Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [19 February 2018],

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

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Azmoon Ahmad.

11.17 am

Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I shall deliver my speech in English and Malay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.

11.35 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

11.47 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

11.57 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Sir, I believe that Mr Png has asked for excuse from Speaker because he has a family matter to attend to urgently.

Mr Speaker: Okay. Miss Cheryl Chan.

12.12 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar.

12.26 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Ganesh Rajaram.

12.38 pm

Mr Ganesh Rajaram (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak in this Budget Debate.

Mr Speaker, in recent months, and even in this House yesterday and today, there has been a fair bit of debate and discussion on the class divide in Singapore. I am very pleased that this year's Budget Statement by Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat aims at narrowing this divide. From supporting needy individuals, seniors and families, to encouraging the spirit of giving among Singaporeans, this Budget goes a long way towards enabling social mobility, which would narrow the class divide. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government alone cannot bridge this gap.

In an Institute of Policy Studies’ (IPS') study on Social Capital in Singapore conducted in December last year, it was found that the most acute social divisions in Singapore were now based on class, and not on race or religion. National University of Singapore sociologist Vincent Chua, one of the study's researchers, noted that while Singapore has done “a pretty good job of fostering multiculturialism and mixing between ethnic groups, the next step now is to increase efforts to increase mixing between classes”.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in my speech today, I would like to focus on the class divide, and the roles that we, Singaporeans, can play in narrowing this gap. Inequality is not a new phenomenon, nor is it unique to Singapore. However, I would like to suggest that the country today is much better equipped to deal with this division than ever before.

As Prime Minister Lee has pointed out just earlier this month, there is a concerted and coordinated effort by the Government to tackle the challenges of income inequality, social mobility and social integration together. The Government has intervened to help those who are less well-off in the areas of home ownership, healthcare and education, as well as means-tested assistance schemes for Singaporeans from lower-income households. Programmes, such as Workfare, the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and self-help groups, such as the Council for the Development of the Singapore Malay/Muslim Community (MENDAKI), the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA) and the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC) also provide support through a variety of schemes from financial assistance to learning enhancement programmes.

But still, many Singaporeans look to the Government to resolve this class divide, a legacy perhaps of a time not so long ago when we looked to the Government's lead to transform mudflats into a metropolis. While there is trust between the Government and its people, there is also concern that, as The Straits Times opinion editor Chua Mui Hoong noted in a recent column, "today's citizens may be expecting too much of their leaders, thinking back to the pioneering generation.'

In much of the discussion on inequality and the class division, many experts and Singaporeans have noted that the Government would need to do more to address inequality, which, left unchecked, would pose a serious threat to the country's social cohesion. There was markedly less chatter about what Singaporeans ourselves can do to address this divide.

Mr Speaker, Sir, governments around the world strive for income growth and social mobility because these are two key pillars of a thriving, progressive society. High social mobility in any country is influenced by structural as well as individual factors. The Government is already intervening more aggressively in structural and systematic policies. But what can Singaporeans, what can we do to address the individual factors?

I am reminded of the words that we so readily recite every morning in the schools and once a year on 9 August. We each say, hand on heart, that "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a society based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation". The emphasis is on "we". We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge to build a society. For as good as our Government may be, a community can achieve progress only if we acknowledge that change will come when we take ownership and make a collective effort to address inequality. And I would like to suggest that we begin where it always starts, at home.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has had an amazing transformation since our founding as a nation in 1965. And as the country progressed, so did its people. Social mobility matched economic growth as Singapore and Singaporeans worked hard to build their country and their lives. We have many inspiring stories of Singaporeans who have become shining examples of what it would take to succeed in spite of humble beginnings. Our President, Mdm Halimah Yacob, the former Speaker of this House, is one clear example. Her work ethics, resilience and consistent concern for the less privileged serve as a benchmark for many of us in this House, and an inspiration for every child who dreams of becoming President of Singapore. What has moved many Singaporeans, in particular, is the credit that Mdm President gives to her mother for the person she is today.

There has been much written about how parenting styles influence a child's development and social mobility. Some may refer to this as parenting with heart and backbone, while others may say that it is about building resilience through positive psychology. It is really about learning how to get up when you fall, or to keep your chin up in times of adversity. Many in this House might be familiar with this parenting style. But I wonder if "conscious parenting", as I would like to call it, is all that common in our very busy Singaporean households.

As a business executive with no background in psychology or sociology, I can only share with Members my personal encounter with this particular style of upbringing. It might help explain why a person from a minority community, from an impoverished upbringing, with no "connections", and someone who is not a Government scholar, is in this Chamber today.

The class divide in the early days were stark. Home, for me, was a 1-room rental flat until I was in Primary 3. We were poor. But my parents kept us focused on the future. Study hard, they said. Do your best in whatever you do. What we lacked materially did not seem too much because we always knew that things would get better if we worked hard enough at it. Education and meritocracy, even in the early days of nationhood, served families like us – people who did not have much – very well.

I went to a mainstream primary school and never really felt out of place. Most of the kids were from the same neighbourhood and we had similar backgrounds. I was an average student from an early age. I was far more interested in sports than I was in books. So, I did well enough to get into a good secondary school but not the school that my father wanted me to get into – the elite, top boys' school in Singapore. You see, Mr Speaker, my father, who came from an even more impoverished background, had, through merit, made it into the top boys' school for his secondary education, and he wanted his son to do the same. Of course, it did not help that my eldest sister had made it to the elite top girls' school! My father did not openly show his disappointment, though I could feel it. It was my first real lesson in "failure".

It inspired me to work hard and I ended up in the elite junior college (JC). The look on my father's face when he saw the metal badge on my shirt made the hard work worthwhile.

But Mr Speaker, Sir, much like the findings in the IPS study, it was in this elite school that I first experienced the class divide. My first day at the JC was horrible. The majority of the kids came from the elite secondary schools and many of them were reluctant to mix. Most knew one another because they moved in the same social circles and were family friends. They were driven to school, wore the latest sneakers and carried the trendiest school bags.

I went home after that first day of school and told my father that maybe I had made the wrong choice and should have gone to a more mainstream JC. My father said to me, "I did not bring you up to be a quitter. You got there on your own merit and you deserve a place in the school. Just work hard, and the rest will take care of itself."

So, I stuck with the school and, over time, I began to fit in. I still did not get invited to the "cool" parties at the country clubs, but I made new friends – people from different races and different social backgrounds. Many of these I made through school sports.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as Minister Grace Fu acknowledged in her reaction to the IPS study, sports is one of the best platforms for people of different backgrounds to integrate. And sports certainly played a key role in my integration in school when I faced a very stark class divide.

Through sports, being on the school team and playing in national tournaments meant that where I came from, where I lived in, what shoes I wore did not matter. We were teammates. We trained together, we won and lost together. We became brothers both on and off the field. Some of my best friends today are friends I made playing sports.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the early failures and challenges I faced as a child from a lower-income family could have been devastating. What I am today is very much the result of how my parents brought me up. Their insistence that I face and overcome challenges, coupled with the positive reinforcement and support at home, taught me again and again that the positivity, perseverance and resilience would light the way to where I wanted to go. It is parenting with heart and backbone.

My parents never once allowed me to feel like I did not belong among the smartest or richest kids in Singapore. Self-pity was not in their vocabulary. They encouraged me to dream big and to take ownership of what I wanted to do and where I wanted to go. My teachers never held my background against me and the education system gave me the tools to succeed. Parents and teachers are a powerful combination, and they form the core of a special support group that is essential if we are to narrow the class divide.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the starting point for Singaporeans is already a lot better than many others in the world. Many Singaporeans own their own homes, enjoy a high standard of education and healthcare, and go about their daily lives in a safe and secure environment. Yes, there is income inequality and there always will be. But the Government has taken the lead in addressing these issues with policies and assistance at every level and touchpoint. We have a meritocratic system that offers multiple pathways to social mobility.

At the end of the day, bridging a class divide can only truly happen if Singaporeans work together to ensure that every single child from a low-income family is equipped with the perseverance, confidence and resilience to succeed. At the same time, we must also create more opportunities for children of all income backgrounds to mingle and build lasting friendships. Encouraging greater participation in team sports and team-building activities would help engender a sense of community and help narrow the social division. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Tamil, please.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] There is an ongoing debate in Singapore about the gap between the well-to-do and the less fortunate. There are many negative comments on this gap about the Government. The gist of it is that they say that the Government has not done much about it. What is true is that the Government alone cannot correct the situation. Our contribution is also necessary.

I did not come from a well-to-do family and, in fact, the Government's policies have been the very reason that made me stand here and make this speech. To correct this situation, parents like us, communities, societies must encourage our youths to have faith in the programmes that the Government provides. We must make our youths as caring humanitarians. If they lead such a life, the gap between us will be reduced. They will also realise their dreams progressively.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore was built on the values and hard work of our fathers and mothers. In striving to narrow inequality and class divisions, we need an all-in, whole-of-Singapore approach. Singaporeans expect much of our Government in this pressing matter, and rightly so. But can we not also expect just as much, if not more, from our people?

Building a society based on justice and equality, to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation, will take time and involve more than just the leadership of the Singapore Government. It will need the entire collective will of the citizens of Singapore, with heart and backbone. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: I am sure we are all now very intrigued about which school you went to. But please google outside of Chambers. Ms Sylvia Lim.

12.52 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, before I commence on my speech proper, I wish to refer to a report in The Straits Times today that erroneously mentioned that I was scheduled to speak on the Budget yesterday. I think we had an arrangement with the Government Whip that under the original schedule, I would be speaking today. So, I think The Straits Times was not aware of this. But I hope that they would print a correction to correct any misimpression that has been generated by this report.

So, Sir, I would focus my Budget speech on inequality. This Budget has, as its third plan, a fostering of a caring and cohesive society. The concept of care and cohesion, though not new, is timely, given the current public discussion of a class divide in Singapore.

The recent study on social capital by IPS confirms what we already anecdotally knew. It found, for instance, that, on average, Singaporeans who live in public housing have fewer than one friend who lives in private housing. It found that people who study in elite schools also tend to be less close to those in non-elite schools and vice versa. And earlier, the Member, Mr Ganesh Rajaram also shared his own experience, coming from a non-elite background going to such an elite JC.

Sir, this Budget explicitly highlights inequality and social mobility as a concern. We also see some measures in this Budget in the direction of mitigating the class divide. For instance, tax measures, such as raising the top marginal BSD rate by 1% for residential properties valued at above $1 million are geared towards requiring the better-off to pay more taxes.

Another long-standing policy to mitigate inequality is that Government transfers are generally weighted in favour of those who live in lower-cost housing or have lower income, such as the GST Vouchers and service and conservancy charge (S&CC) rebates.

But, for all these moves made now and over the years, how well are we doing to reduce inequality and how much do we really know about the inequality that exists in Singapore? What else do we need to look at or change?

Discussions on the status of inequality have tended to focus on numerical data, such as the Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality. Our Gini coefficient in 2017 stood at 0.459 before Government transfers and 0.402 after transfers, which has improved from 2013. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Lee acknowledged in January that our Gini coefficient was still higher than that of many developed countries.

If one looks at household income from work, in 2017, the household income for the top 10% is more than $13,000 per person per month while that for the 20th percentile at the lower end is about $1,000 per person per month, or 12 times more unequal.

Our national gross domestic product (GDP) per capita last year was nearly $80,000, which means that the national GDP, when averaged out per person, is $80,000 per person per year. However, when we look at median income or the halfway point for households, the Department of Statistics' data shows that for 2017, the median income per household member was only $32,400 per year, based on a monthly median per person of about $2,700.

All these point to high levels of income inequality. The Department of Statistics' data on key household income trends indicated that in 2017, there was a slower pace of income growth for the bottom 15% of households, showing a widening income gap. Beyond numbers, it is also necessary to dig deep into the daily lives of poor Singaporeans and evaluate the reasons why they do not seem to be able to catch up with the rest of society.

In her recent book, "This is what inequality looks like", sociologist Prof Teo You Yenn shares powerful stories from her years of field work with families living in HDB rental housing. She writes, and I quote, "I saw how tough it is for them trying to balance wage work and care responsibilities. By hearing their stories about jobs, I saw how hard they have to work and how little they get in return for their labour. By asking them about their children, I saw how much their kids struggled in school and how worried parents are that they would eventually have difficult lives. By listening to them talk about their crises, I heard about their feelings with humiliation, trying to access social assistance. In paying attention to their everyday experiences, I saw how little dignity they are accorded in our society."

What Prof Teo observed resonates with what we see, too. While better-off Singaporeans plan for family holidays with their children, poorer families feel demoralised that they cannot afford to buy needed items that their children ask for. While better-off parents are busy at weekends, sending children from one enrichment activity to another, poorer parents spend weekends working and worrying about whether their unsupervised children will fall into bad company.

Many of our lower-income residents work hard and even two jobs but may still be unable to pay their bills. Richer children are served and even spoilt by domestic help. Poorer children shoulder responsibilities, like caring for younger siblings and even being spokesmen for their parents who do not speak English.

In a Parliamentary answer in February this year, Prime Minister Lee emphasised, and I quote, "Every citizen, no matter what his social background is, must have the opportunity to do better and move up in society based on his efforts and talent. Nobody should feel that his social position is fixed based on his parents' income level or position in life."

Can we say today that the lot of our poorest fellow Singaporeans is due to their lack of ambition or talent? Or does the system itself inadvertently make it difficult for them to succeed and thus perpetuate inequality? For example, do Government policies support poor families with adequate and sustainable care for children? Does our education system penalise those who did not have a leg-up in preschool? Do housing policies unjustly discriminate against those whose marriages fail? How have children been impacted by their parents' circumstances and were they supported or facilitated to break out of the poverty trap?

Earlier, the Member Mr Ganesh Rajaram shared his own experience of social mobility. And I do not know how old he is. But looking just at physical appearance, he could be born between the 1960s and 1970s. And I think we can all agree that for persons born during that period, there was probably significant social mobility when compared to parents of the earlier generation. But an important question is, moving forward today, for the new generations of Singaporeans, is social mobility still there or is it becoming more and more difficult for people to move out of certain social classes? These are serious questions deserving our serious study.

To get answers to these critical questions, it is important to do longitudinal studies to track the fate of families over time. In 2013, the Government told Parliament that it intends to do longitudinal studies. What has the Government done since then? Has the Government, for example, started commissioning independent studies on social mobility using longitudinal data? The Government has noted in the past that we must not allow an underclass to form, and so, the Government has to show commitment to this goal.

Sir, I should add here that where there is lack of social mobility, it is not only the poorer families that are stressed, even those higher up in the income chain, including the middle class, have the stress of ensuring that they retain their current positions or climb up. The competition in the education system is high. Just look at the money spent on private tuition and other enrichment classes which, in turn, adds to the economic stress that families face.

Why is it so important to show a commitment to the goal of reducing inequality and increasing social mobility? Because it is vital to our very existence as a nation. We recite the words of the pledge daily. How can we say these things about justice and equality, happiness, prosperity and progress for the nation, if we are perpetuating a society where citizens are not equal, where some are seemingly having little hope and doomed for failure, while others boom ahead? Will there eventually be an erosion of trust where a class divide makes it harder for people at the bottom and the middle to identify with those at the top?

We fiercely guard our sovereignty and expect Singaporeans to defend Singapore. But will the day come when Singaporeans, who find Singapore a cold and cruel place, have no motivation to defend it? This will be a disaster at all levels.

Sir, next, I move on to one aspect of inequality that I believe needs to be reviewed and, that is, healthcare coverage under medical insurance. If one compares the coverage of private insurance plans and the coverage under MediShield Life, one will observe that there is significant inequality in access to healthcare that affects the poorer and older Singaporeans. As regards insurance coverage, there are some practices in the healthcare industry that need looking at.

One such practice is that of some insurance policies providing full coverage for hospitalisation bills. Such insurance policies undertake to pay for surgeries as long as they are done as day surgeries or if the patients stay at the hospital. All charges will be paid by the insurance company "as charged". Such policies do not require the patient to pay any deductible or make any co-payment.

In contrast, MediShield Life understandably has deductibles and co-insurance to avoid over-consumption. One feature of MediShield Life, however, is that the annual deductible rises when one passes 80 years old. While the annual deductible for persons aged 80 and below is between $1,500 and $2,000, the annual deductible for those aged 80 and above is between $2,000 and $3,000. Thus, the most senior of our people, aged 81 and above, who have the least income and most health problems, have to foot bills up to this higher deductible before MediShield Life will kick in.

Has the Government analysed how this increased deductible has affected the consumption and delivery of medical services to our most senior citizens? To give one specific example, operating on a trigger finger release usually costs less than $2,000. So, those aged 80 and above cannot claim the expenses for the surgery, but those who are younger can claim part of the expense as the deductible is lower for younger people. Premiums are already higher for older people. Why are deductibles also higher when, in general, the older people have less financial ability to pay? Why this reverse discrimination for our older citizens?

Coming back to the private "as charged" insurance policies, there is another aspect that needs review. Has the Government studied the effect of such full coverage policy on the behaviour of patients and its implications? When a person has to undergo a minor surgery which could be done at the outpatient clinic, does he choose instead to do it as a day surgery or as an inpatient in a hospital, so as to be able to tap on the insurance for full coverage? Does such insurance result in some unnecessary surgeries when more conservative treatments will suffice? Are there inefficiency and a waste of expensive resources caused by such policies?

Sir, I am not suggesting that patients or the medical profession is doing anything unethical, as this behaviour is sanctioned by the regulators of the insurance industry. It is important to review the kinds of insurance schemes in the market, so as to discourage over-consumption and inefficient use of resources. There have to be deductibles and co-payments for all medical insurance schemes. Regulators have to direct their attention to this area.

Sir, in conclusion, I would like to emphasise that inequality is a threat to our solidarity as a nation. We have to drill deeper into the sources of inequality and take concrete steps to remedy it.

Debate resumed.

1.09 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would, first, like to declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ComfortDelGro Taxi business. As a stakeholder in the private sector and a Member of this House, I am particularly interested in the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) that are supposed to pave the way for 23 industries to be future-ready.

Sir, I would like to offer my take on ITMs, which can be distilled into a simple ABC: "A" is to adapt to digital disruption; "B" is to blur the boundaries, and "C" is to be competitive beyond Singapore.

Industry players and Singaporeans need to "A" adapt to the reality of technology disruptions and embrace the benefits of digital transformation. Many industries are experiencing digital disruption, from print newspapers to television (TV) broadcasts, to brick-and-mortar shops, and traditional taxi services.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said during the 2016 National Day Rally that digital disruption is the "defining challenge" facing Singapore's growth. A few months later, the inaugural Asian Digital Transformation Index found that Singapore was top among Asian countries, including South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong, for its ability to transform itself amid digital disruptions.

However, a Microsoft Asia Digital Transformation Study published in April 2017 found that while 75% of Singapore business leaders believed that they needed to transform to a digital business to enable future growth, only 34% had a full digital strategy in place.

There is no doubt that companies need to embrace digital technology, otherwise, their expiry date is near. You either embrace it or be erased. We also need to help the workers to adapt. At the same time, the Government needs to be flexible and even-handed in their regulatory framework in managing the digital economy, which is the topic of my next section.

Regulators need to "B" blur the boundaries when it comes to regulating industry players, which no longer operate in industry-specific silos, but extend their tentacles into the provision of all sorts of conveniences for the consumers. The most successful companies are those providing services across different industries, building an ecosystem.

Take Alibaba as an example. Starting out as an e-commerce marketplace in 1999 in the form of Taobao, it now also operates Tmall, search engine eTao and, more famously, Alipay, which is China’s biggest online payment system. It has further ventured into finance and banking with its Ant Financial Group. Between 2016 and 2017, in one single year, Alibaba enjoyed a stunning 56% increase in revenue to over US$22 billion.

Closer to home, we have an Indonesian ride-hailing company Go-Jek. It started off as a modest motorcycle-hailing company in 2010. Today, it offers private cars and cabs, as well as on-demand services, from beauty treatments and massages to home cleaning and food and cargo deliveries. Like Alibaba, Go-Jek also launched an e-wallet called Go-Pay. Go-Pay even facilitates mobile transfers between accounts and cash withdrawals from automated teller machines (ATMs) at partnering banks. Go-Jek is now worth US$2.5 billion.

We need to encourage such creative diversification from our own entrepreneurs. Hence, regulatory bodies need to rethink how to regulate such multimodal industries or "ecosystems" differently. It is important to strike a balance between over-regulation which would stifle creativity, and under-regulation which might create unfair competition to existing players.

We have some way to go. Let me cite an example in the taxi industry. Given the onslaught of cheap money under the guise of ride-hailing technology, all the taxi companies in Singapore have no choice, but to form an alliance with the two dominant ride-hailing companies. For commuters, it means more choices as they can now hail taxis from the taxi stands, on the roads, on the streets and from the taxi company's call centre or app, as well as through the ride-hailing companies, under different pricing mechanisms. This is pleasing to the commuters, but it puts taxi companies in a tight spot.

This is because taxi companies are regulated by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) under its Quality of Service (QoS) framework, and one of the criteria to demonstrate good quality of service is that at least 92% of taxi requests made by commuters through the phone have to be matched with taxis. Out of 100 calls, 92 calls must be matched with taxis. However, with a good proportion of taxis responding to third-party ride-hailing app, it means that there are fewer taxis on the road to take on requests coming in through the taxi companies' app or call centre, which is what LTA looks at only. This means that the taxi companies are more susceptible to failing QoS because of the effort to provide more choices to the commuters.

Ideally, LTA needs to consider taxi booking data from both the taxi companies and third-party ride hailing companies that dispatch taxis collectively. This is an example of how the incumbent industry players are over-regulated while the new players, disguised as "technology companies" are under-regulated. The reverse could be true in other industries. What it means is that regulators need to keep up with the times.

Indeed, an article in The Financial Times suggests that traditional rule-making is unable to keep up with digital businesses. One suggestion put forth for greater flexibility is that the Government can monitor the achievement of established targets, for example, accident rate, but it should not prescribe the means of achieving such targets. Instead, the regulator could consider allowing the industry players to design their own approach.

"C" for competitive. One of the ultimate outcomes of the ITMs ought to be making our local companies more competitive not just locally but also regionally and perhaps even globally.

Coming back to the transport industry, we note that the Minister for Finance has set aside $5 billion from the 2017 Budget surplus to set up a new Rail Infrastructure Fund. The Ministry of Transport (MOT) is also planning to double the rail network length to 360 kilometres (km) by 2030. However, are there efforts being made to nurture local firms as we expand the rail network? Can local firms eventually construct Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) tunnels? Can homegrown technology companies eventually build trains or provide the signalling systems?

Let us look at train tunnels alone. Most of the tunnelling works in Singapore are undertaken by foreign contractors like Japan-based Nishimatsu Construction, China-based Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co, and German-based Zublin. Local construction companies typically take on the role of a sub-contractor to these foreign companies.

Similarly, for rolling stock, such as the physical train itself, and the signalling system which is the brain of the train system, they are primarily provided by foreign firms, such as Thales from France, Alstom or Siemens from Germany, Bombardier from Canada and Kawasaki from Japan. From the inception of our MRT system until today, 30 years has passed, we have to rely on these foreign companies to replenish our rolling stock, upgrade our train or upgrade our signalling system. In fact, the current signalling system in many MRT lines is like a black box to us. In 12 years' time, when we double our train network length, will we face the same problem.

Many of these large international companies grew with government support. Thales, for example, formerly known as Thomson CSF and Thomson SA, had the support of its government to privatise in 1998. The move had helped the company to expand globally. For Alstom and Siemens, they are competitors, but they merged the train building business recently with the support of their governments in order to compete better with China. Bombardier was founded in 1942 and, as recently as last year, the Canadian government provided interest-free loans worth over $370 million to the company to support its projects.

How about Singapore? Given our size and our market, we may not be able to nurture a local company to be as big as Bombardier overnight. However, could the Government require overseas firms involved in future train projects to form joint ventures with our local companies? Of course, this would be advantageous, as working with these MNCs will allow us to learn their expertise, technologies and processes.

For the first 180 km of MRT lines, our local firms played a supplementary role in building, supplying and upgrading the MRT system. For the next 180 km, I hope our local companies can play a significant role in building, supplying and upgrading our Singapore MRT system that we can be proud of. The same goes for other industries where we think that it is important to acquire our own expertise, build on it and compete globally.

Finance Minister Mr Heng Swee Keat had said that ITMs have "to prepare our companies for a new phase of growth". ITMs have to help companies and Singaporeans "A" adapt to the new reality of digital transformation, "B" regulators need to blur the boundaries when regulating companies in the digital economy, and "C", ultimately, ITMs have to nurture local companies to be competitive not just locally but also to win contracts and business in the region and the world. Perhaps, the ABC for ITMs could be seen as part of the foundation to propel us into the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I end my speech, I would like to comment on what Ms Sylvia Lim said about inequality in society. She noted that the income gap of the rich and the poor is increasing and asked what the Government has done to narrow the gap. I just want to explain to her that I also have 462 units of 1- to 2-room rental flats in my division, and we have been taking advantage of some of the Government's policies to help our rental flat residents. For example, there is the Fresh Start Housing Scheme that helps the rental flat residents to buy a new flat. I always tell them it will be a success if I can help them move out of the rental flats.

There is another scheme on childcare subsidy that helps co-pay the childcare centres' fee. If the income level is less than $2,500, which applies to all the rental flat residents because the criterion to qualify for the Housing and Development Board (HDB) Rental scheme is household income of $1,500 and below, so they are able to qualify for the $3 co-payment for the childcare centres' fee, which is very affordable. We have been helping a lot of the children to go into childcare centres.

In addition, all Members of Parliament who have rental flats also work very hard with different voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) to help the residents to upgrade. There is a kidsREAD Programme, for example, which is spearheaded by the National Library Board (NLB), and we have capitalised on it and have volunteers to help the children from the low-income background to read better, so that when they go to Primary 1, they can do better.

In my division, we also have this project "Hand-in-Hand", where we get many volunteers and donors to give food to our residents every month or every other month. We also set up, for example, a provision care corner to help the rental flat residents in the primary school to learn piano, guitar and robotics, so that they can have more confidence and, subsequently, do better in school. We also have a youth centre for vulnerable teenagers in my division.

All these probably are not confined to my own division. Many other Members of Parliament who are hardworking on the ground will be able to take advantage of the Government's policies and grants to help rental flat residents to do better in life. With this, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Yes, Ms Sylvia Lim.

1.23 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Very briefly, Sir. I would like to clarify with Mr Ang Wei Neng that I never said that the Government is not doing anything, and I do not disagree with him that there are schemes available to help the lower-income.

My question was: what efforts have been made by the Government to study the longitudinal fate of families over time? Also, there are some care gaps, for example, workers who work shifts. What care arrangements can be made for the children at night? These are things that we need to discuss further. So, I just wanted to clarify that point.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mr Ang Wei Neng: I thank the Member for the clarification. She was at first saying that the Government is not doing enough but now say that these are the schemes that are available. But I also agree with her that we could do a longitudinal study and both can come together.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Mr Dennis Tan.

1.24 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, in my speech today, I will be speaking on two different topics – care for our elderly and challenges for our maritime industry. I will first touch on the area of care for our elderly.

In his Budget speech, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat cited ageing as one of the three major shifts that we must prepare for. We are told that the number of seniors living alone more than doubled between 2006 and 2016 to 47,400. I believe the trend will continue to grow. Together with a projected increase in our elderly population relative to other age groups in the coming years, it is important that we get our policies on elderly care right.

The Government seems to be still finding its way in deciding how extensive the role of the State should be when it comes to caregiving. If it prefers to continue to rely substantially on caregiving through an individual’s family care network, it should consider giving more support at every level to the supporting family as well as to caregivers, including supporting the caregiver who has to stop work, and deciding what is a decent level of support for the caregiver. Further, with the growing number of elderly or elderly singles living alone, the Government needs to put in place adequate resources and the infrastructural support for assisted living.

Government policies often involve drawing a line between competing imperatives. When it comes to policies affecting elderly care and their well-being, may I implore the Government to give priority to the consideration of enhancing elderly care efforts?

The enhancement of the Proximity Scheme Grant for both families and singles will ultimately benefit our seniors as children are encouraged or assisted by the enhancement of the grant. As HDB flats in mature estates are usually more expensive, the enhancement of the Proximity Scheme grant will hopefully assist and persuade more families to live with or near their parents even in the mature estates.

I am glad that singles who buy a resale public housing flat to live near their parents will now receive $10,000 under the enhanced grant. Before the announcement, the one-time grant is currently given only to singles who buy a resale flat to live with their parents. The grant for singles buying a resale flat to live with their parents has also been increased to $15,000.

While it is good that the Government now recognises that singles are often a key source of caregiving support within their families, in my view, many singles end up taking a larger role in caregiving support than their married siblings who may be bogged down with caring for their children. Hence, such singles do not deserve a lesser grant than their married counterparts, whether they are living near or with their elderly parents. In fact, arguably, many married siblings benefit more from living near their parents than their single siblings as they benefit from their parents helping out in caring for their children. Whatever rationale the Government chooses to use to give married children a higher grant, I hope the Government will consider equalising the grant for the reasons I have given.

Ultimately, when we make things easier for the caregiver, single or otherwise, the ultimate beneficiaries are the elderly parents of the caregiver. Without the caregiver, the state or the society may also end up having to provide additional resources.

We should always take care that our policies, however well-intentioned they are, do not become too rigid that it becomes a burden or a source of stress for our elderly and seniors or their caregivers.

The Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) levy will be increased in two ways. The FDW levy for the second FDW employed without levy concession will go up from $265 to $450. The increase is hefty, about 70%. I am concerned this may affect households employing two helpers, one to handle all the housework and one to look after elderly parents who may be bedridden or even just require attentive care at all times while their children are working. If the second FDW is not allowed levy concession, this increase in levy will add to the financial burden of their children. Can the levy increase be exercised more equitably in favour of families needing two FDWs to look after elderly parents as well as doing housework? Can the Government not distinguish the example I mentioned from the situation of, say, a wealthy family living in a big house requiring more than one FDW? Again, I hope the Government will regard enhancing elderly care efforts in priority to other considerations on this issue.

A Fengshan resident shared with me his frustration of having to pay the full Singles Premium for his 2-room flexi flat. He is approaching retirement in a few years. To prepare for retirement, he is trying to save up as much as he can from his modest monthly income of $700. His existing savings are precious to him for the same reason. His excitement at getting a new 2-room flexi flat was somewhat dampened by the burden of the additional $15,000 Singles Premium he had to pay. It eats into his retirement funds.

While I fully understand the rationale of having the Singles Premium, must it always be rigidly enforced against people of all ages from 35 upwards? I hope the Government will relook how it applies its Singles Premium policy on elderly singles. Elderly singles may require more support from the Government. They will likely have fewer options than their married counterparts insofar as family financial support or family caregivers are concerned. When they are not self-sufficient or cannot care for themselves, the state may ultimately have to step in anyway.

Can we apply a little more flexibility for the benefit of these single seniors? Can we place a greater premium on elderly care and welfare in such a case? For example, the Government can consider helping all singles aged 55 and above purchasing 2-room flexi flats for the first time on a shorter lease by reducing the Singles Premium. A premium reduction of, say, upwards to $5,000, based on their income levels and length of lease, upholds the rationale of the Singles Premium, but reduces its impact for our elderly poor singles who can then use their savings for their retirement. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In his Budget Statement, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat said that the ageing population is a challenge that we have to face.

From 2006 to 2016, the number of senior citizens who live alone will more than double to nearly 50,000. The Government estimates that the ageing population will continue to grow in the next few years, and we need to have more comprehensive measures to take care of our senior citizens.

At this point, it appears that the Government has yet to reach a conclusion on what kind of extensive role the Government should take on, in terms of caring for the elderly. If the policy objective of the Government is for elderly Singaporeans to be cared for by their own family members, more support should be given to each of these families in all aspects. These include helping caregivers who have to quit their jobs to take care of their elderly family members.

In addition, with more senior citizens and single senior citizens living alone, the Government also needs to provide adequate resources and develop related infrastructure and facilities. The Government needs to balance various needs in policymaking. With regard to policies that affect the elderly, I urge the Government to prioritise the enhancement of policies related to caregiving.

Generally, prices of flats in mature estates tend to be higher. The Proximity Housing Grant encourages more families and singles to live close to their parents or live together with them in order to take care of them. I am delighted to see that singles can now enjoy Proximity Housing Grants of $15,000 when they purchase a resale flat near their parents. For singles who purchase a resale flat to stay with their parents, the grant has also increased to $15,000.

It is encouraging to know that the Government is aware that senior citizens are often cared for by their unmarried children. Singles tend to shoulder heavier responsibilities because their married siblings are probably caught up with taking care of their own children and are, therefore, unable to share the responsibilities. Therefore, I believe singles should enjoy the same amount of housing grants as those who are married. Regardless of the basis for giving more housing grants to married couples, the same amount of grants should be given to singles who wish to live near or with their parents.

So, I would like to ask the Government to consider increasing the subsidy for singles who choose to live near their parents. When help is provided to the caregivers, regardless of whether they are single or married, their elderly parents will ultimately benefit. If they are unable to care for their parents, the Government and welfare organisations may eventually need to render more assistance.

The Government needs to exercise flexibility in the implementation of policies. Otherwise, elderly Singaporeans or their caregivers may feel stressed out.

We know that the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy will be raised from $265 to $450. This is an increase of about 70%. I am concerned that this will affect families that employ two FDWs. These families may require one helper to do the household chores, while another takes care of the elderly family member who is bedridden or needs to be cared for round the clock. If they cannot enjoy the subsidised rate when employing a second helper, it could increase their financial burden.

Therefore, I would like to urge the Government to reconsider this decision. Is it possible to consider more reasonably the needs of families which require a helper to care for their elderly family member? These families are different from the wealthier families that need two helpers because they have a bigger house.

A Fengshan resident shared with me that when he purchased a 2-room flexi HDB flat from the Government, he had to pay an extra premium of $15,000. As he only earns a monthly income of $700, he needs to save as much as he can because he is retiring in a few years' time. To him, this premium is a huge burden.

I understand the objective of this premium, but I also hope that the Government can review this policy. Older singles are different from those who are married with a family, who can be supported financially by other family members. These singles need more Government assistance.

Therefore, I feel that the Government should adopt a more flexible approach. For singles aged above 55 who are buying 2-room flats with shorter leases for the first time, the Government should consider lowering the premium according to the buyer’s income and the leasehold of the flat, with the reduction in premiums capped at $5,000. By doing so, the Government can maintain the policy, while helping elderly singles who are less well-off to buy a home they can retire in.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in English. I declare my interest as a shipping lawyer. In his Budget Statement, the Finance Minister mentioned the launch of the Maritime Transformation Programme (MTP) to enhance the overall competitiveness of Singapore as a maritime hub, accelerate industry transformation and deepen maritime research and development (R&D) capabilities.

The MTP looks to using automation, digitalisation and artificial intelligence (AI) to develop new technologies, designs and operations concepts that can be deployed in Tuas and Jurong Port. With the emphasis on strengthening maritime traffic management capabilities and enhancing operation efficiency and improving safety and security, it should benefit our port operators and related auxiliary industries in automation, AI and robotics.

We have one of the world's leading ports. Thus far, despite our charges being relatively higher than our competitors, we managed to stay ahead through technology and efficiency, helped by our favourable location. How long will we continue to enjoy this location advantage is anyone's guess. Will the proposed deep sea port in Malacca pose any problem for us in the future, especially if Chinese or other players can help to overturn the deficiencies which have long bugged the Malaysian ports?

When will the Northern Sea route start pulling away vessel traffic now passing the Strait of Singapore? With polar caps melting further in future, will technology-enhanced port operational efficiency and traffic management alone always be sufficient to fight off challenges, such as savings of substantial travel time of 30% with the Northern Sea route?

Minister Heng also mentioned that foreign worker levy increases for shipyards will be deferred for another year. Our leading shipyards are the yards owned by the Keppel and Sembcorp Marine groups which are reputable leaders in offshore-related buildings, like oil rigs and semi-submersible and Floating Business Storage and Offloading (FBSO) conversions. With uncertain offshore markets, our leading shipyards should focus on developing new niche areas of ship and offshore building, like the way it developed its niche in offshore building over the years.

The ITM for marine and offshore engineering which is launched on 22 February has identified liquified natural gas (LNG) and offshore renewables as two growth areas. Minister Iswaran said that Keppel and Sembcorp Marine have already ventured into the LNG segment. It remains to be seen whether this will become their new niche areas or be able to contribute to the level of growth that offshore building afforded them in the past one and a half decade.

The search to develop new niche areas should not be confined to our leading shipyards. Business has been patchy for our other small players in recent years and the rampant demand for tug building a few years ago has subsided.

While the use of shipyard facilities in nearby Batam has helped some of our shipyards in managing their costs, competition by yards in other countries, especially China, meant that our yards are not in the market for the building of cargo or passenger vessels, with the exception of tugs.

For most of these firms, in recent years, they have been occupied with repairs, conversions and the odd small building jobs. How many of our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are in the position to compete in the LNG and offshore renewables identified in the ITM for marine and offshore engineering?

Besides this area, what are the future options that SMEs should prepare for? Our maritime business community consists of many more SMEs up and down the value chain, beyond ship and offshore building and port management.

I agree with the current push for innovation, building on autonomous systems, robotics and AI and data analytics, as well as for digitalisation under the current sea transport ITM. But we must not forget those who may not benefit from this development.

Many SMEs are players specialising in certain specific areas of business or capability. Unlike Government-linked companies, the size of SMEs may limit their ability to scale up in order to compete for businesses with bigger or established players internationally.

The Straits Times report of the launch of the ITM for marine and offshore engineering cited a pressing need for smaller firms to build up their capabilities so that they can benefit from this trend. Perhaps, for some SMEs especially, it is not merely about building up alone but needing to work together with other players providing different expertise to take on bigger projects.

I would like to suggest the Government can help to put different SMEs in our maritime business community together on an appropriate platform, jointly develop products; and two, with the view to pitching for bigger projects internationally at a consortium level. Our local banks can help with the financial support and the Government can consider providing initial funding and support for setting up.

This is different from efforts aiming to help SMEs directly as individual businesses. SMEs with different specialisations can be integrated to work together, develop products and pitch for bigger businesses and contracts internationally, as a consortium, tapping on one another's expertise and sharing economies of scale.

Such a programme can include both existing SMEs from the maritime industry as well as those which are currently outside the sector. A firm from outside the industry may well bring with them different ideas or different ways of handling comparable projects.

The Technology Centre for Offshore Marine Singapore can definitely play a role in providing appropriate support for SMEs. There has been much talk about the Belt and Road initiative and potential benefits. How can our shipping and logistics and offshore businesses make use of our relative strengths and resources to work hand in hand with our Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) neighbours in the Belt and Road initiative around Southeast Asia and beyond?

The Government can use its position as ASEAN Chair to help create opportunities for better cooperation with ASEAN companies. The Government can lead a study into the likely opportunities for our involvement in Belt and Road projects in the region and consider how our businesses can jointly market ourselves to complement and value-add to ASEAN companies to take on Belt and Road projects.

Mr Speaker, in closing, we need to encourage SMEs to think beyond traditional categories on maritime businesses to come up with products and services that straddle across or even go beyond traditional categorisations.

My colleague, Leon Perera, spoke about disruptive economy. We also cannot underestimate how the disruptive economy can affect what we do in the maritime and offshore sectors and bring changes. It may not be sufficient fighting today's battle to stay ahead in the current competition by merely being more efficient, cheaper, faster and better. Will we be able to ride the wave and think out of the box to create new relationships, opportunities, products, niche areas and new ways of doing business?

Mr Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.

1.43 pm

Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak in response to the Budget that the Minister for Finance has presented. I wish to address two issues: one, the elderly, and two, leadership.

The Minister has identified ageing as one of the major shifts that will affect our future. He has rolled out a whole series of initiatives to address the issue, including more money for hospitals and senior care centres; strengthening the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and expanding the scope of the Pioneer Generation Office (PGO) and the Community Network for Seniors (CNS).

These initiatives will have a direct impact on the elderly over the coming months and years. I have spoken about them several times in this House and I am glad that this is happening. However, I believe there is more we can do. For a start, can we look at the issue a little differently? We know the statistics. By 2030, 27% of the population will be above 65 years old. One out of four persons will be over 65. But I wonder, is it time for us to reconsider the definition of elderly as those being 65? Should it be 70 or even 75? If we look around us, we can begin to observe many in their late 60s and 70s who are still healthy, active and gainfully employed.

I believe that the elderly of today is not a good proxy for the elderly of tomorrow. In 20 years’ time, many Members in this House would be in their 60s and 70s. Using ourselves as examples, the 40-year-olds of today are smart, tech-savvy and self-sufficient. In 20 years' time, we will have a host of capable people who are mobile and independent. The challenge for us is to build a society that encourages our seniors of the future to thrive and live active lives.

There are five areas we should think about: (a) healthcare, (b) communities, (c) education, (d) volunteerism, and (e) connecting the four is technology.

First, healthcare. In his Budget Statement, the Finance Minister has put the focus on infrastructure – more hospitals, eldercare centres and so on. While this is definitely necessary now, the future elderly in Singapore will need soft skills, especially an increased shift towards self-sufficiency. I hope that more attention and resources will be spent to drive the improvement of soft skills in the healthcare sector.

Second, communities. We need to provide the elderly with the means to connect, engage and encourage one another. The Minister has outlined three areas that contribute to this: the Silver Generation Office, the Community Silver Trust and the focus on Social Services Offices (SSOs). I support these enhanced initiatives.

Third, education. I hope we can encourage our elderly to continue their lifelong journey of learning. But the areas of study, objectives and methods of teaching for the elderly are different, especially as the number of highly educated and enabled elderly increases.

Next, volunteerism. There exists among our elderly a pool of talent and skills that is largely untapped. They are our retirees from the Civil Service as well as from industry. They are professionals, managers, skilled workers and so on. They should be encouraged to contribute not just to earn some extra pocket money, but also to pass on their skills, experience and wisdom.

Finally, technology. The Finance Minister has announced a $100-million top-up to the Seniors Mobility and Enabling Fund. This is an area that will grow fast and we will need to review the scope of this Fund. I spoke about this last month during the Motion on the Elderly. We should aim to be one of the global leaders in technology-assisted elderly living.

Sir, I would like to applaud the Finance Minister for the very strong support of the elderly in Singapore. The road ahead is still long, but I believe this Budget has taken some important steps towards making Singapore a good place to grow old in.

Mr Speaker, this Budget is an unusual Budget. Most Budgets looked at how to meet next year’s needs or, at most, the next few years. This Budget looks at the future needs of Singapore beyond the term of this Government. A British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) World Service Report dated 20 February 2018 put it this way:

“Where else do you get a democratically elected government that puts a tax increase in, in four years' time? …. This is a very mature democracy which takes medium- to long-term decisions, in a way in which governments in the UK and America are not able to do because they are always worried about the next election…. It’s a nice Budget because it has a good medium- to long-term view”.

After the Budget was presented last week, I sat down with my volunteers and asked them what they thought. I explained that we will be spending more, especially on healthcare, education and infrastructure. I said we will need more money in future, hence the need for an increase in GST. They asked why the Government is raising GST when we have so much money. Why not spend some of our Reserves? This is a valid question which the Prime Minister and the Ministers have answered and must continue to explain. As their Member of Parliament (MP), I will try to convince them, too.

But what we need to do is to ask ourselves where did the Reserves come from in the first place? The answer, of course, is that it was the hard work of our Pioneer Generations working hand in hand with the Government to grow our economy and create wealth, and to spend within our means, and always putting something away for a rainy day. These three cardinal principles – growth, surplus, savings – have been followed faithfully by successive People's Action Party (PAP) Governments for over 50 years since Independence. It has not been easy.

I remember during General Elections (GE), some Opposition members would come out with many ideas about how to spend the Reserves while the Government tries hard to convince the people to work hard and save. Fortunately, the people have kept faith with the PAP.

This is why good leaders are critical for Singapore. We are a small country. But because of good leaders, we are a strong country. If we want to continue to grow, we need leaders who are prepared to tell people the not-so-nice things, leaders who take a long-term view, leaders who must convince people that they do care, but care in a responsible way. We need leaders with vision, who can plan for a future Singapore which is more beautiful, sustainable and liveable than today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has publicly stated many times that he intends to retire after the next GE when he turns 70. Now, I personally feel that 70 is still too young to retire but that is not for me to decide. The question of who will be our next Prime Minister has been the subject of much talk, from coffee shops to board rooms. There has been speculation as to why a decision has not been made yet. The Prime Minister, the Emeritus Senior Minister and the 4th generation (4G) team have all said something. But instead of making the situation clearer, people read the tea leaves and speculate even further.

Sir, I think we are all asking the wrong question. Why do I say this? Because I think that the Prime Minister and his colleagues have been steadily building up a strong team to take us into the future. As the BBC commentator suggested, we are quite a unique democracy. We have been planning for leadership succession of the team for many years. It is not just about one man or woman. It is about the team. And we should ask ourselves, is the team ready to take over?

Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2018 follows the three cardinal principles I mentioned earlier. It gives us a road map on how to grow, given the challenges we face. It spends less than it earns and, where money may not be enough, it proposes an increase in GST, not now but in four years' time. And it continues to build up our Reserves.

What Budget 2018 does not touch on is leadership succession. However, the Finance Minister has said in an interview with The Straits Times on 20 February that Budget 2018 is a team effort, involving the whole-of-Government. He has consulted the 4G Ministers who have backed the Budget, including the GST increase. They are the ones who will have to implement this difficult decision and follow through on all the other difficult steps on this road map to a better Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe we have a strong team to take us forward. It is a team that is prepared to take difficult decisions and to take a long-term view. It is a team that has a vision for Singapore. Leadership succession is in place. I am confident that we are in good hands. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

1.52 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Speaker, during one of my house visits last week, I was greeted by three adorable children who stood in front of the door of their flat and recited a 10-line Chinese New Year greeting to me. Before, I could even say hello, they went: Yi – Fan Feng Shun; Er – Long Teng Fei; San – Yang Kai Tai and so on.

It was delightful watching them. Their father shared that the youngest one had learnt it in school and taught the greeting to the siblings. The eldest child, a girl, is eight years old. Her brother, the second child, is six years old and the youngest girl is five years old. The father recently had heart surgery and is not working but is actively looking for a job. The mother is working in sales. Some time ago, they had sought higher subsidies from the eldest child’s school for student care fees but were not successful. Now, after the surgery and with the husband not working, the family is feeling the financial pinch. They have some debts to clear as they had previously paid for various bills in the past with credit cards. The father expressed his concerns as it was getting financially challenging for the family to afford the children’s expenses as their needs increase.

My team is making the appropriate appeals and referrals to assist the family. Their circumstances are specific to them, but some of the issues that they faced are not uncommon. An unexpected event, especially a health-related one, often derails a family’s financial plan. A bad financial decision in the past may continue to haunt the family for a long time. Sometimes, financial assistance is not immediately available because of the eligibility criteria, though I have seen exceptions been made in appropriate circumstances.

So, when we talk about the Budget or the various policies or programmes to help families, we must always bear in mind what happens on the ground, what is the impact on people, will this Budget and the various programmes help people in the long run? I believe this Budget does.

There are many elements in this Budget that can help the family I spoke about. There will be increased support for education. In particular, the Ministry of Education (MOE) Financial Assistance Scheme will be reviewed and one of the outcomes is that the eligibility criteria will be raised to cover more families. This family can expect to receive some assistance that will reduce at least the eldest child’s school expenses. The extension of the service and conservancy charges (S&CC) rebate will also go some way in alleviating their household expenses. The father could also avail himself of the schemes within the Adapt and Grow programme and find a suitable job that will help to improve the family’s finances.

Indirectly, the other initiatives targeted at supporting businesses for growing a vibrant and innovative economy like the extension of the Wage Credit Scheme, enhancement of corporate income tax rebate and the Enterprise Development Grant will all help to create a more conducive environment to look for a job and stay employed. Hopefully, by the time the GST increases kick in, the family is financially stable. Even if they are not, the GST offset package, amongst other things, would be in place to support them. I am glad that there are reviews and extensions of existing schemes within this Budget.

Policies and schemes need to be tweaked and retweaked. We need to make sure that the policies and the various progammes match the needs of our people. Eligibility criteria may need to be reviewed from time to time. New initiatives may need to be put in place. This is constant work in progress. It is important to always be mindful to ensure that the Budget and any policy changes continue to improve the day-to-day lives of Singaporeans. I trust that this Government will do just that.

It is an attractive notion to argue for more to be done to help everyone. Of course, we want to help everyone. But should we and can we?

I am acutely aware that the Government has to cater to all these needs whilst balancing the need to ensure fiscal feasibility and sustainability of the country. The inevitable announcement has thus been made regarding the increase in GST. There has been a lot of buzz regarding this, and many views have been put forth. I think beyond just the banter of assent and dissent, and alternative suggestions, there is an opportunity to talk about our values and what defines us as Singaporeans.

The Budget is not just about the economy and our fiscal needs but also about the principles that guide us. I feel that this Budget and the recent Budget statements in the past few years have gotten all of us thinking about important questions relating to Singapore's future: what do Singaporeans expect of the Government, what do we do in difficult times, what do we do in good times?

There is an opportunity to ride on this and consciously involve the youths in these discussions and create for them a platform where they can be meaningfully involved in policy formulation. After all, many of the things we are doing is for the future generation. I am aware that there is already a lot of effort in engaging the youths, for example, through the efforts of the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) and the National Youth Council (NYC), of which I am a council member. I believe though there is scope to enhance such engagements by having targeted approaches for the different archetypes of youths. Not all young people are the same. Not all are vocal and not all may be interested in giving their views. But they should be interested and their views matter.

We could look at sharing information and obtaining feedback in a medium that is more suitable and comfortable for the different groups. This could mean repackaging information in bite size forms and engaging them through social media. It means we go to them, have discussion sessions where they hang out after school, or where they seek recreation. We should also be open to implement meaningful ideas generated from the discussions. This could encourage more mature and constructive discussions in the youths here. Such discussions will hopefully help to shape views and instill the youths with the same sense of responsibility and ownership of our Pioneer Generation.

This sense of responsibility and ownership is necessary if Singapore is to survive. The community needs to come together and do its part. We have many schemes and programmes in place but there will always be gaps and those who fall through the cracks. The community plays an important role to complete the support network and close the gaps.

At the end of last year, some families in Bukit Batok East sought my assistance to buy school books and items for their children to use in the new school year. They did not meet the criteria to receive financial assistance from the schools and I had submitted appeals to the schools, which were eventually successful. I had also referred these requests to the Giveaway Gateway platform at Bukit Batok East, where the requests for assistance were conveyed to other residents. Many came forward without hesitation to help their fellow residents in need.

During one of my ang pow presentation sessions to the elderly in the past weeks, one senior citizen approached me. He told me he had brought walking sticks to be donated to the Residents Committee (RC) and asked that I tell the RC members to give them out to anyone who needs them. It may seem like a small gesture. But this is, in fact, a significant show of caring and sharing.

This is the spirit of giving that the Minister for Finance spoke about in his Budget Statement. I am happy to note that there is an allocation of effort in fostering this value and encouraging everyone to contribute to the community. In particular, I look forward to the enhancement of SG Cares and the one-stop platform Giving.sg. If I may suggest, we could look at the data available from this platform and understand behavioural inclinations. This information could then be used to curate social nudges that may further create awareness of the different community efforts and encourage the spirit of giving. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] A subject that became a hot topic recently was the issue of the GST rate increase which will be implemented within a four-year period. Many have voiced their views on this matter. Clearly, discussions about the Budget gave us an opportunity to think about matters that are important to our nation. Will our country continue to survive in the coming years? How can we continue to ensure that our country can still compete internationally in an ever-changing world? What should we do to provide a good life for our children who will inherit this nation from us? There are three things that I would like to emphasise.

First, it is important for us to think about the long-term impact of each decision made for our country. The Government needs to balance efforts to look after the well-being of the people, with the efforts to ensure that this nation stays strong for future generations. Therefore, we must understand the need to increase the rate of GST to achieve long-term benefits. We need to be prepared for a rainy day.

Some have asked, "Is there no other way?" Various suggestions may have been raised, but all of them will have an impact on the nation’s assets. There are those who rejected the increase in the GST but, in the same breath, they asked the Government to enhance social assistance measures. The Government sometimes have to make decisions that are less popular but are important for the good of the nation in the long term.

Second, at the individual and family level, we also need to stay prepared for the future. We must be open-minded, work hard to acquire new knowledge and upgrade our skills. We need to pay attention to our children’s education, so that they will not be left behind in this current of rapid change. In this regard, I welcome the Council for the Development of the Singapore Malay/Muslim Community's (MENDAKI's) efforts to enhance our community’s education. I hope that MENDAKI and other Malay/Muslim organisations can continue to update the information and knowledge that can be conveyed to our community.

For my third and final point, I think that it is important for the people to continue playing a role in complementing efforts to assist the community. We can contribute in many ways, be it through donations or by helping out. We must encourage the spirit of helping one another. I am confident that with the joint effort of the Government, families and community, a comprehensive support network can be established. Let me conclude in English.

(In English): Mr Speaker, let me conclude in English. My grassroots leaders translated the meaning of the greetings which the three children recited to me. They were wishes of good luck and blessings. I certainly hope all the good wishes that the children wished for me also come true for the family and for Singapore. May the five blessings arrive at our doors! And may good fortune come from all directions!

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for Finance for the Budget Statement. I stand in support of the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.

2.04 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, the Vision of Global-Asia Singapore. This Budget catches my attention for several reasons. But one thing that really jumps up at me was when the Minister for Finance said, and I quote, "We must anchor Singapore as a Global-Asia node of technology, innovation and enterprise, welcome investments, talent and ideas to Singapore, and be bold in venturing out into new markets."

Sir, I believe that the Government has accurately identified the major international shifts that will change the world for our children. These are the shifting of global economic weight to Asia and the emergence of new technologies.

I interpret this interesting phrase "Global-Asia" as positioning Singapore to catch the growth in Asia with a global outlook. The convergence of these two shifts, indeed, is the shifting of the global economic weight to Asia and the emergence of new technologies, in which the Fourth Industrial Revolution is taking place in the region stretching from South Asia to Northeast Asia through Southeast Asia. For the first time in modern history, the Asian economies combined are developing more robustly than Western economies. The Asian engine is driving the global economy and transforming Asia from being a volatile region into a dynamic global centre.

At the heart of Global-Asia is China. The opening up of China to global capitalism by Deng Xiaoping also opened up the minds of the Chinese people to the world. Many overseas Chinese talents returned from the developed countries of the West to China, bringing with them the knowledge and culture to advance China’s science and technology. The political will to succeed and the hunger of the Chinese people to learn and live better lives fuelled rapid economic development. China is fast becoming an economic and military superpower.

Singapore has thrived in the past 50 years by making ourselves useful to global capitalism, especially by correctly identifying future trends before others do. We made ourselves useful to American-led capitalism in Southeast Asia and East Asia during the Cold War and, in the process, helped to transform ASEAN from a political grouping into an aspiring economic community. In the last three decades, Singapore correctly predicted the rise of China and was one of the first countries to share the know-how of economic development with China. We have reaped a lot of benefits from this first-mover advantage.

But I am afraid this advantage is now irrelevant. China is leading the region to become the centre of global capitalism. Global-Asia also means competitive pressures and realities, especially when the value chain of global production in the region diversifies even as the value chain reorients to centre on China. China’s One Belt One Road Initiative expresses this, with the many lines of economic flow being re-imagined and reorganised as starting from China and extending in different directions westwards, southwards and northwards.

We have to make ourselves useful again in this new Asian capitalism centred on China by fundamentally transforming our economy. As a small city-state nation, this also means transforming our culture and human capital, as well as our diplomatic relationships with the economic powers and interpersonal friendships between national leaders and citizens.

In the past 50 years, Singaporeans’ ability to speak English well has contributed to fostering our relationships with Western countries at the centre of global capitalism in the region. We have a new challenge today. There is a unique ethnic connection between Chinese Singaporeans and the Chinese in China due to ancestral and linguistic ties. But many people have observed that this kinship advantage is fading fast as China modernises.

I agree with Lee Yi Shyan, Member for East Coast Group Representation Constituency (GRC), that the learning of Mandarin should be part of the overall strategy of anchoring Singapore as a Global-Asia node, as it will help us to connect to the 1.3 billion Chinese. I would even go further to argue that we should also learn our dialects as well. In China, speaking Mandarin ‒ Putong Hua ‒ is just the official language in official dealings. If one would like to connect better to the Chinese, not just rationally, but also affectionately, then the language to use is the local dialect.

That said, we must also bear in mind that Singapore is, first and foremost, a multiracial and multilingual society. What does the rise of China as an economic and political superpower mean for a small state, such as Singapore? My view is that Singapore is, politically at heart, a Southeast Asian nation, defined by commercial trade winds, tropical hospitality, openness of the seas and the diversity of cultures. I believe that the ethnic politics and international frictions in our region will subside in time and ASEAN will soon become a more integrated community to protect our own interests against external dominance.

As a Chinese-educated Singaporean, I am delighted to see Chinese being used in many countries today, especially in places where they see the value of Chinese tourists and investment dollars. The Chinese language is, today, one of the most popular languages being learned by people all over the world. Chinese culture is fast becoming less a scholarly curiosity but more a tool of soft power today. This has helped perhaps some Chinese-educated Singaporeans feel that they are finally freed of the feeling of inferiority. They are excited that the so-called "Sick man of Asia" has now been fully awakened with the full force of 5,000 years of rich Chinese culture.

However, Sir, many overseas Chinese are also concerned about the intention of China, especially under one-party rule and as a superpower, in her policy and attitude towards weaker states. Will China seek to turn the tables on its experience of European imperialism and become an imperialist power itself?

This is not far-fetched if we consider that Japan did just that in the first half of the 20th Century. Will China revive its old tributary empire and use sharp power to compel small states to submit to its will and pay it the equivalent of tribute today? How China behaves will have serious implications on small states in the region like Singapore in the near future.

I am personally wary of the political ambitions of China as a Global-Asia superpower. I am worried that Singapore, if we are not careful and if we fail in our economic strategy to become a Global-Asia node, would become a pawn on the chessboard of great power games in Southeast Asia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully agree with the Minister for Finance that we must anchor Singapore as a Global-Asia node of technology, innovation and enterprise. There is a need to transform the Singapore industrial-era mindset and culture to make us relevant and useful to the future economy and contribute to the economic dynamism of the region. But besides focusing on economic opportunities, we should also have the new political scenario in mind while anchoring Singapore as a Global-Asia node. It is important that we see the political economy of the major shifts, instead of just the economic challenges and opportunities.

I appreciate the Government's vision statements and the articulation of how Singapore should strategically position itself in the new era. This is a forward-looking Budget to anchor Singapore firmly in the future and for the future.

Sir, the unfortunate thing about this Budget is that it is looking forward too hastily for future revenue streams by prematurely announcing the GST hike. This has become an unnecessary distraction from the vision articulated in this Budget, and as a real distraction causing the Government to lose its focus in getting buy-in for the vision because it has to explain the future GST hike instead. Do not let this opportunity to lead Singapore with this vision go to waste.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling.

2.15 pm

Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, the Government is transparent about what it sees on the horizon – that our spending needs will continue to increase due to healthcare expenditures for an ageing population and the need to renew infrastructure.

Some Members before me have spoken about how they wish more can be done for our seniors, about what more can be done to address inequality. We will have to match these needs with the resources that are needed to do so. That is the responsible thing to do. And that is why the Minister for Finance has announced the need to raise GST in the foreseeable future to be able to match this increasing expenditure needs.

In my speech, I would like to touch on how we grow our economy so that we have more resources, jobs and tax revenues from a more buoyant economy to meet our needs so that we will have more to address the various issues that Members have raised before me.

Second, I would also like to touch on how we ensure Government spending is used effectively and efficiently. This is so that resources collected from the public can be used to best address needs.

Mr Low Thia Khiang, who has spoken before me, spoke on the importance of leveraging ideas and new technology. I have a specific suggestion. We cannot grow in a vacuum. We need to have contact points into globally innovative cities as so to have global access to ideas and technology. The Minister for Finance and his team have spelt out their plans through the Global Innovation Alliance (GIA) and the ASEAN Innovation Network. I support the GIA and the ASEAN Innovation Network which are ways for us to be plugged into the ecosystem of ideas and new technologies.

We currently have many Singaporeans working and studying in the region, Singaporeans familiar with the venture capital and private equity circuits and Singaporean firms and their partners with investments in these cities. Apart from strengthening our bilingual and bicultural skills, I suggest we more deliberately build our networks and leverage them to sense-make and get a better grasp of emerging trends in Asia – open platforms to bring in various partners to widen our reach and understanding of new developments and establish linkages back into Singapore to provide more opportunities for businesses and partnerships.

Second, we should invest in priority areas which are central to our economy and which can also develop new adjacent avenues of growth. Our aviation and maritime industries today account for 10% of gross domestic product (GDP) and close to 170,000 jobs. Our mega investments in Changi Airport Terminal 5 and Tuas Megaport will continue to build on these strategic sectors. Our investments in these sectors can provide us with a strong platform to develop new avenues of growth if we continuously reassess what the most valued part of the sector is.

Data and the use of data, for instance, have emerged as a change agent for many industries and spawned new businesses and business models. For airports and ports, there is a lot of data from the travellers and trade that pass through our shores. Can this data be monetised? For instance, can we create our own global online travel company, given the amount of data we have about the preferences of travellers? We can also leverage data to market to travellers even after they have left our shores.

The Aviation and Maritime Transformation Programme described in this year's Budget thus builds on our capabilities in the airport and seaport. We should challenge ourselves to mine these sectors for new development opportunities.

Third, we should equip our people and our companies to take advantage of new opportunities. Continuous skills upgrading is thus critical. Skills upgrading allows workers at different stages of their work life to catch up on skills gaps which, if left unaddressed, could lead to long-term income gaps.

Skills upgrading and training have thus been a key initiative in successive Budget plans. I would like to suggest that to maximise outcomes from training, that we encourage company-based training as training initiated, envisaged and monitored by companies are most closely tied to market needs. Further, to ensure that our young Singaporeans are ready for the workforce, I would like to suggest that internships be made available to all youths above 18 years old from the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). Internships can provide youths a reality check on the skills needed for the workforce and complement the education they receive from IHLs.

Lastly, I support the Capability Transfer Programmes that are being piloted in certain specialised fields. This is used, for instance, to bring in experts in data analytics, machine learning and AI to facilitate the transfer of specialised knowledge to our local professionals in fintech. This is timely help for our companies and industries which are facing skillset gaps in certain important fields.

I would next like to discuss how we can ensure that Government spending is used effectively and efficiently.

Monies collected could have been left in our citizens' pockets, as their personal savings or for their own care for their families. I appreciate the value-for-money initiatives the Minister for Finance explained in his Budget Statement and acknowledge that, at 19% of GDP, our Government expenditures are prudent comparatively. However, I hope that Government agencies can constantly challenge themselves to manage costs while delivering good quality services. I have three micro-level implementation suggestions.

First, Government agencies should always strive to negotiate the best deal with suppliers when it comes to Government procurement for the benefit of taxpayers. For instance, with the need to build more healthcare facilities for an ageing population, there is scope for economies of scale via centralised procurement of hospital supplies, equipment and information technology (IT) software. And as the country steps up public renewal works, there is scope to demand discover what various agencies are procuring and if there are overlaps which allow more streamlined purchasing and better leverage.

A well-thought through centralised procurement process may go beyond simple demand aggregation to require standardisation of product needs across institutions. I hope that the Ministry of Finance (MOF) can look into this actively to ensure that we are not being charged different prices across different institutions. The Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) and the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) recently launched a certificate in procurement for public servants. I hope more will be trained through such a programme.

Second, I would like to stress the importance of assessing asset purchases via a lifecycle approach so that costs are managed over the entire lifecycle of the asset. This is especially important when we look at assets that have a long lifecycle, like lifts and rail parts, which are intended to last 25 to 30 years. Cash flow projections should take into account their maintenance costs and the lifespan of their replacement parts.

Given the challenges in projecting cash flows, inhouse expertise may be required to make a fair assessment. Government agencies, such as HDB, for instance, should consider having businesses, such as Essential Maintenance Service (EMS) develop lift expertise so that they are able to make a reasoned assessment on the costs of maintenance and replacement. In the meantime, greater care and scrutiny need to be put into purchase contracts to bind suppliers to their promises.

Third, I would like to see greater collaboration between the public, private and community sectors to configure resources to deliver optimal outcomes. The Finance Minister described the CNS. I have also seen how private operators, like Grab Shuttle Plus, complement our national transport infrastructure by introducing buses to Punggol during off-peak hours and serving residents who stay in less populous areas. And in Gambas, the community came together to buy and share umbrellas rather than spend public monies building a high sheltered linkway which may not provide good cover for residents from the rain.

We should be open and enthusiastic in encouraging different configurations of public, private, community contributions to deliver optimal outcomes for citizens while minimising the burden on public monies. At the end of the day, everybody wins.

Mr Speaker, no one likes higher taxes. If increased spending is here to stay because we have to take care of our elderly and renew our infrastructure, let us seize the opportunities to grow our economy and revenues and, at the same time, make every tax dollar count. Let us be united in our vision and apply our energies correctly. Only then, can we overcome the challenges we face and create a stronger, better Singapore. Mr Speaker, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, some Members expressed hope that more can be done to help the elderly and the disadvantaged. This Budget is precisely about how to allocate our resources optimally to create the biggest economic pie to support increasing expenditure, so that we can look after our senior citizens and the disadvantaged effectively. Therefore, I would like to discuss two points.

Firstly, to ensure that our economy continues to prosper, we should be bold in taking advantage of major long-term trends to develop new growth opportunities and strengthen the competitiveness of Singapore’s key industries. After decades of hard work, Singapore has made great strides in our ports and aviation industries. These were achieved by our forefathers who were bold to explore in the face of great uncertainty.

As the new generation of Singaporeans, if we do not pursue success boldly, we will become mediocre. As such, I support the Government’s plans to invest in Changi Airport Terminal 5 and the Tuas Mega Port. These demonstrate Singapore’s determination to stay ahead and constantly strive to be stronger and better.

Of course, the value chain of today is very different from 50 years ago. Even if you compare it to 10 years ago, there has been tremendous changes, with the Internet and big data creating disruptive impact on the transport industry.

As people say in Chinese ni shui xing zhou, bu jin ze tui (when you are sailing against the current, you must keep forging ahead, or you will be falling behind). We should keep up with the major long-term trends and actively pursue new business opportunities in the value chain, for example, investment opportunities in transportation big data, online travel services and more. Only by doing so can we stay ahead in the face of global competition.

To seize opportunities in the major long-term trends, we need to link Singapore up with international innovation hubs. This is why I support the GIA programme. In addition, I also suggest setting up an international network for Singaporeans under GIA, so that overseas Singaporeans can also contribute to our development. It is also important to nurture our local talent. We should ensure that both working adults who are currently employed and young people entering the labour market are better able to meet market demand, and that job training programmes are market-driven.

Secondly, with the growing Government expenditure, we must ensure efficiency in Government spending, such that every effort is made to ensure that every dollar contributed by taxpayers is well-spent. Government revenue comes from taxpayer’s hard-earned money. Therefore, to rein in costs, the Government not only needs a sound system, but it also needs to take a micro view to incentivise every public officer to save public funds. For example, based on the premise of procuring quality products and services, Government agencies should always strive to negotiate for the best deal with suppliers, while achieving economies of scale and reducing procurement costs through centralised procurement and product standardisation. At the same time, the Government should adopt a lifecycle approach in procurement cost evaluation and control long-term costs effectively. The Government can also work with community and private sectors to optimise the use of resources.

Mr Speaker, Sir, money is earned based on one’s ability and should be spent efficiently. I hope that we will not be trapped in a zero-sum game. With Government expenditure growing steadily, we must make greater efforts to save public funds, be more meticulous in planning expenditure, and constantly challenge ourselves to improve the efficiency of money spent.

In the face of increasing global competition, we must be bold enough to increase investment, embrace new trends and technologies and strive relentlessly to improve ourselves.

Mr Speaker: I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 2.50 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.30 pm until 2.50 pm.

Sitting resumed at 2.50 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

DEBATE ON BUDGET STATEMENT

Debate resumed.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, as I reflect on the Budget Statement, several key themes stand out. They are integrity, fiscal sustainability and vision.

Sir, our Government stated some time ago that it had sufficient funds to meet its public expenditure needs for the current term. That is why the GST increase of 2%, announced in the Budget Statement, does not need to come into effect during this term of Government. As the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues have signalled for some time, our taxes must rise to pay for our future public spending needs.

Sir, I am not aware of any government in any part of the world that announces GST increases three to four years ahead of time. Not only does this approach demonstrate our Government’s ability to plan for the long term, it also demonstrates, once again, its integrity. Our Government does what it says it will do. Our Government means what it says. And our Government keeps faith with Singaporeans whom it both represents and serves.

This is, Mr Speaker, Sir, only right and proper. It should and must always be the Singapore norm. But it is by no means the norm elsewhere. Singaporeans can be justly proud of their Government’s record of integrity, especially at a time when flip-flopping on policy decisions and policy positions is the order of the day in some countries.

Sir, the same integrity is demonstrated in the measures announced in the Budget to benefit Singaporeans. Our Government is fulfilling its role of always acting in the best long-term interests of Singaporeans. It is right that we invest in our children because they will form the core of our future. It is right that we take measures to help workers stay relevant. It is right that we take measures to respect and help our senior citizens who have contributed so much to making Singapore what it is today. It is right that we square up to and act to increase inclusivity by looking after those less fortunate to reduce income inequality and strengthen community cohesion.

It is also right, Mr Speaker, that public expenditure is governed by the principle of fiscal sustainability. Every citizen understands that, whether they are managing a household's accounts or those of a business. To paraphrase Charles Dickens’ character Mr Micawber of David Copperfield: "Monthly income $5,000, monthly expenditure $4,500, result happiness. Monthly income $5,000, monthly expenditure $5,500, result misery."

On another note, Sir, I am most encouraged by our Government’s proposed innovative approach to using our country’s Reserves to guarantee loans for large-scale infrastructure projects. This is eminently preferable to spending our Reserves and reducing the very source of net investment returns (NIR) which contribute so much to this country’s Budget revenue.

Utilising our Reserves as guarantees for loans to fund long-term, large-scale infrastructure projects is both innovative and wise. As the Minister stated in his announcement, this approach should enhance the Singapore Bond Market. The approach is also fairer to all Singaporeans as it spreads the burden of costs across the generations in an equitable manner.

Sir, let me now turn to the theme of vision. The Budget Statement demonstrated our Government’s commitment to sustaining a vibrant and innovative economy in two key ways. Firstly, by a range of measures to support our SMEs, which form the backbone of any country's economy. Secondly, by maintaining Singapore’s attractiveness to foreign direct investment (FDI) by keeping taxation competitive. Our SMEs and the FDI which the Economic Development Board (EDB) works tirelessly to attract and retain are two sides of the same coin. Our economy needs both to stay successful.

The focus on sustaining a vibrant and innovative economy is the vital component to ensuring our country’s goals are achieved and, indeed, to ensuring its continued survival. It is only with a vibrant and innovative economy that we can support and defend ourselves. It is only with a vibrant and innovative economy that the little red dot can continue to punch above its weight internationally. It is only with a vibrant and innovative economy that the Singapore passport allows visa-free entry to more countries than most other passports.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Singapore needs to benchmark itself not only against large developed economies as has been the practice to date but also against other global cities. If we are to do this, we would quickly discover that our rates of economic growth are less than other global cities. I am well aware that other cities do not need to incur big ticket items, such as defence, in their budgets.

However, Sir, for us to ultimately continuously punch above our weight, we need to compare ourselves with what other cities are doing. With this in mind, it becomes even more important that Singaporeans work together and find ever more visionary ways to grow our economy. The need for continual innovation becomes even more imperative.

Many people here and abroad have complemented Singapore on its ITMs. The amount of work which has gone into producing these ITMs is considerable and very impressive. However, how will they be implemented? My sense, from talking with businesses, is that there may well be a gap of understanding as to which ITM is relevant to them and what they should be doing. This is an opportunity for the Government and businesses to deepen their existing collaboration and roll out targeted, quality communication on ITM execution. The communication model could be that of the excellent quality of communication from MOF's team for this year’s Budget.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I contend that this House needs to build on the vision expressed in the Budget Statement about the impact of our ageing population. This is another vital component in sustaining all that Singaporeans and its Government have built since 1965.

Sir, I think this may well be the first year since Independence that the number of Singaporeans aged 65 and above is greater than the number of Singaporeans aged 15 and below. As the Minister said in his Budget Statement, by 2030, we will have 900,000 Singaporeans aged 65 and above. These facts are a cause for concern. They certainly are of concern for our SMEs which provide most jobs for Singaporeans and for those businesses which invest in Singapore and which also provide jobs for Singaporeans.

In closing, Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend the Minister for an integrated and strategic Budget which benefits Singaporeans and the economy of Singapore. I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Dr Teo Ho Pin.

2.58 pm

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Budget. I support the key thrust of the Budget which is about sustainability.

Sir, the key questions we have to ask ourselves are: first, how do we make our fiscal position sustainable so that the Government has a steady stream of revenue even while facing increased Government expenditure arising from both an ageing population and ageing infrastructure? Second, how should we support local firms to sustain and grow their businesses in order to provide better jobs and wages for Singaporeans? Third, how can we build a sustainable environment where Singaporeans can live, work and play?

First, fiscal sustainability. Sir, I support the proposed increase in GST to 9%. Doing so will provide a stable income for the Government to fund the increase in expenditure, particularly in the healthcare and security areas. However, more has to be done to help low-income Singaporeans cope with the potential increase in prices. As more Singaporeans are eating out these days, I propose that the permanent GST Voucher Scheme take into consideration the increase in cooked food and drink prices, especially in relation to serving sizes, when determining the quantum of assistance.

Second, sustaining business growth and providing jobs. Sir, as highlighted by the Finance Minister, there will be three major shifts affecting Singapore: first, a shift in global economic weight; second, a shift in the emergence of new technologies; and three, an increasing ageing population. All these shifts will pose immense challenges to our local businesses, especially the SMEs.

Sir, despite the introduction of many SME assistance schemes, SMEs have been slow in building up their capabilities. Many SMEs are still not coming forward to develop competitive edges and prepare for overseas business expansion. Many of them also do not understand how they can seize business opportunities under the 23 ITMs. I would urge the Government to step up its efforts to engage and help our SMEs more effectively.

Sir, in 2017, the North West Community Development Council (CDC) SME centre engaged 1,080 SMEs to provide information on various SME assistance schemes. Only 148 firms took up assistance schemes designed to upgrade their firms and staff. Many are reluctant to upgrade or expand their businesses. From the feedback gathered, while SMEs are keen on solutions, they are afraid of the process of adopting these changes. This trend is unhealthy as it affects the survival of our SMEs and results in wastage of resources through inefficient processes.

Sir, one of the key challenges faced by SMEs is the recruitment and retention of talent. I propose that the Wage Credit Scheme be extended to help SMEs retain staff by including performance and loyalty-based bonuses as part of the scheme.

Third, sustainable environment. Sir, I am pleased that this year’s Budget has placed emphasis on making Singapore a Smart, Green and Liveable city. As a global city with a compact built environment, it is crucial for all stakeholders of our society to adopt sustainable solutions to make Singapore an eco-friendly city.

Sir, there are four major contributors of greenhouse gases and particulate matter (PM)2.5 emissions in our built environment, namely, first, power plants; second, industries; third, transportation; and fourth, buildings.

I support the introduction of the carbon tax to encourage businesses to adopt cleaner technologies. This will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially from power plants and industries. However, the carbon tax may not be as effective in reducing emissions generated from transportation and buildings.

Sir, emissions from transportation and buildings constitute an estimated 16% of all emissions in Singapore. We must act fast and take bold steps to make our transportation and buildings eco-friendlier. As of 2017, we have about 160,000 goods vehicles and buses on Singapore roads. Many of these vehicles are not green-certified and emit PM2.5 which is detrimental to the health and well-being of Singaporeans.

Sir, this problem is further aggravated by heavy trucks that travel between Singapore and Malaysia. Many of these vehicles travel at night and in the early hours of the morning. Pollution is less visible during these hours and our enforcement officers may not be present at these hours to enforce air pollution controls.

Sir, we must adopt sustainable solutions to convert our fleet of goods vehicles and buses into green vehicles. As goods vehicles and buses are costly to replace or upgrade, the Government can consider providing low interest loans and subsidies to accelerate the replacement of our existing fleet of heavy vehicles.

Sir, moving on to buildings, we have an estimated 5,000 high-rise buildings and skyscrapers in Singapore and over 5,000 other buildings and amenities. Many of these buildings date back to the 1970s and are not equipped with eco-friendly features. Only about 25% of our buildings, that is, about 2,400 buildings, are certified green under the Building and Construction Authority's (BCA's) Green Mark Scheme.

To further expedite the greening of our buildings, I propose that BCA compile best practices on green building designs, mechanical and electrical installations, interior fittings and maintainable designs in order to guide developers, consultants, contractors and facilities managers. These best practices should also be included as part of the Green Mark Scheme.

Buildings, especially air-conditioned ones, consume large amounts of energy and contribute significantly to the overall greenhouse gas emissions. In Singapore, our hot and humid climate encourages more people to spend more time indoors in air-conditioned places, such as offices, shopping centres, restaurants. More HDB flat owners are also installing air-conditioners in their flats. The proliferation of air-conditioners will undoubtedly increase energy demand and add to emissions.

To ensure the more efficient and prudent use of air-conditioning, we should encourage the installation of energy monitoring systems that will help building owners to track their electricity consumption and reduce wastages. An example of such a system is the Home Energy Management System (HEMS) in Japan, which allows for the control of electrical appliances, such as air-conditioners and lights, to reach optimal energy efficiency. The Energy Conservation Center Japan cites an 11% reduction in energy usage in facilities equipped with HEMS after a 12-month study.

To fight climate change, we need to expedite the adoption of renewable energy sources, such as solar energy. HDB has started the installation of solar panels on HDB rooftops. However, the progress is slow due to various financing constraints and pricing problems when solar energy is sold to PowerGrid. I hope the Ministry will address these problems and scale up the installation of solar panels in all high-rise buildings so as to build more solar energy banks.

Sir, to further enhance sustainability in our built environment, we need to take a multi-pronged approach to engage all stakeholders to adopt Green Living practices. We can learn from many Japanese cities which have embarked on various successful eco-sustainability policies, incentives and education. In 2008, Japan selected 13 cities under the FutureCity Initiative to transform Japan into a low-carbon society. These are some examples of projects undertaken by the various cities.

First, Toyota city has encouraged the use of eco-friendly cars through programmes which assist buyers in purchasing such vehicles.

Two, Kyoto has tapped into its budget to incentivise schools, neighbourhood businesses and organisations to become eco-friendlier. It has integrated eco-friendliness as part of its cultural identity under the "Do You Kyoto" project. In addition, Kyoto also subsidises households which utilise solar energy. As of 2013, over 7,000 households have taken up the subsidy programme, making a seven-time increase over five years.

Three, Yokohama provides economic incentives, such as lower property taxes for houses, if they meet certain energy-efficiency standards.

Four, Chiyoda has developed measures for both new and existing buildings to become eco-friendlier and provide assistance in the form of technical support under its "Greenstock" Strategy.

Many Japanese cities have also adopted the Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) to measure eco-friendliness. CASBEE may be used to assess eco-friendliness at various scales, ranging from individual buildings to entire cities. Sir, studying CASBEE and the method by which it evaluates and rates the environmental performance of buildings and subsequently adopting it for use in Singapore may be of value in allowing us to become a Greener city.

Sir, over the last 10 years, North West CDC has been championing many green programmes to promote a green living lifestyle among our residents. We have worked with our people, public and private (3P) partners to organise resource conservation projects, recycling and climate change education programmes to promote environmental ownership. I would urge the Government to provide more funding support to the community to champion green projects.

Sir, this year’s Budget is a good and strategic Budget. I hope that more initiatives to make Singapore an eco-friendlier nation could be included within the Budget to make Singapore a sustainable green city.

Mr Speaker: Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin.

3.11 pm

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, to prepare for this speech, I talked to young Singaporeans from 18 to 35 years old, students as well as young millennials in our workforce, about what was their own sensing of their future in our country and what they most cared about our country getting right.

Their answers were varied, fresh and often very surprising. But I admit that it can be overwhelming to try to make sense of the conflicting forest of everyone’s different answers to the “How” and “What” questions about our economy.

How should we encourage innovation or tackle inequality? What is the best way to manage our Reserves or the best tax system for us? I find that the questions I keep circling back to – the ones that give me some compass of clear direction to help me navigate my own uncertainty and confusion – are always the questions of "Who" and "Why".

Why do we care about encouraging innovation? Or give a damn about inequality? Why must we keep such high Reserves? Who do our Reserves or tax system serve? And at the heart of it all, who are we? Who is not part of our "we"? Who do we most want to be?

Taking the time to slow down from our usual pace in Parliament to dwell on questions of purpose and identity may seem frivolous. But I suggest to Members, they are the most crucial questions. Because they bring us back into a space of choosing from what matters most to us.

I have found that whether we are debating about how we should spend our own personal dollars or the dollars of our nation, the core question we must keep returning back to is, "What is the meaning we care to make with all our money in the first place?" Our greatest fear should not be of failure but of success at things in life that we realise did not really matter to us at all.

So, I fully support the Finance Minister's wonderful reflection in his speech that "a strong economy is not an end in itself; it is a means to build a better home and provide a better quality of life for all our people.” If our economy is a means to an end, then should we not discuss every year at Budget whether we as a people still share the same end-goals?

In my first Budget speech in 2015, I shared my hope that, "Our country spent the first 50 years of our history getting rich. I would love to see us spend our next 50 years charting our course towards becoming truly wealthy." My desire still stands.

So, what is this vision of true wealth that we are longing for at the end of all our days of economic hustling? With each year, do we know and do we care to know whether we are moving closer to or further away from that end?

I find that one visionary end-state still resonates for most young Singaporeans across different beliefs and backgrounds and, that is, the one that was still that written down more than half a century ago which invited us to imagine that there will be a day when "We", the citizens of Singapore would find ourselves as one united people; able to regard one another less by race, language or religion; and more as fellow builders of a democracy, that was based on justice and equality. And we would be happy. Truly, surprisingly, profoundly happy. Because we had somehow learnt that this life we got to live was never about creating prosperity and progress for its own sake, or for the sake of bettering only ourselves, but for the sake of bettering others alongside because we finally believed we were better together – rather than apart – as a nation.

Sir, the pledge represents our dream of a Singapore as it should be. It is our North Star, an ambitious promise we ask every young student to spend each morning putting their hand on the heart and swear that we will do whatever it takes and take on whatever cost to bring to life this vision.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

And yet, as each young student ages into a young working professional, many of them feel their idealism for themselves and for the country being challenged at different levels of the Singapore system.

Along the line, we sense that the Singapore way is more like a tense high-wire act where we must learn to calibrate our ideals of communitarianism, democracy and egalitarianism on one end with the realities of individualism, authoritarianism and elitism on the other end.

So far, our country has managed to advance forward without falling off the line. And even our critics concede that that is no small feat. But whether our performance has been a gracefully balanced act or one ungracefully tilted too much towards pragmatism has been the fodder of much debate.

I have heard it said jokingly that pragmatism is our official religion. And you know it is certainly part of our cultural DNA when you can hear it, not just in the voice of our parents and our policymakers, but in ourselves and our children.

The decision to raise GST taxes to 9% has been justified as a pragmatic decision in the face of growing national needs in the future. And the decision to not raise our Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) beyond the 50% mark has also been justified as a pragmatic decision for the sake of signalling to currency markets the strength of our Singapore dollar. And the decision to not implement capital gains tax or raise more wealth taxes as yet another alternative has also been justified as a pragmatic decision to maintain our attractiveness as a wealth management hub.

And every tilt towards the side of pragmatism is simultaneously a tilt away from the side of our ideals. And I want to stress I do not presume pragmatism to be bad and idealism to be good. Every healthy individual learns to hold both options in tension within their mental construct and make their hard choices.

But I believe our idealistic young professionals and students who make up both our current and future tax base have the right to question us. When will it ever be the right time to tilt our balance just a little more towards our ideals rather than always towards what is pragmatic? And, if not now, while we have substantial surpluses, then when? If not later, then are we saying never?

I came across an article online called "The Limits of Ideology: Lessons from Singapore" by an American CEO called Margaret Heffernan. She concluded her article like this – "What Singapore holds in reserve…is an asset western leaders would give their eye teeth for: a national surplus accrued over many years of fastidious economic management. How will this wealth be used? And while western leaders use insolvency as a perennial alibi for their failure to make coherent strategic choices, Singapore's Government has the money and the power to effect real change. And should it fail to do so… no politicians in Singapore will be able to claim they did not see their chance. If, with the freedom to spend that most western leaders lack, Singapore cannot address its problems, then the principles it espouses will be discredited for good." And I get it. She is really cutting, but I can concede that she has a point.

Thanks to the prudence of our forefathers, we, of all nations, indeed, have a unique chance right here and right now, to set an example once more to the world of how a small nation can effect real change, impacting real people in real time. And this substantial gift is given unto us for a reason and maybe it holds a meaning larger than our present imagination.

So, we have quite a First World problem on our hands. Should we spend more to help the people we have with us today or store more so we can help the people of tomorrow?

And it is a hard choice, because both are equally good choices. But it is healthy to ask ourselves if we notice that we are in the habit of overestimating for the future. Could we also be underestimating what we can do in the present? Every reasonable Singaporean believes in protecting our Reserves, and I am totally not supportive of any willful call to squander this once-in-a-lifetime inheritance on populist promises and things that would not last.

So, I agree with the Finance Minister's argument that using 100% of NIR is not a good idea because "the principal sum of Reserves will stagnate over time and the NIRC, as a share of GDP, will consequently fall as our economy grows".

But I can also appreciate economist Donald Low's perspective that "the current rule of spending only up to 50% of NIR means that the Reserves are still growing quite considerably every year… and just because 100% is not prudent does not mean 50% is right either." We would still be adding to the principal of the Reserves, even if it was at 60%. The choice is really about whether we believe in growing our Reserves faster or slower.

I want to admit I am a terrible economics student, so I do need help in making sense of all of these. I struggled to understand the International Monetary Fund's (IMF's) surveillance of member states' foreign exchange reserves adequacy because in IMF's assessment, it says we are excessively prudent. IMF's opinion is that a good enough amount of reserves would be 27% of our GDP or S$113 billion. I do not know the size of our Reserves but I read that the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') foreign exchange reserves alone are around S$369 billion or 88% of GDP. So, that is about three times over IMF's recommendation.

And I want to stress again that I am not assuming that IMF is right and the Government is wrong. I am certainly not saying let us just take whatever a foreign institution says as gospel truth because I am sure as heck I do not know enough to make any kind of proper assessment.

I think it is helpful for the Government to provide a thoughtful and easy to understand response to the IMF's assessment because it does open up an important and deeply profound question for us to consider. How much then is enough for us? What is this final number we need in our Reserves that will make us feel complete and secure? And who would we be prepared to re-examine that number for?

When we build up our own family's savings, how do we decide when is a good time to tap into it to spend on our children now, versus storing it up for them to use for their future children? And we might say, well, that really depends on how urgent are the needs of my children now, is it not? Is it life or death? Is there a golden opportunity they need to seize?

We would probably take out a significant percentage of the investment returns of our own savings – while prudently protecting a baseline sum, of course – in a heartbeat if we believed doing so would make a significant and immediate difference to the well-being of our children in the present, particularly if it would help save their life, because no point saving for their future if they die in the present, right? It is human to be much more liberal when it comes to spending on our own children and much more conservative when we choose how to spend on other people's children.

I deeply admire the Government’s devotion to long-term strategic over-planning and I get the deep anxieties we have around under-planning. I appreciate that we cannot afford to get the mathematics wrong, but we cannot afford to get the meaning under the mathematics wrong either, because people do not listen to mathematics, they listen to meaning.

If we hope to galvanise the support of the young idealists who make up our future tax base, we have to give them a braver and broader vision that warrants the bigness of our Reserves. Otherwise, they can mistake it to be a story that is just about growth of Reserves for growth's sake. So, I hope that the Government can help us understand what is the real story better.

Inequality is a deeply emotional issue for many young Singaporeans and I dare say it is one of the biggest issues they care about. So, now is the time to really go talk to the next generation of Singapore taxpayers before 2021 hits, and to listen in to what really matters to them.

A sociologist, Teo You Yenn's book, "This Is What Inequality Looks Like” is sold out and I have seen dog-eared copies already making their rounds among thoughtful young Singaporeans and some of them are buying one copy to keep and another to loan. Because what she is saying in there about a need to deal with inequality through a systemic lens is resonating and connecting with them. The Straits Times' journalist Chua Mui Hoong cited it in her own article, "Inequality is a threat – name it and face it", recommending it as a must-read for every politician and civil servant.

I am really glad that the Prime Minister himself is making inequality a "critical" issue to look at. In his written response to a Parliamentary Question this month, he said, "If we fail – if widening income inequalities result in a rigid and stratified social system, with each class ignoring the others or pursuing its interests at the expense of others – our politics will turn vicious, our society will fracture and our nation will wither."

A recent Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) study on Social Capital in Singapore concluded that the sharpest social divisions here may no longer be race or religion, but class.

Our youths who have lived in public housing, gone to neighbourhood schools and depended on public transport all their lives will say that they did not need an official study to tell them what they have seen for a long time. They can sense-make the class differences in everyday, ordinary interactions because it is the difference they feel at the doorway between the teenager who gets to order from Foodpanda and the teenager who rides through the rain to deliver it to him. It is the difference felt by the young intern every lunchtime when she struggles over how to tell her colleagues that she has a very different idea from all of them about what is an affordable place to dine.

Even some of our more privileged youths are not comfortable with the growing divide either and they are driven to do something different about it through the system. They are well-acquainted with how money can buy through tuition classes, college prep coaches, yearly overseas trips and diverse life experiences for someone else in their generation who is taking that same national examination, fighting for that same national trophy and going for the same interviews that they are. They, too, want to jailbreak this pragmatic arms race of "every man for himself" meritocracy.

The Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC), Eddie Teo, made a speech in 2015 where he shared his insights from his yearly interviews with the 350 young people vying for scholarships each year. He said of these potential future public sector leaders that they "think critically and question what is happening in Singapore…our socioeconomic disparities, our educational policy and system, and our political environment…And when they worry about social inequality and the lack of social mobility, some may have already moved away from one cardinal belief that our founding fathers had, that social welfare should be discouraged because it breeds a poor work ethic and a dependence on Government handouts….they believe that the Government should do more for the poor because they feel it is just."

So, the young recognise the goodness of ad hoc help like SG Bonus, but they are also clear that such help is short-lived and unlikely to create deep satisfaction. The lower-income youths welcome the $300 but they know how fast it disappears in a few bill payments. So, no once-off voucher can truly soothe the blow of a GST increase that hits them with every transaction on a day-to-day basis. And meanwhile, they know, in the land of the rich, many treat the $100 as just chump change.

For the short-term and disproportionate impact that they have, ad hoc packages are not cheap. Seven hundred million dollars is a substantial sum that could have gone into, say, a Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) programme that focuses on making a more significant, long-term difference. So, are our well-intended ad hoc transfers drawing resources and attention away from dealing with challenges in a more sustained and structured manner?

Every year, after the GCE "A" level results, the media loves highlighting stories of kids who excelled in their examinations despite the most challenging of circumstances. This year, I came across a story of a 19-year-old Singaporean girl who grew up under an alcoholic Singaporean father who constantly abused her Indonesian mother. And in primary school, she witnessed her desperate mother attempting suicide. Her parents divorced and her mother had to take care of her and her brother on a cleaner's salary of less than $1,000, the bulk of which went into paying rental for a two-room flat. This girl lived on a daily allowance of $2 and survived on loaves of bread and treats from friends. She studied in school all the time so she could help her mother save on electricity bills.

She recounted that the temptation to join gangs was always present, but she had the presence of mind to ask herself, "Is that what I really want to be in the future, and is this how I want to define myself?" With the help of a resilient and loving mother, supportive friends and teachers, she ended up not just excelling at the GCE "A" levels, but she even joined Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS), interned at MSF, did volunteer work and reconciled with her father. This girl is amazing, she is phenomenal and she is now looking for a way to fund her university studies.

I share her story to have us first consider, not just her amazing achievement but her mom's achievement as well as an individual beating the odds, but second, I would have us to consider all the multiple points in her story where we would have wanted to know whether the system did come alongside to aid this mother and child's heroic journey.

Why is it that we recognise this girl's story as an exceptional story, rather than the norm? And do we want stories like hers to be more of a norm? And if we do, what are we prepared to do at a systemic level?

Can we believe there are actually more children out there who are capable of having a story like hers if we choose to believe in them and invest more systemic state support to care for parents and children who do not quite fit into our checkboxes of assumed indicators of future success?

Do we believe that the child growing up in the worst circumstances has just as much to offer our country as the child who grew up in the best? I have met children growing up in rental flats with potential to live up very big dreams, a girl whose ambition is to become a criminal lawyer, an articulate boy who learnt public speaking because he binge-watched Technology, Entertainment and Design (TED) videos. I met a neighbourhood school teenager who floored me with his serious conviction that someday he will enter Parliament to be, in his own words, "a voice for the voiceless".

They are there. Singaporean children of low-income moms, single moms, and foreign moms. They are all our children and they and their mothers are part of the "We" that we are pledged to serve. So, give them the housing and the education and the possibility of rising into positions of power so that they, too, can play their part in our country's success story.

We are a nation struggling with infertility. Why should we not take any and every child born into Singapore with equal honour and belief and blessing? Our young Singaporeans get it that we are a small and vulnerable nation and they get it that we need a monstrous amount of money just in case a perfect storm of horrors truly hit – and they are so many horrors out there: sea levels rising, global economy tumbling, silver tsunami, total fertility rate flatlines. I mean, they get it; they have heard it.

We are a nation so well-versed with fears – a motivating force. We have come very far in surviving as a country by not ignoring our fears. But it is not the only emotion worth listening into. Fear alone cannot bring us past that space of survival into a space of true thriving.

When I live-poll young people in junior colleges (JCs), polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs) about what is that one word they associate with the future of Singapore, do you know what word consistently emerges as the biggest on their word cloud? It is the word "uncertain".

So, yes, I think we have succeeded in engraining in them the message of our vulnerabilities. They got it. And the emotion of fear, while useful, can become uninspiring and paralysing as a mood.

Our youths are hungry for a new kind of certainty. That certainty can only come from the promise of a new story, a story of a "Who" and a "Why" that is bigger than the sum of all of our fears about "What's" and "How's". Our youths need to hear the greater story of all the things that we want to do for love, not just fear. And the story needs to come straight from the heart of every leader in the land about all of the meaning that money can buy, not just for ourselves, but for one another.

At some point, we have to decide when to stop just operating in fear that the bottom will fall out of Our Singapore Story.

There is a time for fear, and there also is a time for courage ‒ courage born from the fire of fighting for our ideals ‒ to simply say, in the face of fear, that "That is enough. We have enough. We are enough. And it is time to let more of us have enough, too." And in that space of sufficiency, we shall find our satisfaction.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Kuik, you have one more minute.

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin: I want to say that I see the heart of the Minister for Finance for the people. I believe in his openness to find new ways forward and I trust his courage to make hard choices. So, my hope is that he and this Government can work together with a new generation of idealists and pragmatists to help them dream of a better future that they will all be so very proud to call their own.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong.

Ms Chia Yong Yong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Budget 2018 is about building for the next decade without limiting our planning for the future. It is, therefore, apt that Budget 2018 is also an inclusive Budget and, perhaps more than any other, I will remember this Budget as one in which the Minister for Finance named VWOs as one of the stakeholders, alongside workers, businesses, the Government and citizens, to build a better Singapore for everyone. I thank the Minister of Finance for his recognition of the role of VWOs in nation-building, not just as recipients of charity and public funds.

Here, I declare my interest as the President of the Society for the Physically Disabled (SPD) and a Board Member of SgEnable.

So, how do I see the role of VWOs in nation-building? It lies in social cohesion. I liken this to a family, where one parent looks after the welfare of the family and keeps the house in order, while the other parent brings home the dough.

VWOs, by virtue of their being on the ground, are best placed to increase and strengthen intra-community networks and bonding. We must, therefore, strategically develop this role, collaborate with grassroots organisations. We can, and we should, build the kampung spirit, the neighbourhood care network. It is part of civil defence. How tragic it would be if a person were to perish in a natural disaster because the neighbours did not know he had existed. I do not need to say any more. Is this the kind of neighbourhood that we live in? It has been a few years since we popularised the term "kampung spirit". Let us step up to the plate and just do it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, at this juncture, I wish to refer to the speech made by my hon colleague, Assoc Prof Randolph Tan, in yesterday's debate, wherein he drew the attention of the House to the amount and increases in the Budget on social development spending. From the perspective of the social service sector, such social development spending is overdue. It is welcomed. In the days of nation-building and consolidation, social development spending was way below that of other Ministries. But this has changed. The Government has recognised the importance of building up the vulnerable and weak segments within our society. Hence, the increased spending. We are still playing catch up. Money is still not enough.

But having said that, I agree with the hon Member that we need to be prudent in our spending. The money has to come from somewhere. Hence, I again advocate for the need for the social service sector to be sustainable, to generate their own revenue without compromising their mission to serve the disadvantaged and the vulnerable, to reduce their reliance on public funding. So, I still request for resources, but not to be invested into a black hole. I request for resources to invest in capability-building to achieve sustainability in the long term. It remains my dream that, one day, charities will not depend on charity.

Mr Deputy Speaker, nation-building is both a privilege and a responsibility of all stakeholders. The same set of challenges facing us, as the Minister for Finance says, can be turned into opportunities for us. But it seems to me that the four strategies laid out in the Budget will not work if we are only implementing the schemes, if we are only encouraging take-up by individuals and organisations.

We need to radically change our mindsets and world views. We need to change the way we do things. In the face of disruption, we must be prepared to disrupt the way we do things, disrupt our own comfort zones.

Let me refer to the three key enablers referred to by the Minister for Finance as laying the foundation for all ITMs: pervasive innovation, deep capabilities and strong partnerships. These are terminologies not alien to us, having been frequently spoken of and discoursed. Unfortunately, familiarity sometimes has a way of immunising us against the true import of the terms.

When we talk about innovation, we frequently think in terms of acquisition and effective, efficient use of technology. But innovation is more than that. I use my mobile phone without a clue as to what happens inside in cyberspace and, where applicable, even in the virtual world. My purchase of a mobile phone, and any proficiency – which I do not claim I have – in using the phone and the downloaded apps, do not make me innovative. Embracing change, such as upgrading to the latest version, does not make me innovative. Now, if I can tweak my mobile phone and change it into a loudhailer, that might be innovation, but it might also explode in my face.

So, what is innovation? It is when I embark on a quest for the better, for the best, when I say nothing is impossible, when I dare to dream, when I dare to fail, then I might – I might – innovate. And yet, I might not, for I might fail.

It is imperative that we develop this psyche. If we cannot, whether as businesses or individuals, we will have neither the courage nor the drive to innovate. We will be nothing more than buyers and users of technology, machines and skills. We will be nothing more than persons attending training courses. The Government schemes will be tapped upon for expenditure, but we will not achieve our aim of fostering pervasive innovation throughout our economy.

Sir, this mindset change must happen at every level in every age group and every segment of our community. But we can also catalyse such change upstream, through education.

MOE has done good work. It has continued to review its curriculum and pedagogy to prepare future-ready leaders. Hence, I have a few suggestions which I hope MOE will consider.

Despite living in Industrial 4.0, our schools continue to certify competencies relevant to models of earlier industrial economies. While basic subjects remain important, I submit we should review our curriculum and make structural changes to our education landscape.

Before I go further, Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to talk about Deepmind's AlphaGo. AlphaGo is not just a computer game of Go. It is a programme that defeated the reigning three-time European champion, Mr Fan Hui, in October 2015 in a 5-0 win and, just last year, it defeated the legendary grandmaster Mr Lee Sedol, winner of 18 world titles and widely considered to be the greatest player of the past decade. It was a 4-1 victory. AlphaGo earns a ninth-Dan professional ranking that is the highest certification ever for a Go player, a computer programme getting a ranking over a human being.

Now, there is AlphaGo Zero. Unlike AlphaGo, AlphaGo Zero did not learn to play Go using human amateur and professional games. It learnt to play Go simply by playing games against itself, starting from completely random play. It is now arguably the strongest player of all time.

Just a game of Go – really? It gives us a glimpse into what world we are living in, what world our children will live in. Think of our children facing AI in their lives, careers and challenges.

We communicate with human beings in human languages; our children will need to communicate with machines in their languages. We need doctors when our bodily functions are compromised; we need machine physicians to intervene and fix machines when functions have been compromised. We apply human psychology in interactions with one another; our children will need to understand the psychology of machines.

Our children facing AI. Language, physiology, psychology – I use words hitherto applied to human beings. Could it be that, in the world to come, there may be little differentiation?

Human intelligence versus AI. Human psychology versus the psychology of machines. How can we, our young people, live, thrive and harness AI in such a world which is no longer science fiction?

Schools, ITEs and IHLs should, therefore, ensure that every student knows some machine basics, with differentiated routes for deeper learning. In addition, courses, in general, may be restructured to allow differentiated exits into other courses, just as we currently allow differentiated entries into schools, institutions of learning and courses. This could potentially broaden the skillsets and perspectives of our students.

With industrial 4.0, we need more than academic competencies. We need to nurture from young the appetite for risk, the comfort level for problems, the courage to fall and to stand again.

In line with curriculum change, therefore, we must effect environmental change. The environment in which children cram or are hothoused for better grades should be changed to a "push-frontier" environment, in which children challenge one another by creating problems and by devising solutions to those problems, an environment in which children are challenged with different risk permutations and are allowed to grapple with defective or inadequate responses, simulations of real-life scenarios in which they analyse, brainstorm, role play and make judgement calls. Instead of clearly defined experiments within each subject, students could be challenged to use a combination of their knowledge and skills across subjects to achieve certain outcomes.

A push frontier environment will encourage creative thinking, the ability to conceptualise problems, create problems, solve problems, and live with problems. It will build confidence and the courage to be different. The courage to create will shape a different world view, a different view of success and failure.

To be sustainable, this environment must be housed in the school. I note the already heavy commitment of students. May I suggest that schools convert to full-day schools, in which all the homework is done and completed within school hours. No outside school homework. With time and resources allocated for push frontier practicals, housing push frontier environment in school and converting schools to full-day sessions, have another advantage: it enables the levelling of the playing field among students.

The Government has done much to try to level the playing field. But the fact remains that, all things being equal, children from more advantaged backgrounds will have access to more enrichment and tuition classes, and, when assessed on the current academic models, outperform their peers. As long as this situation persists, we run the risk of not harnessing the potential of all our young people.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, every school is a good school. But not every home is equal. The current system has been abused such that inequity continues to be perpetuated and deepened.

A full-day school can be a good tool to eliminate a part of that inequity. We have children study together, grow together, spend time together ‒ greater opportunity to level up, greater opportunity to bond. When they go home, parents should be encouraged to reduce reliance on external contractors in providing additional teaching and hothousing and use the time for family bonding.

All this requires a mindset change. We require a change in the way we define success and failure. The Chinese have a saying,行行出状元, meaning there are top scholars from every trade. I had previously used this to encourage those who did not perform academically. I do not anymore.

To my mind, it connotes that one is only valued if one is at the top of one’s trade. I disagree. Everyone is important, not just those at the top. I am not encouraging sloppy or irresponsible performance. But I am saying that everyone is to be valued, regardless of whether you are at the top or at the bottom. Each time we get into the car, we put our lives in the hands of the last mechanic who serviced it. Most of us do not need a mechanic who is top of his trade. We just need one who is competent and responsible.

We should also value "failure" as an alternative outcome. Penicillin may not have been discovered but for a messed-up experience on something else. Of course, Dr Fleming was not the only one to be credited. The rest of the team were hardly to be known as 状 元..

We should also re-examine scholarship criteria used in Government, commercial and IHL scholarships. What criteria qualities do we want in our future leaders? Academic and extracurricular performance? Responsibility, courage, risk-taking, the ability to fall and stand again? How would we view? Are we prepared to grant a scholarship to a student with a B-score, in place of one with straight As? If the first student had scored his Bs because he had to overcome an illness, or because he had to work to supplement his family income, or because he had to care for a sickly parent or a sibling, are we prepared to have scholarships for students on the basis of courage and risk-taking?

Unless we review our scholarship criteria, I submit we may not have, and we would be hard put to find leaders that we will need in the age to come.

Sir, let me now move on to developing the Singaporean Core. I welcome the measures in Budget 2018 and, in particular, await more information regarding the Capability Transfer Programme. I would like to know how we will measure the transfer of skills and knowledge to local workers. In addition to the Capability Transfer Programme, perhaps whether the Government also consider that Employment and S Pass holders may be required to train those under their reporting lines.

In relation to the forging of strong partnerships, can I request that we take a long hard look at how we now attract foreign companies to Singapore? Despite our success in the five decades, it could be timely for us to review our policies so that foreign companies which set up businesses in Singapore to take advantage of the various financial privileges and incentives, will leave an enduring legacy and enduring positive impact when they cease to operate in Singapore?

I urge the Government to consider implementing a systematic, targeted, evaluated system to transfer knowledge and skills to Singaporean businesses and workers. Key performance indicators (KPIs) of officers should, therefore, not be how many partnerships have been forged, but how the terms of such partnerships have been negotiated to achieve win-win for both parties, as well as the impact of implementation of such terms.

We could consider a progressive model of ensuring that the right to the grant of privileges or to continue to enjoy such privileges is reciprocated by an increase in the transfer of knowledge and skills to employees and local enterprises. We could require vigilance in systematic and structured training and transfer of such skills to local employees and enterprises. Measurables could include an increase in local hires for higher positions, an increase in the number of local employees trained and promoted from year zero, and year-on-year.

Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a few short words about migrant workers. Migrant workers could range from Work Permit holders to senior executives. Singapore has benefited from open doors. We have never been xenophobic, and despite vociferous noises from certain quarters, we must never be. Our forefathers came from their homelands. Singapore’s shores welcomed them. Some of our friends returned to their homelands, but our forefathers stayed on. We are the children of migrant workers.

Today, our children and loved ones work and live overseas as migrant workers. We hope for them, our children and loved ones, to be cared for and respected in those communities, and we hope for them to do well. Let us then be hospitable to migrant workers in our midst and hope that they, too, will do well.

And to our migrant worker friends, you are our guests. Please respect our culture, our rules and even our accent. Whether you eat or drink, cross the road or cycle, please respect our culture, please respect our rules.

There are many among us who have carried themselves honourably and they are our shining examples. They are our good friends. And we are confident that with mutual respect, together, we can achieve a win-win for all.

3.50 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Chia, you have one more minute.

Ms Chia Yong Yong: Thank you, Sir. In conclusion, in order for Budget 2018 to succeed, we must begin to think differently – a quest, a thirst, with something bigger and better, a mind unafraid to dream, a heart unafraid to fail. An aim around us, hearts big enough to accept someone who has failed, minds broad enough to see alternatives, rather than failure.

No one can change us, only ourselves. The Government may pave the way for us, but how we take that road and where we find our destination are up to us. Let us take this journey together as Singaporeans. We will support one another. We must. We will celebrate and sorrow together. We will fall, but we will lift one another up. Our forefathers succeeded against all odds. So will we. We will succeed in honour of their memory, we would succeed for ourselves, and we would succeed for our children. Because with the Singapore spirit, we will triumph. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Tan, do you have a clarification for Ms Chia?

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to raise a clarification for Ms Kuik Shiao Yin.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Please do so.

Dr Tan Wu Meng: Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened with great interest to Ms Kuik's speech and she mentioned that some economists were citing an IMF recommendation relating to Singapore's Reserves. From what I understand of social media, I was wondering if she is referring to the IMF's June 2016 Guidance Note on the Assessment of Reserve Adequacy, please.

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin: Yes, that is the one.

Dr Tan Wu Meng: Mr Deputy Speaker, I happened to have seen this online over the weekend as well and, it being a part of some serious-minded commentaries, I took some time to read it, even though there is no SkillsFuture Credit involved. I noted that on page 6 of the report, it mentioned that foreign assets in the form of reserves can form an important part of a country's savings to ensure intergenerational equity; and secondly, that in a later part of the report, it also mentioned on page 22 that the recommended ratio of 20% of broad money M2 is in relation to capital flight risks. As far as I understand it, not being an economist myself, nowhere in the report does it mention protection against currency speculation and other forms of stress which may subject a country's reserves to.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So, what is your clarification, Dr Tan?

Dr Tan Wu Meng: My clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that I am not sure, at least speaking as a lay person, how Ms Kuik's speech in mentioning the IMF and Singapore's Reserves lead to the recommended conclusion that we might not be maintaining the Reserves as much as we should?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Kuik, would you want to respond?

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin: I have no idea what the Member is asking. So, could the Member clarify that again? I am sorry, it is me. I could not hear what he wanted to ask.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Tan.

Dr Tan Wu Meng: Or alternatively, it might be just me because I fully acknowledge that, like Ms Kuik, I am also not trained as an economist. As an interested lay person, I am trying to understand the argument better. But would Ms Kuik agree that maybe we shall leave it more to the expert folk to educate both of us on this issue?

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin: I think in the speech, I said quite clearly I was a terrible economics student and I do not really know much. I really would appreciate the Government's clear and easy-to-understand response to that because I did not know how to make sense of it.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Chia, you are an economics student? Do you want to raise a clarification?

Ms Chia Yong Yong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You would not want to know my economics grade! But I do have a clarification. I do not know whether, on a Point of Order, it is proper for me to ask. I do not direct it to any particular Member, but to various Members who spoke largely about equality or inequality within our community. Am I permitted to seek the clarification?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Chia, you can seek a clarification if you are asking someone to clarify. But if you are asking the general House, no one would want to answer you.

Ms Chia Yong Yong: Thank you, Sir. If I may ask the hon Member, Ms Kuik, and if I recall correctly, also Ms Sylvia Lim, I think there had been much discourse on inequality in our community. I am wondering whether the hon Members were thinking of inequality or inequity. Are they thinking about the Government or the society not having taken enough measures to make sure that everyone is equal or are they talking about not taking enough measures to equip and level up each child to their potential?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Kuik, I am afraid Ms Sylvia Lim is not in the House, so you would have to answer. Ms Chia asked either of you, and only you are here.

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin: I guess we may differ in our thinking about how much is enough help for people. I speak especially for children with single mothers and foreign mothers. We have talked a long time in this House about the differences of views about why they cannot get adequate housing and all that. I think more help could be given.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Chia, are you happy with the answer?

Ms Chia Yong Yong: May I seek another clarification?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes. Only to Ms Kuik, though.

Ms Chia Yong Yong: Yes. The point I wanted to make was that there is a difference between an inequity and equality. Nobody is equal and I do not think it is ever possible to make everyone equal. So, perhaps, the Member could be referring to inequity rather than inequality. Would that be correct?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Kuik, are you referring to inequality or inequity? Would you want to clarify? Are you clear on the clarification raised by Ms Chia?

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin: Could the Member redefine "inequity" and "inequality" in your point of view?

Mr Deputy Speaker: So, she is asking Ms Chia to clarify.

Ms Chia Yong Yong: Thank you. My understanding of "equality" is that everyone gets the same treatment. When we talk about equitable treatment, people may not get the same treatment, but it is desired to achieve the same outcome. So, perhaps you could be thinking of requesting for more equitable treatment rather than equal treatment. Because when people come from different backgrounds, giving equal treatment will result in a larger gap.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Kuik, is that clarification clear?

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin: I do not want to hold up the debate. I am quite happy to discuss with the Member in the Members' Room later about inequity and inequality.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay. Thank you. Mr Vikram.

3.59 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): I will try my best to keep things simple. I think, listening to the debate, I suspect the question from Dr Tan to Ms Kuik was actually whether she thinks MAS is putting too much away in Reserves. I understand that was the point in the speech. But I guess she can clarify and the Finance Minister can answer that question. That is the only clarification, does Ms Kuik think that MAS is putting aside too much?

From what I understand from Ms Chia's point is that equity is about fairness. So, if someone does more, he deserves more, whereas equality is everyone gets the same. I think what Ms Chia is asking Ms Kuik is whether or not she is looking for fairness to everyone as opposed to equality. That is my contribution to clarify for everyone.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Vikram, you are seeking a clarification from Ms Kuik or you are trying to clarify Ms Chia's clarification? Do you have a specific clarification required from Ms Kuik?

Mr Vikram Nair: I guess if both say yes, then the problem is solved. It is to both of them, yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think Ms Kuik is happily seated and we will not let the debate carry on upon the clarifications. Next speaker, Ms Tin Pei Ling.

4.00 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Finance Minister’s Budget Statement. This year’s Budget is a courageous statement. In no other democracy will a Finance Minister announce a tax increase four or more years in advance, with a general election in between. No government will willingly announce a decision to raise taxes and especially not one which wants to continue to be in government. To do so takes integrity and courage to be willing to lay upfront the challenges facing our nation and explain what we need to do to surmount these challenges.

Many Singaporeans are unhappy with the move to raise GST by 2% sometime between 2021 and 2025. Faced with high costs of living, such a move is painful and worries many. Enhancing financial assistance and support packages would, therefore, be imperative in helping our low-income and perhaps even our middle-income families and Singaporeans to cope. But emotions and concerns aside, we know that money needs to be raised to fund new projects and programmes. There is always a tradeoff. The Finance Minister had, in his speech, explained in detail why he has taken such an unprecedented move.

Indeed, we are faced with many challenges – technological disruptions, rapid ageing in our population, mature infrastructure that needs to be maintained, new infrastructure that needs to be built, and more.

We need to respond decisively, as one people. How we respond now will determine if Singapore can continue to be a thriving nation amidst a highly competitive world, one in which our young will continue to have a bright future and our seniors are properly taken care of in their old age.

Budget 2018 takes a long-term and strategic view. It sets out a programme to transform and revitalise our economy; to boost infrastructure and build a Smart Nation; to strengthen our hardware and social infrastructure and prepare for an ageing population. These are important priorities, to keep Singapore strong and viable, and the best home for all Singaporeans. To fund these priorities, we need to raise revenue. The Finance Minister has set out three ways to do this.

First, impose spending controls and cutting Ministries' budget growth; second, finance some of the infrastructure developments through bonds; and third, raise GST. My view is that we should do these three ways in that order. In other words, first, ensure that our Ministries and Statutory Boards are run in the most efficient manner. Be brutal in cutting waste and inefficiencies. Encourage innovative ways to raise productivity. I do not advocate starving the public services of much needed resources to do their jobs properly. But if we are to raise taxes, we owe it to Singaporeans to make sure that what the Government has already collected is not squandered.

In the same vein, could we make better use of this year’s surplus? One big irony of Budget 2018 is that we report a surplus of $9.6 billion, even as we make an advance announcement of an increase in GST to raise revenue. I understand from the Finance Minister that this is an exceptional surplus, and we cannot always count on having exceptional surpluses. Still, could we, say, direct this surplus and any others in future, into a fund separate from the Reserves, perhaps find ways to invest it to build it further to fund our increased needs and, hence, defer any GST hike to a later date?

Second, the Minister announced that bonds will be issued to fund infrastructure projects. So far, market reports appear to be positive, with some believing that this will "turbo-charge" the debt market. However, we need proper safeguards. We must not make borrowing an easy way out and put future generations of Singaporeans in deep debt.

Hence, I would like to ask whether this move will significantly increase our national debt, how will the bonds be paid out, whether this will mean higher interest rates and higher risk of having to raise more tax in future. What safeguards are in place to ensure that we are able to meet the payments and also fulfil our projects going ahead? Hard truths, hard decisions. I believe Singaporeans will understand the rationale and tradeoffs for raising GST, however painful it is for our citizens, provided that the Government works very hard to deliver on promises and prove that every revenue dollar raised is efficiently and effectively used for the public good. Singaporeans have trusted this Government for decades and made many painful sacrifices for our nation’s long-term good. We must never squander this trust and must do our best to protect Singaporeans. Deputy Speaker, allow me to continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Deputy Speaker, Sir, how society respects the elderly and care for the disadvantaged not only shows how civilised we are but also reflects on our moral upbringing and common beliefs.

However, respecting the elderly and caring for the disadvantaged cannot just be empty talk, but must be put into practice. We must "walk the talk" through the institutions, policies and actions to ensure that our seniors and the disadvantaged are well looked after. With our population ageing rapidly, the Government must introduce policies and adjust the allocation of resources decisively, and perhaps even carry out a major "facelift" to prepare for an ageing population.

With regard to caring for our elderly, the Government has done a lot and has accumulated a lot of valuable experiences. It has also made many improvements in healthcare subsidies and pro-elderly services. For example, with the launch of the enhanced healthcare subsidies, many elderly residents no longer require help from the Macpherson ComCare Fund, which we initiated voluntarily to help low-income senior citizens defray medical costs. In addition, the CNS pilot programme launched by the Government also produced good results, and Macpherson is honoured to be part of the trial.

In the past, we used to have to approach the Ministries separately to seek help for our elderly residents. If a certain Ministry does not have enough resources, we had to knock on the door of other Ministries. Scheduling meetings took a lot of time and effort. Now, with better coordination among Government Ministries, the process has become smoother and faster, and our senior citizens’ problems can be resolved quickly.

CNS has been able to provide regular health checks for seniors, and they have become healthier and more active. With the help of neighbourhood volunteers recruited through the network, the elderly who live alone no longer feel lonely and helpless.

From what we can see, the Government can help turn our common ideals into reality and, thankfully, the Government has worked on this relentlessly. However, it is also equally apparent that the people's response and support are of vital importance. If nobody is willing to donate money, then the Macpherson ComCare Fund will not be able to help the elderly who cannot afford to see a doctor. If no one volunteered, then we cannot take care of senior citizens who live alone, on a large-scale and organised way.

On a higher level, if people do not support the Government, national programmes cannot be implemented, no matter how great they are. It is the duty of elected leaders to set the future direction and strategies of a country, and the responsibility of the entire Government to implement policies effectively.

However, the success of a country’s strategy is not just dependent on the Government. Support of the nation is key. Otherwise, the Government would be speaking without a voice and punching without weight. How then can they implement necessary policies for the long-term good of the country? How then can they ensure the disadvantaged or minorities whose interests are at odds with the majority, are taken care of? How then can they implement programmes that ensure the competitive advantage of the country and its people, or even the ability to compete effectively in the international arena?

We all know what the Government has done to take care of our senior citizens. But I also hope that the Government can do more to create a more pro-elderly environment. As we grow old, we inevitably face limits in terms of physical strength, but that does not mean we no longer have a part to play, nor does that mean it is the end of life. If we can make the necessary adjustments, our twilight years can also be interesting.

Some elderly Singaporeans may choose to continue working, some choose to be volunteers, while others choose to learn new things, and some may even pursue dreams that were out of reach when they were young. Regardless of what they choose to do, we should ensure that our environment supports and not limit them, so that they can do what they are good at and continue to make a difference. In this way, our senior citizens will not develop a negative attitude. Instead, they will maintain active lifestyles, live more meaningful lives and become truly happy senior citizens.

(In English): As we justify the need for hard measures in order to sustain fiscal sustainability, I hope we will not inadvertently attribute the cause to our elderly, which is the primary narrative on the ground now. An ageing population is one of the key contributing factors, but we know that it is not the only one. And we must recognise that being old is not being useless. We need a paradigm shift across all levels and sectors of our society that seniors are assets and not liabilities. We just need to create the right and enabling environment for them.

Much of what we have today, including hardware and social infrastructure, was designed decades ago when our population was still young. It is time to refresh these to welcome a different population landscape with a different set of requirements.

With Singapore undergoing rapid ageing, it is important that we set the right policies, put in the right resources and organise ourselves the right way sooner than later. We need to ensure adequate support for our elderly today and tomorrow, so that we are all empowered to age gracefully and actively in the comfort of our own homes and community.

Given our expectations on social spending, it is imperative that we maximise the impact of every dollar spent. We must enable our elderly today and tomorrow to continue leading an independent and graceful life.

For a start, I laud the Government’s move to integrate health and social care for seniors under one agency. This will ensure effective use of resources and better planning. In any case, it is the same target stakeholder group. From policies to qualifying criteria and service standards, AIC is better positioned to design and deliver a seamless suite of programmes to care for our seniors holistically. On the ground, we have seen preliminary results of integrating services for seniors through the CNS pilot, which will soon be implemented nation-wide.

MacPherson is fortunate to have been one of the pilot sites for CNS. Within just over six months of implementation, we have observed tangible benefits on the ground and received positive feedback. At the agency level, AIC plays a coordinating role, though it is very much a "deal maker" as well. In the past, if seniors have needs or encounter issues requiring our assistance, we have to approach the agencies one by one and be subjected to their available resources, which is time consuming. Most of the time, it would be extremely challenging to get a common date that the agencies can agree on. Moreover, some agencies may not have sufficient resources or provide the right type of help. Now, with AIC’s help, the process is much smoother, more coordinated and faster.

At the local level, our seniors with different needs are matched to the local VWOs for further engagement or services according to their organisational strengths. This is more targeted and demonstrates the many-helping-hands approach.

In terms of benefits to seniors, services are more structured and holistic, with proper follow-ups. Seniors do not just go through health screenings, they are given practical advice on suitable diet and exercise, and there are dedicated people who would follow up or check in on them to ensure follow through. Seniors, so far, have been very appreciative of this.

Beyond health services, our single elderly are now more socially connected and better cared for. Take Mr Toh, a 66-year-old senior in MacPherson, for instance. He lives alone and expressed that he felt lonely with nobody to talk to. This was brought up to CNS and a befriender was arranged to visit him on a monthly basis. He was also invited to join active ageing activities at the MacPherson Community Club or in the community. In addition, he was enrolled in the 24/7 Eastern Health Alliance (EHA) Care Line service, which he can dial into when he feels lonely at night. Mr Toh is now a much happier person. This is an example from MacPherson. With the integration at the national level, I believe the benefits will be much more.

But I hope the Government will go further in creating an enabling environment for seniors to continue to thrive in.

First, let us design to include and empower mainstream elder-friendly designs and make them pervasive, so that seniors can lead a normal and productive life regardless of where they are. Apply elderly-friendly designs to the development of common spaces, facilities, machine interfaces, workflows, public processes and more.

There are some inevitable physical constraints as one ages, but that does not necessarily mean that one can no longer do meaningful work or lead an active life after becoming old. With the right environment, these constraints can be compensated and seniors can continue to thrive. No institution or country so far has been an authority in terms of setting elderly-friendly design standards. Singapore can take the lead in setting elderly-friendly standards and be the authority in this area.

Second, create a favourable environment and employment opportunities for seniors. Stem out ageism. There are seniors who want to work, either out of passion, or sadly, out of financial need. Regardless, given that we have seniors who do want to work, let us help them. The Government can take the lead in testing how work environment, workflows, job role designs and even compensation and benefits, such as health benefits, CPF contribution, and leave conversion can be adapted and optimised for senior workers.

Third, and this is more for seniors who are less independent, proliferate digital eldercare to supplement shortage of eldercare manpower and help more seniors live independently. There may soon be a point in time when there are more who need care than those who can care. By leveraging technology and AI more effectively, we can drastically change how care is provided and help even more Singaporeans to age in place.

I have spoken at length during the Motion on Support for Senior Citizens earlier this month, and I will speak about it again during the Committee of Supply (COS). But the point is that if you can leverage technology more, if you can leverage digital eldercare more, we can help more elderly Singaporeans, those who may have difficulties moving around, and even paraplegics or those who may be semi-paralysed, to be more independent and continue to enjoy the comfort of their own homes.

Of course, it is not enough for the Government alone to work on it. It takes two hands to clap. Our seniors need to believe in themselves and step up, too. I firmly believe that our seniors are much more capable than being mere recipients of care. As we enhance our healthcare, we can expect longer and more healthy years.

As our economy evolves, there will be less reliance on physical strength at the workplace but more use of intellect and wisdom. As each population becomes better educated and more savvy in the digital space, there will be less fear and deeper entrenchment of technology in our everyday lives.

I am also against self-defeating thoughts, such as lao le bu zhong yong 老了不中用, which means that we are useless after we aged, which can be self-fulfilling. Whether it is to remain active economically or socially, it is a choice our seniors have to make. But the point is that we need to keep active and we need to keep trying. Being active brings meaning to life, it helps us look forward to every new day. Is this not wonderful?

In conclusion, Singapore is extraordinary because of the indomitable will of our forefathers, their resilience and discipline. Singapore weathered through many disruptions and we have transformed time and again. Hence, I hope we will continue to possess the quality of resilience and discipline, so that we can deliver a progressive yet compassionate Singapore. With this, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank our Finance Minister for his vision and boldness to take the necessary steps to ensure that our generation and the generations after us will continue to grow and benefit from the prudence and pragmatic approach taken in drawing up Budget 2018. I also note that the Minister and his Ministry are putting in a lot of effort in communicating his ideas and the rationale in his decisions through various channels to engage our people.

As we grow our economy and meet the challenges ahead, there will be demand for more skilled manpower. I see a growing pool of retirees, whom we should look to, to rely on, as a good source to meet our skilled manpower needs. Many of our retirees are healthy, well-educated, well-informed and with good work ethos. I would like to suggest that we consider giving these retirees a second career if they wish to return to the workforce.

For example, an accountant may have a passion to teach preschoolers, or an engineer, a passion in the nursing profession. With more childcare and healthcare facilities being built, we definitely need extra manpower.

For some of our retirees, it is not always about the money. Rather, it is about doing the things that they have always wanted to do and are prepared to be retrained to take on this new career.

Let me share this experience of one of my residents, Mdm Morin Tan, aged 69, living in Strathmore Avenue. Mdm Tan used to work as a personal assistant to the regional head of the credit risk department in a bank and had always cared for her grandchildren and babysit her neighbours' children whenever she had the time. After her retirement, she became a full-time caregiver to her two grandchildren. Her neighbours knew she doted on children and would occasionally ask her to babysit for them when they had errands to run. Morin has always obliged as she loves children very much.

Last year, Morin approached the Henderson-Dawson PAP Community Foundation (PCF) Childcare Centre at her block to volunteer her services. As the teachers saw a gem in her who had so much love for the children, the centre offered her a job and she readily took up the offer. She now interacts with the children, plays with them, keeps them comfortable, and gives them all the love and tender care, like how she cared for her grandchildren when they were young.

She also assists in the overall maintenance and hygiene of the centre, including sanitising the play equipment and kitchen utensils. Morin has been working in the Henderson-Dawson PCF Childcare Centre since February 2017, and is enjoying every day of it. At 69 today, she is healthy, experienced and committed. She sees her work with PCF as a second career. She will be very happy if she can be offered a career path, so that she can develop herself.

So, I hope the Government offers retirees, like Mdm Morin Tan, a second career and develop a career path for them, just like any young applicant. If they are prepared to take the flight to a new beginning, then let us offer them the conversion training and be the wind beneath their wings.

I now turn to the subject of "Building a liveable city and a smart nation. Thus far, we have done well. We have done much to make our home a truly liveable city, from having a strong economy, building good infrastructure ranging from affordable housing, healthcare and education institutions to a host of other amenities.

Our elderly, the generation of Baby Boomers born in the 1940s to 1950s and, among them, a good number belong to the group who missed formal education, were working in manual work and are somewhat struggling to understand and keep up with the new digital age. It is a vicious cycle where because they were doing harsh manual work, it took a toll on their health. Because they were not earning much, they do not have the luxury to afford many things and they lead a spartan life.

Some do not have good family support and have to fend for themselves. In my Henderson-Dawson ward, many of them I meet enjoy walking around the neighbourhood parks, chatting with neighbours at the void decks or markets and the coffee shops or visiting the community centres (CCs) and senior activity centres (SACs) to socialise and enjoy the liveable city. And that is good.

But more can be done for them in our Smart Nation journey. All the talk about the Digital Age, the Information Age frightens some of them. These residents are just spectators in the high-speed world of information, connectivity through smartphones, smart TV, iPads, chat apps, quick response (QR) codes, e-banking.

Our CCs and SACs have been running computer classes and given many of them hands-on opportunity to touch and navigate through the “www”. But, without a chance to keep using their new-found skills, they will soon forget what they have learnt.

Therefore, I would like to ask the Government to consider allocating financial resources to look into how we can install some form of IT or computer system for the elderly in our rental units, just like the installation of fire alarms in these homes. They do not need a desktop with a big gigabyte or a high-speed broadband, but just a simple screen, keyboard, mouse for them to also be “on-the-go”.

At the CC or library, there are silver Internet hotspots, but the operating hours may not suit their time schedule. Plus, mobility may be an issue for some. Seniors need their own time and space to tinker and learn at their own pace and in the comfort of their own homes.

I fully empathise with this group. In helping them to get into the Digital Age, it would also help to bring them closer to the younger generation. This may be their children or grandchildren. They can talk to them about some basics of the Internet of Things. The key is that the seniors would not be alienated. In fact, getting them on board would help them better engage and participate in the various Government initiatives. For example, they can gain access to health information and be empowered to care for themselves or their spouse.

On this important topic of communication, I would like to suggest that one way to get the public engaged is to have interactive questions put forth to them, just as it is done in the National Geographic programme “Do or Die” episodes on cable TV. In this show, they will pose a set of three questions for viewers to think what would be the correct answer. For example, real-life freak accidents are shown with morbid three-dimentional (3D) graphics. There are episodes which even captured real phone calls, so you can hear what fear and anxiety sound like. Then, the viewer is given a choice of three possible options, two of which result in death or serious injury.

One initiative I have in mind for “Do or Die” show is for our SG Secure. We can play out the scenario of a major fire catastrophe, sudden cardiac arrest or choking incident. After watching the show, I believe what is learnt in a fun and audio-visual way is likely to stay in the mind. The lessons learnt will enhance and contribute to our Total Defence strategy.

I wrap up on a very hopeful note. I am pleased that my request last year for a continuum of service for the elderly will now be a reality with the move of senior-related social support services from MSF to the Ministry of Health (MOH) from April to streamline care for the elderly.

I had also recently asked for a review of the nomenclature for ElderShield in my Motion on Support for Senior Citizens speech at the last Parliament Sitting, and I am hopeful that this, too, could be done following their review. Therefore, I hope my suggestions for a second career for retirees, the Silver Computer Scheme and the very engaging and interactive TV platform to engage our citizens will be given consideration.

One is never too old to dream another dream and make that come true. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Budget proposed by Minister Heng Swee Keat and his team. I would like to speak on what makes for good, better and the best types of Budgets.

First, on what constitute good Budgets. Let me take reference from some readings from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF blog in April 2017 attempted to define several key principles underlying good fiscal policies and smart fiscal policies. The blog read that in a world of dramatic economic disruptions and globalisation, smart and good fiscal policies facilitate change, harness a country's growth potential and protect people who are hurt by the disruptions. There is a call by IMF for more room to install more growth-friendly, inclusive, strong and prudent fiscal policies around the world. National budgets are the key means by which fiscal measures, such as spendings and taxation, are implemented.

By world standards, Singapore's Budget 2018 is growth-friendly, relevant, futuristic and prudent. Budget 2018 continues with the aim of building a vibrant and innovative economy through a slew of more than 20 initiatives to anchor Singapore as a Global-Asia enterprise node. It continues with its aggressive plan to train more Singaporeans in a world of technological and business disruptions.

Budget 2018 also passes the test of promoting inclusion. It not only supports employers who give wage increases to Singaporeans; it provides greater financial support to students from lower- and middle-income families through higher Edusave and financial and meals programmes. It continues with the various rebate schemes for household expenditure, promises a permanent GST rebate scheme and shares $700 million of last year's Budget surplus with every citizen.

But Budget 2018 is, at the same time, prudent. By putting a cap on Ministry budgets, it encourages public servants to do more with less, respecting that money is hard-earned, whether at the national or personal levels. In addition, by having the AIC to coordinate activities for seniors and strengthening the Social Service Offices (SSOs) to link up the Many Helping Hands on the ground, Budget 2018 reduces overlaps and directs resources to where support is most needed on the ground.

In a sense, Budget 2018, Mr Deputy Speaker, is somewhat "better than good". I believe that better national budgets are those which confront issues head on; and takes the courage to put in measures important, sometimes unpopular, to secure our future; going beyond the here and now.

The team behind Budget 2018 took courage by announcing the 2% GST hike, creating what some analysts call a constant "thorn" in the side of the ruling Government, for the next several years to come. But at the same time, it promises Singaporeans that those in the lower- and average-income brackets will not have to bear the cost of this GST hike because it has the permanent GST rebate feature that comes with it.

As a better-than-good budget, Budget 2018 incorporates, too, measures that align behaviours to the values that our society wishes to promote: the Proximity Housing grant, for instance, to encourage more family members to live with or near one another; the Carbon Tax, for instance, in support of the global and national movement to create a green and more liveable city; the raising of the cap and matching grants to the five CDCs so that they can raise more funds to meet gaps in the local district and support more assist, bond and connect initiatives.

On the best budget. For Budget 2018 to be the best ever, I have several inputs for the Minister to consider for incorporation, especially during implementation. Not all of these inputs fall under the direct purview of MOF, but I am hoping the Minister will help to facilitate some of these inputs. Most of them concern mindsets because, as they say, the real battlefield is often in our minds.

First, on a culture of innovation. As a member of the Council for the Future Economy (CFE), I have personally witnessed the painstaking efforts by Council members and their subcommittees in developing ITMs to anchor Singapore as an innovation, technology and enterprise node. But maps are maps, and they need tangible support and resources to become realities. Budget 2018, with its slew of 17 measures in this space, is certainly moving in the right direction to support the making of a vibrant and innovative economy.

However, Sir, a vibrant and innovative economy is not developed from Budget allocations and programmes. It is not developed from only speaking up, and Member Mr Louis Ng spoke about that earlier. Although that is a good starting point, it requires a conducive setting of a culture of pervasive innovation, and we know that cultures are not built overnight. In fact, research says that a purposeful attempt at culture-building takes at least three to five years.

As in raising a child, fostering a culture of pervasive innovation takes a village. Fostering pervasive innovation requires more than plug-and-play solutions. It needs a whole society to create an environment that encourages and celebrates a sense of playing, tinkering and experimenting, something that preschools, like My First Skool and MOE Kindergartens, are starting to do.

So, I think Budget 2018 should actually allocate more resources to do a deep independent dive on what is stopping us from seeing more pervasive innovation in, one, the private sector, especially amongst our SMEs; two, in education institutions from young to older ones, and families, and especially, in the Public Service which is watching over this space.

In my years as an MP, I suspect the key hindrance to fostering more pervasive innovation in the Public Service is a four-letter word "FEAR" – fear of criticism by the public, by online critics, by even Members of this House from both the ruling party or otherwise; fear of making mistakes, fear of failing, fear of being judged and punished; or even fear of making it to the Auditor-General's Office's (AGC's) annual "name and shame" list of agencies and staff who are less than perfect.

Another hindrance to fostering a culture of pervasive innovation is likely the lack of vision and limitations caused by existing processes and tools. There is a story of a man who went fishing. Each time he caught a big fish, he will throw it back into the water. And if it is a smaller fish, he kept it. So, an observer nearby found this incredulous and asked him why he did that, why throw back the big fish and keep the small fish? And this man replied, "Sir, you do not understand. The dish in my kitchen for the fish is only seven inches long, and if the fish is any bigger, then it would not fit in my dish!" That is why he threw it back.

Sir, such is the mentality of people who lack imagination and limit themselves and other people in the pursuit of innovation. The question then remains: how can we achieve a better balance between being fearless and visionary and having to be accountable and answer for one's actions, especially failure? But if we do not settle this issue and find that balance, then we will continue to say that we want innovation in our society, in our country but, unknowingly, through our mindsets, actions, systems and processes, reward those who play safe and not try anything new nor rock the boat.

I, therefore, seek the Minister's views on how we can allocate some resources to analyse the root causes of why a culture of innovation is not pervasive in the various segments of the Singapore society. And that may lead us to having more results and outcomes in trying to build a culture of innovation and ensuring innovative outcomes in all of our different aspects of the Budget.

Second, on asset expenditure, a 2017 report by the Centre of Creative Leadership says that newer business models are presenting threats to traditional models, and the traditional models are the ones that are centred around assets, for example, a hotel property; services, for example, a recruitment company or online retail mall or technology products, such as an Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system. This report states that in a rapidly sharing economy, a "network orchestra" model that provides platforms to bring partners together for transactions and collaborations is almost now a new normal. Hence, the rise of highly valued assets which do not themselves own physical assets, companies, such as Uber, AirBnB, Expedia and the like, are on the rise.

I, therefore, cannot help but notice that, in Budget 2018, several of the big-ticket infrastructure expenditure revolve around physical infrastructure – the high-speed rail, the airport and the mega Tuas port. Needless to say, to operate these physical assets would require the corresponding software infrastructure. But there still ought to be a sharper focus on creating non-physical assets and investments. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, at an IMF conference just a couple of days ago in Jakarta, spoke about the huge opportunity offered by the vision of a single digital economy for ASEAN and the potential of financial technology (Fintech) and other financial innovations.

If Singapore aspires to be a Smart city and nation, playing big not just in our own country but in the region or world-wide, what non-physical assets, especially in digitalisation, are we investing in and creating? What are we doing to position ourselves as a leader in the provision and export of non-physical assets to serve not only ASEAN but the rest of the world? Are there any ways by which good solutions that we use internally in Government or in the Public Service can be developed with export as a goal and monetised to add to the national coffer?

I know, for instance, of good work done by MOE and the Government Technology Agency (GovTech) in education, such as learning management systems, that I see have the potential to go beyond internal consumption, or even healthcare solutions, for that matter. I, therefore, seek the views of the Minister on how more balance can be granted to the development or investment in non-physical infrastructure assets and how good Government capabilities and solutions can be developed for export as one of the sources for our national revenue.

Thirdly, on building a future for the vulnerable. In executing our five CDCs' charter to enhance awareness and adoption of SkillsFuture, I find that not enough Singaporeans actually believe or fully appreciate the speed of change and the risk we are all in in a disruptive new economy – jobs that have disappeared or will be disappearing, like word processors and typists, data entry operators, some travel agents, insurance agents; jobs that we see today that never existed before, such as digital market specialists, drone operators, content creators, data scientists, app developers, Uber drivers, driverless car engineers.

At the macro level, even if the economy looks good and the unemployment rate looks good – lo, Minister Lim Swee Say had famously said many times that the labour market is not short of jobs, it is short of citizens who possess the appropriate skills, the right skills, to fill the jobs of the new economy.

If ordinary Singaporeans are affected by all these massive changes, what more those who are not as mobile, not as adaptable, not as culturally-sensitive to work in the global market or cognitively able – the vulnerable and the lowly-skilled, not out of choice but out of circumstances, what will happen to them?

How do we ensure that, indeed, when the tide rises, all boats will rise? In the context of the Singapore economy, as opportunities abound due to technology, due to the rise of the Asian/ASEAN economies, how do we ensure that each Singaporean has a boat to ride the tide with?

I, therefore, seek the Minister to consider if a task force or a workgroup can be set up within CFE to specifically seek job opportunities for the vulnerable, the lowly-skilled elderly, the disabled and those who are not as endowed, those who are at risk or vulnerable, so that they will not be left behind, so that they do not simply just become welfare recipients.

Fourthly, Sir, on bringing out the best in Singaporeans. I am not certain how many Singaporeans, especially those in the middle- and higher-income brackets, are appreciative of Budget 2018's gift of the SG ang pow as a sharing of surplus from the last financial year. But I am almost certain that there will be no end of critics who say the ang pow is too little or too much.

A $100 SG Bonus "hongbao", for some, could mean just an additional dinner out for the family or for himself. But to another citizen, the bonus adds to the cash flow to purchase that milk powder or diapers for the family baby or disabled elderly parent.

So, let us bring out the best in Singaporeans. Just a small request. I seek the Minister to give Singaporeans a choice to donate their SG "hongbao" (the bonus) to their favourite charities, before the SG Bonus is credited to citizens.

Sir, Budget 2018 should help move Singapore from success to significance and bring out the best in each of us. This is not a job for the Government alone. It is a job for all of us – Singaporeans. It is for all of us, as a country, to imagine that we can become even better versions of ourselves.

There is the story of a farmer who often wins awards for growing the best corn in his locale. So, when a journalist asked him for his secret of success for growing this best corn, the farmer replied, to the journalist's surprise, that he shared the corns with his neighbour farmers. The journalist was surprised and asked, "How can you, Mr Farmer, afford to share your best seeds with your neighbours when they are your competitors?" To this, the farmer explained, "Sir, you need to know this. The wind picks up pollen from ripening corns and blows them from field to field. If my neighbours grow inferior corn, the cross-pollination will affect the quality of my own corn."

And herein lies the story of successful people and nations – why they should never just stick to Success, worldly Success, but move to Significance. Like the farmer, if we wish to grow good corn, we must help our neighbours grow good corn. Life is all connected. If we want a peaceful life, we must help our neighbours be peaceful as well. If we want to do well, we must seek to help others do well, too. It is not a zero-sum game.

In the world of business, I saw many top busy local business leaders, some of them in the Council for the Future Economy, some in the CDC I work with. They are busy business leaders but they gave unselfishly to causes beyond themselves – leaders like Mr Robert Yap from YCH Group who helped start the Logistics Academy for the logistics sector, many of whom are his competitors. Leaders like Mr Vincent Tan of Select Group who is unselfish in encouraging the food and beverage (F&B) sector to try out new technology and SkillsFuture initiatives; leaders like Mr Kang Puay Seng and his partner who, during their days starting Mr Bean, trained and supported adults with disabilities to prepare and sell soya bean products; and leaders like Mr Wee Ee Cheong and Ms Wee Wei Ling who used their business platforms in the banks and hotels to create jobs for the disabled. There are many more giants like them with whom I engage in my CDC and charity work.

In North Carolina in the United States (US), students in a school’s technology centre create prosthetic arms using 3D printing for others in need and, at the same time, hone their advanced manufacturing skills.

Singapore, as the chair of ASEAN this year, beyond the regional digitalisation plan that Deputy Prime Minister Tharman spoke about in the IMF meeting this week, should look into setting up a fund to encourage Singaporeans to go serve others in ASEAN. Two young staff of mine in the CDC, Caleb and Sherlyn Yap, a couple, help villagers in Thailand and Cambodia start chicken farms as a livelihood. Each year, they use their annual leave to do that. I see in this young Singaporean couple not only kindness and contentment but also a sense of purpose and a sense of meaning.

Budget 2018 had put in six measures, no less, to foster a spirit of giving. My fellow Mayors and I are thankful that the Minister had paid some attention to the CDCs and increased the funding cap so that the Government will match grants for donations that the CDCs are able to raise. It will come in useful for the emerging and existing needs that we identify in each of our Districts.

In Central Singapore CDC where I serve, we started a series called ENOUGH TALK to encourage people to not just criticise but take action on issues that they care about, such as the low-skilled elderly who might be doing very manual difficult work at the hawker centres and toilets, and the cardboard collectors, the homeless, the hungry; and such as urging Singapore to support climate action by simply going "plastic-light" or finding ways to reduce styrofoam plates and boxes used at the many buffets and food distribution charity activities for the needy.

Our Camp Explore programme curates good enrichment classes, holiday programmes. I remember Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms Kuik Shiao Yin have been talking about these to close the inequality gap.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Phua, you have one more minute.

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: Good enrichment classes for children from lower-income families so that they, too, have equal access to opportunities and holiday enrichment opportunities like their peers from the more affluent families.

Therefore, the CDCs and other members of the SG Cares movement encourage Singaporeans to join us to help our neighbours grow good crop. They say it is possible to give away and become wealthier, richer. It is also possible to hold on too tight to what we own and lose them all. So, Singapore, do give in order to become wealthier.

In conclusion, Sir, I thank the Minister and his team for this “better-than-good” Budget. I know the team had put in tremendous efforts seeking views, way before the Budget was stitched, and mulled over the many options and even spent much time preparing communications materials so that Singaporeans will comprehend and partake in the post-Budget discussions. For that, please accept my deepest appreciation. I strongly support the Budget, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.

4.50 pm

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, as I rise in support of this year's Budget Statement, allow me, first, to record my thanks to all the translators who are working so hard over the next few days. I record my thanks as well to the to the Tamil translators, in particular, led by Mr Palaniappan, for preparing, with the Tamil Language Council, a very useful glossary of English-to-Tamil translated words.

Anything that I say from this point onwards in Tamil that may sound intelligent is thanks to them. Anything which I may say which does not sound sensible is my fault alone! Having said this, it is only fitting, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I begin my speech with a few words in the longest surviving classical language in the world, an official vernacular in Singapore, and my mother tongue language, Tamil.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, last week, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat gave a praiseworthy, forward-thinking Budget Statement. The Statement reminded me of a couplet written by a great sage called "Thiruvalluvar" which says that the best way to guard oneself is not to slight the powerful or the elders. Applied to the Budget Statement, this means we should not abandon our respected elders who sacrificed for our nation's progress, do not ignore their advice, understand their dilemmas and, importantly, do not forget their dreams.

In this regard, the Budget policy serves as a supportive "walking stick" for elders. I believe it will encourage a spirit of giving in every Singaporean. Through this Budget policy, this fundamental tenet is not only reserved for this year, but, like a banyan tree, can grow roots deep into the community and support a fiscally sustainable and secure future for all of us as well. It will also support our gurus or our elders. I will continue my speech in English.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, among other things, Minister Heng has asked the Government to accept an "integrated" plan, one that could pool together resources and pool efforts across stakeholders. I am delighted, for example, that senior care services will be led by a single Ministry, MOH, to "enable these services to be planned and delivered holistically", an eminently sensible first step, Mr Deputy Speaker, as those of us who are caregivers to elderly parents and relatives will acknowledge. Let me share a personal experience, if I may, about the role of caretakers of the elderly, which extends beyond their medical or palliative care alone.

I was one such caregiver to a grand aunt and a grand uncle. The face of a caregiver is usually seen through a child. But increasingly, given that one in four Singaporeans by the year 2030, as we know, is going to be above the age of 65, and soon many of us will not just have elderly parents or grandparents, we will also have extended families who deserve and need urgent medical care but increasingly financial assistance.

One such example in my case is with my grand aunt and grand uncle. They are fortunate because there are quite a few members around but they do not have children of their own. So, they turned to family members who do not live with them. They have an extremely good Town Council in a mature HDB estate where they live. They have an MP whom they greatly respect and admire whom I shall not name, in case I am playing favourites.

But what I will say is that after numerous visits to the HDB office to talk about how to talk about reverse mortgages and a sell-back package which are both financially beneficial for them in the next years in their twilight years – they are both above the age of 85 – there is one question that breaks the heart, and that question is when they asked a grand nephew: "What happens if I live beyond the 15 years that have been promised in my last lease I can take?"

It is especially hard and tough to swallow because this is the third house they have gone through because of rightsizing. As an example, they had not planned for their financial retirement. So, every time they needed money, the one asset they would use would be the one that is over their head. So, you sell your house and use the income that you have for the next few years.

How many Singaporeans may be in the same boat but may not have the same kind of MP who would sit down with them and explain to them what they could do, or may not have family members who are either legally trained or professionally trained to guide them over the next steps? This is the question that troubles me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think this is something that we should be thinking about.

As we look at the next steps beyond our elderly – and I firmly believe and support the welfare-centric Budget that Minister Heng has put before us but I do think and I will speak about this in a moment – we have to spend more time communicating the importance of such a Budget to Singaporeans.

When I speak to my fellow Singaporean friends, colleagues, a question that has emerged with this year’s Budget Statement and which has been repeated time and time again is: "Why are we tightening the purse strings now?" This is a natural question, Mr Deputy Speaker, because we have done so remarkably well this financial year. And I must record my thanks at this point to, beyond everyone else, the Jurong Town Corporation and the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

Yes, it may be one-off. It may not ever happen again. But the question still comes: when we are not combating a deficit, why are we tightening the purse strings? Is it because we fear that our small and open economy is vulnerable to fluctuations in the global economy and financial markets? Of course, it is. But this is not new to us. We are accustomed to Singapore and its limitations as a low-lying, small island state.

What stands out to me in this Budget that Minister Heng has put before us is that it does not seem to be driven only by fears. And this, I celebrate. On the contrary, there is a savvy inherent in his proposed measures. Minister Heng suggests, for example, that Government Ministries, much like private enterprises, will need to look for more productive and innovative ways to run their own agencies. Simply put, they should adopt a corporate work ethic. He does not use these words, but it is inherent in the Budget speech that there should be this corporate work ethic and innovation that should be infused within Government-owned infrastructure companies, for example, Government agencies, to ensure that, very much like how private companies fund acquisition and expansion, so should our Statutory Boards and infrastructure companies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, many professionals and business persons will see the merit of Minister Heng’s financial plan and they actually welcome it. But I do ask this: how will this message be communicated from this point onwards to the non-professionals, to the non-business people, to everyday Singaporeans who would have to deal with the direct taxation that will be coming in 2021 to 2025?

Beyond adopting a corporate culture, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government has a solemn responsibility to explain, in plain and practical terms, how these taxes tomorrow will benefit us, our elderly and our children in further time to come. The Government may wish to explain why Singaporeans should go from maintaining their own parents alone, which is their current social and legal compact, to assisting with the maintenance of the nation’s elderly as a whole. The Government should explain whether Singapore will continue to be a "liveable" city if we are consistently ranked amongst the most expensive cities in the world.

Is there a real likelihood, many have asked me, on the current projections as to whether GST could be further raised beyond 2021 if, despite prudent spending and the "save and borrow" scheme and the policy we have for infrastructure projects, new gaps emerge?

If there are new gaps, will the Government then think about revising upwards the current GST, as an example? If the answer is, which I imagine it should be, "well, yes, it will be reviewed from time to time", the recurrent question that Singaporeans will ask, and they will ask it now is: why not rely a little more heavily, not completely, but a little more heavily, on NIRC? Why can they not be increased to finance our needs? This will come back again and again every time there is an increase in GST and in any other tax. Alternatively, they will ask "should we not have more progressive wealth taxes"? So, the best way to deal with this now, when we are planning for 2021, is to speak to Singaporeans at this point.

In all honesty, Mr Deputy Speaker, the questions and clarifications that I am raising, while directed at Minister Heng and MOF, really are at the Government as a whole, because they warrant a broader conversation. Singaporeans’ concerns over public expenditure are real, and they need to be heard, if possible, so that they can be addressed. They need to be heard in a context where this message can be unpacked.

And I say "unpacked" because I enjoyed the healthy debate that we had today. The clarification over inequality and inequity ‒ that is interesting to me. But that is because I am an academic, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is because I am legally trained, and that is because of the people who spoke. I know from my own experience that two of them are expert JC debaters and one is a really good lawyer. That is the instinct, Mr Deputy Speaker. But what about every other Singaporean?

Minister Heng mentioned in his speech that "Our Singapore Conversation" (OSC) in 2011 or 2012, if I remember, gave him a window into what Singaporeans were thinking at that time. It gave him a unique opportunity, in his words, "to converse with Singaporeans about their aspirations for themselves and for Singapore”.

As a member of that Committee, together with many other people in this House, I would affirm the value of the OSC as a participatory process, and I would ask the Government to take measures to ensure that new dialogues could signal some semblance of "participatory budgeting". These conversations would perhaps be by the Ministries individually with groups that have relevant concerns: where persons, Singaporeans, are given a sense that their views matter and could one day help determine how public finances are spent and how Budgets are implemented; where it is made plain that welfare-centric expenditure tracks demographic trends. We have heard this, and I believe it to be true, as I am experiencing it as a caregiver.

But this has to be explained to people who may not have the same burdens or the same considerations on their mind all the time, beginning with the needy aged. So, that is the first demographic trend that we have all agreed on. But in time to come, I am sure there will be other demographic trends which require our welfare-centric concern. Singaporeans are not fully accustomed to responding to these welfare-centric trends, and we should take the time to explain the importance of doing so.

Traditionally, Mr Deputy Speaker, socioeconomic issues have fallen solely within the remit of the Government and, sometimes, through civil society. But going beyond this, surely our corporate citizens also have a role to play, and they should be giving back in some way or the other.

Just as Singaporeans are asked to give back to society, I, therefore, welcome initiatives that encourage corporate giving. But I would ask that beyond the Business and Institutions of a Public Character (BIPC) Partnership Scheme, the Ministry could consider a national action plan on corporate social responsibility. To prosper over time, corporations should not only deliver financial performance but should also see how they could make a positive societal contribution.

Just as the Public Service in Singapore is being encouraged to adopt, as I have mentioned earlier, a corporate ethic and culture to "do well", corporations, too, should be encouraged, Mr Deputy Speaker, or perhaps even required, to adopt the core culture of the Public Service, that is, an unstinting commitment to "do good" in the public interest.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, as we look forward to the next generation of this nation’s political leadership, Singaporeans want to be in safe hands, to be led by a team, by people whom they can trust to understand the financial opportunities, brace for the headwinds that may lie ahead, but, above all, who have Singaporeans’ welfare and contentment chief in their minds and in their hearts. I support the Budget, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker: We also want to thank the Tamil interpreter for helping to translate what you said earlier.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan: Of course, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, this year's Budget is flexible. It is clinical in its approach to dealing with what Singapore needs in the future. It is not bogged down with theoretical purity. It is relevant and bold. It provides assistance to those who need it most. It does not discourage prosperity nor does it discourage diligence. It allows Singapore to remain competitive.

In short, this years’ Budget is ambidextrous – a mix of left- and right-leaning policies. It shows that we are not concerned as much about theoretical purity as we are about doing what is correct in each circumstance.

Sir, unbridled capitalism, as well as extreme socialism, are to be avoided. Both have negative effects on populations. There are problems with either extremes in economic theories. From the now-dissolved Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), we can see that there is a problem with socialism in the form of Marxist Communism. Even in China, we see the need for exceptions to socialism in the form of free economic zones in Shenzhen and other designated cities and the Special Administrative Region in Hong Kong. Today, Shenzhen is known as the Silicon Delta. Hence, even socialism needs exceptions to survive.

On the other extreme, we see the breakdowns of pure capitalism ‒ unbridled capitalism. According to David Korten, extreme capitalism has the same problems as that of extreme Marxist socialism. For example, economic power concentrates in unaccountable centralised institutions – the state, in the case of Marxism; and the transnational corporation, in the case of capitalism. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. This is because those who control wealth accumulate it at a faster rate than the economy can produce it. This trend continues, unless something disrupts the status quo.

Muller, the author of "The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Western Thought", says it this way: "Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity...Indeed, one of the most robust findings of contemporary social scientific inquiry is that as the gap between high-income and low-income families has increased, the educational and employment achievement gaps between the children of these families have increased even more." Hence, pure, unbridled capitalism has its problems ‒ that of extreme, entrenched income divides.

Therefore, what we need in Singapore is to have a flexible fiscal policy. We cannot be rigid or be slaves to fiscal ideology just for ideology’s sake. And this is, in my view, what this Budget seeks to achieve. Financial analyst Ram Ramesh wrote in the Trinidad Express and he expresses it this way: "Labels, such as socialism and capitalism, are making men in power forget that their role is to administer the right medicine regardless of what label it carries… In these times, it is not the philosophical underpinnings that will guarantee [organisations'] survival but their own ability to adapt to the rapidly changing economic landscapes. Not adapting can cause them their very survival."

In other words, when we are too inflexible, we are unable to respond to changing situations. When we are too concerned about avoiding a certain label or fitting into a particular mould, we tie ourselves to a deadweight and we lose. Therefore, what we need is a flexible approach – an economic policy for our time, for our future, and for the best for Singapore. An array of fiscal options should be on the table with one caveat – that our foundations do not change. What are these foundations?

One, a strong military. Two, securing our water supply. Three, stewardship, that is, making difficult national decisions today for the sake of a better future tomorrow. Four, freedom of religion. Five, education. There are more foundations, but, to me, these are among the most crucial.

Therefore, what we need is a flexible fiscal policy anchored onto unshakeable foundations but without a single-minded fixation on theoretical purity. Dr Goh Keng Swee was known for being a practical economist, doing what works and not necessarily aiming for theoretical purity in economics. An example is in how he "envisioned an important role for the state-government promotion of public goods and externalities… through institutions [such] as the Economic Development Board (EDB) and the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC)" while being “for the most part… a believer in the efficacy of the markets and the private enterprise system.”

This illustrates how we should not be afraid to try less popular policies and be free to think out of the box. Just as that economic policy was suited for its time, we, too, need an economic policy that speaks to our time ‒ not just our current needs but for our future together as well.

This year's Budget is flexible. It is clinical in its approach to dealing with what Singapore needs in the future. In short, this years' Budget is ambidextrous, as I have said, a mix of left- and right-leaning policies. On the one hand, we have policies leaning towards the left. And, on the other hand, we have policies leaning towards the right. As regards the left, the increase in GST will be implemented in a way that tries to ease the extra burden on lower-income families ‒ the permanent GST Voucher scheme will be increased and offset packages will help families adjust to the increase. The Budget also looks to render more support for healthcare and education by having more meal coverage for secondary school students under the Schools Meal Programme and increasing the merit bursary quantum for pre-university students. There is also a review on subsidising premiums to ElderShield for the lower- and middle-income to keep healthcare affordable.

We are doing all these while also retaining and preserving some right-leaning policies, for example, personal income tax was not increased. Nor was corporate tax. Indeed, this Budget continues to subsidise business costs, employers and business owners through the continuation of the Wage Credit Scheme, the enhanced and extended Corporate Income Tax Rebate, and the Productivity Solutions Grant.

This is why I view the budget as a strategic fiscal plan to meet the needs of Singapore and Singaporeans present and future. It is also the reason why I do not agree with Mr Pritam Singh's criticism of the Budget.

If I heard correctly, Mr Singh mentioned that he is unable to support the GST hike at this point in time. I take that to mean that he is not closed to a GST hike but just not "at this point in time". I also take it that Mr Singh knows that we are not raising the GST now.

Therefore, the real query for us to answer is this: why are we announcing now a hike that is to take place three years or more from today? The answer is stewardship, honesty and being upfront with the people we serve. These are the expenditures we must meet.

One, healthcare for all Singaporeans, including those who helped to build Singapore, the budget for MOH has grown from $4 billion in 2010 to $10 billion this year, to "at least" $13 billion from 2020. This includes expanding healthcare infrastructure, such as public hospital, community hospital and nursing home capacity; enhanced subsidies for specialised outpatient clinics, as well as intermediate and long-term care and subsidies on premiums on MediShield Life. These also accommodate longer life expectancy and an ageing population.

Two, security. There is even more need to "take action" and strengthen our security and defence in the face of "turbulent geopolitics" and the threat of a terror attack at its highest. In 2010, spending by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) on security was $14.8 billion and it has since increased to $19.5 billion, or 32%, on security in 2016, amounting to about a quarter of the national Budget. More cameras are being installed. Video Trawling and Analytics System to detect, track and recognise faces is being developed; and officers are being trained with simulations and are being equipped with pistols that can hold more bullets. Further, all MHA departments are expected to be housed at a single complex by 2023 for better coordinated responses in a crisis.

Expenditure number three, education. To help everyone reach his or her potential, expenditure per child has increased. This starts even at a young age. By 2020, spending on the preschool sector will be at $1.7 billion per year. It is a colossal task to give every child a good foundation from a younger age, especially preschool. But we are doing just that. We are also rolling out programmes to increase financial literacy, digital skills in helping mid-career Singaporeans reskill and upskill in the changing economic landscape.

So, revenue raising must go up. One way is to raise GST. And we are being upfront with the people we serve. That is honest politics. That is why I disagree with Mr Low Thia Khiang's position that we should not have disclosed the future GST increase now so as to get "buy-in" for the broader vision of this Budget. But my counter is this. We cannot conceal from the people we serve that this revenue will be needed in three or more years. That is transparent politics.

Much of the increased expenditure is important for meeting the needs of Singaporeans in the long term, for the future. That principle of stewardship is not to be scoffed at or dismissed lightly. It is a very rare commodity.

Mr Pritam Singh also mentioned that we keep on piling accolades on people at the top. That took me by surprise and I would like to respond to that point because the statement goes against a lot of what I and many in this House stand for. In fact, many of us in this House stand for the uplifting of the vulnerable. We do speak for the voiceless and we celebrate each step taken towards a better life. Let me give a concrete constituency example, which also responds to Ms Sylvia Lim's point about rental home dwellers.

A resident whom I serve currently stays in a rental flat with his wife and three daughters – all five of them. Their daughters are all studying at the moment, one in JC, the other in polytechnic and the eldest at university. Recently, he shared with me that the family has secured a HDB loan and they will be moving to a flat they can call their own. So, he would be a home owner.

It reminds me of another family, a single mother who works as a security guard to raise her family, living in a rental flat. We worked hard to piece together and appealed to HDB for her to purchase her own HDB flat. The approval was given. I should say thank you to HDB for that, and she is now a home owner. We both celebrated when we heard the news. That is upward mobility. That is social mobility.

How could that happen? Flexible economic policies. Caring for the lower-income and, at the same time, being business-friendly so that the economy thrives, and being honest with the people we serve about Singaporeans' future needs and how to meet them.

Mr Pritam Singh has suggested using the revenue raised from land sales to fund expenditure. In particular, Mr Singh suggested a cap on the amount of earnings that can be used, such as not more than 20% of the value of average land sales over 20 years or 20% of land sales for that year, whichever is lower.

The point here is that we do not want to build in a formula which promotes indiscriminate or rash sales of land to increase revenue for immediate spending. The suggestion on 20% of land sales for that year does not solve that issue; neither would value of average land sales over 20 years resolve that issue as, one, land sales revenue can fluctuate over a long period of time; and two, even if it is pegged to the average land sales over 20 years, this average can be pushed upward each year to more and more sales.

Hence, instead of building in a formula which promotes possible indiscriminate quick sales of land to increase revenue for immediate spending, it is more fiscally prudent to allow land sales to form part of the Reserves and then investing those Reserves to achieve healthy NIRC.

Ms Sylvia Lim is of the view that because the reversionary title of 10- or 99-year leases return to the Government, land sales is not one-off, that we can use the revenue from land sales and not put all of that in our Reserves. The point is not that the reversionary lease returns to the Government but that the reversionary lease only returns to the Government 100 years later or 10 years later and you would have spent the income from the sales this year. This does not lend itself to financial prudence. It is better to treat revenue generated from land sales as Reserves, invest it and use the net income from it up to 50%.

Sir, as stewards of our resources for the next generation of Singaporeans, we need to be accountable and responsible to make Singapore even more liveable and stronger for the next generation. As stewards, we cannot have a single-minded fixation on theoretical purity.

Sir, when we see someone's success or progress is benefiting the community, we win as a people. When the Government projects far into the future and takes decisive fiscal action now, we win as a state. And when we are able to see that where we are born is not where we will end, we win as a nation. On the basis that we are called to be stewards in this House, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Ng Chee Meng.

5.24 pm

The Minister for Education (Schools) and Second Minister for Transport (Mr Ng Chee Meng): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have not intended to speak, but as I listened to the Workers' Party's speeches, I get increasingly baffled.

I hear across the different speeches that they essentially agree with the many programmes proposed in the Budget. In fact, they want the Government to do more – in education, take care of the elderly, doing more for the women, more for the disadvantaged. And in one Member's speech, she focused her speech on inequality and emphasised that inequality is a threat to our nation, that we have to "take concrete steps to remedy it".

The Workers' Party agrees with many of the Budget proposals. Mr Low Thia Khiang said that this is a forward-looking Budget to anchor Singapore firmly in the future. But, yet, the Workers' Party says that the GST is a distraction.

Mr Deputy Speaker, our Government has put together a concrete forward-looking Budget so that we can resource all these programmes for Singaporeans. In this Budget, we have outlined to Singaporeans how we can take care of our seniors, to better prepare our children for the future, to prime our businesses, to help our workers in the dramatic economic changes taking place and the technological disruptions. We want to help the disadvantaged in society more.

And yet, after all the speeches that I have listened carefully to in this Chamber, the Workers' Party thinks that finding the ways to fund all these programmes is a distraction. They agree with the programmes but that talking about how to fund these programmes is a distraction. I find it baffling.

I think it is critical, honest and right that we outline to Singaporeans how we intend to chart Singapore's future forward in a sustainable manner.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to seek a clarification to what the Minister said.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low, do you want a clarification?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, because the Minister is referring to my speech where I said it is a distraction. I thought the most important part of this Budget is anchoring Singapore. I am not saying that revenue is not important, but GST is not part of the Budget measures at this Budget. So, I thought it would be better that you announce the intended GST increase of two percentage points at another time. We can then have a full debate here. Thus, I wonder whether it is better to announce it separately and have a debate here, or to debate it at the Budget.

We have never said that the Government will have to fund everything without any revenue. What we are saying, and we are questioning whether or not, is there any other avenue to look at instead of raising GST because it affects a lot of people. We are looking at whether there are possibilities of other revenues. Some Members have spoken about it. And I think we can explore it. We can have a full debate on this.

My point was that this is an important Budget, a Budget that is looking forward to the future. But the GST increase can be a distraction because then we end up debating whether there is a need to increase GST.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Ng.

Mr Ng Chee Meng: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have in hand what Mr Low Thia Khiang said in the 2017 COS debate on the MOF cut. I quote, "I hope he", meaning the Minister for Finance, "can be upfront with Singaporeans now so that they are not blindsided by the Government as they were with the sudden 30% increase in water price". You cannot have the cake and eat it.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand by what I said. I am not asking you to hide the increase or intended increase in GST. I am not asking the Government to do that. What I am saying is that, by all means, announce it well before you want to increase it. It is good to announce it beforehand but the question is whether you need to announce it together with this Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have asked whether the Government will increase GST at the last election. And I think Deputy Prime Minister Tharman promised that we have enough money to spend, we will not increase GST. The next election is 2020 or 2021, so you are going to increase it after the next election, good to announce it now. Then, we can debate it at the election rally.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader of the House.