB. If we were to go through the analytical framework that I have suggested, the point is really about a Member of the Opposition, for example, articulating that even more houses should be built than what the Government is proposing, then what really needs to be done is to, first, identify the programme, highlight and find out how much exactly is being spent or committed for the purposes of building X number of flats, for example, and then also, in the same process, nail his colours to the mast and say exactly what he stands for in relation to the number of flats that is to be built, why is this important and then deal with the financial issues by reference to the allocation of the spend for the other aspects of the Budget as well.

What I think would happen through this articulation, using this framework, would be a laudable outcome, which is that the people of Singapore outside this House would know that it is something that is being proposed, there is seriousness in the proposal because the facts and figures are there and then you could juxtapose what is the Government's position on the matter against the hon Member's position.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Just a quick response to Mr Murali Pillai on his clarifications. In the case of the BTO example that was raised as part of this debate by a PAP Member, that example then would actually fail the test that Mr Murali Pillai has brought up. Similarly, when other Members on the other side say we want to introduce a scheme, such as Carefare, or they speak of — nobody said cost of living crisis, but I heard affordability crisis today by PAP Members. I am assuming that in Mr Murali's schema, that analysis would also have to follow. Just for clarification.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai: I thank the hon Leader of the Opposition for pointing out and asking whether the framework I have applies to hon members from both sides of the aisle. The short answer is yes. This is an exhortation not specifically to the hon Leader of the Opposition, or rather, hon Members from across the aisle, but it is actually from both sides of the aisle. And for anybody who wishes to make a proposal that involves extra spend, then you need to go through the analytical framework and I think then there will be clarity as to whether or not, ultimately, it is in the better interest of Singapore and Singaporeans to proceed with the extra spend.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Just a last clarification. So, just to push the Member a little bit more. In the case of a commitment made by the Government, for example, to spend $40 billion up to the end of the decade for ForwardSG initiatives, should these also be laid out earlier?

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy to be pushed by the hon Leader of the Opposition. I think I will just basically deal with it on a point of principle, and while he can take suggestions from my colleagues from the PAP, I can also refer to suggestions made by hon Members from his party. I still remember an example of setting up the Parliamentary Budget Office and that was a proposal made in this House and there was really no understanding as to how much money that would entail in not just setting up the office but in terms of its operations as well.

So, I would rather that the points I made not be obscured. Let us stick on the principle and the focus is really to make sure that the ugly head of populism does not rear in our politics. And, thankfully, that is a bipartisan point and I do hope that, on both sides, there will be an opportunity to reflect on the contributions I made in this House.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. You have a clarification for Mr Pillai?

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity to clarify some points made by the Member Murali Pillai. I would just point out two things.

First, I would respectfully disagree first that, with his claim that just because all the necessary information was provided by Prime Minister Lee with regard to this back-of-the-envelope calculations, it would be therefore reasonable for us to take his calculations as self-evident.

Let me be clear, far be it for me to challenge the first Wrangler in Cambridge for his Maths. But I believe that he introduced a number of assumptions about expected returns to reserves and GDP growth and, indeed, about the amount that would be returned to the reserves based on the way that the Government calculates the primary surplus vs the IMF recommendations.

So, my question is: if the Member accepts that these assumptions are not necessarily self-evident, is it reasonable, in a debate, for us to question these assumptions?

My second point builds on this and I ask if the Member would think that the Government would be comfortable with making the kind of public policies that they have proposed just based on the publicly available information that is currently available to the Opposition or whether the Government would actually require more information that is not made publicly available.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, in reference to the hon Member Assoc Prof Lim's first question about the propriety of the assumptions, this is a point which has been discussed at length. Let me just say that what is relevant for the purposes of the Budget is the proportion of NIRC. Even if we were to put aside the assumptions of growth, the fact is that the NIRC, which is reflected in the Budget, has been relatively stable and it is now for every dollar that has been spent, 20 cents comes from NIRC. So, from the perspective of anybody proposing to spend more, these facts would be important.

I do accept that my hon friend across the aisle may have a different view about the extent of the information that is needed. But the point I am making, and I guess we can agree to disagree, and I said this advisedly, that this actually is a red herring. Because all the information needed to calculate revenue is there, in terms of NIRC, in terms of the operating revenue expenditure which falls more or less within a defined variance as well. So, for these reasons, I think we are not disadvantaged.

As far as the second point is concerned, and I stand corrected, I think my hon friend mentioned about whether the Government would be comfortable—I am sorry that I kind of stopped there, if the hon Member could just clarify the purport of his question, I will try my best to answer.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Lim.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Yes, my clarification is simple. The Government routinely makes policy. So, my question is whether the Member thinks that the Government would be willing to be comparably hamstrung in terms of only making public policy on the basis of all the publicly available information or they feel that the Government can only make policy when there is additional proprietary information.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai: Thank you, Sir. I think there is a false premise in the question. It is about the Government being hamstrung in relation to public information. I mean the point is this. As far as the Government is concerned, it puts out the operating revenue, it puts out the proposed operating expenditure and there are, of course, constitutional requirements to make sure that the Budget is balanced and it is against that backdrop that we can do the analysis as to whether the proposals meet the aspirations or the requirements of Singapore and Singaporeans for now and the future. So, I see this as based on a false premise and, therefore, I will not answer the question.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Lim. Hopefully, it is the last clarification.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Much obliged, Speaker. I will be very brief. So, the Member Murali has mentioned repeatedly that there is a red herring, that we have all the information that is required based on the fact that the share of NIRC is stable. My question to him is simple. Does he think that this stable share has nothing to do with the assumptions about expected returns or GDP growth?

Mr Speaker: Mr Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as the issue of it being stable, that is an empirical fact. So, that is something that is being set out in the Budget Statement. So, as far as contributions are concerned, of course, there is a certain projection and is made by reference to a certain framework. So, there is no — I mean, subject to the assumptions inbuilt in the framework, it is not just plucking a figure out of the air.

Mr Speaker: Let us move on. Mr Ong Hua Han.

6.40 pm

Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join this debate.

Sir, Budget 2024 as delivered by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong is a sustainable and forward-looking one. At the same time, it seeks to address immediate cost-of-living pressures. The fact that we can take a medium- to long-term outlook and yet expect a small surplus of $800 million reflects our privileged financial position. For this I am thankful.

Budget 2024 is also about building our shared future together. It is about refreshing our social compact. If these phrases sound familiar, it is not just because we have heard them many times today already, but because they are the same phrases used to describe Forward Singapore. In other words, Budget 2024 is the first step in bringing Forward Singapore, the vision of our nation's future, to life.

Forward Singapore mentions "inclusiveness" as a shared value that must be upheld. The word "inclusive" or "inclusion" has likewise been used many times in this House. When a word has been used so often, it runs the risk of losing its meaning. When was the last time we paused to think what "inclusion" really means?

In this context, I would like to dedicate my speech today to talk about inclusion or social participation of persons with disabilities in Singapore. At its core, social participation refers to the active engagement of individuals in all aspects of society.

Today, I will look to cover five areas, from education, transport, sports, housing, to employment. To prepare for this speech, I thought it would be best to hear directly from the voices of young persons with disabilities (PwDs). I wanted to know how they saw Singapore, through their unique lenses and lived experiences. Underpinning this is a firm belief that understanding this well will guide us towards more inclusive and effective policies. As such, I collected the experiences and thoughts of 136 PwDs between the ages of 15 and 35 through a public consultation in the form of an online survey over the course of a few weeks. To those who earnestly contributed, thank you for indulging in my unpolished attempt at gathering feedback and for your valuable insights. I will be sharing some of your ideas and hopes today.

For PwDs, social participation is not only essential for their personal well-being but also for fostering a sense of belonging and inclusion within society. Social participation encompasses the ability to interact meaningfully with others, access shared public spaces and services, and participate in enriching and fulfilling activities. True integration enriches the social fabric for everyone, cultivating a culture of empathy, diversity and mutual respect. It should not be surprising then that education should serve as the foundation for social inclusion. Education, especially at a young age, equips PwDs with the knowledge, skills and opportunities they need to succeed in life.

Programmes, such as the TRANsition Support for InTegration (TRANSIT), is a great way to positively integrate students with behavioural difficulties into mainstream settings. To ensure a smooth transition from school and foster a truly inclusive society, it is also crucial to address the social challenges faced by PwDs with special education or SPED school backgrounds.

According to MOE, in the past three years, 18% of students with autism from SPED schools continued their education in mainstream secondary schools after passing the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). A further 18 SPED school students with autism transferred midway to mainstream schools after being assessed to be suitable. Thirty-one percent of the autistics I surveyed said they rarely interacted with students without disabilities during school activities. Outside school, 35% said they rarely interacted with their non-disabled peers and 15% had no such interactions.

6.45 pm

The two most common reasons given were previous experience of name-calling or bullying and concerns about acceptance. In the face of this, we have to ask ourselves what can we do to minimise such seemingly common negative experiences. One possibility may lie in bridging the awareness gap. School settings are a great way for mainstream students to benefit from meaningful interactions with their peers with disabilities. It breaks down social barriers and will reduce awkwardness later in life.

One suggestion that was shared with me, was to incorporate awareness lessons specifically about disabilities into the school curriculum. We could also go one step further and impart such lessons organically during Physical Education (PE). When I was in school, I was often – by default – entrusted with the role of safeguarding my classmates' mobile devices when they did their PE lessons. It was always my honour to be given such great responsibility at a young age.

This role, though, kept me on the sidelines. I vividly remember one exception, when I was first invited to play a game of poison ball in Primary school, by our favourite PE and form teacher. It was a rare opportunity for me to bond with my classmates in lighter settings. I enjoyed those moments.

To foster awareness and acceptance of others, play time is the best time.

How can we do more of this, rather than relying on the spontaneity of a few good teachers? Could MOE study ways in which we could institutionalise more inclusive PE programmes in mainstream schools?

Sports is often regarded as a powerful social leveller; this is a great opportunity to harness the same to weave inclusivity into the fabric of early education. Sir, the ability of PwDs to participate freely in shared spaces also hinges on our commitment to ensuring comprehensive access and seamless public transportation. In the face of Singapore's restrictive car ownership policies, this is doubly important. PwDs do appreciate the accessibility features in our public transport network.

Some that were shared with me include: wheelchair zones in buses and trains, generally well-designed MRT stations and the MyTransport.SG app, which shows bus arrival timings. As a regular MRT user myself, I share these positive observations.

Compared to many other cities in the world, we are blessed to have an MRT system that is generally quite accessible for wheelchair users. However, there is more that can be done in this area.

In my survey, 63% of those with physical disabilities said they use public transport two days or less in a week. Forty-two percent of this group rarely uses or totally avoids using public transport during peak periods. Difficulties encountered when using public transport include: platform gaps in the MRT system, slippery floors on buses that cause wheelchair sliding even when the wheels are locked and unexpected closure of the only accessible route.

Other PwDs also face different types of problems while taking public transport. One PwD shared that no one offers a seat on the MRT even when a yellow card with details about their medical condition is prominently displayed. Another also shared the same concern about the lack of acceptance of invisible disabilities – this individual has neuropathic pain due to surgery and sometimes needs to sit down to minimise pain.

I understand that the Ministry of Transport (MOT) through LTA has been working on this area, introducing programmes, such as the priority cabin pilot and the invisible medical condition card. "Hardware" solutions like gap fillers, while not able to fully solve for the height difference between the platform and train floor, helps to narrow the train gaps and enhance safety.

Given awareness and acceptance of less obvious conditions still fall short, could MOT study ways to further elevate the visibility and understanding of the invisible medical condition card?

Earlier, I made a brief mention of sports in the educational setting. In the broader context, sports and recreation plays a vital role in promoting physical and mental well-being among PwDs and promote social inclusion. Competitions like the Special Olympics and the Paralympic Games, provide opportunities for PwDs to showcase their talents and abilities on a global stage. These events not only empower PwDs to pursue their passions and flourish, but also challenge stereotypes and limiting perceptions about disability.

Our national athletes fly the Singapore flag high at regional and world level competitions and are elite performers in their respective fields. But what about those who do sports recreationally? Access to sports and recreational activities remains a challenge for many PwDs due to a lack of inclusive programming or facilities, their medical condition or a combination of these factors.

The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) has been making progress in ensuring that more sports facilities are accessible and inclusive. For example, I understand that SportSG is on track to make all 27 ActiveSG gyms inclusive by 2026. On top of this, SportSG is developing an inclusive ActiveSG gym orientation programme, to encourage gym usage by PwDs, which is a good initiative.

Interestingly, based on my findings, 67% of those with physical disabilities have not used any of their free ActiveSG credits. This is 59% for autistics and 58% for those with sensory disabilities. During the weekend, I did my regular swim at an ActiveSG Sports Centre – a routine I have kept up for many years now. As always, I observed no other wheelchair user in sight. This is despite facilities being outfitted with accessible ramps and toilets.

Apart from improving infrastructure, we must therefore make the effort to help more PwDs feel empowered and safe to exercise and play sports in shared spaces. Boosting PwD sports participation is something that we should strive for and I will speak more about this during MCCY's Committee of Supply.

Moving on, housing is the cornerstone of the Singaporean dream. For PwDs, this is no different. Eighty-one percent of the PwDs I surveyed, said that they wish to buy their own house in future. Yet, 48% of those with physical disabilities rated the likelihood of purchasing a house between one and three out of 10, with 10 being the likeliest.

Thirty-four percent of autistics I surveyed rated the same. Much like everyone in Singapore, cost of housing is a common concern for these groups too. We must do more to facilitate home ownership among PwDs. There are significant financial barriers to PwD home ownership, because of additional expenses they incur in their lifetimes and/or lack of stable employment. We should look towards bridging this gap.

One suggestion raised to me is subsidised rental programmes for PwDs.

As independent living may be a daunting prospect for some, why not lower the barriers to entry – let PwDs and their families have a tangible experience of what is possible in a financially accessible way, while they work towards home ownership?

Access to good housing fosters a sense of community and a sense of having a stake in our country. We must explore innovative solutions that empower PwDs in this regard, tailored to their varying levels of independence. I will also raise the topic of inclusive housing policies during Ministry of National Development's (MND's) COS debate.

Lastly, on employment.

Meaningful employment is vital to economic independence for any adult and adds to the feeling of having achieved. However, for PwDs, the path to meaningful employment is often clouded by challenges and barriers that hinder their potential and opportunities. One PwD shared that during job interviews, interviewers did not think that they would be able to work. This was despite years of different job experiences.

Another shared about their very low income level. Many PwDs also work part-time, often not by choice. According to MOM, there is a 13% median pay gap between PMETs with disabilities and those without. The ratio of part-time to full-time employed PwDs in the workforce is approximately one to four. Some of the key barriers often encounter by PwDs in relation to employment is discrimination, lack of accommodations and limited access to training and career development opportunities.

While I acknowledge the Government's acceptance of the Tripartite Committee's final recommendations, which excludes reasonable accommodation provisions from the initial form of the upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation (WFL), this decision poses significant questions.

It becomes crucial to understand the Government's strategy for ensuring that PwDs receive the reasonable accommodations they need to participate in the workforce. We must address how to prevent these accommodations from being left to the discretion of individual employers, which could lead to subjective biases.

At the workplace, the welfare of PwDs is also not something to be overlooked. Thirty-nine percent of those I surveyed said they were often or always experiencing feelings of loneliness at their workplace. Some PwDs hoped for more support from their teammates at work. For others, it is as simple as being invited for lunch.

We spend so much of our time at work. A little more attention and effort from each of us could go a long way to make a positive difference to those around us.

In Budget 2024, SkillsFuture has been presented as a key pillar of Singapore's social compact. In other words, it serves as a social leveller in Singapore. To ensure it truly serves its purpose, we must ensure it is accessible to all groups of Singaporeans – including PwDs.

According to feedback gathered from PwDs by the Disabled People's Association (DPA) Singapore, PwDs still face significant barriers in accessing the SkillsFuture system. This ranges from course materials not in accessible formats or training providers unwilling to provide reasonable accommodations.

While I understand that SkillsFuture SG works with the Enabling Academy and disability organisations, such as DPA, to help training providers offer reasonable accommodations, implementation is not mandatory. The Enabling Academy also curates courses specially for PwDs as an alternative.

Although well intentioned, these courses are significantly limited in scope compared to the extensive offerings available within the broader SkillsFuture system. This not only restricts opportunities available to PwDs, inadvertently causing them to fall further behind, but also risks further segregating them from wider society.

In light of this, I strongly urge the Government to deepen its commitment to inclusivity in Budget 2024 and ensure that we make SkillsFuture accessible to all users. Harnessed correctly, SkillsFuture has big potential to not only enhance career opportunities and professional enhancement for PwDs but also to cultivate greater societal integration and strengthen our social fabric.

Sir, let me now close.

In preparing for this speech, I recalled the words of American writer, Max Ehrmann, "You are a child of the Universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here."

Mr Speaker, inclusion is not just a matter of accessibility or accommodation; it is not merely about enabling one to hold on to a job, make a living. No – it is about thriving. It is about ensuring that every person, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, has the opportunity to fully engage in community, to enjoy life and pursue their aspirations.

Society must give every Singaporean the courage to dream.

By breaking down barriers, challenging stereotypes and fostering inclusive environments across various domains, we can create a society where all individuals – including PwDs – can be a part of a greater whole and contribute meaningfully.

Let us work together to build a more inclusive Singapore, where everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential. Let us make Forward Singapore a reality for all.

Sir, I support the Budget.