Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [24 March 2016],

"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017." – [Minister for Finance].

Question again proposed.

12.30 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Madam, I rise in support of Budget 2016. Budget 2016 has stayed on course to fulfil the Government's mission to build both a future-ready economy and a caring and resilient Singapore beyond SG50.

Analysts have acknowledged that it is a far-sighted Budget, with resources committed to support businesses to scale up automation, create high-value jobs and internationalise.

SkillsFuture, a big piece to secure Singapore's place in the new economy, is another key feature. Work is underway to develop more than 20 Sectoral Manpower Plans to identify the skills required in each sector and to develop a Singapore core. At the individual level, the first tranche of training dollars was already credited to Singaporeans to encourage lifelong learning.

The people's voice through the Our Singapore Conversations can still be heard in this Budget. Anxieties over high healthcare and financial worries of the ageing are addressed with several key moves. Our national safety net is now visibly stronger by the additional pieces in the form of higher Public Assistance quantum – the Pioneer Generation package, Silver Support and MediShield Life for all. This is a significant task that not many Singaporeans fully appreciate but is nonetheless critical for their future.

On concerns – as we confront the brave new world, I cannot help but still be alarmed at the speed and the disruption of change in the new economy. The 2016 World Economic Forum report on "The Future of Jobs" indicates that over the next five years, about seven million jobs could be lost through redundancy, automation or disintermediation, meaning the removal of the middleman in business processes. This loss is predicted to be only partially offset by about two million new jobs and mostly in the more specialised families such as Computer Engineering.

In the logistics industry, for instance, both overseas and in Singapore, where large warehouses have been major employers of workers, robots now replace warehouse workers in jobs such as picking and packaging. Fully automated production processes from design to delivery, with very little manpower needs, is not far from reality.

Even our radio journalists in the local radio stations have had their jobs re-scoped. I was working with a lady, Lu-Ann from 938LIVE, and she now video-records her interviews with us, Members of Parliament, and presents reports in voice, video and other online writings as well. Such is the change.

Yes, as they say, embrace the digital economy or be left behind. Go digital or go home.

Groups at risk – there is indeed cause for concern for businesses and people who are at risk of being left behind in the future economy. They include our small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), our Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) and the lesser-skilled and unskilled employees amongst us. They are, after all, our own and are here to stay.

First up, is our SMEs which make up 99% of enterprises in Singapore and contributing more than 50% of our gross domestic product (GDP). By sheer size and presence, they cannot be ignored, and they have to drive our growth. Granted, many of them have moved up the league and are a lot more conscious and open to the need to upgrade, but even more of them are stuck. Remodel their business; fend off disruptive technology; move from value-adding to value-creation; use big data, use cloud computing, get into the Internet of Things – these are calls that are easier said than done for many of them.

Many SMEs are still concerned about the here and now – rental and manpower challenges. While they bemoan, the shake-outs continue. In the retail industry, brick and mortar stores are fast and furiously replaced by online stores. In the travel industry, tour operators continue to fold as travellers make their bookings online. Shake-outs are inevitable, but how can we reduce the numbers and how do we support those who finally exit?

The PMETS – at the individual level, there are still PMETs who are unsure of their place in the new economy. Many were not formerly exposed to the changes that are taking place.

A The Straits Times article in March 2016 reported that the group that was hardest hit by layoffs last year was our highly skilled and middle-aged employees who were seen by firms as too costly for their previous firms to retain and supposedly too old for prospective employees to hire. The days when PMETs who lost their jobs turned easily to the real estate, financial planning, insurance and even taxi-driving, are over.

Low-skilled and unskilled – it is a known fact that unskilled or low-skilled jobs will disappear. In my effort to find jobs for my low-skilled, lowly-paid elderly residents in the Central District as a Mayor, I was informed that even makers of the 手工包, or handmade buns, are replaced by machines in South China, for instance.

Our SMEs, PMETs and lower-skilled Singaporeans are at risk of being left behind. Do we give up easily? Do we tell them go digital, or go home, although we all know that there is nowhere else to go for many of them because this is where home is?

Madam, I have a few suggestions for consideration in this Budget.

First, on segmentation by ability, attitude and altitude. The first suggestion I have has to do with segmentation or adopting a less of a cookie-cutter approach when working with the groups of vulnerable SMEs, partners and individuals.

Madam, I fully understand the perspective that in the realm of business, the Government should meddle less and not interfere with the free market mechanism – shape up or ship out. My colleague, Assoc Prof Randolph Tan, said in Parliament yesterday that this is a matter of the head, and not the heart. However, because so many of our enterprises and people are involved, I would urge that one more layer of intervention be considered. Other than industry segmentation and partnering with trade associations, another dimension of segmentation must be considered. We must be even less cookie-cutter in our approach.

Profile the SMEs, PMETs, the lower-skilled workers and even the volunteer welfare organisations (VWOs) by three "A"s: one, the ability – current and potential ability, knowledge, skills and tools; two, their attitude – their willingness to update, upgrade; and three, their altitude – the vision, the ability to rise above themselves in the industry in the current terrain.

For the stars who possess all three "A"s – ability, attitude and altitude – the Government's key engagement strategy should be to facilitate and to open doors, so they can scale and soar. These stars may or may not be leading trade associations. They could be outliers. They may not toe the line or fall in place nicely with the rest of the industry. They may be trailblazers. They could be the Ubers in their own industry, disrupting current business models. We need to find a way to identity them so they could reach their peak.

Link them up with research and development (R&D) resources, angel investors or even global mentors; remove the barriers to performance which are within Government's circle of influence; create more Block 71 clusters to reduce the cost of business in rental and other shared corporate services such as in finance, legal and audit; develop even more mini Innovative Parks beyond the mega Jurong Innovation Park.

If they do not wish to be led by their trade associations, give them the creative licence and space to soar on their own. Invite them to join industry panels.

The second group – those with the Attitude and Ability but lack the vision at the moment and are at risk of being displaced, quickly guide and direct them to schemes and grants that can help them land firm and scale.

As for those with a willing Attitude, but lack the Ability, then, training comes into play.

For those who have the Ability but lack the willingness to change the Attitude, invest in counselling them, nudge them into action before giving up on them.

And then for those who have neither the Ability, Attitude nor the potential for Altitude, help them develop an exit strategy. They should not have been in the business in the first place.

Madam, my next suggestion is to make SkillsFuture the mantra for every Singaporean. I believe SkillsFuture is one of the best answers to prepare our businesses and people for our future. There is, however, an urgency to move the whole nation more quickly into the SkillsFuture mindset and action. Whilst the $500 SkillsFuture credit to every Singaporean is a great welcome, it serves as a nudge at best, and is no guarantee that it will lead to an innate desire to learn or to learn lifelong. The SkillsFuture must be more than active ageing training programmes. It must be more than meeting only the current sectoral manpower needs of businesses, although that is important.

While the Council works on the bigger pieces such as the Sectoral Manpower Plans, we need to convince the man in the street that Singapore's future jobs and the funding of our social safety nets depends on how future-proof each one of us is. We need to transform the mindsets and skillsets of as many Singaporeans as possible before it is too late.

Here are some suggestions.

First, beyond intellectual rationalisation, we need to develop a SkillsFuture Communication Matrix for communication strategies to reach Singaporeans from different backgrounds. We need to outreach with more everyday applications to show the importance and impact of SkillsFuture.

A Hokkien-speaking aunty running a fashion accessory shop in one of the markets in my division, told me recently when we were discussing about re-modelling and reducing the cost of business, she said "MP, we are already buying stock from the Internet" in Hokkien. This morning, I heard Love 97.2 radio deejay, Chen Jianbin, sharing that he now has to find ways for the audience to not just listen to his jokes, or 听他的笑话 , but also "see him making jokes" or 看他的笑话. So, these are applications, our SkillsFuture is already happening and we need to get the message out to the streets.

Second, from the thousands of choices in the SkillsFuture galore of courses, we need to be able to appoint coordinators, SkillsFuture Ambassadors who can identify, help curate and communicate the list of competencies that will enhance the Future-Readiness Quotient of businesses and especially people on the streets.

Third, we need to encourage and incentivise as many Singaporeans as possible from young to each own their personal Individual Future-Proof Development Plan with a Future-Ready Toolkit.

Fourth, we must make pervasive, freely accessible Future-Readiness Self-Assessment Toolkit and bite-sized tasters at convenient neighbourhood sites, the community centres or online, with courses such as:

(a) Using video and voice applications such as Skype;

(b) Taking great digital photos;

(c) Setting up online stores from scratch;

(d) Construct our own website;

(e) Learn to Code;

(f) Create simple Apps on the smartphone;

(g) Make objects through customised 3-D printing;

(h) Write for the Internet.

There is no end to what one can learn, regardless of age and language. We need to spread the message of the new economy more urgently to the man in the streets.

And, finally, let me move on to the subject of partnership. Typical of Minister Heng Swee Keat's style to listen and engage the ground, the theme of the Budget is termed "Partnership for the Future". And indeed, in a landscape that is featured by structural changes, disruptive technologies that can displace jobs easily and manpower constraints, the former top-down problem-solving approach by the Government can no longer suffice. While I truly appreciate the importance of partnership, I fear that unless we move towards a more enlightened form of partnership, the outcomes of the Budget may not be as effective as desired.

There are two things I would like to highlight.

First is the application of the enlightened form of partnership in the business arena. Whilst it makes sense to engage Trade or Clan Associations to take the lead in selected industries, we must not be overly rigid with this strategy. Trade associations, like other organisations, comprise of us mortals who may not all share the same vision or agree on the same tactics, and may be distracted by politics and personalities. It would be useful, as we pour more resources into industry-led transformations, to also set some targets that are co-shared by all the partners. We must allow space for SMEs with the ability, attitude and altitude to charter their paths – without insisting that they must toe the line of their industry associations.

Public officers who are supposed to be sent to assist the industries should preferably be senior enough to impact policy making. We should invite or even pay for successful global industry leaders to sit as advisors to industry panels which comprise the trade associations and the other member players.

In the Social Service sector, where Minister Heng has kindly created the Business and IPC Partnership Scheme (BIPS) to incentivise businesses to donate services in kind to IPCs and charities, I would caution against behaviour that may be counterproductive. Volunteering is, after all, about giving something back and not getting something back. Already, business consultants have started to issue advice to businesses to start reviewing their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategies or plans, so that they can enjoy greater tax deductions under this new scheme.

There is also a worry that if we are not careful, the BIPS would cannibalise what charities are currently receiving in much-needed cash donations. Those who used to donate in cash may now decide that service or volunteering is more pocket-friendly.

To this end, I would recommend a more targeted approach to direct corporations and donors to the known pain areas or the growth areas in the social service sector, areas such as:

(a) Redesigning jobs for the elderly, the lower-skilled or even the unskilled.

(b) Helping children with rare diseases and their families. I have seen many of them. Try visiting some of the families. Some of the young parents are really under a lot of stress and need a lot of help.

(c) Others old and young who are severely disabled.

(d) The homeless.

(e) Those who are isolated elderly residents in many of our estates.

(f) Need for pro bono accounting, audit and legal services.

(g) Fundraising and marketing and even e-learning modules or curricular development for these special schools.

Do not limit the BIPS donations to only $50,000 for each VWO. For outfits that serve the very severely disabled, their needs are way beyond $50,000.

So, in summary, my suggestions are, first, on the triple "A" − the need to identify those with the ability, attitude and altitude − and help these potential trailblazers to trailblaze and soar; second, to make SkillsFuture a more pervasive phenomenon to the man-in-the-street; and third, for more enlightened partnerships.

In conclusion, Madam, I would like to thank the Minister for Finance, Mr Heng, for his inaugural Budget. This is a considered Budget that I know is the outcome of much of the Minister's style of listening to the ground. It is a balanced and sensible Budget that will play a large part in securing the future of our country and our people. Madam, I support the Budget.

12.46 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the Debate. Today, I would like to speak on four issues: first, the need for vigilance and heightened security in Singapore; second, the importance of providing flexible work arrangements for employees, especially for working mothers; third, reviewing existing property cooling measures for Singaporeans; and lastly, growing our total fertility rate (TFR) organically by promoting the process of adoption in Singapore.

Before delving into those four topics, I would like to share a few broad views about this Budget.

The Budget is significant. It is the second major announcement in this House post-GE 2015, following the President's Address earlier in January. The Budget displays a confident, clear and deliberate charting of fiscal policy for Singapore. That the Government, the Minister for Finance, is able to plan so methodically what Singapore's people and economy need is itself a major advantage, which so many other economies in the globe, unfortunately, do not possess. And that these fiscal policies have the financial fuel, that is, the money they require to be implemented and implemented well, that is indeed a rarity regionally, possibly even globally. We must never take such an eloquent and hard-earned fiscal position for granted. We should preserve tough-minded prudence in our Budget and fiscal planning.

Let me now address the four issues that I would like to speak on today.

First, the need for vigilance and heightened security in Singapore. In a recent poll done by The Sunday Times, it was found that three in four Singaporeans believe that it is only a matter of time before Singapore faces a terrorist attack. This echoes the sentiments of our Minister for Home Affairs and Law, who also acknowledged that it is, "no longer a question of whether an attack will take place but when an attack is going to take place in Singapore".

This is, indeed, illustrative of the climate of heightened security that we are presently experiencing. Singapore no longer faces the same conventional threats that she faced some 10, 20 years ago. Instead, we now face threats from non-state actors like ISIS, who spread fear and discord through domestic terrorism. We also face the self-radicalisation of individuals through social media and the Internet. This has made the threat of terrorism more insidious than other threats that we have faced in the past.

I believe that the best way to address these threats effectively is to have both hard and soft measures in place. On the one hand, we need to have the wherewithal of a good military and Home Team to detect and deter any threats beyond our shores, and to ensure that we have a safe and secure Singapore. On the other, we need to win the hearts and minds of Singaporeans so that should the threat of terrorism materialise here, we will be ready to stand united as a nation.

The aim of terrorists is often to inflict maximum fear and to divide society. Given Singapore's multi-ethnic, multiracial and multi-religious make-up, it is particularly important that any potential instance of domestic terrorism does not sow discord or distrust between our different communities. To achieve this, consistent efforts must be taken to build strong bonds between the different ethnic communities, and the strengthening of our multiracial national fabric must be made a priority.

In light of this, has the Government considered whether there are areas where more needs to be done to beef up our internal security to deal with the threat of terrorism? What is being done to plug any gaps in our internal security framework?

Ultimately, our ability to deal with the threat of terrorism effectively will depend on how we choose to respond as a country in the aftermath of an attack. We cannot take our peace for granted. Singaporeans, the Government and local authorities must work hand-in-hand to keep Singapore safe, and to prepare ourselves for the possibility of an attack happening here. If we get our security right, that base plate right, then we can talk about the economy.

This leads me to the second part of my speech: providing flexible work arrangements (FWAs) for employees, especially for working mothers. In recent years, the Government has worked closely with the tripartite partners, through the Tripartite Committee (TriCom) on Work-Life Strategy, to promote the adoption of FWAs in the workplace.

And it is heartening to know that we are starting to see the results of these efforts. In January this year, the Minister for Manpower shared that the proportion of employers providing at least one form of FWA for their employees has steadily increased from 28% in 2008 to 47% in 2014. I see this as a positive indication that employers are starting to recognise the value of providing flexibility to their employees.

However, I would like to highlight the importance of these FWAs for working mothers. As the labour force participation rate for women continues to increase every year, employers need to understand and appreciate the importance of adopting good workplace practices that help working mothers to balance family and work commitments.

In particular, mothers with newborns need help to adjust back to working life after their maternity leave, and it may take time for them to strike the right balance between their responsibilities at work and at home. As such, in the interim, employers need to be compassionate to these working mothers as they learn to cope with work and added family responsibilities.

Besides reducing time spent at work or their workload, flexibility can also be applied in terms of working time, for example, allowing for staggered hours and shorter work weeks, and work location, for example, allowing working mothers to telecommute. By doing so, more mothers can return to the workforce and increase their family income without compromising on their family life.

In his speech during the Debate on the President's Address, Mr Desmond Choo proposed that the Government consider providing working mothers with the legislated right for an additional eight weeks of FWAs. I support this proposal. In fact, I believe that the Government should consider taking it one step further.

I am proposing that working mothers be given the option to choose between either taking an additional eight weeks of flexi-work or an additional eight weeks of no-pay leave. This will give mothers more time at home to bond with their newborn and would also allow them to breastfeed for at least six months, which is the recommended period according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Further, under this proposal, employers will not be financially disadvantaged as they would not have to pay them during the eight-week period of unpaid leave. In fact, some employers may prefer to give these working mothers the eight weeks of unpaid leave because it makes it easier for them to forecast manpower needs.

In light of this, would the Government consider legislating this option for working mothers to choose between either having eight weeks of unpaid leave or having eight weeks of FWAs after the current 16 weeks of maternity leave?

These measures can go a long way towards helping working mothers integrate their work with their personal and family life. It is my hope that employers will continue to show compassion and understanding to their employees, especially working mothers, and will work towards exploring innovative ways to provide FWAs for their employees.

Third, the need for a timely review of existing property cooling measures. While the Government has been successful in stabilising the property market through the introduction of the Additional Buyers Stamp Duty (ABSD) and the Total Debt Service Ratio (TDSR), the lacklustre property market that we see today is rather different from the overheated property market back in 2012 and 2013, when these measures were first introduced.

In light of this change in circumstances, I believe that it is time for the Government to seriously consider reviewing and easing some of the existing property cooling measures.

However, I understand and appreciate that the Government will want to be cautious and will be keen to adopt a calibrated approach in reviewing the property cooling measures that are currently in place. As such, would the Government consider the gradual and calibrated approach of removing ABSDs for Singaporean buyers, while still retaining the TDSR for Singaporeans and retaining the ABSDs for foreigners?

Let me explain why I believe this should be done. First, by retaining the TDSR, a Singaporean is only going to be allowed a credit line that is within his means. This should allay any concerns that easing the property cooling measures will cause a surge in Singaporeans purchasing second or third properties when they may not be able to do so.

Further, if a Singaporean is able to afford a second or third property through the TDSR regime, why should he be taxed with an ABSD? Lastly, by retaining the ABSD for foreigners, we ensure that the foreigners will not enter the Singaporean property market in an overly speculative way.

If the Government is concerned that removing the existing property cooling measures may cause the market to surge upward exponentially, perhaps the Government would also consider adapting the Australian model in Singapore, which I have raised in this House before.

The benefits of this model are that it discourages foreigners from engaging in an overly speculative way as foreigners are only allowed to buy new property, and are only able to sell that property back to domestic buyers. This discourages speculation by foreigners because they will not buy property at a price that they would not be able to sell it back to a local for.

As such, adapting the Australian model to Singapore could help to deter speculative or overly speculative behaviour by foreigners in the market while the property market starts to pick up after the review of the existing property cooling measures, which review should contemplate the suggested removal of ABSDs for Singaporean buyers, in my view.

So far, Madam, I have raised Defence – the need for heightened vigilance; Manpower – the need to tap on the immense potential of our working mothers; and Homes – the need to safeguard against overly speculative behaviour of foreigners in our property market. But to do all this, we need to grow our TFR, so that we will have a Singaporean core who will be able to staff and push for key initiatives for Singapore.

This leads me to the next point – inculcating a culture of adoption in Singapore. In recent years, our TFR has been much lower than it has needed to be. As Singapore's population continues to age, the effects of having such a low TFR will continue to affect our economy in the years to come. Therefore, I would like to speak about how we can promote the loving, nurturing and voluntary alternative of adoption to pregnant mothers who might be thinking about terminating their pregnancies.

Many of these women may not be aware of, or might not have thought about, the option of adoption. I believe that the option of adoption could be publicised more widely, and greater efforts can be made to provide pregnant women with information about the wonderful and voluntary alternative of adoption.

Currently, it is mandatory for all women, regardless of nationality, educational status and number of children, seeking to terminate their pregnancy in Singapore to undergo pre-abortion counselling. It is my hope that these pre-abortion counselling sessions can be an avenue to provide pregnant mothers with further information about adoption. By understanding the process and the benefits of adoption better, pregnant mothers will be able to make an informed decision when considering an abortion.

I strongly believe that if adoption is more widely publicised as a comforting, loving, nurturing and voluntary alternative, there will be a reduced number of abortions in Singapore. Therefore, would the Government consider promoting adoption as a voluntary alternative for a mother who is thinking of abortion?

The promotion of adoption could also have the happy result of increasing our TFR organically. I have heard stories of Singaporean couples trying for a baby for many years and are open to adopting a child. I have heard also of stories of Singaporean couples who have children who are also open to adopting a child. If the option of adoption were to be publicised more extensively, then these couples would be able adopt and raise the child as one of their own.

More than that, adoption does not only help couples who are unable to conceive, as there are many couples who already have birth children of their own who are open to adopting another child. Indeed, there are many wholesome, loving and beautiful traits in adoption, not just for the family seeking to adopt, but also for the adopted child who can grow and be nurtured in a loving family environment. After all, the choice of an adoption is a voluntary choice that a pregnant mother has to make, and we must do all that we can to support her as she makes an informed choice.

In conclusion, Madam, the initiatives introduced in this year's Budget are timely and forward-looking. This year's Budget strikes a good balance between initiatives that boost the economy, like the introduction of the SME Working Capital Loan scheme and the Automation Support Package, and also includes measures to strengthen our social safety nets like the enhancements to the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme and the implementation of the Silver Support Scheme.

All of these initiatives require prudent fiscal planning and a healthy Budget. I hope due consideration can be given to proposals that I have raised in my speech when the Ministries are planning and rolling out their programmes in the coming year. I believe that with good fiscal, economic and social policies in place, we will be well placed to chart our future together as a nation – Government partnering Singaporeans; Singaporeans partnering Government. I support the Budget.

1.03 pm

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I will speak first in my mother tongue and official vernacular, Tamil.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, may I first of all extend my salutations to you and to the respected Members of this House.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to read the words from a poem during the Sangam period by great Tamil poet, philosopher and humanist Avvaiyar. She said, "ஒப்புர வொழுகு", which means that "one should change one's goals and oneself to adapt to the changing world". Her work called Aathichoodi contains 108 single-lined quotations. I read the words "ஒப்புர வொழுகு" in line 10 earlier.

The Budget debate stands on the footing of this principle that was written thousands of years ago. Based on this principle, we should focus on the importance of education, resilience and innovation.

Mdm Speaker, let me continue to speak in English. Thank you.

(In English): Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat has put forward a Budget which seeks to address near-term cyclical weaknesses and guard against medium-term structural challenges. I think the Committee on the Future Economy, Ministries and agencies have their work cut out for them. He said that we should "muster resources, to innovate, scale up and internationalise". I commend the Minister and the Ministry. It is a call which we and the stakeholders and constituents whom we may represent must heed as members of Singapore's business, professions, Government and society.

The call for productivity is not new nor are well-founded fears that we live in decidedly challenging times. We are accustomed to our inherent limitations as a small, low-lying island State. We are also aware of heightened security threats. The hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza reminded us just moments ago – natural disasters of historic proportions in Asia and the re-emergence of geopolitical turmoil in Eastern Europe and the Middle East highlight the need for collective action.

But I would like to focus on the acknowledgment that the Minister has made in his Budget speech. He acknowledged that our economic transformation is not a choice, but a means for our survival. That is a very significant acknowledgment and I would say it is a relatively new acknowledgment as well.

At this point, I would like to perhaps depart slightly from the learned hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza who earlier said that before we can have the economy, the first thing we have to get right is security. I would add that, unfortunately for Singapore, we do not have the luxury of seeing them separately; both need to be met at the same time. Our base plate places three things on equal par. First, of course, the economy; second, security; and third, I would say, compassion for our people. All three are equally important.

Yesterday, the hon Member Ms Foo Mee Har rightly drew our attention to the consecutive deficits we have experienced in the past four financial years. It is something that gives us pause for thought as we decide to increase our expenditure even further. Other Members yesterday have highlighted the plight of those of us who may be inadvertently left behind, or perhaps "sandwiched". I think we have to think carefully as we go forward. It is time for our economic strategy, which we have exported for a very long time as the "Singapore Model" to be transformed, as Minister Heng puts it, to be re-calibrated, forged afresh in light of the new and fresh projected developments and changes we now face.

In response to the transformative spirit of Minister Heng's speech, I would like to focus on two aspects: the reference to innovation and the one to resilience as imperatives for Singaporeans, going forward. I agree they are crucial, but would like to note that these two ideas or principles are not precise science; there is an art about them.

In an increasingly fast-changing and interconnected world, fostering resilience to withstand unexpected shocks is becoming more important. The effects of financial crisis still linger, as do prospects of further financial seismic shifts to come.

I want to consider what resilience means and why it must be instilled in the education process from an early age and at all levels. In the discipline of psychology, resilience is defined as "that ineffable quality that allows some people to be knocked down by life and to come back stronger than ever". Rather than letting failure overcome them and drain their resolve, they find a way to rise up from their woes.

Resilience forsakes grand narratives. It requires flexibility to thrive and to be kept alive. Productivity and resilience have some things in common. Box-ticking exercises; rehashing old routines; staying in the office past 10.00 pm just for the sake of appearance, for example, are not resilience and they will not yield productivity.

In short, resilience means we have to have grit. It means having Paralympics gold medalist Yip Pin Xiu's courage to never give up. It means having mountain climber and pro bono medical surgeon Dr Kumaran Rasappan's verve to scale new heights. And to me, resilience means being a lifetime supporter of Liverpool Football Club. It teaches you never to give up.

On a serious note, Singapore has been recognised as only one of 100 resilient cities throughout the world. This recognition was by the Rockefeller Foundation in New York. This initiative of having 100 resilient cities supports the adoption and incorporation of a view of resilience that includes not just the ability to respond to the usual shocks – earthquakes, fires, floods and so on – but also the stresses that may weaken the fabric of a city on a daily or cyclical basis.

Singapore has to be able to brace for shocks and stresses as a nation. They can take and have taken several forms – transboundary haze pollution, infrastructural failure, civil disturbances, cyber-attacks and economic crises. Building resilience – the ability to bounce back quickly and effectively – is an urgent social and economic issue and one that unites many countries and cities all throughout the world. I support the Budget speech's emphasis on resilience.

I have a few suggestions though and these pertain to education. The first point would be, as we build new facilities, for example, the Outward Bound Singapore (OBS) campus at Coney Island – which I support – I think we have to look beyond. Having an OBS campus at Coney Island is all well and good, but why do we not send our youth beyond Singapore or beyond Singapore's Sisters' Islands? Send them to other countries in the Asia Pacific to cut their teeth.

Minister Heng has noted in his speech that "we are in the center of the Asian growth story: China, India and ASEAN are expected to grow" exponentially. I would say more about this in my cut for the Committee of Supply (COS) debate in time to come, but I think this also is a clarion call for other agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and societal organisations in our country.

Surely, the Singapore International Foundation has a role to play towards ensuring that our youth are toughened up through real-life challenges, so they are strong by OBS, but they have to be intellectually rigorous as well and they have to think out of the box. I commend going beyond adventure training, and having adventures safe in the knowledge that this spirit of adventure will build character for our young and will create future leaders of business, science, government and society.

Singaporeans, particularly our youth, need to be given a chance to show how rigorous they can be, intellectually and physically. The SkillsFuture programme is one means to do this, as is the Adapt and Grow initiative. I commend the Jurong Innovation District which the Minister had suggested as a "space for entrepreneurs, researchers and students to design, prototype, and test-bed their new ideas". I would add though, that when we have a new space, we should take a step back before ploughing forward.

I point here first to hon Member Mr Leon Perera who spoke about why benchmarking is important for SMEs. SkillsFuture is good. Having a district of their own is very important, but what benchmark do we say to show which businesses could thrive, which may fail, and what we can do for them?

He makes good points worthy of our consideration, as does hon Member Ms Denise Phua who very succinctly talked about ability, agility and altitude. At this point, can I just say on the point of altitude – as lawmakers and policymakers in the House, it is often a suggestion from people in Singapore, including SMEs and businesses, that we may fly at a high altitude. We are not quite on the same ground level to receive their concerns. Perhaps this should be borne in mind as we plough forward.

Focusing on this exciting new idea of a Jurong Innovation District, it looks set to be Singapore's Silicon Valley, a Mecca for talented entrepreneurs looking to make their mark. It is marvellous. But I add that as it is in Silicon Valley, research and planning is just one part of the enterprise. In Silicon Valley, there is, increasingly, a concentrated business cycle that requires all the companies there to be nimble, calculated and quick in their judgement and execution. There is a very fast turnaround in Silicon Valley.

Can I just say a few words by Stanford University Economics Professor Yossi Feinberg? He says this, "The best entrepreneurs prove the value of being able to set clear, long-term objectives and weigh up risk effectively against these objectives. That is no mean feat. For this reason, beneath the skin of the typical entrepreneur is often a stressed individual under intense pressure to pluck the right choices from a plethora of information. Just like the rest of us, these people have no innate intellectual ability that allows them to glide through work or life."

I would fully agree with the sentiment. The Jurong Innovation District aims to give our entrepreneurs, our Silicon Valley professionals, some guidance. I think this guidance is very, very important. Innovation cannot be induced by "intense pressure". You cannot tell someone, "Please be innovative". To truly support and equip innovators, we cannot just provide seed funding or pair them up with venture capitalists alone, as much as they would like that. We must focus on ensuring education and skills development by giving them the room to find inspiration in the company of like-minded individuals.

Significantly, they should be able to have a grasp of, among other things, corporate ethics and corporate responsibility; the value and basics of intellectual property rights and patents; and, as many of us in this House have agreed in the past couple of days, proper action-oriented tutelage from experts, other businessmen and technocrat entrepreneurs who can guide them.

All of this should begin in secondary school and junior college or, perhaps, even at a younger level. But they must obviously continue through polytechnic and tertiary or university education. The change we need to usher in this education process is for more action-oriented research projects, not just writing but doing. I would say that while ICT is an important sector to begin, it must look beyond the ICT sector. Having a clear business model with a route to profitability is the norm for most successful new enterprises and business ventures. This should be developed and strengthened from the get-go.

A can-do attitude is a trait that is observed obviously in all entrepreneurs. But it is just a beginning or a seedling of innovation. It cannot, by itself, give rise to innovative projects and products.

As we create new agencies, bodies and spaces, let us remember that we must also actualise our current and traditional nodes of education and skills development – our higher level education and tertiary institutions. All the universities in Singapore have enterprise and innovation hubs or laboratories for companies and organisations to collaborate with technology experts and students in industry projects. My fellow Nominated Member, Ms Chia Yong Yong, has put forward a compelling suggestion for greater synergy between research institutes and business. I would fully agree with this.

Remarkable projects are being beta-tested at every level in Singapore and more should be known about this. These projects come from a variety of disciplines as diverse as architecture, engineering, business, political science and law. Innovation should pervade all these sectors. If I may, I would suggest to the Ministry and to the Minister, as we look at SG Innovate as a point or a node for ourselves, to look at other entities such as the Royal Society of Science and the British Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences.

I look at these as examples because they are not universities per se. They are research institutes that traverse all universities in the UK. The best ideas are housed, developed and fertilised there. That could be a role that SG Innovate plays − to inculcate, develop and hot-house some of the best ideas from all universities.

Closer to home, I would also add that perhaps we should look at the Young Outstanding Singaporeans who have been awarded over the years for the past 40 years. I note, for example, that the hon Member Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef is one such example of a Young Outstanding Singaporean, who represented Singapore at the World Congress. My point is that we have had innovators for a long time, it is not new to Singapore, and these innovators who are in our midst must be engaged with. SG Innovate will be that node, hopefully, to link thought leaders, innovators and liaise with our existing professional academies, businesses and universities.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, Minister Heng made reference to an interesting metaphor in his speech. He said that "everyone has a role, and together, we are weaving a rich tapestry – each thread a different colour and texture, but woven together to give strength and resilience to our economy and our society".

This metaphor is apt. But I would caution against assuming the tapestry is ordained or static. Tapestry is art, not science. The artisan's craft of weaving rich texture and producing a masterpiece cannot be overshadowed by our administration's focus on the mapping of professional or business standards to produce a good short-term product. It must have the long term in view, always. It cannot be exciting today, gone tomorrow. We must understand that tapestry will have its fair share of artistic blocks, changing perspectives, agendas and unanticipated outcomes.

Many Members have spoken about the importance of a Singaporean Core everywhere − in business and in society. To remain relevant, our art must been seen as a batik. It cannot be seen as something from another country. There is no transplant for us. We must adapt it; it can never be perfect.

As I began with a Tamil poem, let me end with a few words from a poem we might recognise.

Mdm Speaker: Asst Prof, you have run out of time.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan: Thank you very much, Mdm Speaker. Obliged.

1.23 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, I welcome this Budget. I am glad that the Government has decided to opt for an expansionary fiscal policy this year with 7.3% higher total spending over last year. We are indeed fortunate that we can afford such an increase due to increases in both Operating Revenue and higher Net Investment Returns Contributions (NIRC).

Can the Government provide more details of the projects to be launched this year with the fiscal expansion and how many of them are likely to benefit our local SMEs? I hope the Government will look into launching proportional higher number of projects that can be undertaken by SMEs which employ about 70% of Singaporean workforce.

I am looking forward to the changes the Industry Transformation Programme can bring to our business landscape. It aims to offer a more targeted and sector-focused approach to restructure our companies and drive their growth through productivity gains and innovation. I certainly hope that our SMEs will be proactive in their approach to these new measures and work with the Government agencies to take their business to the next level. Many companies are so focused on their day-to-day operations or meeting deadlines that they fail to take advantage of the benefits of the various schemes the Government has launched due to their circumstances. It is also challenging for them to make the short-term adjustments which are inconvenient but necessary for them to progress.

The present economic environment presents a good opportunity for many companies to leverage on the low commodity prices and work on projects with reduced costs of production. However, while their businesses benefit, they risk having lower revenues, too, in view of aggravated downward pressure due to lower material prices while faced with high capital outlay made in the last few years.

Hence, we have to be careful when we measure productivity based on revenue or by its face value. Companies may have to work doubly hard to obtain the same revenue. Hence, our enterprises have to move to secure higher value jobs to compensate for the downward pressure of costs. At the same time, companies still have to tackle significant business costs, like rent which can be reduced further. For example, JTC can set the lead to bring down the cost component as it is a major player in the market.

Great efforts by Government agencies with strong support from Singaporeans continue to be warranted to attract and bring in quality investment that can give Singaporeans the five "C"s – namely, comparative advantages, competitive edges, competencies, capabilities and capacities that can generate quality and well-paying jobs for Singaporeans. Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I welcome the move by the Government to raise the income ceiling of the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) from $1,900 to $2,000, benefiting about 460,000 Singaporeans. In addition, the Government will also start paying WIS on a monthly basis instead of quarterly. This measure is welcomed by workers as they can receive WIS more quickly. Another welcome measure is that workers now only need to work for one month to qualify. Raising the income ceiling and simplifying the qualifying criteria will provide financial support for workers, and helping more workers to keep their jobs. Amid the current economic uncertainties, these measures are very timely. It is like "sending charcoal in a snowy day".

I also support the measures to enable persons with disabilities who is above 13 years old to be eligible for the Workfare Training Support (WTS) Scheme. Through working, persons with disabilities also hope to have a career, live a meaningful life and contribute to the family and the country. We therefore should give them more support.

(In English): Next, on the subject of levy increases for S Pass holders in every sector and work permit holders in the construction and services sectors. While I can understand the rationale behind this decision, I feel that we must be cautious towards over-reliance on foreign workers. The impact on business costs is substantial and comes during a time when businesses are facing more difficult and challenging conditions. I feel strongly that we should rethink and keep in view the levy increases for all the businesses for this year. Higher levies just add onto the business cost burden without necessarily resulting in the desired productivity gains.

This brings me to the next subject of improvements in productivity. There are various Government assistance schemes to help our companies work towards gains in productivity. However, there are cases when a company just does not know how to go about improving its productivity, let alone access the appropriate schemes. Also, different sectors have different problems, and within each sector, companies serve different niches which present their own unique problems.

I appeal to the Government to provide expertise to our local enterprises to help improve their productivity as part of an entire ecosystem overhaul. This will be a much more proactive approach and will underscore how seriously we view the problem of low productivity gains and our collective determination to overcome this challenge.

Another issue which we have to address urgently is the growing number of PMETs who have been retrenched. The middle and older PMETs are particularly hard hit, and this is a group usually with mortgages to service and still supporting children in school and elderly parents – the typical sandwiched class. I am deeply concerned with the re-employability of these middle aged or older PMETs as they tend to be vulnerable in an economic downturn, becoming the easy choice of the company's cost-cutting restructuring measures rather than exhausting other alternatives, such as collective wage freeze and adjustment.

I urge the Government to explore incentivising employers instead to keep the jobs for all these experienced PMETs.

Mdm Speaker; the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) runs a Professional Conversion Programme to help jobseekers re-skill themselves and to gain the necessary knowledge and competencies to take on new skills. Unfortunately, this programme does not guarantee the same pay for the workers.

Perhaps, we should allocate more funds to the Career Support Programme (CSP) which offers more opportunities to mature Singaporean PMETs for mid-level and above jobs. The CSP has a wage support component and makes it attractive for employers to hire such individuals in any job that pays a gross salary of at least $4,000 a month.

With business cycles getting shorter, skills can become obsolete very quickly. SkillsFuture will come in very useful, not just for our PMETs, but all Singaporean workers. SkillsFuture will keep our workforce updated and versatile and well-equipped to meet the evolving demands of the job market. The quality of our workforce will play an essential role in attracting investments to Singapore. And, of course, the Government must continue to work hard to bring in good quality investments which will provide good jobs with attractive salaries or wages for Singaporeans.

While we could possibly equip Singaporeans with skill mastery, multi-skill sets as well as lifelong skills learning in meeting the dynamism and rapid changing economic challenges, it may be necessary for all of us to rethink of our pursuits in life. This may mean it warrants a further review of our long-term commitment in life, such as HDB and private property prices. It may be prudent to reduce the property loan tenure to not more than 20 years in meeting shorter skill life with the advent of technological advancement and stiff market competition.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciation for the various measures which support families with children. The Child Development Account (CDA) First Step grant, the KidSTART initiative and the Fresh Start Housing Scheme are thus useful and helpful. However, we would probably not see any significant increase in the number of babies next year.

For our fertility rate to improve, we would need to invest more in building up our infant care and childcare infrastructure and system. While it is relatively easy to hire foreign domestic workers to look after babies, there is also a demand for good infant care. Finding such services in convenient locations and with well-trained staff is not easy.

When I was a child, I recall that it was quite common to find homemakers who are also nannies. Today, there are far fewer women doing this work. The main reason is that women are better educated and have better opportunities in their careers. Parents have shared with me that sometimes, both husband and wife need to work late or travel overseas, and it would be ideal if they can leave their young children in their usual infant or childcare centres beyond the current operating hours. Nannies, compared to centres, are usually more flexible. Would the Government look into possible solutions for this problem? Twenty-four-hour care services will also be helpful for workers who work shift work.

Alternatively, some parents leave their children in the care of their elderly parents. As a token of recognition for their contribution, the Government may wish to consider allowing them to claim the subsidies which would have been claimed by infant or childcare centres. I do not consider this to be monetising something which many grandparents do for the young in their families. Rather, the money would help to ease the burden of the young parents in raising a family. With this, I conclude with my support for the Budget.

1.36 pm

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I welcome the Budget as it is an inclusive Budget and seeks to bring Singapore beyond SG50. It calls upon the partnership of all Singaporeans to work together in new ways to transform our economy and build a caring and resilient society.

Let me now touch on the vulnerable workforce – the workers in transition.

As our economy transforms, we will have to transform ourselves. During this period, the vulnerable group needs the most help. This group includes low-wage workers, women workers and mid-career individuals who take on new jobs, and more needs to be done to ensure that they are taken care of.

Retirement adequacy continues to be a challenge for the low-wage workers, and more so for the women. Statistically speaking, women are expected to live longer than men. This means more retirement savings is needed so that we can age gracefully with peace of mind and with dignity and vitality.

For the older or senior women in Singapore today, many have not worked in the formal economy or have suffered from a gender wage gap in their earlier working years. For this group, the Silver Support Scheme that will begin in July will serve as a good supplement to their retirement income in addition to the existing support schemes, such as MediShield Life and Pioneer Generation Package.

For the women workers, it is important that they are given fair opportunities at the workplace, while continuing to care for their families at home. The family unit is the basic building block of a thriving nation. Our families give us support and keep us grounded, and women continue to play a larger role in the families. However, striking a balance is not easy and more needs to be done for the women workers to ensure equal opportunities in placement and career progression.

Women should be given stronger support to be able to pursue our different definitions of success. Women should not be fearful of "sacrificing their careers" for a family if they are given the right to request for flexible work arrangements (FWAs) or given equal opportunities when back to work.

Against the backdrop of a slowing economy, will this vulnerable group be faced with more challenges?

The Workforce Development Agency's (WDA) Professional Conversion Programme (PCP), which helps jobseekers re-skill themselves to take on new jobs has helped many to switch career pathways. However, more support can be given to not just companies but also individuals as many often suffer pay cuts when they change career paths, voluntarily or not.

For example, a 58-year-old union member, who was a Senior Clinic Supervisor took up a nursing diploma course but was only given training allowance of $1,000. While she can look forward to better career progression, as the sole breadwinner of the family, it is challenging having to cope with daily expenses for the family and, at the same time, upgrade herself to make sure there is retirement adequacy towards her silver age.

More can be done to strengthen the PCP by making sure that there is close collaboration amongst all the stakeholders. A concerted tripartite effort can create a stronger support network for this group of people. A hands-on approach from the agency to offer not just training grants but also psychological support and guidance can help acclimatise workers quicker in different workplace environments. They can also be paired with mentors to share insights before, during and after the programme. Unions can also complement such efforts. Also, to ensure that drop-out rates are low, the selection process of such programmes must take into consideration an individual's capability and aptitude levels.

Allow me to share another example of how psychological support, guidance and help by all parties – union, management, family and friends, and society at large – had helped an accountant in his 50s to have successfully completed PCP many years back. In the past, it is called "SMCP". This achievement was not without a challenge. He did well in his academic programme which included a hospital attachment. However, after commencing work, he was not able to cope and adapt in a fast-paced ward environment. There was a constant struggle to the extent that he was in a state of depression and did not know who to turn to until he met up with the union. He needed a pillar of support to lean on and a listening ear to hear his struggles. With much discussion with the management, he was then given another opportunity to show his ability in a smaller ward that was less demanding, in terms of workload. He was then able to cope and subsequently shone to take on higher responsibility. He is a living example of how age is not a barrier and resilience is the key to success. Now, he has been successful to the extent that he was further given the opportunity to take up advanced diploma in nursing and he was glad that he stayed on in this meaningful career to care for the patients. Mdm Speaker, I would like to now speak in Tamil.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Like this accountant, there are many workers who face changes in their workplaces. Some endure because of their passion, some may return to their previous industries when opportunities are made available, and some may give up. They have a common quality. They have made the first step to learn a new skill. They can only succeed with the help and cooperation of all stakeholders, such as the workers, workers' union and the Government.

Every worker's story can be a success story. For this, it is necessary to have the support of the tripartite partners.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, I would like to now switch over to English. I would be talking about inculcating the culture of lifelong learning.

Change is a constant. The economy will continue to transform itself and our jobs will constantly evolve. Learning must never stop.

Our education system has brought us this far, but in the era of rapid changes, we need to have a certain level of nimbleness and agility. We need to inculcate a culture of lifelong learning so that we can be future-ready with future skills. So, how can we be the catalyst of this mindset change? Does our ecosystem allow our people to be independent; to plan for our career; to adapt to changes; to take on new skills every few years; and to constantly learn, unlearn and relearn?

What better way can one do this then tapping on the slew of grants offered under the SkillsFuture initiatives, beginning with the SkillsFuture Credit. Perhaps, to better support the workers in their endeavour to learn new skill, both the Government and employers too, are encouraged to top up the individual's SkillsFuture Credit account. With this, workers especially those who wish to take up courses on their own to upgrade or even switch industries can use this to pay for their courses.

There are others who may not be forthcoming to attend courses or learning as a whole due to long hours of work and the need to work overtime almost daily. For such workers, bite-sized programmes can be another approach to keeping them relevant to the needs of the current skills as well as future skills.

We need to be open and accept that individuals are different and therefore we need to employ different strokes for different folks.

Let me touch on SMEs – building the Singaporean Core. The initiatives announced at this year's Budget to help and support the SMEs is much welcomed. This will help many SMEs to transform to grow together with our economy. However, such measures, while prolonging the survival of some enterprises, may lull workers working in such enterprises from understanding the need to upgrade them to be future-ready with future skills as they get complacent in their current job.

What is alarming is, workers working in SMEs are largely Singaporeans. Hence, how can we ensure that workers in these enterprises are upskilled through the slew of programmes and initiatives offered by WDA, especially the SkillsFuture initiative, so that SMEs can continue to have an effective Singapore core in their workforce? How can we advise and guide such enterprises? How can we render early help and better assist the workers working in such enterprises?

Let me now turn to the plight of the middle-income earners. On middle-income earners who are in vulnerable situations, there must be some safety net in dire times should our economy become more sluggish. More needs to be done to assist them in between jobs, especially if the job search takes more than six months to a year, or even more. Many middle-income earners, commonly known as the sandwich class, whom I have interacted with, had expected tax rebate this year. Of the many with families, there are singles that support the aged parents and, in some cases, those who support the siblings who are physically challenged. Why is there no tax rebate for the middle-income earners this year?

This is the question that ponders in the mind of the sandwich class as they strongly believe that with the tax rebate, such workers can then have something for their savings and help in their family financial chaos. Thank you, Mdm Speaker. With this, I support the Motion.

1.48 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, this is the first Budget that allows the Government to tap on Temasek's Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) alongside the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and GIC, presenting the Government with a cumulative total of $14.7 billion. This is a substantial increase of about 48% from the NIRC of $9.9 billion at the Government's disposal last year and has given this Government more leeway and flexibility to implement its plans, with the $3.4 billion surplus as well.

Mdm Speaker, the focus of my speech is to persuade the Government to consider a deeper discussion of fiscal prudence and the trade-offs in determining our Budget priorities. By doing so, we can have a richer discussion on the Budget and my speech will seek to provide some suggestions on the contours of such a discussion.

As with almost all Budget announcements made over the last few years in particular, it is usually followed by a discussion in some quarters, especially in commentaries and forum pages, about whether the Government is turning populist, if welfare is taking root in Singapore, or a combination of similar themes. Very seldom are fears of welfare accompanied by a look at the overall fiscal state of affairs and both in the short and long term.

The additional details in this Budget about the Silver Support package exemplify a recognition by the Government that there are many Singaporeans – more than 140,000 of them, in fact – who are not adequately equipped for retirement and live precarious lives, perhaps, not only physically, but more significantly, even mentally.

The total expenditure for this year's Budget comes up to $73 billion. The $330 million expended on the Silver Support Package will rise in the years to come because of our demographic profile. To put things in some perspective, the State collects $2.2 billion a year in gaming revenue. Our vulnerable elderly deserve to retire with dignity. This must be a central social objective of the Singapore system.

No discussion of financial prudence can escape the important behavioural question of ensuring our society retains a positive work ethic with permanent schemes like Silver Support and Workfare. However, this question should be posed with a sense of not just perspective, but also proportion, in view of the demographic transition in Singapore and the structural changes that come with economic transformation, both of which will become more apparent in the years to come.

How can we better approach a discussion on the Budget going forward?

Firstly, the evolution of technology and data analytics ought to make discussions on Budget projection generate more light rather than heat. In the same way, the Ministry of Defense (MINDEF) human resource planners can project with sufficient granularity the number of men that will serve National Service (NS) in about 20 years' time, and as a consequence, determine the force size and structure to a reasonable degree, a richer public debate on permanent schemes like Silver Support can take shape if we assess the sustainability of such schemes with a long-term perspective in mind. This would help the public better understand the overall costs and sustainability of such schemes rather than leave it to conjecture.

For example, a more coherent and holistic public debate on the pros and cons of potentially expanding Workfare can also take place if the public is presented with tools to better understand how much such permanent initiatives are likely to cost years down the road. Many Singaporeans have in the past suggested tweaking Workfare to raise the cash component. Currently, a 50-year-old employee earning $1,800 on Workfare gets an additional $9 in cash and $13 in CPF contributions every month, with the amount payable every quarter, subject to the number of months he or she remains employed.

However, an important consideration in the context of fiscal prudence, and understanding such permanent schemes better could be, for example, an exercise that compares raising the WIS payout amounts as compared against the initiative announced in this year's budget which increases the income eligibility threshold from $1,900 to $2,000. How many additional Singaporeans would benefit by this threshold rise and is there scope to further raise the payouts under WIS, and if so, what would be the specific impact on the Budget, and would it be wise? Such enquiries will make the public better appreciate the trade-offs and operationalise the meaning of fiscal prudence.

A second trend that often repeats itself prior to the Budget debate is the wishes of specific industries or industry leaders who call for more reliefs or taxpayer support. What we do not see much of is the debate about whether some companies have grown to expect the equivalence of constant assistance or "welfare" from the State, without the same scrutiny extended to permanent schemes for the needy or less well-off.

Like permanent schemes that help individual Singaporeans, a fuller public discussion on fiscal prudence should also extend to companies and industries, and enquire whether Budget initiatives indeed achieve the policy outcomes that they were intended for. For example, it would be helpful for the Government to set out how much the Productivity and Innovation Credit scheme (PIC) has actually improved productivity numbers or even spurred innovation, even as this year's Budget heralds a reduction of PIC payouts going forward. This is relevant, as even the Government has acknowledged that some companies have used their PIC credits to buy equipment they do not need. Fiscal sustainability would also require accounting for the extent of such leakage and unintended consequences as well.

The lessons learnt from the shortcomings of the PIC scheme should be transferred to the Budget's announcement of the three-year $400 million Automation Support Package, specifically with regard to grants, which assist in the roll-out of new automation projects and investment allowances. This would ensure that the technologies introduced actually improve productivity as envisaged.

Moving forward, and specifically on the Budget's announcement of the $4.5 billion Industry Transformation Programme with more than 20 sectors earmarked for development, it would be worthwhile to consider how companies and sectors that do the most to raise productivity, improve skills and innovation as well as promoting internationalisation can benefit more from taxpayer dollars than those who do not.

One way to effect this differentiation is to consider a higher cap on corporate income tax rebates than the current $20,000 cap for companies that record real productivity gains. For example, the cap can be progressively lowered or even removed completely for companies that do not meet the policy objectives of the scheme.

It would also be important for any exercise in fiscal prudence to distinguish and incentivise activities that actually create something tangible that have a real trickle-down effect as opposed to economic initiatives that just "rotate around the high-finance microcosm enriching the 1% as they buy and sell existing assets to one another, bidding up their value, while failing to invest in research, products, jobs or innovation" – an apt descriptive which I read in a recent TIME magazine article that reviewed a new US primetime television show, titled "Billions".

Mdm Speaker, even as our businesses are incentivised to transform, they must keep Singaporeans at the centre of their efforts. To this end, the Industry Transformation Programme should identify and thereafter even prejudice firms that are what the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) calls "double-weak firms" – weak in having a Singaporean Core and weak in their commitment to fair hiring practices and the development of Singaporeans. Likewise, these companies should be restricted from benefiting from corporate income tax rebates or tapping on the grants that go up on the business grants portal that is to be established in the fourth quarter of this year. An inclusive Singapore must be underwritten by Singapore-based companies that support the employment prospects of Singaporeans.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, in a recent book titled, "Industries of the Future" by Alec Ross, the former innovation adviser to Hilary Clinton, portends a future where medical technology, robotics, coding, big data and so forth, will make many jobs redundant, amongst other interesting predictions. In this context, a deeper and more sophisticated public discussion on fiscal prudence, sustainability and accountability of Budget expenditure in a more ambiguous future becomes more and not less urgent. It would also, I hazard, have the parallel effect of engendering a more inclusive citizenry that is rooted to Singapore's long-term success. Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

1.57 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, let me first start by joining the House in thanking the Minister for Finance for a positive Budget that was filled with positive stories. It is a Budget Statement about how everyone has a role to play and together, we will write the next chapters of the Singapore story.

This is a Budget which helps everyone but with a stronger focus on SMEs, our young, our low-wage workers, persons with disabilities (PwDs), our seniors and Institutions of Public Characters (IPCs). It is a Budget that tells us that change is on the horizon and we must take this journey of change together.

I initially wanted to focus this speech on the issues I filed cuts on; issues that I care about deeply and issues that fellow Singaporeans and residents have raised to me.

I filed 20 cuts altogether, raising concerns on how we can help single parents, young parents, the elderly, low-income families, micro-SMEs, drug offenders in their rehabilitation process, foreign workers, fighting climate change, the transboundary haze issue, improving flood management, moving towards a car-lite city, beefing up our Home Team, improving electronic waste recycling, expanding the Active, Beautiful, Clean (ABC) Waters Programme, extending the smoking prohibition, improving animal welfare, fighting wildlife trafficking and lastly, improving the OneService App.

It would have been a speech about a few main issues from the above cuts, but I scrapped that speech and decided instead to focus on something more fundamental and what the President had asked us to do in his Address to us in January this year. And that is to "engage and partner with Singaporeans in nation building", the fifth of the five key aims this Government aims to fulfil.

I see this Budget debate as one of the last few chapters of this "Budget" journey. In fact, we are nearing our destination. I do feel that we perhaps need to take a few steps back and add a few more chapters in this journey.

This Budget is one huge item in our agenda that affects everyone in Singapore. It is something that everyone has a stake in and everyone should have a voice in. I strongly believe that we should use this opportunity to engage and partner Singaporeans in nation building. This is our best opportunity to do so in each financial year.

In this journey, we have asked fellow Singaporeans for their feedback through a public consultation exercise which started on 1 February and ended on 26 February. In less than a month, the Budget Statement was announced and many have asked if we can effectively digest all the feedback from the public within a month.

Minister Heng had mentioned that we received over 1,000 feedback but, of course, I understand that not every feedback was received on the last day. But the question here is whether we can make this journey less rushed. I am not advocating for us to delay the Budget Statement but rather, I hope we can start the process earlier.

For a financial year that starts in April, I suggest that we start the first public consultation in November the previous year for a period of one month.

So, we start the consultation in November rather than February, and this consultation is similar to what we are already doing. It gathers general ideas from the public about what they want to see in the Budget and members of the public provide this feedback without knowing what the Government has in mind or the general direction it is heading.

We then take two months to digest all the feedback, which is from December until January. In February, we release a draft Budget Statement similar to what we released on March 24. We then have another round of public consultation about that Budget Statement for a month.

This second round of public consultation is a good opportunity for Members of this House to obtain feedback from the ground and work towards incorporating them into the final Budget Statement. And the feedback obtained from this consultation will likely be more specific, since members of the public now know what the Government has in mind based on their previous feedback and it is now about finetuning the ideas.

This final Budget Statement is then read towards the end of March, after digesting the feedback from the second round of public consultation for a month.

Is this process more tedious? The answer, without a doubt, is yes. But will people feel more engaged, more empowered and will this strengthen our partnership with fellow Singaporeans? The answer is, without a doubt, also yes.

We need to change the narrative and I accept that it is changing. It has gone from the Government organising sessions to tell people what the new policies are, to sessions now asking for feedback before we draft the new policies. But I think we can, we should and we must go one step further.

The destination is important but I feel the journey is even more crucial. Communication has to be two ways and after we obtain feedback from the public, we should incorporate as many of them as possible into policies, show people the draft policies and then get feedback again.

This will show that public consultation is not just an exercise for us to put a tick in the box but that we are truly listening, and that their views and feedback are being looked into, worked on, perhaps even expanded and then incorporated into the final product.

Do not get me wrong; this Budget 2016 is a good Budget for Singapore and Singaporeans but it can be better. I feel there are more ideas out there that can be explored.

There is no doubt that there has been a lot of public feedback about this Budget. I am sure we have all seen the feedback about the Budget Statement both online and in the print media and on the ground, during our house visits and during our coffee shop visits. As always, there is praise and there are criticisms. There will always be negative feedback, but these may also be ideas we have not thought of, and they may be worth exploring.

The most feedback I have received is from the parents of the 93 babies born each day before 24 March 2016 when the new First Step Grant kicked in. Some have even come to my Meet the People Sessions.

But there are questions on why 24 March, why not 1 January 2016, since the babies born from 1 January until 23 March 2016 missed out on the SG50 Baby Jubilee Gift and now the First Step Grant? And so, I hope we can backdate it and provide the grant to babies born from 1st January 2016.

There are concerns about whether the cap on the tax relief will hit working mothers hardest, is 1% but I met that 1% on Sunday. There are concerns on whether the development of Coney Island will affect the environment there. There are concerns on why we are lowering the cash payout rate for the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme and proceeding with increasing the foreign worker levies for the services and construction sectors.

I believe these are all valid concerns that we should look into and it is for that reason that I hope that for next year, we will include a public consultation phase after the Budget Statement is read and before the announcement of a final Budget.

Mdm Speaker, in my maiden speech, I spoke about how we can mobilise our most important and valuable resource in Singapore – our people. To engage people, we need to listen more than we speak. And I quoted, "The most basic of all human needs is the need to understand and be understood. The best way to understand people is to listen to them."

And how we are not there just to explain policies to people and to throw them facts and figures, but we are there to truly listen and understand.

I held my town hall last Saturday and spent close to two hours just listening to the feedback from residents about the Budget and many other issues. They spoke of their hopes, their aspirations and their dreams for Singapore. For me, it was a powerful session and there are ideas and suggestions there that we need work on and perhaps incorporate into the next Budget.

This Budget is about partnerships and about starting our journey together for the next 50 years. And I agree with Minister Heng that there is no doubt that we need to grow our economy and invest collectively for the long term – in our people, our home and our security.

And with a population that is engaged, empowered, inspired and mobilised, this journey will be even more amazing, the Singapore story even more powerful and this red dot will shine even brighter. Mdm Speaker, I support this Budget.

2.06 pm

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, year after year I sit in this august Chamber listening to our Finance Minister deliver the Budget for Singapore. Always well-planned, always structured, always comprehensive addressing the issues of the day; current, prudent and practical. The question I then asked myself is, how do we ensure that we grab all the opportunities that are available, whether from the Budget or from any other platforms to empower ourselves, to uplift ourselves, our families, our companies and businesses and of course our nation. The question is also, Madam, are we as hungry as we should be? Let me narrate a story.

Once, a young man approached Socrates and asked how he could achieve success and even greater success? Socrates took the young man out to the sea and they walked on until the water level reached the shoulders of the young man. Socrates then grabbed the young man's head and pushed it under the water. The young man struggled but Socrates was a big man and, of course, stronger. Then slowly he lightened the grasp on the young man's head and allowed him to surface, gasping for air. Socrates then said to him, "When you want something so bad, as you had wanted air a moment ago, you would naturally achieve success."

Every Budget, every National Day Rally, many would ask, "What goodies are we getting?" Is this the appropriate question we should be asking?

The late Minister Mentor said in an interview with the National Geographic Magazine: "Singaporeans are not as hard driving and high striving as they ought to be."

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong himself said at one of the National Day Rally speeches, "Singaporeans are not as hungry as the Vietnamese."

Our forefathers worked really hard, showcasing sheer grit and discipline. But are we hungry enough to carry on? We are a first-world nation. We can build all the best facilities for training sportsmen for example. But facilities alone do not make champions. Discipline, dedication, sheer grit, sweat, blood, tears and toil does.

With this Budget, the Automation Support Package, for example, has a Capability Development Grant, which can support up to 50% of qualifying costs for automation projects. The equipment loan is enhanced from 50% to 70% and the Investment Allowance is rather generous as well. Are we hungry enough to utilise these as appropriate? For those involved in business, can we think out of the box to make this relevant? If the box is small enough, are we brave enough to enlarge it? And even with that, if it is still restrictive, do we dare, are we hungry enough to break that box, but do not break any laws of the nation.

Are we hungry enough to also perhaps pre-book our lot at the Jurong Innovation District? The stronger our desire for achievement and the hungrier we are, chances are we will strive hard to get whatever we want. So, what is our Hunger Index? Can we peak our expectations? Can we keep our motivation wave riding high?

Are we ready to not peg grades to our self-worth? Are we ready for education beyond textbooks and the four walls of our classroom that can enrich us, and widen our mindsets and empower us? Our communities, the world, the Internet, virtual learning and simulation are all our newer platforms for learning. In all these, we can instil discipline in the approach and gauge the desired outcome in order to reap the maximum benefits.

Are we hungry enough for jobs, coming in at the appropriate level and working ourselves up? Are we hungry enough to maintain or even further our competitiveness, knowing the rest of Southeast Asia, China and India are up and coming?

The extension of the non-taxation of gain from equity is a good example. This will enable SMEs to explore new businesses and models, and help restructuring and even streamline their company's investments. This will reduce their worry about any incidental tax costs that can be incurred. For those venturing overseas, the Double Tax Deduction (DTD) for the Internationalisation Scheme is an option to help jump start initiatives as well.

Are we hungry enough to better what others know and even to do better than they have done?

In this context the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme has been a booster for many companies. It will be extended till 2018 and beyond that, there will some changes. Such broad-based schemes will be replaced by more targeted ones. This may throw off some companies and pose challenges for some SMEs at first, but I would urge businesses, especially the smaller ones, to view this with a broader perspective, plan early and assess financial commitments and capabilities appropriately. Balance this also with another new initiative that has been announced, that is the SME Working Capital Loan to help maximise benefits.

Are we hungry enough to further the frontiers of research, in the various disciplines?

The flexibility to claim writing-down allowances on the acquisition costs of intellectual property (IP) over a longer time frame can help relevant companies and institutions. As we become a research hub, we must continue to encourage companies to bring in more IPs to Singapore.

Can we come out of our comfort zone and choose to be extraordinary? Get the greatness and the mastery that we want? Parents have been presented with a blank canvas in their children. How ready are we to be creative and expressive with this canvas?

Failure need not always be paralysing. Can we remove constraints on our thinking? Can we ride the tide of change and transformation and be willing to take the beating as we strive?

Can we take ownership of our learning and growth? I have met many young people who have interacted with me and said, "I do not really know what my interests are, nor my passion", or "I do not know what I am good at".

Well, knowing ourselves and understanding what we like is really a function of two things. Firstly, external action such as the work you have been doing, the projects you have been involved in, the travels, and the experiences that you have bought along the way.

The second point is really about internalisation and adequate introspectionary reflection. So, if you can put the two together and work on it a bit, you will realise your strengths.

We can choose to sit in a café or by the beach and watch the world go by or wait for inspirations to strike us or we can get up and do something about it, and tame that hunger.

On a cautionary note, as we enhance our drive and get more hungry, remember to think of others and appreciate people. As we grow and develop ourselves, people like our parents and grandparents and the less abled are growing older and need to be treated with respect, patience, and love, even as they become slower than they used to be.

As we pursue to fulfil our hunger, let us not trample over others or venture into non ethical territories. We always want a clean, upright, caring, nurturing and stimulating environment with a long-term goal of building resilience.

Remember work-life and family balance as well. And also remember philanthropy.

In the end, it is about being balanced, well-equilibrated, successful and happy in our lives together. It is about the sustainability of Singapore. Madam, our Hunger Index is well as that of our future generations will determine how sustainable we are as a global brand name, how our journey would be towards SG100. In Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Malay community has attained so much success and achievement including in the new fields, and if we look closely, those who succeed, as well as their families, they possess certain traits that lead to their success.

But there are a few who are still stuck in challenging situations. In my experience in interacting with and assisting them, there are a number of issues that need to be dealt with.

And these are the five issues. First of all is mindset. Many are still not exposed to or are unaware of available assistance schemes. They only go to nearby places such as mosques and Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS). I would like to propose that mosque volunteers work with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) or the Community Development Councils (CDCs) in a joint effort to help them and point them in the right direction.

In Geylang Serai, for instance, I worked with these institutions so that they can refer cases to me. Another way will be for MSF to work with mosques to reach out to these families. I hope that those in this group would speak to us so that we can help them and formulate an action plan that will assist them for the sake of their future.

The second factor is self-confidence. They have to be open-minded enough to see the bigger picture and look far ahead. If others can achieve success, they can do it too. We will help them and motivate them. But they have to develop a mindset that is inspired, motivated and have a strong desire to achieve something.

The third factor is prioritising family expenses. Attend courses such as the "Spending Wisely" course which is held near your place. Do not give up. If you need personal counselling, we can do it too. The mindset where you "work hard first and enjoy later" is the right way.

The fourth factor is debt. This is the source of financial problems for certain families, spending beyond their means, buying things on instalment plans and so on. Change this habit. There are those who still have credit card issues. Some even have eight to 10 credit cards. Some are forced to sell their homes because of debt and how they handled their finances.

The fifth issue refers to health issues. There are those in this group who prefer not to undergo health screening or early screening. If they are diagnosed with an illness, they find it hard to accept and sometimes refuse treatment. Sometimes, this is due to financial reasons, but in other cases, it is because of their mindset. Some have just reached the age of 40 years and think that they are already old and they are less motivated to take care of their health. Your health is in your hands. Do what is necessary for your future and your families' future.

Despite these issues, many of our Malay/Muslims have managed to turn their lives around and are more positive and self-reliant. I find that those who are able to overcome these five factors are able to progress with the available assistance schemes. Their children's generation can succeed because they are focused on education, which is the most important factor in transforming the lives of their families.

We are now facing a new world with new challenges. We need a new mindset; to be more proactive, to be more global and to be more reliable. Every individual in our Malay/Muslim community, together with other communities, must undergo this transformation together as one for the sake of our future and the future of Singapore.

(In English): With ourselves being described as a wonderful tapestry, interwoven and interlaced, a piece of batik art, but let me add my piece. A wonderful, healthy, nutritious bowl of salad. Consider the salad bowl. Different pieces of vegetables, fruits, nuts, raisins cut up into small pieces but, at the same time, always maintaining the character, the flavour, the taste, the colour and whatever they have individually. But they coexist in that salad bowl; happily together, loosely held by a salad dressing. Hopefully, it is a healthy dressing. Not mayonnaise, but a vinaigrette dressing or a lemon dressing would be much healthier for us. And, co-existing in that salad bowl, sharing that common space, limited as it may be, but together cohesive, and when you take a spoonful of this salad, and put it into your mouth, the flavour is wonderful.

The explosion of flavour is just indescribable! That is how we must be like – the salad bowl where we are all together in it, together for the future for Singapore. I support the Budget.

2.19 pm

Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I shall deliver my speech in English and Malay. I will cover three areas. First, the plight of the middle-income group; second, innovation and the culture of inquisitiveness; and lastly, Malay SMEs.

First, let me express my appreciation to Minister Heng Swee Keat for the delivery of Budget 2016. I am highly impressed by the clarity and simplicity with which the nation's strategic goals were presented. However, I must say, I have some concerns which I would like to highlight.

First, the plight of the middle-income group. Through my involvement in community issues over the last 13 years, I have become impassioned over the welfare and well-being of the sandwiched class, or as they say, the middle-income group.

There were rigorous discussions on the middle-income group during the run-up to last year's Budget Statement delivered by then-Finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. The Government was astute in recognising the problem and announced a slew of measures to help them.

It is interesting to note, however, that the Budget Statement this year made no mention of further enhancing or expanding the schemes targeted for the middle-income announced last year, let alone introduce new ones. I get the impression and sincerely hope that this is because existing initiatives are making substantial headways in alleviating the plight of the middle income.

As Singapore progresses amidst the global and at times uncertain economic backdrop, our economy will have to adapt and adjust. Both local and multinational corporations (MNCs) would be continuously re-inventing and restructuring themselves while trying to cope with the changing economic landscape.

As new economies replace old ones, the possibilities of jobs redundancy and obsolescence are inevitable. I sincerely believe our progress equation will have to include these unwanted elements. It is a systemic constraint that we are confronted with, which we have to manage. I also appreciate the Government's effort in trying to circumvent this by introducing proactive and constructive measures on our workers through re-training and skills upgrading.

With the middle-income group constituting a major proportion of our workforce, it is imperative that we place safeguards to ensure robustness in the times of adverse economic conditions. As recent as last month, the Singapore Economic Society discussed the idea of cushioning workers in the event of involuntary unemployment. Former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP), Dr Kanwaljit Soin, suggested unemployment insurance through the usage of Central Provident Fund's (CPF) Medisave, which seems to be an idea that is worth exploring. Other Members of Parliament had also expressed similar proposals on workers' safety net in the past.

Perhaps it is timely that we should revisit this with the purpose to ensure the worker's and his or her family's well-being, should the unwanted event occur. Mdm Speaker, I shall proceed with the next part in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Good afternoon. First, let me express my appreciation to Minister Heng Swee Keat for the delivery of Budget 2016. Although it is very interesting and comprehensive, I would like, however, to register some concerns.

Throughout my involvement in dealing with community issues over the last 13 years, I have been very concerned with the welfare and well-being of middle-class Singaporeans or the group often termed as the sandwich class.

I concur that the Government has already identified and discussed this issue at length, and has already provided various assistance schemes for the middle-class in the 2015 Budget.

Unfortunately, I find that this year's Budget Statement did not touch deeply on, and did not state, whether there will be further enhancements or expansions to the schemes announced last year, let alone introduce new schemes.

As Singapore progresses amidst an uncertain global and economic environment, our economy will have to adapt. Both local companies and MNCs will continue to re-invent and restructure their businesses and operations, while they also try to cope with a rapidly changing economic landscape.

As the new economy replaces the old economy, several jobs will very possibly become redundant and obsolete. I believe that our progress equation will have to include these unwanted elements. We have to accept that this is the systemic constraint that confronts us and we have to manage it well.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the Government for working hard to overcome this issue by introducing proactive and constructive measures, through the skills upgrading and retraining schemes made available to our workers.

With the middle-income group making up a large proportion of our labour force, it is important that we provide this protective and safety net to ensure that we stay strong during the times when the economy is bad.

Moreover, just last month, the Singapore Economic Society discussed ideas about measures that can be implemented to help minimise the impact on our workers if they are retrenched.

In fact, former NMP, Dr Kanwaljit Soin, proposed the idea of an unemployment insurance using the CPF Medisave account. This is an idea that we can explore and discuss further. Other past MPs have also expressed similar proposals to provide such a social safety net.

The time may have come for us to re-examine this idea with the aim of ensuring that the welfare and well-being of workers and their families are cared for, in case anything unfortunate happens.

(In English): I shall touch on innovation and culture of inquisitiveness.

I have been involved in innovation and R&D since I started my career in 1986. Through the 30 years, it is evidenced for me that successful companies invest significantly in R&D and innovation activities. The value creation and the unique value proposition that these companies offered through innovation kept them ahead of their competitors. It was also a primary factor which enabled these successful companies to be able to tread through difficult times. Innovation was clearly one of the key drivers towards success and sustainability.

I heartily laud Budget 2016's key thrust in placing innovation as one of the strategic pieces. I am convinced that this is the right element for enterprises to embark on if they are to forge into the future successfully. It can also mean life and death. However, going forward, I support wholeheartedly towards this initiative which will enable us to transform our economy and bring us into the future that we desire.

However, innovation is neither a product nor it is a material item. It is an intangible capability and competence which need to be nurtured with time. For innovation to be successfully and sustainably applied, it has to be deep-rooted in the way we do things and the way we run our business. Innovation calls for the intelligent application of knowledge which ultimately creates value. And it is this purpose of continuous value creation that elevates enterprises from one level to the next, thus transforming themselves.

Having worked for large MNCs in my many years of employment, I frequently met and dealt with local enterprises. Unfortunately, I must admit that my impression on most local enterprises that I met was not encouraging if I were to assess them on their involvement in R&D. Somehow, investing in R&D and innovation activities is not an important and top-of-the-list item on their agenda. As such, it is apparent and noticeable that they are unable to provide that special value which is needed to differentiate them from their global competitors.

If we want innovators to create and create value, we have to start by creating innovators and nurture them. And to achieve this, we have to start from young. Here, I mean we have to start as early as primary schools. I am of the opinion that it would have been too late if we start later than this. Here, I would like to share with you my personal experience on how I ended up being involved in the R&D domain.

When I was a young boy, I used to sit next to my father on weekends while he would start dismantling parts of his Vespa motor scooter. He would then hand me pieces and items of the motor scooter engine – screws, bolts, piston ring, piston, engine blade, brake clutches, spark plug, you name it, and he would then ask me to start cleaning them on a pan filled with kerosene. A bit dangerous though, but I did it.

Though the odour from the kerosene can be challenging, I enjoyed it and felt intrigued. While doing all these, I became fascinated. What ran through my mind was – how can all these small parts, when put together, be able to make the motor scooter run, whereby each part itself is almost useless, just a mere piece of metal. And that was the time where I started to develop a sense of inquisitiveness. It is this inquisitive attribute which I gained and later on in life propelled me to become an R&D engineer upon my graduation after completing university education. And I never regretted it. R&D and innovation is still my passion to this day.

Mdm Speaker, the message which I want to deliver here is about creating innovators from a very young age. We have to start as early as possible if we want our young to have that inquisitive attribute and to make it second nature. I believe it is an important prerequisite if one is to be an innovator.

Herewith, I would like to request for the following if we are to create a continuous supply of innovators who can fit the strategic pieces: first, include innovation subject as part of the curriculum in primary schools up to tertiary institutions; second, nationwide and national level or cluster level innovation competition in schools, by the chambers of commerce, community organisations, and so on; third, mass media involvement to elevate these initiatives so as to create awareness and high-level interest in innovation; fourth, top level and Ministerial stewardship towards this innovation initiative; and, lastly, funds must be allocated for the above initiatives. I hope the relevant Ministries will pick up the suggestions and steer the way.

Mdm Speaker, I shall touch on the topic of Malay small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Our SMEs play an important role in our economy. The Industry Transformation Programme is apt and timely to bring us into the future. The slew of support schemes and incentives offered by the Budget 2016 are again laudable.

However, I would like to highlight that there are gaps with varying degrees of capabilities and competencies among our SMEs. Without doubt, generally, Malay SMEs are very far behind other ethnic SMEs in almost all areas. It is against this backdrop that I would like to raise my concerns.

I wish I have all the statistics to share and understand where the Malay SMEs are. Even if we have it, it would still be a cause of concern. Malay SMEs need much more help if they are to move and meet the call in support of the nation's long-term strategic goals. Herewith, I would like to request to the relevant Ministries to render special attention to the plight of the Malay SMEs.

Amongst the few examples of two aspiring Malay SMEs that I know of which deserve and need all the support they can get are, first, Vector ScoreCard Pte Ltd run by Mr Nazri Muhamad; and, second, Enercon Asia Pte Ltd run by Mr Azhar Othman.

They are young and aspiring entrepreneurs whose aim is to expand and become a global enterprise one day. I believe there are more SMEs like them that have similar aspirations. What they need is proper guidance.

It is my hope to see SMEs like the above rise and become successful enterprises in the future with sales value of at least $220 million annually. They need to be guided and tap the professional expertise from experienced mentors who have the credentials of transforming SMEs into MNCs.

Mdm Speaker, through my experience working in various MNCs, I began to value the support and services rendered by top level and professional business consultants, like McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, and so on. The outcome of their work, without a doubt, justifies the standing they are accorded with.

Again, with this backdrop, I would like to propose the following: form a special business council within the Malay community to oversee and steer the progress of transforming possible Malay SMEs to reach a target annual revenue, to be determined and agreed upon, in support of the nation's strategic goal; providing the needed professional support so as to help the identified SMEs to meet its defined objectives; seek the assistance from the relevant Ministries if targeted SMEs could be given the support to have access and to be coached by top-level business consultants with the objective to grow our SMEs into MNCs; and, of course, lastly, financial support, which has already been outlined. Mdm Speaker, with all being said and elaborated, I support Budget 2016.

2.37 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Madam, I will deliver my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam, one of the main themes for this year's Budget is the Spirit of Partnership. In his speech, Minister Heng Swee Keat emphasised the importance of this factor in transforming our nation's economy and in strengthening Singapore towards being an inclusive and caring society. I agree and concur that emphasis and focus should be given to this Spirit of Partnership because, in our present lives that are full of trials and tribulations, efforts that require cooperation or collaborations between different groups and entities, are the best way to cope with an uncertain living environment. As the Malay saying goes, "Whether the burden is light or heavy, we will carry it together". The value of the Spirit of Partnership is the main theme of my speech for this year's Budget debates.

Madam, the Government's plans and efforts that focus more on the business sector are a welcome move. This is to be expected, especially with the gloomy overall economic outlook in the near future. The support given to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) is important because SMEs form 99% of all local businesses, creating 70% of the nation's labour force and contributing 50% towards Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP). If something unfortunate happens to our SMEs, the whole of Singapore will be affected. For instance, the winding down of an SME will result in job losses for Singaporeans. I feel that the main objective is to gain a collective benefit and not for only certain groups. The collective benefit is gained by Singaporeans through the jobs made available when small and medium enterprises continue to grow and progress. This collective benefit is a main factor in achieving an inclusive and caring society.

For this Budget, one of the main emphasis is the effort to increase systems automation and encourage mergers and acquisitions. The Government has provided grants to support SMEs to achieve this. In terms of economy of business, any increase in automation will be viewed as something positive because it is closely linked to an increase in productivity. However, the next question will be, what will be the impact of automation on the economy of employment?

Economic experts have different views on the impact of automation on jobs. The moderate view is that, while automation will make jobs disappear, at the same time, it will create new jobs. A study by George Graetz from the Uppsala University and Guy Michaels from the London School of Economics in 2015 showed some evidence that automation will result in job loss to low-skilled workers and to certain moderately skilled workers. Retrenchments and job losses cannot be avoided when mergers and acquisitions occur. In this decade, mergers and acquisitions occurred rapidly in many industries, like banking, logistics, manufacturing and others.

Madam, one of the main concerns of Singaporeans is the loss of income. The main aim of the Government in supporting the increase in automation, and encouraging mergers and acquisitions, is that Singaporeans can reap the collective benefits, and that it will not only benefit certain groups. Many hope that the Government will pay close attention and monitor it closely, so that this aim of reaping collective benefits can be realised. We certainly do not want a situation where automation and technological development result in certain segments of society feeling that they are left behind, and sink amidst the tide of modernity and progress, resulting in negative feelings, as the saying goes, "being discarded after they are no longer useful." If this happens, it will weaken our efforts to build an inclusive and caring society.

As one way to manage the impact of retrenchment that will certainly occur in the effort to achieve progress, I support my colleague Ms Sylvia Lim's suggestion that the Government consider introducing a Redundancy Insurance. This is an insurance scheme where employers and workers each contribute a small portion of the worker's monthly salary into a fund. The objective of this fund is to help workers who are facing unemployment due to involuntary retrenchment, including those who were served notice. This fund can perhaps provide payouts over a period of six months, whereby the payout amount can be based on a small proportion of the last salary received by the worker, within the range of 40%, but at the same time, have a limit that is based on the median income. This simple scheme can give an indication that the help provided is short-term in nature, but at the same time, it can give some relief and financial assistance while these individuals strive to look for new jobs.

Madam, in addition, I would like to convey the wishes of many people to increase the amount allocated for the SkillsFuture credit. The people welcome the SkillsFuture scheme, especially amongst the low-skilled and low-wage community members, who wish to upskill so that they will not sink amidst the tide of technological development and automation. However, their intent to upskill will be affected due to cost issues. On the basis of inclusiveness and caring for one another, I hope that the Government can seriously consider the suggestions mentioned as part of the Spirit of Partnership between the Government and the people to help Singaporeans cope with the challenges that will emerge in our nation's pursuit of progress.

Madam, I would now like to touch on the social aspect of the 2016 Budget. In his speech, the Finance Minister said that we will like Singapore to be a great place to raise a family, where we bring out the best in every Singaporean, and a society that takes care of those who have special needs, and who are less well off. The Minister once again emphasised the Spirit of Partnership between individuals, society and the Government in order to achieve this objective.

For this year's Budget, in an effort to aid early childhood development, a new initiative KidSTART was introduced. The KidSTART scheme aims to help the early development of children's physical, cognitive and social skills. The present Child Development Account scheme (CDA) has been enhanced with an additional First Step grant of $3,000 as an initial assistance. As mentioned, these schemes provide support for Singaporean children in order to give them the best start possible in life.

On the basis of this noble aim, I appeal to the Government to extend these schemes to every Singaporean child including those born out of wedlock. Presently, Government schemes exclude this group of children. I do understand that the Government provides these schemes only to children who are born to married couples in an effort to strengthen the institution of the family. As a family and household counsellor, I agree with this approach. But I also feel that we should assess this from another angle.

Firstly, children born out of wedlock are also Singaporean children who will contribute to the development of this nation when they become adults. Secondly, these children are just like other children, born the same way and have the same needs, in terms of physical, cognitive and social development. Thirdly, these children should not be treated differently because of something that their parents did.

I would like to reiterate that, while I agree with the Government's efforts to strengthen the institution of the family, nonetheless I believe that there are better ways, in the form of early prevention that can be taken to deal with this issue. The Government's approach in this issue should be changed so that when these children grow up, they will not feel marginalised, left out and angry, because society seems to blame them for something that their parents did. I believe that the Government's support towards the development of every Singaporean child, regardless of their status, will be welcomed by Singaporeans.

Madam, I would like to now touch on the development of the Outward Bound School (OBS) which aims to build resilience. The development of resilience among our students is important in preparing them for the various challenges in life and giving them self-confidence. I support the plan to build the OBS in Coney Island, which will be able to accommodate more participants. In order to build one's resilience, we need to have a holistic approach, whereby every aspect of the human brain, that is, Intelligence Quotient (IQ), Emotional Quotient (EQ) and Spiritual Quotient (SQ), must be developed and nurtured.

SQ first came to the attention of academics, especially in the field of psychology, early last decade. According to academics, SQ is closely linked to awareness towards the meaning of life, being responsible in life and the need for humility in life. By possessing SQ, it will point an individual towards having a personal vision and work towards it, with the objective that every benefit gained is not meant just for him, but also for society and the world in general; in other words, achieve collective good. In short, he turns himself into a blessing for all.

I am of the view that a combination of these three quotients will not only result in resilience, but it will also build other positive human traits. Here, I would like to repeat a suggestion that I gave previously in this House, that is, the reintroduction of Religious Knowledge subjects in secondary schools. I feel that schools are the best place to develop a holistic person that should combine IQ, EQ and SQ. I would like to share that I have one child who is studying in a full-time madrasah, one in a public school and one more in a Mission school. I had the opportunity to examine how these three schools nurture good values and good traits. The advantage that Mission schools and madrasahs have over public schools is that they also focus on developing SQ.

Madam, I mentioned earlier that one of the efforts that the Government does to strengthen the institution of the family is by excluding children born out of wedlock from enjoying the support schemes provided by the Government. Following that, I said that it is better to undertake early preventive measures so that this situation, where a child is born out of wedlock, can be lessened or prevented. I am confident that this can be achieved through the development of the Intellectual, Emotional and Spiritual Quotients in each person. A partnership, which combines the Intellectual, Emotional and Spiritual Quotients, can result in individuals who are highly resilient and gives priority to the collective need. These are the Singaporeans that we need in our effort towards building an inclusive and caring society.

The final issue that I will touch on is the Government's move to encourage Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and other ground-up initiatives, by providing more support. Here, I would like to suggest that we establish a more effective link or cooperation between corporate entities and individuals, with the Social Service Office (SSO). I do understand that the main role of the SSO is to coordinate and increase cooperation between voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) within their respective jurisdictions, so that the local communities can receive the maximum benefit. This is done by monitoring the demography and needs of the local community. For example, monitoring is done to see if there is a duplication of services, whether the service provided currently is sufficient and so on. The partnership between the SSO and programme organisers, be it corporate entities or interested individuals, can help to fill in the service gaps within a certain area. This partnership not only benefits the needy, but it also helps organisations that provide assistance or that wish to implement community programmes, and hence creating a win-win situation for everyone.

Before I end my speech, I would like to state that the Spirit of Partnership is an important aspect of personal development, as well as the development of society and the nation. The Spirit of Partnership aims to combine resources and manpower so that it can give the best and maximum benefits possible to every member of society. But we must be careful so that this partnership does not lead to unwanted side effects and resulting in a segment of society feeling marginalised and neglected, because that will run against our country's mission to build an inclusive and caring society. Madam, I support this Budget.

2.55 pm

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of this Budget. I will speak on three areas today: why our economic restructuring is so important; pitfalls and opportunities; and how we must continue keeping our social system progressive.

Madam, a vibrant economy creates opportunities and jobs for Singaporeans. In the 21st century, this has to mean good quality jobs − Singaporeans moving up the value chain, climbing up the value tree, finding a branch of skills where they can specialise and find mastery. Sometimes, as circumstances change, jumping to a new branch on another tree, continuing to climb, climbing higher, and climbing better. It is a good approach, not just in the Year of the Monkey, but throughout life. And our startups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) provide opportunities too − the skills that come with running a business and the chance to build a successful enterprise.

Madam, when a society is low on opportunity, it is the rent-seekers and owners of old capital who extract profits, often without creating value for a broader economy and society. So, a thriving society with its jobs and enterprise, all these help our young Singaporeans to rise and grow, while adding dynamism and value to our society.

We also know that a strong economy gives us the means to support fiscal redistribution and the many social programmes that underpin an inclusive society. It also ensures we can maintain a credible defence deterrence through a strong Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), as well as a Home Team that is ready and equipped to face the challenges of this century. All these keep us relevant to the world and ensure that our voice can be heard, even though we are small.

In summary, Mdm Speaker, we must not forget that a strong economy secures our Independence, sovereignty and security, and is also key to building a fair and just society.

My second point, Mdm Speaker, is avoiding pitfalls while securing opportunities. And there are challenges amid our restructuring. We have evolved from a third-world to a first-world economy, and the low-hanging fruits have already been picked. But there are still lessons we can learn from the experience of other developed countries, the challenges they faced, the lessons they have learnt.

In February 2013, the Harvard Business School published its 2012 survey on US competitiveness led by Prof Michael Porter. It is useful to look at the observations and what we can learn that are applicable to Singapore. One observation by the Harvard study was on the importance of shared resources, for example, workers having relevant skills in the labour market; workers moving in between employers, between sectors, but having that base of skills; supply chain networks; and physical, technical infrastructure. Yet, the authors of the Harvard study found that there was a shortfall of investment by businesses in shared resources. Investment would have helped all companies in the long term. But at the level of individual companies in the US, it did not always make short-term business sense.

The Harvard study also observed that, with globalisation, it is quite possible for a company, especially a multinational corporation (MNC), to grow more competitive, even if the host nation loses its edge, partly because of this lack of investment in the host country.

So, Mdm Speaker, it is important that we provide incentives for businesses, especially MNCs, to continue investing in Singapore, and reinvesting in Singapore and Singaporeans. One way to do this is for companies to continue training up a strong Singaporean Core with skills and industry knowledge – not just the numbers, but people with skills and the tacit, implicit knowledge that comes from knowing an industry sector deeply and, especially, in business sectors of key importance where Singaporeans are still under-represented. Building up this local pool of talent also helps our SMEs because the more skills and talent are in the pool, the more there are who can forge on, start their own enterprises, and help fellow Singaporeans to grow and rise. Different industries, different ways, but it must always be an on-going effort.

In Singapore, because of our history of fiscal prudence, we are in a position to supplement this with Government investment as well. And I concur with fellow Members that SkillsFuture is an important step forward, because individual companies, sometimes because of their size, may not be willing to underwrite the cost of training, or they may fear that a worker is going to move to another company after upskilling. But when companies invest in workers, upskilled workers, it uplifts the entire sector of skills. It helps other companies in the sector, it helps the workers, it helps Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, at a broader level, research and start-up spin-offs should also continue receiving investment, especially in a way that socialises the gains when these companies turn profitable and especially when these companies become very successful. Mariana Mazzucato at Sussex University, who studies the economics of innovation, has proposed many ways to do this. For example, loan repayments that are adjusted based on profits of the enterprise, or allowing the state to retain equity, just as private venture capital firms do. It does not have to be a controlling stake, but the equity could be preferred stocks with priority in receiving dividends.

The Harvard study, Mdm Speaker, also observed that some American corporations were driven by short-term performance indicators – short-term shareholders driving short-term corporate behaviour. This led to extractive optimisation in the short term, rather than longer-term investments which add value and create sustainable innovation.

The lesson for Singapore, Mdm Speaker, is that even as we boost our productivity, we must continue pursuing both kinds of innovation. Some innovations add efficiency or reduce costs. This is important. It is part of competition – enhancing existing situations. But they can also easily be undercut by cheaper labour, cheaper economies and lower costs elsewhere.

Other innovations create new value and new markets, pathbreakers, game-changers. We need both kinds of innovation. They complement each other and help bring each other to greater heights, and it has to be continuous – a never-ending process of innovation. Each chapter having to be better than the previous one because that is how we write the story of tomorrow's enterprises.

Mdm Speaker, I now turn to my third topic: building a progressive social system – progressive in process, progressive in outcomes.

GDP growth is not pursued for its own sake. I have spoken earlier about how a strong economy is key to Singapore remaining independent and a pre-condition for a fair and just society. So, it is crucial that our socioeconomic system remains progressive – supporting social mobility and making sure every child has a fair start in life. Helping children who start with less, without pulling down those who were blessed enough to start with more. Furthermore, Mdm Speaker, when a child from a disadvantaged background does well, it uplifts the rest of the family. It uplifts a community. It uplifts our society.

A few years ago, Economics Nobel Laureate James Mirrlees led a team which reviewed the UK tax system. They issued a report. The review was called "Tax by Design". One key point was the system must be considered as a whole when deciding whether taxation is progressive or regressive. So, you can have individual flat consumption taxes which, on their own, may be regarded as regressive by some observers, but when the revenue is redistributed to those with less and when it is used to help those who are disadvantaged, the system becomes overall progressive.

This is how taxes like our Goods and Services Tax (GST) support progressive social programmes:

(a) the GST Voucher Scheme, which helps families with less;

(b) the upcoming Silver Support Scheme for elderly Singaporeans with fewer resources – sometimes just by accident of which era they were born in, they grew up earning third-world wages and retired in Singapore with often first-world costs; and

(c) we see our Edusave Merit Bursaries, the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme.

Another very important part of redistribution, another very important progressive policy, Mdm Speaker, is our subsidies for first-time buyers of HDB homes because that first opportunity to get early access to home ownership is deeply important – that early opportunity to have an asset which can appreciate and accumulate value throughout life. And so, we must continue helping young couples have affordable home ownership early in life. These are just a few examples.

But Madam, progressive redistribution alone is not enough to build a strong, cohesive society. Our social norms and our social culture, they matter too.

This is why even though the Ministry of Finance (MOF) is introducing a cap on the total amount of personal income tax relief, it is very important that we do not put a cap on tax deductions for charitable donations. Tax relief and tax deductions help recognise behaviours which benefits the community, while keeping the system progressive. So, we must continue encouraging personal and corporate charity as they add something special to our society.

The new Business and IPC Partnership Scheme, Mdm Speaker, is an important step forward. It acknowledges that meaningful charity is not just about cash or tangible assets. MOF is now going to recognise employees giving their time, services and even secondments where they transfer their skills and knowledge. It empowers people to give in ways other than cash. These charitable deeds, Mdm Speaker, are an important part of our social fabric.

Of course, some may argue that fiscal transfer achieves the same numerical outcome. Perhaps on the balance sheet, the numbers might look the same, but there is a fundamental difference, because volunteerism and charity are transformative. It transforms the recipient, it transforms the donor and it transforms our society. Volunteering and voluntary giving uplift our spirits in a way that taxation and tax transfers can never do. And these are important externalities which transform the inner life of the people we serve, as well as the inner life of those who step forward to serve.

On another point related to this, Mdm Speaker, the Community Networks for Seniors are another big step forward.

Today, we have many helping hands. Many hands, and many channels of assistance – VWOs, volunteers, schools and businesses. But when it is complicated for the end-user to get access to help, the overall system can actually become regressive on the ground because of that complexity. Allow me to explain.

When the application process is complicated, when there is red tape and when there is bureaucracy, it becomes harder for those who are less well-informed, less IT-literate, or from more disadvantaged background, to seek help or to find out what avenues of assistance are available.

We are moving towards online e-government, but for residents who do not have a computer or a smartphone or who do not happen to be literate in English, e-government channels, instead of an open-door, can be a digital barrier.

Madam, the World Bank's 2015 World Development Report looked at "Mind, Society and Behaviour", through the lens of behavioural economics. One important insight in that report is the concept of bandwidth constraints. What it means is the idea that psychological stress and hardship can place a cost on people's mental resources.

Some economists call it a "cognitive tax" or "bandwidth tax". You have so much to worry and think about that it is harder to apply, harder to go about your daily life and harder to find your way, especially if there is bureaucracy. This can lead to a focus on the immediate present, to the detriment of the future and, as we have talked about, less time and energy available to navigate the different roads to help.

So, it is important, Mdm Speaker, that we continue doing our best to reduce complexity, especially at the frontline and on the ground for the end-user or recipients of help, because complexity has regressive effects on the most vulnerable among us. We must continue looking into how to make the journey simpler, improving access to helping hands. Many steps have been made earlier, even though we can do more.

MSF's Social Service Offices (SSOs) and their coordinating roles have been a key step forward in coordinating care and helping families, especially those with deep complex issues who need a lot of attention to uplift them and make sure the children can continue getting a good start in life.

Likewise, Mdm Speaker, for our Pioneer Generation ambassadors, who in many constituencies, have been helping pioneers understand policy better.

The SGfuture programme is another platform to help people, Government, and agencies see issues together, co-create a future and especially look at issues through the eyes of the people.

Madam, as governance grows more complex, the need for coordination will continue to grow. At our highest levels, we have our Coordinating Ministers looking after National Security, Economic and Social Policies, and Infrastructure. But at the ground level, Madam, coordination matters very deeply as well – whether it is your family doctor, or a patient navigator in the hospital helping an elderly Singaporean find their way through the healthcare system; whether it is public servants seeing issues through the eyes of the end-user, working across departmental and agency boundaries, like our Municipal Services Office; or our social workers at our SSOs and the staff at the upcoming Community Networks for Seniors.

So, Madam, in our policymaking and implementation, we must continue to recognise coordination as a valuable process and a valuable outcome, in and of itself. And we have to allocate resources and manpower to make sure coordination continues at the ground level and to keep things as simple as possible, especially for those starting with less and those who are disadvantaged.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, this Budget has many innovations, even as it continues the work of building a more fair and more equitable society. May we always innovate and coordinate well at all levels: achieving economic prosperity, supporting a system that is progressive in its progress, and helping all our people to lead a full and happy life.

3.13 pm

Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I would like to focus on low-wage workers.

Last week, the CEO of a cleaning company shared with me that they lost their cleaning contract with a Statutory Board this year because they had bid for the contract based on current salaries of their workers and also factored a one-month bonus. Many of their 40 cleaners now working for the new company had not only their salaries reset to $1,000, but also all other employment benefits as well.

I also came across many workers during NTUC's employment seminars lamenting why their salaries were not increasing every year or why their employers were not giving them their 13-month bonus.

There are many Singaporeans who are working in the low-income sectors who are facing stagnating wages and have resigned to the fact that their situation cannot change.

In some countries, any wages below two-thirds of the median income are considered as low wages. In Singapore, the gross wage of workers at the 20th percentile is $1,800 while those at the 50th percentile is $3,460. This income gap is widening.

In the last five years, real wage increase for the 20th percentile was 2.1% compared to the higher percentage real wage increase for the 50th percentile at 3%. Perhaps, I would like to call for the Government to set a target for a higher percentage wage increase for workers at the 20th percentile compared to the 50th percentile to reduce the income gap. This would help us have a more objective assessment of the effectiveness of measures taken to help low-wage workers. We need to think out-of-the box and have a concerted effort to create better jobs and improve skills so that these workers can enjoy a higher percentage real wage increase.

In this Budget, the Labour Movement welcomes the changes made to the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) to enable more workers to qualify with a higher payout, but we need a longer-term solution to help low-wage workers.

I would like to make a call for the Government to work with our tripartite partners to explore making the payment of Annual Wage Supplements (AWS) and giving annual increments to workers as part of the licensing or registry conditions for the cleaning, security and landscape sectors. Potentially, we are looking at 85,000 local workers in these sectors benefiting from such a move. Moreover, it will create a level playing field for all service providers and service buyers to remain competitive while, at the same time, boost the income for the low-wage workers. More importantly, it will send a strong signal for other employers to follow as well.

The Labour Movement also welcomes this year's Budget to support industry transformation but for this to happen in the clean, green and safe sectors, we need changes in the four "M"s – Man, Machines, Mindset and Methods. This, perhaps, can make any wage increase in these sectors more sustainable in the long run.

Let me touch on the first two "M"s − Man and Machines. The Progressive Wage Model (PWM) is not the only key to help our workers earn better pay through higher productivity. Beyond PWM, SkillsFuture also promises a hope for a better future for our workers – the Man. Two areas must be looked into. First, SkillsFuture outreach efforts towards low-wage workers must be customised and targeted to suit the profile of low-wage workers who are mainly matured with limited education. This is an area that the Government can work on with its tripartite partners.

Second, the respective sectors need to ensure there are current jobs to match the higher skills the workers have acquired through SkillsFuture training where workers must be comfortable in using technology. This can be achieved through job redesign in the clean, green and safe sectors. Increasingly, more service providers would like to adopt greater technology to reduce manpower requirement and improve productivity. Their workers are also being trained to operate this equipment, but service buyers must be receptive to different ways of service providers delivering their service using technology.

The next "M" is Mindset. A change in mindset is required to ensure productivity can be achieved in a more sustainable manner. Earlier, I suggested job redesign to match SkillsFuture training to enhance productivity. For this to happen, service buyers must have a cooperative mindset to work more closely with the service providers during the procurement process to explore different possibilities. This involves giving service providers more time to suggest a solution to meet service buyers' needs. This is an area which I feel that the Government Ministries and statutory boards can lead by example to create success stories for others to adopt.

A mindset change is also required amongst service buyers in buying services. They need to have a performance-based mindset by doing more to adopt performance-based contracts. Despite best sourcing efforts, many contracts continue to be headcount based, and, hence, there is little incentive for service providers to explore other means of improving productivity. Moreover, headcount-based contracts will be very expensive and unproductive, given that labour supply will be tighter in the coming years.

Mdm Speaker, the Government must also encourage buildings to be designed with a "productive" mindset at the outset to enable a cost-effective approach in procuring cleaning, security and landscape services where less manpower would be needed.

The third "M" is Method. For industry transformation to happen, it also requires an accompanying change in methods. The latest manpower report has highlighted clearly that labour supply will continue to be tight. Based on the old method, unless there is a change in the method, there might not be enough people to be deployed to provide the services required. Concerted efforts must be made to explore the potential of aggregating demand for services.

There are also other methods that could be explored to help low-wage workers. I also want to make a call for procurement processes to be more worker centric. Being more worker-centric in procuring services means that service buyers need to pay more attention to or specify the employment benefits to be accorded to the outsourced workers. This would help the workers have better wages and benefits and would definitely motivate them to be more productive at work. I am sure if the statutory boards, as I said earlier, had a worker-centric mindset, the workers would have enjoyed the current higher salaries.

Service buyers can also look into having contracts of longer duration to incentivise the service providers to embark on greater adoption of technology that could lead to manpower savings and better productivity. This also ensures that outsourced workers do not always find themselves as the disadvantaged lot every two to three years when their salaries get reset again. Relevant to my call for procurement process for outsourced services to be more worker centric, I would also like to call for the Government to explore a Public Private Partnership (PPP) model in procuring essential services such as cleaning, security and maintenance services. This may be the next breakthrough in our policies for the outsourced sectors to help low-wage workers.

The next aspect of "method" we have to tackle, Mdm Speaker, is the issue of unfair contracts. Ultimately, such contracts will impact the workers as the service providers will find ways to cut corners. It could also be challenging for service providers to embark on productivity efforts given that their operating margins are very low. While I am calling for contracts to be of longer duration, I would like to discourage the practice of having an Option to Extend at the same terms and conditions. Unless a variation in contract price is allowed, it is usually the low-wage workers that will suffer from stagnating wages.

Mdm Speaker, fair contracts will create an environment that will benefit all parties, including workers who can enjoy better employment terms and conditions. I have written a blog on this and I am happy to note that MOF will play its part to encourage fair contract clauses. Perhaps, with the Government taking the lead to promote reasonable and fair contracts, it would play an instrumental role to shape the behaviour and practices in procuring outsourced services.

If stakeholders in the industry can change their "mindset" and '"methods", the transformation needed for "man" and "machines" would follow as a consequence. Workers, through SkillsFuture, can now be better trained to leverage on technology, making investments in training and machines less risky and with greater promise for higher productivity. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I welcome this year's Budget which aims to help the low-wage workers through changes made to the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme (WIS), and the Workfare Training Support (WTS) Scheme which will make more workers eligible. However, in order to enjoy better pay, Malay workers, particularly those in the lower income group, should focus their efforts to upskill themselves through Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) training. Malay workers who are working in the outsourced sectors, such as cleaning, security and landscape, can receive better pay based on the skills that they obtain after undergoing the WSQ courses.

In view of the $4.5 billion support provided under the Industry Transformation Programme, it is important that Malay workers, especially the low-wage workers, make use of SkillsFuture wisely to ensure that the new skills that they learn will be useful to industries and companies which will be undergoing transformation through automation and technology, which will improve their productivity and reduce the demand for labour. This will help workers to obtain better wages.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, I believe that unless we take bolder steps to negotiate the glaring disparities between our low-wage workers and the majority of the Singaporean workforce in matters like wages and employment benefits, low-wage workers will continue to feel marginalised and the income gap will continue to widen. As a nation, the onus is on us to ensure that when they look ahead, they see beyond the status quo. They should see positive change for themselves, their jobs and, more importantly, their families. With that Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

3.25 pm

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Mdm Speaker, Budget 2016 is a Budget that covers a broad spectrum of support for individuals and industries with a targeted approach and some long-term investments on infrastructure. Like past Budgets, it is one where we get some disappointed sighs from those who do not stand to benefit while others heaved a sigh of relief as the much-needed safety support is provided.

Minister Heng noted that, in 2016, there are cyclical headwinds and challenges that exist, but there are also opportunities if we adapt and grow in preparation to capture those future opportunities. With this context, we clearly understand there cannot be generous packages annually. In the years ahead, we will inevitably encounter some years similar to 2016 where economic outlook is not at its best and yet we need the tenacity to weather the storm together as a nation. Central to this is the question, "How can we find a balance between state support and involvement of community to enhance our social safety net?"

As Singaporeans, we share a common wish deep in our hearts. We want Singapore to reach SG100 and beyond for many generations to come and in a much better position than today. As we progress towards SG100, there are a few social indicators that will continue to raise the bar of support requirement in our society. These indicators are an increasing ageing population, constant need to bridge the income disparity, a shrinking working population and the well-educated younger generation with higher aspirations and expectations of what basic livelihood entails in a developed nation.

It is apparent that to provide for such rising needs, we may reach a stage where there is an over-dependence on the Government for social programmes. To sustain an appropriate level of state support for social programmes, more revenue streams must be created, and this may increase the burden on our future generations. Being aware of what the potential outcome may be, it is prudent for us to take the necessary steps today to avert such an outcome. I believe we can do so by defining our new chapter together and creating options to strike a right balance between state support and partnerships with the community at large.

To begin, we must recognise that a social safety net must be present for some groups of individuals and those with lower likelihood of being able to be self-sufficient without external assistance. Typically, some of these groups are our seniors, the lower-income workers, people with disabilities (PwDs) and our younger families.

In order to supplement state support, we have further enhanced our social safety net for those more vulnerable through multiple schemes. However, the challenges that we face are: one, the state support system has become more complex over the years and it is harder to implement with ease so as to maximise the support for the intended beneficiaries; two, increasing funding requirements means a need for the public to cross-subsidise in different ways; and three, some groups, albeit small in quantity, may still not qualify for any available support schemes.

Let us take a closer look at each challenge and what could be done to address it.

First is the complexity of the public support system. An example is the support for our seniors. Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) began in 2015 and that was crucial to many seniors due to their age and also the lower preparedness to manage their healthcare costs as they started their lives during the difficult times of nation building. It was good that PGP covers all seniors who were 65 and above at the point of policy implementation regardless of their household income. Post-PGP, MediShield Life was introduced, and it provides further protection for those who do not have insurance coverage. It was critical for the lower income families and those with little savings to manage their hospital care needs. Now, there is the Silver Support Scheme providing quarterly payouts for the bottom 20% of seniors and, to some extent, 30% of them.

While all these are beneficial to our Pioneer Generation (PGs), their children who are the next generation of seniors will likely require the same types of support but at a much higher cost than our PGs today. Herein is a possibility of the successive generation of seniors not being able to support themselves at an earlier age, if income disparity and social support are not properly managed. This brings about the urgency for us to review and begin engaging them while they are still active income earners. As we begin charting the directions for the future, I feel that we need to take strategic and proactive approaches rather than time-based subventions specific for each generation.

And second is increasing funding and cross-subsidisation from public. To reduce the burden on subsequent generations, we must begin the planning right now and choosing the right paths for them.

On the same note of strategic and proactive approach, below are some suggestions of how we can involve our future seniors.

First, there is a need for earlier community involvement and collaboration with today's middle-aged group as they plan for both their family and retirement. Second, the people involved have to be aware and prepared with passive income and financial planning for old age beyond today's primary twin pillars – their property and CPF. Third, options have to be made available for them to balance the level of dependence and financial support on their family, bearing in mind the smaller family units and increasing trend of singles over time. These approaches, if taken in tandem, could be alternatives or will at least maintain cross-subsidisation at reasonable amounts or levels.

Third, groups that do not qualify for any state support. The reality of any system is it cannot provide coverage for all groups across the society, thus, the need to dispense support based on a targeted approach. However, if subsidies continue to be targeted only for specific groups, how can we be assured that those whom we believe are self-sufficient will indeed be able to manage on their own? For this group, I feel that some of their needs can be looked into through funding at different aspects instead of direct subsidies. One of the options is to supplement it by fostering care in our society. In doing so, we can broaden the support base for some groups that fall outside public support due to their household income or property value.

Knowing that state support will always be required, how then do we partner and involve the community at large to enhance our social safety net?

As a country, we need to ensure fostering care in society becomes an ingrained culture and paying it forward is a social value that Singaporeans are associated with. Such culture cannot be achieved overnight. Likewise, partnerships also require willing parties to step forward and the willingness to smoothen the creases together along the journey.

Earlier in my maiden speech, I spoke about the need for an Integrated Social Hub, or what I term the the 3G Village, where we can bring community networks together and reinforce social values through inter-generational sharing, thereby strengthening our social fabric. It is heartening to note that in Budget 2016, more focus is given to improve last mile delivery and social innovation to maximise impact of schemes. Some of the schemes that are encouraged include corporate social responsibility (CSR) as well as promoting the scale-up of ground activities and community networks.

To take the Budget's focus on partnerships a step further, I propose some areas for future considerations.

First, introduce the social culture and inculcate values at a young age. Today, some schools do conduct projects under the Community Engagement Programmes (CEP). However, there is a lack of emphasis on values learnt from these projects. I believe that these projects should go hand-in-hand with training and such emphasis begins from home. Parents should be given opportunities to be a part of the CEP experience with their children and not be restricted to giving back only through CSR organised events. Family role models and precious time spent as a family would be more effective benefits emerging from such programmes.

Second, there is a growing trend of self-organised groups for different causes that benefits the society at large. We applaud these efforts and should assist them in scaling up. It would be helpful to have platforms made available where the different self-organised groups can leverage resources, shorten their learning curve and enable volunteers to extend their contribution to other new areas which may interest them.

Third, many groups on the ground who receive help from community networks today are not registered or belong to any IPCs. This does not mean that corporations who are willing to support community networks cannot do so. Instead, I advocate that IPCs and VWOs extend their support and work closely with local communities in conjunction with these corporations. Likewise, social enterprises that assist in similar ways should be given consideration and concession under the framework. This way, more individuals and vulnerable families can benefit from the system.

Lastly, to expand on the SG Future Citizen Engagements that was launched in November 2015, I hope the various SG Future Ministries continue to partner the community in co-creating solutions and finding more effective methods of delivering their services in this digital age.

With close community involvement, tangible benefits can be achieved and more individuals with varying circumstances may also receive assistance. Unless we begin planning early, the right balance between state support and community involvement will not emerge.

To ensure that social support will be sustainable, it needs like a balloon to have more than one party adding their lung capacity to keep it afloat. State support coupled with individuals, family and community involvement is the way forward to ensure a basic decent standard of living for all Singaporeans, even as the cost of that invariably rises over time.

The Budget, to me, is more than the announcements of basic subsidies and handouts. We should view it over a longer horizon and chart directions for Singapore both socially and economically. Thus, there is urgency for us to act in the interest of our future generations and prevent any undesirable outcome.

Moving forward, I hope the Government and the public can jointly view subsidies and funding support packages or programmes more holistically and taking longer term perspectives. This way, we can continue our prudent spending approach with an aim to improve wealth distribution throughout our society and funding timely investments for the subsequent generations. Mdm Speaker, with this, I support the Budget.

3.37 pm

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on Budget 2016. Budget 2016 is a new chapter for this term of Government and one that provides for Singaporeans for our current needs, and also prepares us for the future.

Let me begin with a topic close to heart for many Singaporeans – on feeling secure about our future needs and retiring comfortably. Budget 2016 provides for many measures that support our cost-of-living expenses such as the GST vouchers and other top-ups, support and subsidies for various schemes such as MediShield Life to prepare us for our long-term healthcare costs, and the Silver Support Scheme, for seniors who may need support in their retiring years.

Through my conversations with residents and many ordinary Singaporeans, many have serious concerns that their future is uncertain and they have question marks looming over several aspects of their future. Chief among these concerns is whether they can retire comfortably. Many young Singaporeans today are already looking ahead and have set expectations of their expected lifestyles in years to come, which also raises the issue of whether they see their future beyond their working lifetime, whether it is here in Singapore or somewhere else.

To give Singaporeans a sense of security about the future, we need to stabilise their future expectations for them. We have built mechanisms such as the CPF. But unlike ordinary savings, its use is rigid and does not do enough to provide stability amidst uncertainties. The reality is that most Singaporeans use a large part of their CPF for housing. When needed, most of their supposed savings are hard to access and of limited use. If they need to monetise their assets, these days, downgrading does not provide much benefit because the gains are also limited. This is also exacerbated because a large part of their savings had also gone into long-term interest payments and other indirect taxes such as housing levies.

I think we are too deep in after many years to reverse the use of the CPF for housing, but on the broader scale of our collective policies, the Government should consider an end-to-end review of our policies that affect retirement security and whether they are sufficient to give Singaporeans a strong sense of security in old age.

As a start, to provide stability in an uncertain future, the CPF itself must be certain. To the ordinary Singaporean, the goal posts have been shifting and that has created this uncertainty and insecurity among Singaporeans about their future. That has to be a clear definitive and firm end point that all Singaporeans can agree on and work towards. CPF LIFE is certainly a big improvement, but the Minimum Sum is still a moving target to many.

There has been a lot of recent progress with MediShield Life – a scheme I personally believe provides many benefits to citizens. However, these changes have not done enough to provide the assurance of a secure retirement. Even the standard integrated shield plans announced recently cannot guarantee that the premiums will remain at a fixed price after two years. So, many are worried about premium hikes in the years ahead.

Madam, I support the principle of means-testing, as it means that more help can be diverted to those in the lower income group or for targeted segments who need it most. However, we need to monitor all our schemes collectively, because each is often governed by individual agencies. If most of our schemes are means-tested the same way, then there is a possibility that our policies could end up skewed too much for the lower-income, with little going in the way to help the middle-income groups. This is the sentiment on the ground, and it may be time for the Ministry of Finance (MOF) to study the impact of our schemes holistically.

The Silver Support Scheme, for instance, was implemented with good intentions. However, leaving out senior citizens who are in 5-room flats or larger, does leave many retirees who were middle-income earners, unsupported. Many of my older residents have asked the Government to move away from using household types as a cut-off because it is no longer reflective of income and wealth. For example, a 5-room flat in Choa Chu Kang today sells for about $450,000 to $488,000, compared to a 3-room flat selling at $550,000 in Upper Cross Street or a 4-room flat selling at $900,000 at the Pinnacle.

Recently, I met Mr Ho, a resident in Choa Chu Kang, who has lived in his 5-room flat for the last 18 years. He had purchased the flat together with his son 18 years ago at $190,000. That was what he could afford then, and it reflected the wages he had accumulated over his working life. It does not mean that because the flat is worth $450,000 today, he is rich.

For him, not much can be monetised from his joint-asset because his son and his family still need a home. Downgrading to a 4-room or 3-room flat will not be practical for him because he has himself, his spouse, together with his son's family and grandchildren. In all likelihood, Mr Ho needs to find another flat if they downgrade and the total costs could be more than $450,000. So, is it worth it to make that shift?

Mr Ho explained he had purchased a 5-room flat with his son because they wanted to live together in a multi-generational setting. And I agree with him when he says that this disincentivises seniors who want to live with their children, because they will always lose out on Government benefits and rebates.

So, means-testing this way no longer makes sense as a reflection of wealth or income status. We accept means-testing in welfare schemes and hospital subsidies but let us also take a practical approach on other schemes such as Silver Support Scheme, especially in helping our retirees, as they are no longer working or earning an income.

The use of the lifetime CPF savings approach as an indicator of the Silver Support Scheme was indeed innovative and I was hopeful that it would serve to help many Singaporeans. The inclusion of the second criterion using household types is an archaic idea that diminishes the impact of the scheme.

Mdm Speaker, as I sat listening to Minister Heng's excellent delivery of Budget 2016, looking at the many tables and charts, one must realise that our schemes today are getting increasingly complex. Given the variable criteria for each scheme, how many Singaporeans actually do know what they are getting from Budget 2016 and all our Government policies?

So, it is important that the Government provides clarity to every citizen on the benefits that they receive. If they have visibility today, it will also help them plan for the future. It is important to ensure that there is clarity and greater transparency in our social compact. There is no point pouring millions of dollars into schemes that people do not know how to use or know that they can benefit from, or they can leverage.

I would like to propose that each year, the Government should consider sending a consolidated statement of accounts to each Singaporean – we do that for our income tax and CPF scheme – but a consolidated account for each Singaporean to inform them exactly how much rebates, vouchers and benefits they will receive for that year. At that point in time, it may also be useful, given their current state of CPF, CPF LIFE, Medisave and MediShield Life, and so forth, whether they are adequately covered for their future, compared to others of similar profile or certain pre-defined retirement benchmarks.

This is not a new idea in the sense that it is similar to the annual consolidated statement of accounts that banks, utilities or telecommunication service providers send to their customers. But this can be a first step in helping Singaporeans better understand how they are benefiting from the various schemes, so that they can better manage their finances today, and be assured of what they have in place for their future.

Madam, we also live in a time of unprecedented change. The Finance Minister and the Prime Minister in recent speeches have also spoken about technology developments that can create opportunities for businesses and jobs in Singapore. This would also mean that work requirements and the environment are likely to change for many Singaporeans.

I cannot help but think that while our taxi drivers worry about competition from Uber drivers, there is a larger concern ahead, which is the impact of driverless vehicles in the near future. The trend is already visible, and I think it is just a matter of time. What do we do with the thousands of taxi drivers, bus drivers, goods vehicle drivers in time to come? The same can be said of many other jobs that would be affected by this digital wave reaching our shores.

There are also many studies that predict that we are more likely to see some PMET segments lose their relevance due to automation and artificial intelligence, compared to skilled personnel such as engineers, technicians, even plumbers.

Job security for Singaporeans cannot be taken for granted and we must be prepared for this. As a responsible, far-sighted Government, we must prepare Singaporeans for this possibility, or if you must, eventuality. It will take us years to reinvent our workforce, but it must start today.

We must get better at re-inventing our workers. The key to countering unemployment and under-employment is how quickly we can transform our workers to be relevant to a new set of jobs. The key is not just about training or matching, it is about re-inventing the workforce.

SkillsFuture is a wonderful initiative, but it also leaves a lot to personal choice and therefore may not be able to shape the momentum and direction of our labour force. A clear and concerted industrial policy may be needed, given that the Government has been studying the development of these technologies and the jobs of the future. For the educated group, we must also start looking at the depth of our skills developments and focus on mastery in areas that are not so easily replaced by artificial intelligence or robots. Mdm Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This year's Budget represents a turning point, in terms of not only dealing with current needs, but also in reaffirming the paths that should be taken to preserve our prosperity, both socially and economically.

Some may perceive this Budget as one that provides a lot of help to businesses, but the fact remains that a significant investment is made towards the needy, as well other investments in young Singaporeans, for example, the new Outward Bound School (OBS) campus.

Looking at the economic challenges now, it is not surprising to see many Singaporeans feeling worried and concerned about, among others, job opportunities and job security, while for businessmen, it is about the challenging business prospects.

However, if there is something meaningful and important that can be derived from this Budget, it is that it gives hope that despite the dark clouds, there is a ray of hope and a huge opportunity for everyone, provided that we are ready to undergo a transformation, and the Government will always provide support.

Although several sectors are affected, there are many other sectors that offer many opportunities. Many companies and entrepreneurs have seized this opportunity. The same goes in terms of careers. For example, the fall in oil prices may have affected the oil and maritime sectors, but it is something positive for the aviation industry. It is also the same for industries like the halal food exports, where its global market continues to expand, and should be exploited by our local businessmen.

Technological development has created many business and career opportunities, and hence, our people must be prepared to take advantage of it through a mindset change and by obtaining relevant skills. I am confident that the foundation built through a culture of lifelong learning for a knowledge economy will help Singaporeans undergo this transformation, supported by industries and the Government.

Infocomm technology (ICT) is one field that is developing rapidly. It promises many business opportunities and careers like cyber security, analytics and application development, with high salaries, because it requires a lot of expertise.

However, apart from ICT, technology is also required in many other careers. For instance, the banking sector uses a lot of technology and needs capable talent. This digital wave is becoming more prevalent and will change how we work in many sectors.

Within this wave, certain workers, including the PMET segment, may become less relevant due to automation and the use of artificial intelligence. Hence, the Malay community must be ready for this change. For example, the way we shop or hail a taxi has also changed in this digital era through applications like Uber. In media, digital platforms like Netflix and Spotify also brings competition to current media platforms like MediaCorp, Singtel and Starhub, and all these affect us.

We need to reinvent ourselves, and make use of SkillsFuture to upskill or look for new skills. I hope that the Government can help by showing us the way and direction that will help the community to tread potential pathways, as well as motivate our youths in terms of giving career guidance, academic counselling and the training that is required. It should be done using better approaches and giving better information.

Here, I hope that Malay bodies like MUIS, Mendaki and the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) will play a part in implementing several programmes, and we should further enhance the efforts to help the community undergo this transformation to embrace technology in the digital era.

(In English): Madam, just as our forefathers rallied together for a common cause and vision to build Singapore into a developed economy over 50 years, we will need our current and future generations of Singaporeans to also find meaning in doing the same for our Singapore tomorrow. For that to happen, they will have to continue to see their future in Singapore so that they can build it to be the home that they want it to be.

Twenty years ago, our late founding father Mr Lee Kuan Yew made a famous quote, "To the young and the not so old, I say, look at the horizon, follow the rainbow and go ride it."

Madam, I believe in the rainbow, and it is important to give our people a sense of security for the future. They must feel that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is attainable. That the rainbow is real and is not a mirage. Only then can we be more confident to ride the rainbow of opportunities that come with this great nation that we call home. Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of Budget 2016.

3.53 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget delivered by the Finance Minister. Every Budget is a balancing act, striking a balance between generosity and prudence. But this year's Budget has to balance another set of factors – helping Singaporean firms and families weather the economic storms ahead, while setting our long-term course for the right direction. This is definitely not an easy thing to do and I thank the Minister for largely accomplishing it.

First, let us talk about firms. In the short term, companies, especially SMEs, will be facing quite a lot of pain. Our growth last year of 2.1% was the slowest since 2009 and economists expect growth for the next few years to remain stuck at around 2%.

Manufacturing actually declined by 5.2% last year, again, the worst showing since the global financial crisis. At the same time, rental and wages remain high. Besides helping with wage credits and loans, is there more that we can do to help our companies weather the storm? I urge the Government to keep re-looking into the high rental cost issue. In fact, very often, I hear feedback because a lot of industrial buildings and shopping malls have been bought by REITS. Many of my residents told me that whenever the lease is up for renewal, if they make money, the rental will surely go up and this is one of the main concerns of those who are in businesses.

On the other hand, I have also seen many business owners who have not made any progress in reducing their reliance on foreign workers. Instead of relooking into their work processes, they ask their Members of Parliament (MPs) to appeal to delay the time they have to send their foreign workers back. In fact, I have a resident who came to see me and he told me, "MP, do you know that foreign workers are like a drug. The moment you give it to us, it is difficult to wean it off. You want to take it away from us; it is difficult for us to survive". I am sure my fellow colleagues also meet similar residents in their Meet-the-People Sessions asking for more help.

I would like to urge our businesses to embrace the spirit of our pioneer entrepreneurs and keep innovating even in economic downturns. One of our founding leaders Mr Lim Kim San was a perfect example of this.

After World War II, when Singapore's economy was still ravaged by war, he came up with a machine to produce sago pearls cheaply and made his first million. He did not wait around for the Government to give any research grants or Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) for machinery purchase!

Macro-economically, reports suggest that our push to increase productivity by 2% to 3% is not on track. This will hurt our economic growth and specifically the wages of locals. I suspect both Government and businesses will have to work harder on this.

To sum up, we need to strike a balance between helping companies and preventing a passive and reliant attitude. There is an old saying, "Give a man fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." In the short term, Singaporean firms might rightly expect some fish from Government to keep their workers fed. But ultimately, the whole country will run out of fish if they do not develop bigger, smarter and faster fishing ships to get better fishes from international waters.

That is why I fully support the idea of automation and internationalisation. It is not going to be easy but whichever companies embrace these longer-term plans will emerge stronger and survive better in this very competitive business climate.

I would also like to raise three specific points with regards to the economy: red tape, trade associations and retrenchment.

The first is red tape. I am delighted to see the Government provide a business grants portal so that companies can apply for grants easily. Beyond the portal, Government can also look into harmonising the different types of grants and simplifying rules, so that companies do not have to resort to consultants just to navigate the grants, and have their grants creamed off by these middle-men.

Over the last few months, I have met quite a lot of my residents who come to my Meet-the-People-Sessions for help. These are SME business owners. And why did they come to seek help? Actually, they were approached by consultants, or, for some, they appoint the consultant and the consultant promised them that there is some money to get from Government. At the end, when their PIC application was not successful, you know what the consultant did? Ask them to go and see their MP.

In the past few years, many companies put up websites, bought machineries, some of which are still lying at a corner of their office and collecting dust. How much more productive can it go? Hence, the transition from PIC grants to the Automation Support Package is the right way to go. But I am sure companies, especially SMEs, will need a lot of help as automation is much more complicated. I hope SPRING Singapore can play the role of facilitators or consultants, without creaming off their grants of course.

The idea of strengthening trade associations with grants and seconded Government officers is also a timely one, as trade associations are the ones who knows the needs and challenges of their respective industries.

Civil servants, trade associations and businesses should have more trust in each other and have common vision of transforming our businesses, with more automation and bringing our businesses to the world stage. Mdm Speaker, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This year's Budget is to help local businesses especially SMEs to transform and adapt to the new economy. However the economic outlook in the next few years is worrying. I hope the Government can further explore how to help SMEs to overcome the present difficulties. At the same time, local businesses should not develop a mindset of relying on the Government. They should be like our pioneer entrepreneurs who were self-reliant and made breakthroughs without the help from the Government.

Singapore companies now cannot be "kiasu" or "kiasi". Instead, they must bravely seek breakthroughs. I applaud the Government for simplifying the application process for grants and subsidies as well as strengthening the cooperation with trade associations to help more SMEs increase their efficiency.

There are two points worth noting. First, when the automation support package replaces PIC, the definition of automation should not be too narrow, because this will make application more difficult, or it may miss investments that could truly increase productivity. Second, the Government should encourage trade associations to organise more overseas study trips to look for new ideas and opportunities, helping our companies to go overseas.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, the third issue is retrenchment. We need to make sure companies try to retain as many Singaporeans as possible, including in high-income jobs. Do not cut the locals from management jobs, while retaining lower-paid locals to fulfil the quotas. Mdm Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would now like to highlight the issue of retrenchment. I would like to thank the Minister for deferring the increase in foreign worker levy, which will help businesses cope with the uncertain economic environment. With this deferment, we should ensure that Singaporeans do not lose their jobs, so please do not allow our people to be retrenched, like what happened recently, or more may lose their jobs.

I would like to urge businesses, when they have to retrench workers, to retain Singaporeans. I would also like to urge the Government to ensure that companies give priority to Singaporeans and not sacrifice them in order to save foreign workers. This includes reducing those who earn higher income, while retaining those with lower salaries to fulfil the quota.

I also hope that the Government can provide comprehensive assistance to retrenched workers, assistance from the point of training until they gain employment.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, the other major thrust of this Budget is families. I commend the Government for not overlooking the plight of the needy in our midst and of young couples who are starting families. The CDA First Step Grant, KidSTART and Fresh Start Housing Scheme will greatly help needy families with young children to ensure no child is left behind as our nation progresses. I urge more people to complement this effort by volunteering their time and expertise, to befriend and encourage such families.

I would like to share the stories of three residents whom I met at the coffeeshop, and they talked to me in Mandarin. Mdm Speaker, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] After the announcement of the Budget Statement, I went to the coffee shop on Sunday as usual to have breakfast and chat with my residents. One resident pulled me aside and said to me, "MP, I have something to tell you. I live in a five-room apartment. Before, I worked very hard to be able to afford this flat. Now, I am retired and have no income. Why does the Government not give me any money?" After a while, another resident came to tell me, "MP, I live in a HDB flat, but it is an Executive Apartment. I pinched and scraped in order to buy this flat. Now I have retired and have no income. Why does the Government not give me money?" Again, after a while, another resident came to me. She said she has a friend who lives in a bungalow. Her friend worked two jobs to buy this bungalow, which is rather run-down, not the modern type. Now, he has no job, no income, why is it that the Government does not give him any money?

What they are referring to is the Silver Support Scheme. What worries me is that none of these residents mentioned whether their children gave them money or not. Traditionally, we have the responsibility to maintain our parents – so-called "raised children to provide for old age". I hope we will not delegate the responsibility of looking after our parents to the Government. The purpose of this Scheme is to help those at the lowest 20% to 30% income percentile. If everyone asks for the Government for subsidies, then Government will not be able to help those who are truly needy. I hope this "He has, why I do not have?" mindset will not become a characteristic of Singaporeans.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, another change that I have heard a lot at the ground is the capping of tax reliefs, which will primarily affect high-income mothers with two or more children. One such mother told me that this will increase her tax burden by 20%.

She has three children and was considering a fourth, but with this change, she no longer feels the same incentive and support from the Government to do so. She is already feeling stress from juggling her work, kids and parents, and is now even re-considering quitting the workforce to focus on her family. I know this cap is expected to net $100 million a year in revenue, but I certainly hope it will not turn out to be "penny wise, pound foolish" by driving high-income mothers away from the workforce or reducing the number of children they add to our future workforce.

The cap appears to contradict the Government's effort to encourage procreation. So, may I know what has changed to prompt this change in policy? And talking about procreation, based on the feedback from my young residents who are young parents, I doubt that all these financial incentives are going to give you the desired outcome. Many of the young parents told me that they are discouraged to give birth to more children by the increasing costs of childcare and increasing costs of milk powder. So, I asked them, "Under what circumstances will you give more children?" They told me, "You give my children free education from childcare all the way to University. You subsidise the milk powder."

Many do not want to commit resources, both time and money, to the next generation. So, if there is no change in mindset, 传宗接代, to have more babies is for the survival of the country. I do not think all these packages that we are dishing out are going to give us the desired outcome.

In conclusion, everybody wants more help from Government, from retirees to young parents.

Our Minister for Finance has a very challenging balancing act to perform. He needs to do an admirable balance between generosity and prudence, between short-term support and long-term development. I would like to urge Singaporeans to innovate, to think deeply and work together with Government. With trust and unity, we can surely weather the storms ahead, and chart a new course towards broader and brighter horizons. Madam, I beg to move. [Applause]

Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.11 pm until 4.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.30 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

DEBATE ON ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

Debate resumed.

4.30 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, today, I shall be touching on three different aspects of the Budget.

I will first start with the Budget proposal to enhance the Revitalisation of Shops (ROS) scheme. In November 2007, the Government introduced the ROS to enhance the vibrancy and competitiveness of HDB shops. As of March 2016, the HDB website stated that the scheme has benefitted 4,600 shops at 54 sites. It also stated that this covers over 50% of our town and neighbourhood centres. The scheme covers upgrading of common areas, promotional activities and rent-free periods for tenants to renovate their shops.

In last year's Committee of Supply (COS) debate in March 2015, former Senior Minister of State for National Development, Mr Lee Yi Shyan, said that HDB has spent $8.4 million since the ROS scheme was introduced in 2007. Assuming the effective period of expenditure was from 2008 to 2014, this amounts to an average of $1.2 million per year. I hope the Minister can share with the House some details about how the ROS scheme has improved the businesses of HDB shops in the past nine years.

Budget 2016 will set aside $15 million annually to enhance the ROS scheme. This is a large increase compared to previous years, more than 10 times the average expenditure in previous years. While I am sure it is good that our existing HDB shops are receiving more assistance to enhance their businesses, I hope the Minister for Finance can share the reasons for this large annual increase in funding for the scheme and also share details about how the proposed increase in funding will be utilised, and in what ways will the coming year's programme be different from the past.

Madam, in many HDB estates, especially the older ones, it is quite a common sight to see shops in an unfavourable facing or location doing badly. It could be due to their relative poor location compared to shops in a different location in the same estate, or it could even be due to oversupply of shop spaces in the same estate. For such shops, I hope the Minister can look into how the ROS can better assist them, or to consider how parts of the town centre where these shops are located could be redeveloped.

As we provide assistance to our existing HDB shops, let us also not forget about building adequate new shops in our newer HDB estates. Residents of then-newly built HDB estates like Sengkang and Punggol experienced a lack of basic amenities and shops when they first moved in. The design of most of the void decks was also not conducive for constructing shops. One reason for this is the philosophy of building amenities like convenience shops and coffeeshops only when there is a critical mass demand. I feel that this philosophy should be tweaked to build amenities ahead of demand. This is so that pioneering residents are not deprived of amenities when they move in. You may ask how can businesses thrive when demand has not reached critical mass. That is where the Government can step in to provide reduced rents until critical mass is reached.

Another way we can improve new HDB estates is to build town centres consisting of low-rise HDB shop houses to a competitive retail mix to meet the wider needs of residents. I know that in recent years, the approach has been to build a shopping mall that acts as an integrated hub for the estate. However, in my view, a town centre like the ones in mature estates, such as Bedok and Tampines, are better suited to meet the needs of residents and to create a sense of community and identity. A shopping mall can still be built but only as a complement to the town centre. A shopping mall must not compromise the businesses of the retail shops in the town centre but complement and enhance the business in the neighbourhood shops by helping to draw people to the town centre and making the town centre a lively place where residents of the town and even residents of nearby estates will want to visit and spend their time, thereby bringing business and vibrancy to the town.

I am glad to note that the URA Masterplan states that the Bidadari Estate will have a wide range of amenities like a bus interchange, neighbourhood police centre, places of worship and healthcare facilities. I certainly hope that amenities, such as mini-marts, provision shops, convenience shops, and coffee shops can be built ahead of demand. I also hope that town centres with low-rise HDB shop houses can be incorporated in the plans for not just new HDB estates like Bidadari but also other new estates as well as when older estates are redeveloped.

I will end this part of my speech with an anecdote. The hawker centres at different parts of Bedok, such as Block 85, Bedok North at Fengshan Single Member Constituency (SMC) and Block 511, Bedok North at Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), see many customers who are from relatively new estates like Punggol or Sengkang. I have spoken to quite a few of these customers during my visits to these markets over time. One common reason given is the lack of good dining places in Punggol or Sengkang. How often do you actually see people from Bedok going to Punggol or Sengkang to have dinner? There may be various reasons for this but certainly, in my view, poor town planning is one of the reasons. Mdm Speaker, may I next speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, from this year's Budget, it is evident that companies are facing difficulties and uncertainties in the business environment. Although the Government has announced measures to benefit employers and employees, for Singaporeans who are already unemployed or are facing impending unemployment, their difficulties warrant even more help. This is especially so when the unemployed is the main breadwinner of the family. Besides supporting their own family, they may also need to service their housing loan and look after their elderly parents. Many PMETs who were retrenched from their jobs with both SMEs or MNCs had to resort to driving taxis as a full-time job as they were not able to find suitable replacement jobs or, for others, who were only able to find jobs where the income offered was much less than their previous incomes, they had to resort to driving taxis on a part-time basis to supplement their incomes. This is what we call "underemployment".

This underemployment situation is worrying. It means that we are unable to utilise our human resources effectively to fully develop our economy. However, our employment statistics does not reflect this underemployment situation. We do not know which category these "underemployed" people fall under in our employment statistics. We also do not know whether our published employment statistics reflect this situation.

Underemployment will cause under-utilisation of the working population's productive capacity. The question is, how do we prevent this from happening? In other words, how do we fully utilise the working population's productive capacity? In this regard, measures announced by the Government, such as the Adapt and Grow Initiative and TechSkills Accelerator, should be able to facilitate the utilisation of the productive capacity of the working population to a certain extent.

However, these measures are primarily targeted at existing workers or workers undergoing training for career conversion. It not only requires the cooperation between employers and employees, but also takes some time before the effect kicks in.

For unemployed or retrenched workers, in the absence of a stable income, their entire family's financial situation may be adversely affected. If workers can be provided with retrenchment insurance, in the event of retrenchment, he can receive financial assistance by way of a payout from such insurance policy for say a few months before he finds a new job. This may alleviate any financial difficulty and lighten his financial burden.

(In English): I would like to spend the final part of my speech on what the Budget has provided for our children and young people. This is found in section C of the Budget which is entitled "Building a Caring and Resilient Society". Under this section, there are various sub-headers, including "Caring for our young".

I am happy to note that for Budget 2016, the Government will introduce a new Child Development Account (CDA) First Step Grant for all Singaporean children. Parents will automatically receive $3,000 in their child's CDA which they can use for their children's healthcare and childcare needs. This is a departure from the previous practice of dollar for dollar matching which placed lower income families at a distinct disadvantage. I understand that my Workers' Party (WP) colleagues have spoken up on this in the previous Parliament and indeed other Singaporeans too. The new CDA grant with its $3,000 is certainly a good first step in the right direction.

Madam, just to be sure that I understand correctly, may the Minister confirm that when it is stated that the grant is, I quote from paragraph C6, "for all Singaporean children", it includes children of single unwed parents too? I think this would be good because we should not focus on the parents, but the welfare and benefit of their Singaporean children and the value they will bring to Singapore.

Next, under the section "Caring for our young", there is also the sub-heading "Building Resilience in our Youth". Under this section, the Government is making a single proposal that through a new national outdoor adventure education masterplan, it will build a new Outward Bound Singapore (OBS) campus on Coney Island. It is stated that the new OBS will be built to help our young people develop a sense of adventure, resilience and be ready to challenge themselves to be their best.

Madam, I agree that the OBS programme is good for our young people and as many of our young people as possible should be encouraged to attend. I hope that the new OBS will be able to provide many opportunities for our young people to enhance their sense of adventure.

A one-off participation in the OBS programme alone may not be enough to build resilience or a sense of adventure. There are other activities that our young people can be encouraged to participate to build resilience or nurture a sense of adventure. For example, we can encourage our young people to join co-curricular activities (CCAs) like certain uniformed groups, sports or outdoor activities clubs.

I was a scrawny and introverted schoolboy. Spending six years in the National Cadet Corps (Sea) opened my eyes to adventure and teamwork. I struggled when I had to canoe round Singapore in three days. But I could not disappoint my buddy in the same canoe and, together with our friends in other canoes, we learnt to cheer and encourage each other and finished as one big team.

Resilience training involved much more than a round-island Singapore canoe expedition or a one-off OBS programme. We need to re-look at the way we educate our children. We should not be happy with an education system that encourages our children to succeed by being "exams smart" alone. The system should encourage more of our young people to explore different "adventures", for example, taking time off studies or work to excel in sports or hobbies, like some of our national athletes; o r even taking time off to see the world and broaden your horizon, like what many young people in Europe do.

And our young people should not fear losing out by graduating later or starting work later. We have had Singaporeans who took time off to climb mountains. They are fine examples.

We also have to find a way to teach our children not to be afraid of failure but to learn to cope with failure. There must be latitude in the education system to allow this. If our children are afraid to fail, they are less likely to be adventurous. They will always go for safe options. They are also less likely to appreciate innovation and entrepreneurship. We can forget about Singapore having the next Sim Wong Hoo, not to mention Steve Jobs.

As a schoolboy with questionable motor skills, I was not very good at sports like rugby or football. Rather fortuitously, I discovered the joy of distance running, and never stopped running since.

What has running got to do with resilience or fortitude? You can run many miles to prepare for a marathon. You can plan to run each kilometre of your race in five or six minutes, but you will never know whether you are going to get the cramps at 33 kilometres which will throw your marathon race into disarray.

Resilience is when you are down with cramps at 33 kilometres and you keep pushing to cross the finishing line and not give up. Resilience is when you are down with shin splints but still work on your recovery to get back to finish your race another day.

Running, and indeed sports, mirrors life. Like marathon runners, all of us have our own race in life to run. When the chips are down, when you are struggling with your business or when you are laid off by the MNC you work with for 20 years, what do you do in the race of life? Do you just sit and despair or do you pick yourself up and press on to cross the finishing line another day?

4.44 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of the Budget. I would like to start off by commenting on the principles of the Budget.

The Finance Minister spoke about "spending more and spending right". We are fortunate that we are able to spend more. What is just as important is that we are committed to spending right. Right, because this Budget upholds the fundamentals that have made Singapore special. Right, because it adapts to reality. It is decisive, and it is bold.

This Budget embodies the principles that make us special. It continues the work to keep Singapore safe. It strengthens the fabric of our multiracial society. It invests in our people, so that everyone has the best chance to do well.

It delivers on our promise to our people that we will be able to take care of those who have less. That we will help those who fall behind get back up on their feet. That we will give our children a better future. That we will help our seniors age with dignity, assured of proper healthcare.

Let me spend the rest of my speech on how the Budget adapts to changing realities. I would first talk about how our Industry Transformation Program helps our economy today, and builds our economy of the future. Next, I will talk about how our Budget helps Singaporeans through restructuring, and the slowing economy. Last, I will share about how our community programmes build shared experiences among Singaporeans.

Mdm Speaker, this bold Budget helps us adapt to that changing world, especially for companies. Most SMEs I spoke to are very supportive of the Industry Transformation Programme. Most SMEs acknowledge that increasing productivity and restructuring are critical and urgent. But to make further progress, they face three challenges.

One, they are too small to implement major productivity efforts within their own companies. Two, our SMEs generally find it difficult to understand and tap onto the many Government incentives. Three, our Government can do more to improve on internal Government processes, to benefit our companies.

Therefore, the Industry Transformation Programme is a strong start to address these concerns. First, the programme strengthens our trade associations and chambers as the voice of their industries, so that they can best represent diverse views, and be strong partners to the Government. Second, the business grant portal improves SMEs' access to Government assistance, so that SMEs can focus on getting the help they need, rather than on figuring out who to get help from. Third, the National Trade Platform helps our trade sector cut through unnecessary red tape. This is an excellent example of how the Government can actively spark productivity growth.

Mdm Speaker, this Budget also builds on the future economy. It addresses many of the concerns of high-technology start-ups, some of which I raised during the debate on the President's Address.

One, the $4 billon R&D funding for industry research collaboration is a big step to push the best ideas out of the labs and into the marketplace. Because when it comes to innovation, what matters is not just the ideas but the circulation and popularisation of the ideas as well.

Two, Jurong Innovation District (JID) is a strong move to strengthen our start-up eco-system. It creates an innovative sandbox to test-bed and integrate technologies in areas where Singapore can boldly invent the future.

Three, our robotics initiative helps our SMEs get ahead of the curve, to be active disruptors, rather than passive bystanders in the coming era of robots and machines. And some people I talked to are excited to see that we are using robotics not just to build our economy but also to improve Singaporeans' lives. An example would be our hospitals.

What more can we do to improve the transformation programme? I want to touch on four ideas, and I hope they can be considered.

First, I hope SG Innovation can work hand-in-glove with the JID, so that the ideas born in the former have a fair chance to be realised in the latter. As Singapore invents the future in areas of urban planning, digital health, smart nations, and advanced manufacturing, we can and we must bring our startups along on this journey.

Second, LEAD-Plus is a good start. But once we achieve a few quick wins, I hope we can extend to more sectors, even to those without strong trade associations and chambers. Given how critical and urgent our restructuring efforts are, the Government must come in and provide strong leadership. We cannot leave it to chance.

Third, the National Trade Platform is a step in the right direction for the Government to drive productivity. As we come up with the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) for different sectors, we should pinpoint the inefficiencies and come up with solutions. What matters is not whether the inefficiency comes from the industry or from the Government. What matters is that the Government and industry come together to solve these inefficiencies.

Fourth, the Government can consider developing an ITM for the HDB retail sector as well. They face different challenges compared to the rest of the retail sector. I hope that HDB, the National Environmental Agency (NEA) and even Town Councils, as major regulators of our heartlands, can partner with SPRING Singapore and the Federation of Merchants' Associations of Singapore, to drive this important effort.

As someone familiar with both business and economic development, it is clear to me that the Industry Transformation Programme is groundbreaking. It is ground-breaking because we are realigning and networking ourselves in an unprecedented way to support our economy. In this new way forward, our economic agencies will have to work much closer with our non-economic Government agencies. Our research sector will have to work much closer with our companies. Our Government will have to work much closer with our industry. This may not sound significant, but increasing the intensity of the partnership and working as one Team Singapore, will strengthen our odds for success in an exponential manner.

It is also groundbreaking because the Government will provide much needed industry leadership to sectors which usually lack clear and holistic Government direction, such as the F&B and retail sectors. In addition, the civil service will also develop a deeper knowledge in these sectors. Over time, the knowledge gained can help us best evolve Government regulations and programmes in safety and health, manpower and labour, education and SkillsFuture. This could go far to address concerns from the businesses about excessive regulations.

But all these efforts will not be easy. In fact, the Industry Transformation Programme is the difficult way forward. But it is also the right way forward. We must be prepared to give the programme ample time to take effect, and for us to get the formula right. We must be prepared for both success and failure.

Yesterday and today, in this Chamber, we heard several ideas on how we must measure how we spend on our economy carefully. I believe we have to strike a good balance. The risk of over-measurement in the name of accountability is that we will move too slowly and too cautiously. Especially for the future economy, we must move decisively but be prepared to make quick adjustments when circumstances change or when better methods emerge.

I agree with the Finance Minister's view that there is no "rulebook" for us at this stage of development. I would also like to add: "time is short; let us get to work".

Another reason why I support this Budget is because it helps Singaporeans through restructuring, and the slowing economy. It does so in at least four ways.

One, this Budget continues to help us evolve to a skills-based economy. Many enterprising business leaders I have met understand the importance of skills. Our SkillsFuture movement, coupled with industry collaborations such as TechSkills Accelerators, is closely watched by many, and they have high hopes for it. The Government must deliver.

At the same time, I hope that more of our companies will hire based on skills, especially workers being re-skilled. Taking re-skilled workers on board makes good business sense because companies get to hire employees who are committed to success, committed to staying relevant and committed to change.

Two, this Budget strikes a fine balance between companies and the Singaporean worker. In this slowdown, the rise in most types of workers' levies is tough for businesses to bear, but it helps level the playing field for Singaporeans. It reinforces the message that Singaporeans must form the core of our workforce and our economy.

Three, this Budget continues the Government's efforts to encourage companies to hire older Singaporeans as they re-skill.

Four, this Budget helps provide a lifeline for many Singaporeans involved in private sector construction. Having smaller Government construction projects means giving Singaporean main contractors, many of whom are of mid-size and doing private sector work, a fighting chance to win much-needed Government contracts. The effect will be felt all the way down to numerous Singaporean sub-contractors and Singaporean workers. It is a cost-effective way to pump-prime our economy and to help Singaporeans at the same time. I have raised this idea several times during consultation sessions, and I am very heartened to know that the Government is acting immediately on this issue.

The sum total of our 2016 Budget policies related to the Singaporean worker is that even as we restructure, even as sectors and companies rise and fall, the Government will make sure that Singaporeans are looked after. This is a principle worth supporting.

Last of all, I concur with the Government's effort to build shared experiences among Singaporeans: by getting every Singaporean youth to go through Outward Bound School; by getting more people to visit the National Gallery; by encouraging Singaporeans to come together and adopt ground-up initiatives under the Our SG fund; and by encouraging companies to get their employees to do more for our society. All these will deepen our people's sense of identity and strengthen our unity.

In conclusion, the Finance Minister spoke about the Singapore Story. This Budget will help us write the next chapter together. With that, I support the Motion.

4.56 pm

Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Mdm Speaker, I stand to speak in support of the Budget Statement raised by the Minister for Finance, Mr Heng Swee Keat. I commend Mr Heng for a good Budget in his first Budget Statement as the Finance Minister.

Whilst it is a prudent Budget, it is a well thought-out one to assist companies to ride out the present challenges and it is a caring one on social spending for the groups that need the most help; the low-wage workers, people with disabilities, the young and the seniors. I also like the focus this Budget sets out on the way forward to strengthen Singapore's future economy.

Madam, Minister Heng said in his Budget Statement that "in the coming year, given our economy's heavy dependence on external demand, the weaknesses in the global economy will pose strong headwinds". This global downturn and its possible effect on Singapore's economy in the coming year are constantly on the minds of many Singaporeans. Many hear, read and follow the global economic updates from the mainstream media or internet whilst others actually experience the market sentiments, the retrenchment of colleagues, neighbours and friends. Although Minister Heng said that "we must not let pessimism take hold, lest it creates self-fulfilling expectations", I am of the opinion that we cannot not discuss it. It is better to address people's worries where possible and offer solutions to allay concern.

Singapore is one of the world's most open economies and, therefore, can be very adversely affected in any global downturns. In February this year, it was reported that Singapore's January non-oil domestic export fell 9.9% compared with the same month last year. According to economists then, this portends the real possibility of an impending recession.

The manufacturing sector of Singapore has been in recession for a year. This sector which makes up a fifth of Singapore's economy has been hit hardest with a decline last year of 5.2% from 2014, its worst performance in 14 years. Sadly, there is no reprieve in sight due to continuing weak global demand.

Economists are saying that the global risks are mounting. China is restructuring its economy from export-led to consumer-led and is projecting slower growth of 6.5% to 7% this year, signalling a continued contraction in the world's Number Two economy. China's economic slow-down affects many countries, especially Singapore, as China is Singapore's largest trading partner.

The economic outlook in the US remains uncertain. The rise in US Federal Reserve rates could result in foreign capital outflows from Asia to the US and put downward pressure on the dollar exchange rate. US companies, much like Chinese companies, are shelving imports. Singapore's export to the US accounts for almost 8% of our GDP. As it has been said before, "Whenever the US jumps on the global trampoline, Singapore gets a bump".

The downside risks are clearly more pronounced now. Minister Heng Swee Keat said, "I am aware that current business conditions are difficult and uncertain. Many of our firms are facing weaker top-line growth, rising manpower costs and tighter financing. Workers are anxious as retrenchment has increased, including professionals." May I ask the Minister for Finance whether our Government should start looking at policies to mitigate retrenchment? The Budget feedback exercise conducted by REACH showed (a) worries of an economic downturn, (b) concerns over job security and (c) support for families, as the top three concerns of the participants.

Thus, I would like to touch on the following two topics in addressing the concerns mentioned: one, that are the relevant measures to better protect Singaporeans from redundancy? And two, coping with challenges and seizing opportunities?

So, what are the relevant measures to better protect Singaporeans from redundancy?

Madam, we should not wait for slowing growth to start manifesting in increased unemployment before thinking hard about what we can do to expand job opportunities for Singaporeans. Although Minister Heng said that unemployment is still low, it is nonetheless a total of 15,580 workers being laid off last year, the fifth year in a row that redundancies rose. Last year's number climbed 20% from 2014 and was the highest since 2009.

Madam, we need to keep the morale of the public high and maintain the confidence of the people. Singaporeans need some assurances that the Government is in control of the global economic downturn and the knock-on effects it has on job stability locally. There is a possibility that this economic slowdown may be a slow drift with increasing numbers of redundancies that saps the economic vitality of this country. In fact, keeping labour force participation high would be one of the means of supporting GDP growth.

In this context, I would like to suggest that we adopt a Singaporean-centric policy to expand job opportunities. The Government can take the lead in the expansion of job scope availability. There are many areas in almost all Government ministries that are in need of expansion. For instance, we can look at the expansion of IT professionals in the MOF and many other Ministries, the establishment of stepdown care with more homecare providers in MOH or the recruitment of more early-childhood professionals and the social workers for MSF and so on. This is an opportune time for the Government to earnestly support the various Ministries to expand. This can help us absorb the excess workers or retrenched workers; but more importantly, this will enable certain departments of various Ministries to thoroughly improve on what was previously not possible due to the shortage of manpower. The resultant effect will be that people are in employment and the Government Ministries are improved.

Would our Government also consider facilitating the growth of part-time work arrangements? Companies could be incentivised to keep their staff with part-time work arrangements rather than retrenchments when they need to cut costs due to the present economic climate. If more companies can take this option, we can achieve a dual objective of reducing redundancies, and also of establishing future part-time work option norms. This latter objective is worthy of consideration because there is a value-add if there is an increased participation of part-time workers in the workforce down the road. Availability of part-time work will enable those who want to have family work-life balance to continue working as without which, they might have opted otherwise. The Government Ministries can perhaps take the lead in establishing such work options in the public sector. Now may be a good time to take this step as previously, it might not have been possible due to the shortage of manpower.

Will MOF also consider the Jobs Credit Scheme again for SMEs, especially if the situation worsens with even more redundancies, and encourage our companies to preserve jobs? This Jobs Credit Scheme was implemented for one year and was announced in Budget 2009. Employers received 12% cash grants on the first $2,500 of each month's wages for each employee on their CPF payroll. It was a good scheme and should be considered again, if necessary, but with some tweaks in enforcement.

We can consider crediting the cash grants to the employees directly rather than to the companies whilst allowing corresponding adjustments to the employee salaries by the companies. This way, we can ascertain that the assistance is given directly to Singaporeans whom we want to safeguard from retrenchment. Another tweak that can be considered would be the coupling of job credit with skills upgrading by recipients as an eligibility requirement. We can therefore hope to achieve an upgraded and more productive workforce from this exercise. This is in line with the focus on the "short-term patch and the medium-term opportunity" of Minister Heng Swee Keat.

Middle-aged PMETs are finding it hard to find re-employment. In July last year, MOM announced a number of measures to support this segment of the workforce. As we approach the one-year mark, it may be useful to do a stock take and gather feedback to see if the measures need to be tweaked in any way to increase the employability of PMETs.

The worst affected group of people in any retrenchment would be those in the lower-income bracket. This group usually lives from hand to mouth and does not have any savings due to their meagre incomes. Thus, any redundancy will put their subsequent daily livelihood in severe jeopardy. Although they are eligible for ComCare, there is a need to empathise more with them. Perhaps, we can assist and handhold them for skills upgrading courses and better job placements. There is a need to sustain them financially while they are having upgrading courses. I hope our Government can subsidise them on their dependents' needs before they get to be re-employed.

Coping with challenges and seizing opportunities. This is the era of the Internet economy. Information Technology (IT) has transformed the business world. IT is here to stay and is developing very fast indeed. Now is the time to ensure that our workforce stays relevant and competitive by being more IT-savvy. Thus, we should take this opportunity now to upgrade more, if not all, of our workforce IT-knowledge and skills to a higher level. This should apply to even the low-skilled workers in their own capacities.

IT has dramatically accelerated the processes of new business-world creations. Today, people spend an increasing percentage of their time in the virtual world in their day-to-day living. And this has made IT very relevant to the business world where customised information on products and services can be easily accessed. Today, companies cannot even survive and compete without it. We need increasing numbers of infocomm professionals to address the present shortage in this area. Equipping our workforce with higher levels of information and communications skills for medium-term opportunities is vital and is the way forward.

Recent surveys have shown that optimism about the economy has fallen right across the board. Many companies have indicated that their immediate focus is to defend their positions at home, making a change from 2015 when the top goal was to enter new markets. These companies will spend and invest to remain competitive with other companies. It will be useful for our Government to design innovative schemes that can encourage companies to upgrade their workers' knowledge of IT. The intention is to facilitate our firms to keep their workers, packaged with improving their skills especially in IT, for a longer-term economic goal. I am not sure, as I do not have the details yet, of the newly announced "Adapt and Grow Initiative" measures and whether this initiative adequately addresses the intentions mentioned.

It will also be ideal to have incentive schemes in place, for those who are retrenched, to pick up IT knowledge or to switch to IT jobs. We may need more coaches and staff to persuade and to facilitate them to learn new IT skills and job-matching and placements.

I end by saying that I am in agreement with Mr Heng Swee Keat that we must have the courage to try new ways – think long term, dare to try and be open to change so that we will move in the right direction.

5.09 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to join in this debate. I would also like to commend the Finance Minister for delivering a Budget that is progressive yet balanced, with specific focus on certain key groups, organisations and individuals.

The Automation Support Package aims to spend over $400 million in the next three years to support firms in scaling up their automation projects. This is a clear sign that the Government is aiming to stay ahead of the curve by recognising that the next technological transformation of our economy is already taking place and will inexorably continue.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

It is also clear that our Government would like our SMEs to be at the heart of this economic development and transformation, with various financing and tax incentive support provided to our SMEs.

Sir, many of my colleagues in the House have already commented on the financial, enterprise and innovation aspects of the Budget. The focus of my speech today will thus be on how our Budget aims to set the foundation towards building a caring and resilient Singaporean society.

In an earlier speech I made in response to the President's Address, I spoke about the importance of imbuing our youth with the psychological capital to persevere in the face of setbacks, and the need to introduce experiential learning components into our schools' formal curriculum. It is thus heartening to know that this year's Budget intends to put in place a masterplan for outdoor adventure education, with the aim of developing ruggedness and resilience in our youth.

Sir, a few weeks ago, I had my own "outdoor adventure experience" when I took two of my kids to a tree-top adventure at Bedok Reservoir. When I was younger, tree-top adventures meant you went out with some friends and you climbed trees. Today, apparently, you have to pay a fee, put on a safety harness, get your helmet on and attach your pulley to a safety line to ensure you have this tree-top adventure. But no matter. Along we went. My children are built rather differently. My five-year-old daughter took to the course four times and had to be stopped from going on for a fifth time. But my eight-year-old son found certain parts of the course rather challenging, struggled at points and, at one point, even froze some 10 to 15 feet above the ground. Through cajoling, through persuasion, through determination, he completed the course, I am happy to say, and came down with a wild look of exhilaration in his eyes. And he said, "Dad, I was scared but I did it. Let us do it again."

This real adventure I had with my children re-emphasised the importance of exploration and experimentation for young children; of situational learning for youth, and the crucial life lessons such as perseverance and resilience are best learnt in experiential settings.

I am confident that the brand new Outward Bound campus will be the vital catalyst that will kick-start and accelerate adventure learning. I will speak more on this during the COS debate.

Sir, another area that I would like to comment on is the Silver Support Scheme. What is radical about this scheme is that it does not tie the payout to "work" or any form of active contribution or participation on the part of the elderly. They only need to qualify for the scheme to get this payout. The Silver Support Scheme will thus not only help these elderly who qualify, but also their family members by alleviating the family's overall financial commitments.

I understand the need to keep the qualifying criteria simple and straightforward, so that the scheme can be administered fairly quickly without the need for too much analysis. However, I would like to ask if the Finance Ministry could also consider certain cases that are in obvious need of help, but might not qualify for the scheme based on these broad criteria.

For example, there might be those who have made more than $70,000 contribution to their CPF by age 55, but who presently find themselves in a financially challenging position for one reason or another. The same could also be said for some seniors who might be living in a 5-room flat or larger, that they do not own, but are struggling financially, without much support from anyone. This point was also raised earlier by the hon Member Mr Zaqy Mohamed and I hope that the Ministry can look into this.

A final area I would like to speak on, Sir, is the need to provide more support for the emotional wellness of the sandwiched class. Earlier, my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Azmoon, used this term to refer to the middle-income group. I am using this term from a family structural perspective to refer to those individuals that have young or adolescent children and are also caring for ageing and chronically ill dependents, such as parents or even their spouse, at the same time. They are quite literally sandwiched between their obligations. Should the difficulties they face as providers and caregivers be compounded by the fact that they are from a lower-income strata, then we have all the elements of a perfect storm of stress.

I would like to share the story of Mdm Tan, one of the residents in my constituency. Mdm Tan is the sole caregiver to her husband who has multiple health problems, and she also has a schoolgoing son. Mdm Tan's husband is heavily dependent on her to take care of him, and she has to juggle this responsibility with caring for her son and holding a part-time job. Although the family is receiving Public Assistance and ComCare aid, Mdm Tan is herself under a lot of stress as she finds herself being pulled in many different directions due to her multiple commitments.

Sir, with the economic slowdown and the shadow of structural unemployment looming, this storm of stress will explode into a typhoon of trauma should individuals like Mdm Tan lose their jobs.

The Government has done a good job of putting in place social safety nets such as financial assistance schemes and even MediShield Life to keep financial and medical expenses low. However, I feel that we need to see how we can assist these individuals to cope with the emotional and psychological burden of being caregivers simultaneously to two groups of dependents, the young and the aged, who have differing caring needs. And all these while also dealing with their personal issues and challenges.

We know that social services have been decentralised from the five CDCs to the Social Service Offices (SSOs) that are now located in their various constituencies. In this regard, I would like to ask the Government to consider providing community-based mental wellness centres that offer solutions to stress-related problems or issues related to mild depression for residents who need such services.

Unfortunately, Sir, mental wellness is still very much stigmatised in Singapore where Singaporeans would often equate a visit to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) with schizophrenia or some other catastrophic mental health issue. Indeed, many of my residents still colloquially refer to the IMH as "Siao-Lang Keng" or the "Insane Asylum."

Perhaps a decentralised approach to mental wellness could be a better way to build community awareness around stress management and mild depression, and this will also encourage residents who need such services to be more receptive to getting help. I believe this is important as providing easily accessible mental health support would be increasingly important for our society as Singaporeans search for more ways to cope with the stress of living in a fast-paced society, and to also better manage and negotiate the economic challenges that are coming our way.

Sir, this year's Budget has continued the momentum of previous years' where the Government continues to support local SMEs to restructure their operations and manpower needs. It is a conservative and balanced one that has addressed economic concerns while acknowledging the need for measured and sustainable social spending.

It is heartening to know that the Government has recognised the importance of experiential learning for our youth and will make significant investments in this direction. I also hope that more attention can be given to improving the "heart-ware" infrastructure to provide more support for the vulnerable members in our community.

Sir, I look forward to the future with hope and optimism, and I support the Motion to pass the Budget.

5.18 pm

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): I declare my interests as an entrepreneur in the field of social innovation and I also ask the Deputy Speaker's advanced pardon for any lapses into informality. It is the language of the heart for youths, and I speak to them as much as I speak to the hon Members of this very formal House.

Last year, we celebrated our Jubilee in a big way – as we should. Our dramatic jump from third world to first in 50 years is an outsized achievement we will probably never see again. Already, the future in front of us looks nothing like the past we just left behind. Random terrorism, climate change and all kinds of breakdowns all seem to be part of our new and very scary normal.

So, clearly, the year-long party is over and SG51 is in a different emotional space. One of the ways we could try to cope with all this rapid change is to fantasise about our past. But nostalgia, while lovely as a sentiment, is pretty lousy as a strategy. The sobering fact we must all accept is that our world is not our father's world. And we have to find our own way forward. Life is just going to be more complex. Solutions are no longer simple. Success is no longer straightforward, and disruptive change will come for us all.

Budget 2016 declares "Transformation through Innovation" as our best way forward. We are asking Singaporeans to just accept the call to arms, to step up and take some risks, be productive, internationalise, collaborate and oh! along the way, please care for the needy, get married, have more kids and do not forget to be resilient.

These are all great aspirations, but in the field of social and emotional work I come from, we know this to be true – the greatest barrier that will stand in the way of all these changes we hope to see are going to be fundamentally human. At the heart of every frustrating roadblock we will face to our technical solutions is actually a cluster of cultural habits – deeply rooted patterns of behaviour, emotions and narrative that can prove surprisingly resistant to change even in the face of overwhelming logical evidence.

The Finance Minister has talked about the need to get precise with solving our economic issues by coming up with bespoke roadmaps for the long-term transformation of specific sectors. I support that approach. My request is that we also get equally serious and precise in the way we resolve the human cultural habits that stand in the way.

If we want sustained transformation of our industries, we should be drawing up matching bespoke roadmaps for the long-term psychological and emotional transformation of our people as well. We should treat it seriously as we would with any other priority economic initiative. And treat the observations of cultural analysts as seriously as that of our economic analysts. When we track specific cultural metrics – critical behaviours or beliefs – we can get early insights that signal to us whether we are on track or just seriously off-course.

Metrics have to be meaningful. Just telling us "X number of businesses were started in Y years" tells us nothing deep about whether genuine innovation or meaningful entrepreneurship is on a healthy rise. What would yield deeper insight is to also track over the years, qualitative data about the emotions, beliefs and behaviours Singaporeans hold towards risk, failures, possibilities and uncertainties. If we want to know why productivity does not really happen in Singapore, we should track our behaviours and attitudes towards the creation and sharing of value. And if we want to know why collaboration does not happen easily in Singapore, we have to track our behaviours and attitudes surrounding openness and trust.

We must match "Strategy with Culture." If you want to see strategies succeed, cultural intervention must always be the first resort. Not the last resort or just one of many resorts; first resort. All too often, companies actually severely underestimate how much strategy's effectiveness hinges on cultural alignment. At any top-down strategy that is at odds with ground-up culture is, at best, hamstringed and, at worst, utterly doomed. Culture trumps strategy every time. Almost every enterprise that has gained peak performance – the Four Seasons, Apple, Southwest Airlines – they all got there by prioritising cultural interventions as their best accelerator for change.

Successful cultural intervention is about focusing on just a few critical shifts of specific behaviours, deeply linked with the strategic outcomes that we hope for. If SGInnovate is being tasked to cultivate an ecosystem for innovation, it has to pair its strategic matchmaking with culture-building efforts that connect with its goals. It should take the lead in holding discussions with thought leaders in Singapore's entrepreneurial ecosystem to learn what are the beliefs and behaviours we must encourage or discourage in our youths so that by the time they enter the workforce, they are primed with the habits of innovation.

Cultural transformation does not reach a tipping point without winning over a small but crucial crop of influential early adopters. The early adopters bring in the early majority, the early majority brings in the late majority and the late majority brings in everyone else who is still wondering what on earth is going on.

SGInnovate must seek out the local early adopters of innovation culture and work with them to help build up Singapore's thought leadership on innovation. It is galling to me that at our innovation conferences here, we are still getting keynote speakers from everywhere but Singapore. This just reinforces the perception of our own people as well as outsiders that Singaporeans are just not as capable of innovative thinking as Westerners.

If we look hard enough, we will find that we already have pockets of people who are just as cutting-edge in their approach to their public, private and people sector work but are also excellent at communicating their views. We need to take bigger bets on our own people and shore up our confidence in Singapore's ability to do things different.

There are many cultural roadblocks to transformation, but I will focus on the two that I think have the greatest cost on our economy. They are our national habits of fear and scarcity thinking. Because fear is such a quick and effective emotional lever that galvanises our survival instinct, it has been the favoured motivational tool of many of our parents, teachers, bosses and even politicians. And managed well, fear is a perfectly healthy kick-in-the-pants we all need to force us out of complacency into action. Fear compels us to man up, save more, study hard and work long. And fear, in that sense, is an emotion that does help us take care of our future. But fear loses these powerful, positive effects when it goes beyond a temporary emotion that we feel to a permanent disposition we live in. And when the fear becomes part of our emotional and cultural DNA, we lock ourselves into a habit of self-limiting behaviours.

And this is why we need to talk about our "kiasu" culture. It really disturbs me that year after year on those funny National Day surveys, we still rank "kiasu, kiasi" as among the top few defining traits of what makes us Singaporeans. We laugh about it but it has been 50 years and the joke is on us. How much longer will we self-identify as a people living under siege? What human potential and opportunities have we lost over the years living as a nation of people scared to lose out and scared to fail? How much more opportunities are we prepared to lose?

I do not think "kiasu" culture should be celebrated. In fact, I think we should kill it. Because all these behaviours that we are telling Singaporeans are necessary to take us into the future – innovation, productivity, collaboration, generosity to the needy – they are wholly dependent on a person's desire and drive to generate greater worth and real value to share with the world. "Kiasu" culture does not give a damn about generating or sharing worth and value. The "kiasu" person will even pursue things of questionable worth he himself does not believe in, as long as he sees everyone else is doing so.

Nothing illustrates this best than the toxic arms race between "kiasu" parents. The Straits Times discovered four in 10 parents purchase tuition for pre-schoolers. And when asked why, the overriding reason, of course, was better grades. But in the same breath, only a third of these parents said tuition actually improves academic performance. So, by their own admission, they are paying for something that they already admit is not productive. The price is the time and money that could have been spent developing their child in more worthwhile skills. "Kiasu" culture is too costly a culture to put up with and there are huge trade-offs in human development, manpower and time and dollars spent.

"Kiasu" culture is also what created the subculture of grantrepreneurs – people who call themselves entrepreneurs but are really just grant-chasers – who seize upon any kind of public monies, like the PIC grant, to use on everything but what the grant was meant to accomplish. Yes, there are genuine "kiasu" entrepreneurs. But the "kiasu" entrepreneur is driven by the anxiety to make short gains rather than a mindful desire to win at a long game, so he will only take the risks that everyone is already taking and innovate what everyone else is already innovating.

That is why entrepreneurship here tends to lack originality and is really just a copy-and-paste work of little worth. Yesterday's bubble tea shop is today's hipster coffee joint and cat café. We have a ridiculous number of entrepreneurs in F&B and way too little in industries like marine and construction, which have far more opportunity, profit and need for new blood willing to go where nobody else wants to go or dares to go.

Sir, fear is an emotion essentially rooted in the rejection of uncertainty, and its opposite is not courage. When we embrace uncertainty, what we experience is the emotions of mindful ambition and wonder. I suspect our highest innovation and productivity will only come when more of us move beyond the fear of "Die lah, die lah! What must I do to survive?" to the mindful ambition of "I have no idea what lies ahead, but I am still here and I am still alive. What things of great worth do I still get to create for somebody else today?"

The other habit that costs us plenty is our scarcity mindset. It is most toxic when it dovetails with the "kiasu" culture. Scarcity mindset is the belief that there is not enough to go around and the giving of any advantage to someone else is stupid because it comes at the cost of our personal survival or happiness. You see it in the way we push back on whether columbariums have a place in middle-class neighbourhoods or the anger we feel about immigrants – one more foreigner here means one less MRT seat for me. I have seen it in the way some non-profits work in silo, believing it is every NGO for himself in the fight for the limited pie of state and donor funding. And now, you can hear it in the outrage amongst some mothers in the 1% when they discovered, "I cannot claim tax relief on income above $80,000 anymore because we want to support greater social spending."

In scarcity thinking, there is no "win-win". It is always a high stakes competition of "win-lose" or "lose-lose". In scarcity, power or profit cannot be shared, even with the very people who help support the position we enjoy. So, nobody wins in this destructive zero-sum game of scarcity. When we adults push back hard on why our domestic workers should be given their right to their day of rest since it impedes on my day of rest, then how can we expect anyone to do any better?

Should it surprise us if someday we see many in the next generation grow up refusing to take responsibility for our welfare when we become the powerless ones in our old age? Why should it anger us when our bosses push back hard on why they should be forced to give us our right to more paid paternity leave when it infringes on their right to make more profit? Rich or poor, employer or employee, local or foreign, powerful or not, we will all bear the cost of our collective scarcity mindset.

And yes, the habit of scarcity is an unavoidable product of our context as a small country of limited resources. And it is true, small countries do not get to be naive about survival and we have little leeway to fool around with our future. But when we keep pushing out the story of how we are the little red dot surrounded by big, bad wolves that want to eat our lunch, we risk reinforcing the zero-sum mentality as the most significant story for Singapore and our best way forward. This is counterproductive to our push for more open and giving collaboration as the best way forward.

So, in SG51, what I hope is we can start pushing out a new Singapore story founded upon the opposite of scarcity. And no, it is not abundance, because the paradigm of abundance that there is plenty out there and enough to spare for everybody is not always true. Resources are limited, especially in a small nation and there will always be tough trade-offs which we will all argue over.

So, the most honest alternative to scarcity is actually not abundance, but satisfaction. It is the mindset that says, "Whatever we have, it's enough. I have enough. I am enough. So, I'm able to want you to have enough too". It is what allowed that famous "Jackpot Auntie" to give away her casino windfall of $0.5 million not once, but twice to charity. And when reporters asked her why she would do something like that when she was not rich, she said, "I have all that I want".

When we are satisfied, we are far more willing to give something of ourselves, and from that mindset of satisfaction flows the desire to share decisions, information, recognition, profits and yes, the tax burden for social spending. Only when we are deeply satisfied as a people will we want to subtract some value from ourselves to multiply the value that can be had by all.

So, I think it is a beautiful thing for the Government to advocate deeper, respectful partnerships between stakeholders as the best way forward. With the state acting as the guide, it challenges us stakeholders to take our place as the "heroes of the story" instead. The outreach to trade associations, Our Singapore Fund, Community of Seniors and Business and the IPC Partnership Scheme will hopefully open our eyes to seeing each other as equal partners in a win-win game on the same quest to solve the same pains.

Minister Heng talked about how we must change our paradigm and view our greying population and disabled as a source of strength that can shape our society rather than a weakness to be managed. And I agree. So, I appeal on behalf of our weak and marginalised that in the design of our social policies, we choose to see them not through the lens of a zero-sum game too. As we execute our policies like SkillsFuture, Fresh Start Housing Scheme and KidSTART, let us use this chance to set up more win-win situations for our working poor. How different would our interventions be, if we designed them around a vision for our poor, not as a cost to manage but as a partner, a possible source of strength, who can share the same quest to solve the same pains.

Our policies must accord our poor the same dignities and assumptions we accord our privileged. If we do not expect our middle-class families to raise children well in overcrowded conditions, then let us not expect poor families to do any better in overcrowded rental flats co-shared with a stranger. It is setting them up for failure. We know the divisive effects of favouritism in the family. Well, a country is like a family writ very large. Let us do away with any form of structural favouritism in the way we treat our rich versus our poor.

At last year's Budget, I asked that we consider giving single unwed mums and their children the same benefits and acceptance we accord to married mothers. MSF has already announced that they will review the inequalities in policies. And that is fantastic news. We are struggling with birth rates, so it is right that all young life that has been given to Singapore should be duly welcomed and all their life-bearers duly honoured.

This year, Minister Heng mentioned "all" Singapore babies will receive the Child Development Account (CDA) First Step Grant that can help struggling parents access the State's generous co-savings plan. But the marital status of parents has always been the eligibility criteria for CDAs. So, you can imagine, on that single word "all" hangs the hopes of so many single mums as well as the hearts of us married mothers who are rooting for a win for them. So, I hope we can clarify whether "all" includes the children of our unwed mums, because single or married, rich or poor, many of us mums share the same heart. We want to partner the state in the common mission to bring up our children to become all that they can be, and many of us mums stand as one on this – see us all as equal. See all our children as equal too!

I know there is an argument about why not just invest in innocent children rather than invest in the bad parents who make bad choices? But well, then all of us parents in this room stand equally condemned, for we too have made varying levels of bad choices in our lives that messed up our own families. The difference is that the more social and financial capital we have, the easier it is for us to recover and learn from our stupidity.

Wealth buys us second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth chances. But for many who are poor, bad choices are more difficult to recover from and good choices are not always available or easy to take. When we show our strong support to the uplifting of parents who made poor choices, we teach not just them but their children, and ours too, the power of grace. That even when we mess up and the consequences must be paid, as long as there are people rooting for us to find our way home, there is a chance for restoration, and that is what sows the ambition for transformation.

The Government led the way before when it created the Yellow Ribbon Project that taught us a better way of seeing the ex-offenders in our midst, and that was courageous moral leadership we can all get behind. You do not have to go to a physical prison to be an offender in society. Sometimes, you just have to commit the crime of being somehow second-class in people's eyes. So, let us unlock everyone's second prison of shame.

In conclusion, let me end with the same wish I had expressed at Budget 2015 – "Our country spent the first 50 years of our history getting rich. Let us spend the next 50 years charting our course towards becoming truly wealthy."

Our unity has always been our greatest source of wealth. Not the riches of Reserves, our fancy buildings or our amazing industries. Those are just outcomes, wonderful results we create through choosing again and again to do things as one people and one Singapore. Fortunes can come and go but they can be built up again on the bedrock of a thousand strong promises made between husbands and wives, parents and children, haves and have-nots, governments and their people. When threats become real, when the money runs thin, we will see conflict. And we will want to fight, and I pray we do fight. But let it be a fight for each other and not against. A fight to work through differences and partner across the divides. A fight to move out of a spirit of fear and scarcity into a new spirit of ambition and satisfaction. So, yes, the problems that are coming are probably bigger and more powerful than we think. But you know what? So are we!

Thank you, Finance Minister. I support your Budget and your call to greater unity. [Applause]

5.37 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is always difficult to speak after such a vibrant and refreshing speech, but I think I need to speak for my residents, so allow me.

Last year, we had a Budget that many people cheered about because we were celebrating SG50. This year's Budget is slightly more muted. However, there are several things which stand out in this year's Budget Statement.

First is the Minister's promise on building a caring and resilient society. I applaud the Government's continued efforts to look after the different segments of society which need more help. It is critical that a caring Government continues to help the less advantaged in an affluent society.

I support the fact that the Government is raising the qualifying income ceiling for Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) from $1,900 to $2,000. This will enable a bigger group of workers to supplement their income and CPF savings. I urge the Government to regularly review the qualifying income ceiling to ensure that those who would really benefit from the WIS are not excluded because they had worked harder during the past year. This is the target group of people whom we are trying to help so that they can eventually get out of the poverty circle. We can be more generous in giving them a boost or a leg up to eventually achieve financial independence.

I also support the fact that WIS payout would see increases between $100 and $500. This would help these lower-income workers to cover increases in cost of living as well as ease their financial burden.

The improvements to WIS, the increases in public assistance and increases to the Singapore allowances, together with other schemes like the GST Voucher scheme, rebates on Service and Conservancy (S&C) charges and so on. All these are a strong signal that the Government is very mindful of the needs of the lower income. This Government should continue to render care and assistance to low-wage workers, seniors and those with disabilities.

Regarding care for our seniors, I strongly support and welcome the Silver Support Scheme. It continues the Government's approach to care for our seniors. The Minister for Finance had announced that the Government will use three criteria in combination to identify those seniors who are low-income or without income and are at the bottom 20% to 30% of the seniors. These criteria are lifetime wages, housing type and level of household support.

I hope to urge the Minister to reconsider and exclude the criterion of housing type.

In my constituency, I have several seniors who have worked hard all their lives and are living in either 5-room flats or private properties. They have worked hard to purchase their dream home and today, some of them have no income as they are retired and are advanced in age. If they do qualify for the Silver Support Scheme based on the other two criteria, why should their housing type exclude them from being eligible for the Silver Support Scheme? They may not have children who are supporting them so the fact that their housing type excludes them from being eligible for the Silver Support Scheme would be of great disadvantage to them.

The fact that they live in 5-room flats or private properties does not mean that they are financially able. Some of their properties may be very old walk-up apartments which are not easy to sell. Some may have inherited the property and some may have worked hard and lived in their current property all their lives. Is it the intent of the Government to push these seniors, at this stage of their lives, to uproot themselves from their neighbours and a familiar environment just to qualify for Government support and for a better quality of life? I am quite sure that it is not the intent of the Minister for Finance.

What about seniors who are living on the charity of their relatives who are not their children, but staying in private properties? These seniors would be excluded from the Silver Support Scheme because, their nephews, nieces or their god-children staying in private properties had, of their kind heart, decided to look after them even though they have no obligation to do so.

Should the Government disqualify these seniors from benefitting from the Silver Support Scheme and then place a heavier financial burden on relatives or even friends who are simply being charitable to them? How about seniors living in nursing homes or old folk homes; what is the address used by the Government to consider whether they qualify for the benefits of the Silver Support Scheme?

Hence, I urge the Government to reconsider using housing type as a criterion in determining whether seniors should qualify for the Silver Support Scheme. The Prime Minister had said that the Singapore Story belongs to all of us. Let us include this small group of seniors who, for one reason or another, live in properties which do not meet the qualifying criteria.

The second aspect of the Budget which stands out for me is the push towards transformation of the economy. I agree that businesses need to take a good hard look at themselves and ask themselves how can they prepare themselves for the future? How can their businesses grow, bearing in mind, the uncertain economy?

The Government has launched a $4.5 billion Industry Transformation Programme (ITP) to strengthen enterprises and industries, and to drive growth through innovation. There is the Automation Support Package, support for industries to scale-up and encouraging internationalisation, schemes to develop and deploy new technologies.

I think these are good schemes to help nudge businesses towards being more innovative and to improve productivity.

One challenge is how to ensure that the benefits of these schemes reach the companies and businesses. One feedback which I had received regarding the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) was that many businesses did not fully understand the purpose of the scheme. As a result, there are consultants who helped these companies apply for the PIC, not because it would result in improved productivity, but simply because the Government is giving away monies to businesses. This is an abuse of the intent behind the PIC.

So, I urged the Government to ensure that the Industry Transformation Programme (ITP) is better explained to the industries or businesses. More should be done to prevent abuse of the scheme and to ensure that the funds are properly applied to achieve the purposes of helping companies innovate and improve.

Expand our SME Centres so that we have more staff on board to help reach out to the businesses to explain the many schemes available to assist them. Make it a target that the majority of businesses will think of SME Help Centres or SME Advisory Centres first if they need any advice or help regarding Government schemes.

Get the banks, the accounting firms, the lawyers and other professional advisors involved in helping to refer their clients to the SME Advisory Centres or the SME Help Centres to understand more about the types of schemes available to help the businesses.

I am also glad to hear of the Adapt and Grow initiative to help our people adjust. The Government's expansion of the wage support scheme to encourage firms to hire workers affected by retrenchment or business restructuring is welcomed.

One feedback which I have received from residents who are retrenched or have lost their jobs is that they find it difficult to find another job easily. Some of them remain unemployed for several months, and during this time when they are unemployed, it is a huge challenge for them as they have to juggle with bills to pay and other family expenses. The last thing on their mind is to retrain or reskill because they need to find alternative sources of income to cover their daily expenses.

Some of these workers are also upset that having served their employers faithfully for several years, when the company downsizes the operations and has to retrench staff, no consideration is given to the staff for their loyalty or their efforts in building up the company.

So, I ask the Government: will the Government consider introducing a retrenchment benefit law that would compel companies that retrench staff to pay a minimum of between three and six months of retrenchment benefits depending on the length of service by the staff?

Currently, the law is that if you have served for a minimum number of years with a company, you are eligible for retrenchment benefits. However such payment is not compulsory unless you have an agreement with the company or the union has negotiated an agreement for its workers. The payment for retrenchment benefits should be made compulsory instead of leaving it to agreement between employer or employee or leaving it to becoming discretionary. It should also apply to all staff including PMETs and management.

In this way, the staff retrenched will be able to concentrate on learning new skills for the future job and not have to worry about paying off the family's monthly expenses. It would make the transition less worrisome if they are able to rely on some short-term retrenchment payment to tide them over for a few months whilst they find another job or undergo retraining.

Many other countries like Australia and the UK have laws requiring companies to pay retrenchment benefits. Perhaps, it is timely for Singapore to consider similar laws, especially since a recent report suggest that higher skilled staff make up the bulk of layoffs. This means that it is no longer the case that if you are skilled, you can find alternative employment so easily. Details can be worked out by reference to the amount paid in other countries and the Government can always impose a cap on the amount of retrenchment benefits to be paid. So, I urge the Government to explore this option. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Budget Statement.

5.46 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Deputy Speaker Sir, I stand in support of this Budget. Not too long ago at the opening of Parliament, the President asked all of the Singaporeans to stand together in solidarity as we embark on the new chapter of nation-building.

The broad vectors in the President's address which were supported by this House have now been put into an action plan in the form of the Budget. The two main themes of the Budget is the spirit of partnership and transformation.

Today, I would like to share my perspectives on these two themes. Firstly, on the spirit of partnership, it is apt that the Minister for Finance spoke about partnership as it is important that Singaporeans take ownership over the concrete actions to be taken in the next chapter of Singapore. Many have come to associate the Budget announcements with the handouts of "goodies". Some question the support they feel they deserve and missed out on because of existing criteria.

I think the means-testing criteria is something that needs to be carefully calibrated, and constantly reviewed to ensure that people who need help are not left to fend for themselves. The Government will also need to continually work towards making life better for all Singaporeans.

However, people should also help themselves and each other. There must be personal responsibility. Partnership means we have to do our part; it means that there must be shared responsibility between the Government and the people.

At this juncture, I would like to share the story of a lady I met at a focus group discussion between several Malay/Muslim women entrepreneurs, Mdm Saadah Jan d/o Rasif Khan. Mdm Saadah shared about the last time she met a Member of Parliament. It was the lowest point in her life as she had gotten into some financial trouble as a result of a failed business venture. She recalled that her MP, who was Minister Shanmugam, arranged for her to receive financial assistance, among other support. She said receiving financial assistance was a wake-up call for her. She asked herself, "How did my family get into this state?" and vowed to get out of that situation.

She was a homemaker but started looking out for work that she could do. She started by taking orders for roti kirai on Facebook. She asked her mother to teach her how to make the dish and successfully won the heart of her first customer. She then got more orders. She figured that since she was cooking for her family, she could cook for other families. So, she started cooking for three other families. Before long, she was cooking for 10 families. One thing led to another, and she found herself with a happy problem of having too many customers. Her sister then gave her some seed money and she rented a commercial kitchen space which allowed her to grow her business.

Her journey was not always smooth, she said. She had to put in a lot of hard work and had many trying moments. including the time she had to sleep at a nearby park so that she could stay close to the kitchen and not have to go home. However, she did not give up and trudged on.

She is now a proud owner of a thriving catering business, Dapur Ummi Abdullah. She also believes in the importance of paying and treating her employees well and in not taking any shortcuts in the business. She said she complies with all business regulations and continues to be prudent by investing the bulk of the profits back into her business. So, she said, at the end of the sharing, that she had nothing to complain about and is very happy with her current situation.

What struck me most about her story was how she took personal responsibility. She refused to stay dependent on public assistance and pulled herself out of financial difficulties. And she continues to be responsible towards her employees and her business.

I acknowledge that some may need more support and may take more time than others to get out of their financial rut. But what I think is important and what makes the difference is having the right attitude and that sense of responsibility of self and the country. I think this is what striving together means. This is what the spirit of partnership and the spirit of the community should look like.

I would like to call on Singaporeans to take a different approach towards the Budget and ask not what you can get out of it, but see what role you can play in the implementation of the various measures. In particular, there is a great opportunity to tap on Our Singapore Fund to come up with projects that can help the community. Singaporeans should look out for gaps and see where we can play a part to uplift the community.

On a lighter note, I must say that the artwork of the tapestry in the Budget handouts reminded me of a ketupat, a Malay rice cake. If you think about it, it is quite a meaningful and a poetic symbol. One strip of the coconut leaf is limp and not as useful, but several strips of coconut leaves when weaved together forms the lovely ketupat which can hold the rice. Just like how when the Government and the people work together, we can and will create something meaningful.

I move on to the second theme – transformation. The Minister for Finance laid out the strategy to transform our economy through innovation and enterprise. There is a need to transform and do things differently because the world is changing and we are facing new challenges. Local businesses and Singaporeans should be supported to go through these changes and be equipped with skills to be future ready. But I think that this is only one aspect of the equation.

There is also a need to do more to enhance social mobility. In the face of rapid technological changes and global competition, families from the lower-income group will be affected most. The families will be struggling to deal with day-to-day expenses and challenges and have very little time, money and energy left to focus on upgrading and enrichment for the children. Impact to their children can be great and it may be some time before the families' standard of living is improved.

I acknowledge that sustaining social mobility is a great challenge. And I note many existing measures are present to seek to address social mobility. For example, we have quality education accessible by all, the revised housing policies, skills upgrading through SkillsFuture, initiatives such the Opportunity Fund and KidSTART, just to name a few.

While I welcome these efforts, I feel that we can and should do more. I am of the view that to move the needle, there is a need to transform our approach. I see three main thrusts in this effort: one, target the young; two, continued support for the family; three, focus on building social capital.

So far, the Government has taken the right approach in targeting the young and providing continued support for families. However, I believe there is scope to focus more on helping young people from lower-income families to build social capital. Social capital is the access to resources and networks that can help one move up the social ladder. I believe this is a key component in enhancing social mobility.

I recommend that we look at two approaches: one, coordinated interaction between students from diverse background and two, creating a community network of support.

In respect of the coordinated interaction between students, I think there is scope to work with various schools, especially with secondary schools, ITEs and polytechnics to create platforms for regular sharing or peer mentoring. Such sessions should include students with different academic capabilities and family backgrounds and can include sharing on study techniques and reading materials, for example. Interaction with students from different backgrounds can help develop a student's world view, develop his or her relationships and networks and create access to other resources that his or her family may not have.

These platforms can be created through collaborations between different schools, as well as within students from the same school, where they can share resources or knowledge. In addition, this peer mentoring component could be something that we can incorporate as a condition or requirement in scholarships in appropriate circumstances.

Another effort we can make is the creation of a community network of support with various VWOs, businesses and partners, so that there can be a pool of resources which is easily accessible to those from the lower-income background. The network should specifically target this group and link them up with groups of individuals with relevant expertise. For example, a young person from a low-income family who may be interested in music can be linked up with local renowned musicians. Such groups of individuals can help with sharing of knowledge and insights, and building relationships and networks. The effort in linking individuals with those with greater expertise and better connections will help build their social capital.

There are many existing programmes that provide resources to lower-income families but there needs to be increased effort in creating interactions between groups from various income backgrounds. We have and should always continue to invest in our people. When our people are empowered and strong, Singapore will be strong. Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to end with a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For the 2016 Budget announcement, many commented on the Government's efforts to navigate the tide of global change and a challenging economic environment. However, perhaps among the general public, not everyone pays attention to the details of the Budget. The question that is perpetually being asked is, "What will I get this year?" Some may even question why they did not receive any assistance.

The criteria established for the provision of assistance must be reviewed constantly so that those facing difficulties will not feel trapped. I think that the Government certainly must help those who need it. Nonetheless, I feel that it is equally important to inculcate the spirit and attitude of taking on the responsibility to help yourself as well as those around you.

The Finance Minister spoke about the spirit of partnership; this is in line with the Government's call for Singaporeans to create the next chapter of the Singapore story together.

We have to be mindful about the changes and competition globally. We must quickly prepare ourselves to obtain the knowledge or skills that can prepare us for any challenges that may come. We need to educate our children to have the courage to try and the desire to achieve excellence in their respective fields.

Whether the burden is heavy or light, we will carry it together – I think that this proverb has a lesson for all of us. The Malay/Muslim community plays an important role in the nation's development and I am confident that we can work together to enhance Singapore's reputation internationally.

5.57 pm

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is a privilege to stand before the Parliament and share my views about the Budget as an artist and a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) for the Arts. I am very aware of time, that I have only 20 minutes, and so I will be very mindful.

First of all, I would like to begin by congratulating Minister Heng for delivering a Budget that seeks to place Singapore in good stead to face our future economic and social challenges.

Let me first recount a performance that my company, Drama Box, staged in 2001. That was the year when there was the financial crisis, and some of you would have remembered it.

The performance, in the form of forum theatre, was about a husband who was also a middle-aged PMET, who was retrenched and because of the retrenchment, was taking out his frustrations on his wife. Forum theatre is a form of theatre where the protagonist is facing a crisis and after the crisis is being played out, the audience is invited to replace the protagonist to try to find solutions to deal with the problem. In this particular story, both the husband and the wife are the protagonists.

In one performance, many people replaced the role of the wife, speaking to the husband about the need to accept the change, all the Government schemes that were available, advising him and encouraging him. The husband understood all these, but he was still not placated. He was still very frustrated.

Then, a woman came up. She sat the husband down, held his hand. The audience and myself were waiting for her to speak. But she did not. She just kept quiet.

Finally, the husband asked her, "Why did you not speak?" She replied with a question to him: "你好吗?", that is, "Are you okay?" At that moment, I could hear the husband heaving a sigh of relief.

When I, as the facilitator, asked her why she did what she did, she said, "在这样一种情况底下，人需要一点点的空间，一点点的时间", that is, "In such a difficult situation, people need some space and some time."

I share this anecdote to highlight the importance of time and space during a crisis or when you are facing change or a loss. Government schemes can help Singaporeans prepare for structural changes in our economy, and to move into new jobs and responsibilities. However, schemes will only help Singaporeans if we also look at how our body, hearts and spirits are affected in these moments of change, crisis and loss.

I quote, "Small acts of repair. Calming the hands in a troubled world. Restoring damage to renewed use." This quote comes from a US-based theatre company called the Goat Island, which believes that theatre is a small act of repair, repairing the body and the hearts that have been bruised by the experience of crisis, change and loss.

Human beings are not like little bolts which can be melted down and made into nuts if there were not enough nuts. To change a mindset is not about switching into a different mode. It requires the emotions and the spirits to be engaged. It needs time. And it needs space.

The woman who participated in that performance told us later that that was how she helped her husband who was retrenched during that same financial crisis. The performance became a demonstration of what is possible. It became a place for learning and sharing of wisdom by the public. It also became a place for rehearsal. Here is my response to the Budget, and I would like to ask these two questions: where is Art in the future of Singapore? Why is Art important in the future of Singapore?

I am sure that if I searched hard enough, I will be able to find statistics on the arts in Singapore – how our audiences have increased over the years, the number of art works that have multiplied since the 1990s. Yet, the very fact that I am standing here, asking about the importance of the arts in Singapore, suggests that there is some cause for concern.

To further reinforce that concern is the fact that the arts are not mentioned in this year's Budget. The word "culture" is mentioned, but in reference to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth. Surprisingly, the arts does not even get a mention in the section "Transforming our economy through enterprise and innovation". This, despite the fact that the arts powers innovation, which is important if we are to be future-ready in challenging times.

Innovation is a primary objective of the arts and artists. The arts can be innovative in its creative process. We innovate, break old regimes and create new paradigms. The arts encourage play. To play means, first of all, you play within the rules of the tried-and-tested methods. And after a while, one must start playing creatively, go beyond the rules, tear apart those little parts and then you improvise. Then, only can one start to make new discoveries.

Critical thinking balances innovation with responsibility. As we strive for change, we must also strive for sustainability. For example, how do we deal with economic growth, yet be aware of how it will impact the environment? The creative mind, coupled with critical thinking, can complement our usually pragmatic and logical approaches to problem solving.

While we want to transform our economy through innovation, we also want the transformation to be equitable, viable and sustainable. Innovation also happens in the arts through collaboration. Composers, writers, film-makers and other artists have always collaborated with other disciplines, such as science, technology and education. Such collaborations are vital to the lifeblood of these industries. Let me illustrate with another story and, again, I am aware of time.

This was an experiment that was conducted in 250 BC. Two equal length sticks were placed upright in the ground 500 miles apart. Then, at the exact moment, a person at each location would measure the length of the shadow. If the earth were flat, both shadows would be of the same length. But they discovered that the lengths were different, which means that people started to think that maybe the earth was round. And that was 250 BC. But it took another 1,000 years before we all agreed the earth was round.

A triangulation must occur for us to make sense of this story. Two people collaborated, setting up the experiment and measuring the shadows. It took two of them, from two different viewpoints, to visualise the earth as round. It also took time – roughly a thousand years, a millennium – to finally arrive at a conclusion. It was through a collaboration on such a fundamental issue – whether the earth is flat or round that we are able to gain a more accurate view of ourselves.

So, what does "collaboration" mean? Simply, it means two things – giving and taking. Giving is sharing, offering, so that one can contribute to, and feel invested in the process of nation-building. Taking is listening, engaging and the ability to accept criticism. Where criticism is concerned, it is always easier to give than to receive.

And as artists, our works get reviewed and critiqued all the time. No artist, trust me, wants to read a negative critique of his or her work. But if we see the critic as someone who cares about the arts, our mindset will change. The critic is no longer an opponent but a collaborator. We are all in it together. Yet, we are different from one another. How do we manage difference? How do we learn not to be offended by difference? How do we respond if we were to be offended by difference?

What if one person were to impose his ideas on another person? What if one group were to force their opinions and belief systems on others? I say this because, in many ways, the state has failed in mediation techniques. It is reactive, unable to effectively manage difference to find a common ground.

For example, a few letters complaining about an artwork or a book may lead to that work or book being removed. But what about the many other people who do not have a problem and, in fact, appreciate the artwork or the book? How does this logic work? Where is the mediation? Should we encourage audiences to write in when they are not offended to balance those who write in who are?

Being fair means being fair to all, not just those who write the angriest letters, shout the loudest slogans or garner the most signatures. That is not collaboration. This is not giving and taking. Collaboration is about being grounded yet open. It is about letting go of presumptions and judgements in order to create meaningful dialogue. Collaboration is also a way of demonstrating our resilience. One hears that word quite often these days. We must be resilient in case of economic downturns, in case of outbreaks of diseases, in case of terrorist attacks. And I do not disagree.

But resilience is not just about being strong. It is about the ability to adapt and to accept change. To be resilient, we must first be able to tell our own story. When we know who we are, when we have the confidence to express ourselves, we will know how to manage changes within our means. The ability to tell our story is the first step towards empowerment. We will then realise that there is no one grand narrative but many micro narratives which collectively define who we are as a nation and as a people.

That is the potency of art. It examines our relationship with the environment we live in. It examines our relationship with people we live with. It examines our relationship with ourselves. Why is art important in the future of Singapore? Art is part of our daily lives. Art is integral to our society. Art can contribute to the resilience and maturity of the populace. So, why are we not talking about art and innovation? Why are we not talking about art and the creative industry? Where is art?

Perhaps, there is some apprehension. Living together in a tight space means difficult questions should not be raised for fear that some people might not be ready enough to be engaged. And art raises difficult questions.

Our culture rewards results and success, but art promotes process and the value of failure. And it is precisely these intrinsic aspects of art that can help empower us to create a diversified, creative and sustainable future for Singapore. And art can prepare us to engage critically, with wisdom and empathy, like the story of the woman. The arts break rules. Artists break rules, not legal rules, but the rules of the creative process. Children do it all the time. They want to paint a green sky and a yellow sea. But as they grow older, they were told, "No, no, no the sky must be blue and the sea cannot be yellow. Where got such things?"

How does one innovate if one does not ask hard questions? How does one innovate if one has to keep seeking permission to be playful, the permission to transgress, the permission to make mistakes?

When artists create in Singapore, we are told the rule is: create art to foster social harmony and community bonding. If you do not do that, you are breaking the rules. But what if we want to create art that encourages critical thinking? What if we want to create art that asks difficult questions? Can this art be seen as positive, one that promotes social cohesion? Why not?

I should reiterate that having open discourse does not mean having no responsibility. One needs to be accountable for one's words and actions. At the end of the day, the laws are still in place. But having a good debate and a deep exploration of our shared issues will only benefit everyone. It can start young. Why are we preparing our young only for study and good academic results but not for important and difficult life questions? In fact, young people want to talk about life's complexities. They want to know that what they learn in school can help them find their place in life, in society.

As adults, we all know that life is not just about work and career. It is about responsibility for oneself, for others, for family, for society, and for the environment. Yet, we discourage the young from confronting difficult questions. We take away opportunities for them to learn critically, to be intelligent, creative and innovative.

Art should be very much a part of our education in school. Hence, I would like to request our Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry for Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) to invest more in creative and critical teaching. Educators cannot facilitate creative and critical learning if schools do not allow themselves to be laboratories of learning and laboratories of knowledge.

Nowadays, we go to school and learn so that we can get prepared for our careers. In Chinese, we call it the pursuit of 学业。学了就 业, that is, "Learn and you get a job". But the job market changes. The skills you learn might not be of use some time later.

I prefer another term, the pursuit of "学问" – "学" is to learn, "问" is to ask. In "The Book of I-Ching", or also known as "The Book of Change", "君子学以聚之，问以辩之" – learn and accumulate knowledge, and ask so as to be critical about what you learned.

We are so afraid we will offend others by what we ask and what we say, when, actually, we need to learn how not to be so easily offended. We need to be able to have a constructive voice that seeks to improve our shared environment and future. If the space for discourse is not going to be opened up, we will never become a nation of mature thinkers and innovators. We will continue to coexist, but never be truly inclusive.

In our rapid-pace development, we need to spend so much time catching up, that if we do not find time to slow down, we may just lose our sense of being. So, what keeps us sane and grounded? What is our centre?

Yesterday, Zaobao, 新汇点, or Crossroads, a weekly page about new migrants and foreigners living and working in Singapore, interviewed a permanent resident, Christophe, a French native. He said in the interview that after getting used to living in Singapore, he started to feel a sense of nostalgia. A new resident here, feeling a sense of nostalgia. In this interview, written in Mandarin, he said: “在西方国家，即使过了四五十年都没有察觉多少变化。可是新加坡一直不断在建设，原本惊叹的心情，现在已出现变化."

What he said was that in the West, you would not notice any changes even after 40 or 50 years. But, in Singapore, because it is constantly building and constructing, when initially he was amazed by it, but now he feels differently. So, now, Christophe is beginning to be interested in discovering what would make this place a home. He started by participating in arts, and in discovering heritage places.

So, what keeps us grounded, helps us take stock, reminds us we are human, we are people living in one place? Our literature, our music, our painting, our theatre, our cultural sites like Bukit Brown and many other tangible and intangible heritage.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am mindful of time. I would like to end with a quotation by Rebecca Solnit which states, "Democracy is built upon trust amongst strangers."

So, let us begin trusting one another. Let us not fear alternative viewpoints or cave in to strident voices without listening to others. For centuries, the arts have provided a safe space for us to ask questions, understand one another better, and dream of a better communal future that embraces diversity. Sometimes, we do not have the answer immediately, but asking the right question is a step closer. It just takes time. Instead of saying there is no time, let us make time for it. And instead of saying no space, let us make space for it. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with that, I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kok, you are well within your time. Ms Joan Pereira.

6.17 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am heartened by the various targeted programmes to help our families. Many seniors will be assisted through the Silver Support payouts, needy households will get more cash assistance and families with children will benefit from First Step, KidSTART and the Fresh Start grants. These schemes build upon the foundation set by existing programmes.

Aside from the funds set aside to support our families and communities, we must encourage more Singaporeans to be active volunteers as many of the problems within our communities cannot be solved through funding alone.

I would like to focus on volunteering among our seniors. Volunteering is an important part of active ageing. It is an activity which allows the elderly to stay engaged in the community and derive a sense of satisfaction from giving back, and in turn, enable the community to tap upon his years of very rich experience. Research has also shown that elderly who have meaningful relationships and are engaged in their communities are happier and healthier as a result. Volunteering indeed gives them a deep sense of purpose.

However, getting our seniors to volunteer on a sustainable basis is not easy. Attracting a group to one-off projects is easy but beyond that, keeping them motivated to come out of their comfort zones is challenging.

Hence, I would like to propose incentives to draw more elderly to our community volunteering programmes. One possibility is a time bank, whereby every hour of volunteering clocked by participating seniors can be deposited, accumulated and exchanged for certain privileges such as priority in queues at polyclinics and public hospitals, free or discounted People's Association (PA) courses, or even a waiver of the $50 application fee for the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) after the fee waiver expires this September.

In addition to recruiting and attracting seniors, we should also design programmes such that our younger generation can be involved. The PA can assist by facilitating the arrangements between schools and seniors' groups.

Presently, many students benefit from the exposure to serving their communities due the Community Involvement Programme (CIP) requirements by their schools. Using the same LPA example, seniors can accumulate hours of volunteer service to exchange for a LPA waiver and application assistance from trained student volunteers from an Institution of Higher Learning (IHL). An assigned student can assist him in understanding the requirements and benefits of the LPA, and then guide him through the process and assist him with the application. The student can even help the elderly locate an accredited medical practitioner in his estate to certify his LPA. I think this is a good example of how two volunteers, one young and one senior, can bond through meaningful intergenerational interaction.

We should endeavour to promote interracial and inter-religious bonding through similar volunteer programmes. Volunteering for a common cause is the best way to get people of different backgrounds to realise that beneath the labels of race and religion, we have a lot more in common as Singaporeans. We need the cooperation of our religious organisations to organise such interactive activities between different religious groups to promote mutual understanding and tolerance. While these initiatives may, sometimes, feel unnatural or contrived, we must persevere and resist retreating into our own cliques. More importantly, we must be mindful that we have to conscientiously put in the time and effort to create better relationships for a better home and a better nation for all.

Another area of concern is the health of our elderly. With our rapidly ageing population, it is of utmost importance to encourage our seniors to take preventive measures, such as making lifestyle and dietary changes to improve their health. Good lifestyle and diets should start as early as possible. Making changes when one is even older and possibly more set in one's habits will be very much more difficult. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I hope the Health Promotion Board (HPB) will consider offering incentives to encourage the elderly to lead active lives and exercise more. Last year, the authorities launched the National Steps Challenge initiative. This was a very good way to encourage citizens to live an active and healthy life. If HPB can introduce more similar long-term programmes targeted at the elderly, I believe the response will be very good. Through these platforms, HPB can work together with businesses to provide discounts to the elderly. Suitable business partners could include Foodfare, shops which sell spectacles, hearing aides and mobility aides. Of course, to encourage the elderly to make healthier choices, the discounts should only be for "Healthy Choice" dishes.

(In English): Maintaining good health is particularly challenging for women. Generally, more women than men are the main caregivers to the children and elderly in their families and they tend to neglect themselves. With more women also out in the workforce, they have a tough time balancing career and family demands and usually, their own health takes a backseat. Women also live longer than men, although a significant portion of their final days may be in poor health. I hope that MOH will consider new measures to provide more support to women, especially homemakers, in the area of preventive care.

With the retirement age increasing to 67, more grandparents will have to choose between work and looking after grandchildren. I would like to urge the Government to consider giving caregiver grandparents the childcare subsidies that would otherwise be given to childcare centres. While a grandparent will probably earn more working outside, such a rebate will help lessen the financial sacrifice if the grandparent is inclined to look after the child herself or himself, especially when the child is an infant or very young.

Finally, I would like to speak on the introduction of a cap of $80,000 on personal income tax reliefs which will take effect from Year of Assessment 2018. So far, there has been no limit on the total amount of personal income tax reliefs an individual taxpayer can claim. This change will affect working mothers with higher incomes the most because of the tax reliefs that they get from the Working Mother's Child Relief.

Granted, these women earn high incomes but I would like to appeal for the cap to be lifted for those who are divorced or widowed as they usually face more challenges such as raising families on their own. Many of these women hold senior positions in their demanding careers and have to juggle pressing family needs as well. I hope the Minister will take into account their extenuating circumstances.

Mr Deputy Speaker, permit me now to conclude by congratulating Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat for a Budget which is not only bold in strategy to transform our economy but also balanced with targeted initiatives to build our community and people, reflecting the collective wisdom of this Government and the many Singaporeans who have contributed actively through their feedback. This Budget deserves the support of every Singaporean.

6.26 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Sir, thank you for the chance to speak and I would like to thank Finance Minister for delivering a strategic and progressive Budget that has its eyes firmly set on the future as well as not forgetting the needs of the day.

Sir, Budget 2016, otherwise known as Budget SG51, is an important one as it sets the direction and foundation from which we strive towards a successful SG100. Listening to Finance Minister's Budget Statement, three things came to mind.

Firstly, that next phase of growth has to be driven by innovation vis-à-vis manpower growth. Second, transformation will be extremely uncomfortable but without it, we cannot metamorphosise into the figurative beautiful "butterfly". And third, partnership is necessary to effectively effect economic and social change.

These are relevant and much needed in today's context and I sincerely hope that the measures announced in the Budget will succeed, because this is an important first step towards Singapore's future. Building on, I would like to offer my thoughts and humble suggestions on what else I believe we should consider as well.

I am supportive of the direction taken and measures introduced to catalyse our economic transformation. I also appreciate the measures aimed at strengthening our own capabilities so that we will not, as much as possible, be at the mercy of external elements such as foreign manpower. Much of our past growth was dependent on manpower growth, which we logically know cannot be sustainable, given our limited land area. Therefore, innovation is key. The schemes in this Budget are clearly aimed at supporting innovation, with a focus on technology, and I look forward to the positive changes with great hope and anticipation.

If I may offer some humble suggestions to the chorus of recommendations from Members of this House.

Firstly, the Government must continue to emphasise the importance of adaptation and the need for lifelong learning. It is already done but such emphasis must continue throughout the year and over several Budgets. Anchor this belief of adaptation and lifelong learning in the conscious and subconscious minds, so that it becomes our way of life.

Second, as with any transformation, there will be sacrifices and pain. There will be inertia. While businesses should ideally learn to thrive on their own with minimal Government intervention, I fear the reality now is that businesses are so used to Government support that a strong initial push is necessary before the transformation can take on its own momentum.

Hence, the Government has to facilitate this as much as possible. There are many good schemes introduced. But as a next step, it is important to help SMEs benefit fully from these schemes and realise that it is achievable. Nobody will bother trying if they think these are too difficult or impossible to achieve. Hence, helping SMEs to make quick wins when they enrol in the schemes would help to make the bitter pill more "palatable" for the SMEs. Partnering trade associations is a good move and these associations can not only help to coordinate industry-wide changes but also multiply the outreach. For example, they can help to actively share the quick wins and successful examples to motivate others to push on.

Now that we have begun our journey to transform, there is no turning back. Therefore, we have to give it our best shot.

The Budget's emphasis on innovation and partnership is correct and timely, and these should apply to the social sector as well. Despite limited resources and manpower, the demand for social programmes continues to rise and hence, effective partnerships are needed to ensure a more optimal application of resources.

But we also need to rethink how we offer care for the more vulnerable, especially our elderly and our young. We need to innovate – whether it is through leveraging technology or changing the way we care for our vulnerable.

Allow me to begin with the care for our elderly first and in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Caring for our elderly is important for building our society.

Firstly, we have a rapidly ageing population. We need to gear ourselves to enable a graceful and meaningful retirement for all Singaporeans. Also, we need to recognise that our elderly can be an asset and not a liability. We should harness their wisdom and strengths to help Singapore grow economically and socially.

Secondly, nobody wants to age in a cold and isolated environment where nobody cares. Hence, we need to put in place the infrastructure and programmes as early as possible, because these take time to take effect and take root. We are setting the tone and example for our younger generations and our decisions today will determine the values that will guide our society in the future.

I am heartened by the slew of pro-elderly measures introduced over the past years. But to achieve a truly caring society, we cannot solely rely on the Government or a few charitable organisations. Every one of us has to do our part. I am therefore excited by the announcement of piloting Community Networks for Seniors. This is not exactly an innovation in terms of how we care for our elderly, though it is different from the traditional approach of family-based or institutional-based eldercare. It can also help us achieve the vision of "ageing in place".

I see this initiative as fulfilling two objectives.

Firstly, I believe it can simplify the process of delivering assistance and care to our elderly and ensure that resources and support are fairly distributed to all seniors. Currently, the elderly are often confused by the myriad of social and healthcare schemes offered at the national and local levels. For example, they cannot master the differences between the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) and outpatient subsidies, the uses of Medisave, MediShield Life and Medifund, and so on. Some are automatically administered, whilst some require application. Also, there is a tendency for well-intentioned organisations and volunteers to focus on rental blocks. This is necessary and has to continue because the elderly living in these blocks are genuinely more vulnerable. But we also know that vulnerable elderly do not reside exclusively in rental blocks. Moreover, even the more abled elderly need to be included socially, live a fulfilling life and have opportunities to continue to contribute.

Secondly, as the number of lonely or single elderly increases, we must find a way to enable independent living. We can leverage on technologies to enable our elderly to live safely and independently at home, but whilst doing so, let us also make sure that the human touch is not inadvertently lost. We must prevent the elderly from dropping out of their social networks. Hence, I see this Community Networks for Seniors as a good way of putting that human touch back into their lives.

In light of challenges and expected needs in caring for an ageing population, I would like to make two suggestions.

Firstly, continue to invest in technological research targeted at eldercare and expedite the implementation of tested solutions that can enable our elderly, especially elderly with physical challenges and little familial support, to live independently at home. For example, build intelligent homes that can detect anomalies so that designated neighbours or Social Service Officers (SSO) can be alerted to intervene and help in a timely manner; make use of assistive technologies, controlled by speech or eye movements or mind, to enable a bedridden elderly to move around at home and execute daily living activities; make available an integrated digital platform with schedule optimising capabilities that allows the elderly to request for home care or any other social services or support in the comfort of their own homes without having to worry about what numbers to dial or which organisations have or do not have the services they need. As we move towards a "Smart Nation", this has to be given priority. The Government should also take the lead in this area.

Secondly, actively recruit volunteers and aggressively promote the Business and IPC Partnership Scheme. Given the high demand for services and tight labour situation across all sectors, I doubt there will be enough workers to do what is needed. We have to review our manpower model more creatively. In my opinion, the way ahead will be that more Singaporeans, young and old, have to take on more responsibilities in the community – we need everyone to play a part anyway to make a caring society possible. We need to recruit more Singaporeans to volunteer to do so. But we also need to make sure that jobs are meaningful and the "job scopes" are better defined. There should be a central coordinating body within the respective communities for optimal manpower deployment – a function that perhaps the Community Networks for Seniors can assume.

(In English): Next, I would like to touch on support for our young and families. I am heartened by the continued investment in the children of Singapore. We must continue to give our young a good and more equalised start in life. The First Step Grant is another step in this direction, given that some 5% of parents cannot even afford to deposit a cent in their children's Child Development Account (CDA).

Hence, this grant ensures that any Singaporean child will have a minimum of $3,000 in their CDA from the moment they are born. Earlier on, hon Member, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, made the impassionate call for this to be given to all kids, regardless of the marital status of the parents. And I feel very touched by her impassionate call and I would also like to reinforce that call.

KidSTART too is a step in the right direction. This longer-term and more holistic approach towards children of less privileged backgrounds is welcomed. I hope it will also focus on children from vulnerable backgrounds, such as single parent or very complex family situations.

At the end, by giving the children of Singapore a good and more equalised start, it is really making sure that the future of Singapore also starts on a better footing.

Over the years, it is also very heartening that the Government is determined to support families in Singapore and has implemented measures to help young Singaporeans achieve both parenthood and career aspirations, reducing their need to make trade-offs. Women have also been incentivised and encouraged to stay employed, even after being mothers. This is progressive and we must continue to do so.

However, there are still some challenges that we must solve.

One, childcare supply is still chasing demand. The Government is very actively working on this area but there is still some way to go. Can we consider alternatives other than care centres and familial support, which not everyone has?

For example, organise and tap on "informal sources of labour", such as nannies and volunteers within the community to supplement infant care and childcare centres. There are many experienced women, or we know them as "aunties", or trained part-time caregivers who want to take care of infants and children and earn an income at the same time.

The Government can help match demand with supply by creating an online directory to facilitate this. Interested parents who cannot secure a placement at the infant care or childcare centre can look to this platform for potential caregivers within the neighbourhood. Basic profile and credentials of these caregivers can be published in the directory. Parents and caregivers can then negotiate the price privately. In essence, whatever the format is, make this additional option more easily available for parents to consider.

Two, we should continue to support working mothers and not discourage them. Some working mothers, who are PMEs in MNCs, shared with me that whenever a woman becomes pregnant, her career progression or promotion can get held back for one year. While they understand that the firms have to fairly reward others who inevitably have to step in to cover their duties during the downtime following birth, the opportunity costs are considerable.

It is already challenging for women to succeed in corporate life, given that women are often the minority in the boardrooms and within senior ranks. With children, they have to perform the additional juggling act of being a responsible mother and a performing employee. So, it is extremely challenging for working mothers, a reality that can also be off-putting for young women who are still unsure if they should have children.

In response, the Government had introduced a variety of measures to encourage childbirth and support working mothers. These are not new points. But I think there is one part of this year's Budget that risks becoming a disincentive.

The personal income tax relief cap of $80,000 almost only hits working mothers, specifically those from mid-management and higher. Quite a few of the working mothers who are affected have reached out to me to express their unhappiness. They feel aggrieved not so much because of the reduction in disposable income, but more for the signal conveyed through this move. Rightly or wrongly, these working mothers feel singled out because their male contemporaries are generally unaffected by this move.

Those who had enjoyed the working mother relief now feel penalised. Some wonder if the Government is asking them to have fewer children. Some wonder if it is really worthwhile to continue working hard to advance in their careers. Some wonder if this signifies that senior job roles are not meant for mothers or that mothers should not have higher career aspirations.

Sir, I have no doubt about the need for a progressive, equitable and sustainable system, especially with the anticipated rise in social spending. But I think there are strong emotions evoked with this move and there is a need for some airing. I hope that the Finance Minister can help to shed some light and share what was the policy thinking behind this move. So, if I may boldly submit the following questions.

Firstly, what was the rationale for making such a move at this point in time? Surely, the Government had known that the people affected are mostly working mothers. Would the Minister help to share the thought process and the options considered? Secondly, I believe everyone is for a progressive tax system. But I wonder if the gain from this move to make the tax system more progressive is worth the tangible and intangible costs inflicted on these working mothers. Lastly, could the Government have increased revenues via other means that may encourage healthier lifestyles and behaviours, for instance?

As I look forward to my queries being addressed and the policy insights being shared, I would like to raise and reinforce two suggestions, with the hope of alleviating the challenges faced by working parents, especially working mothers.

Firstly, allow fathers to share more of the maternity leave. This will signal the need for a more equal sharing of parenting responsibilities. It will also mitigate the perception that mothers are a liability at work.

Secondly, continue to promote flexi-work but not just for mothers. This can enable fathers or even grandparents to enjoy greater flexibility at work and hence, spend more quality time to help care for the children. The family can then work out an optimal schedule amongst themselves.

Initiatives to encourage employers to adopt flexi-work arrangements have already been in place for some time. But I think it is worth pushing it further and reinforcing the message more frequently.

Also, the Government could perhaps emulate what it is already currently doing with the industry transformation, and that is to adopt a more targeted approach. For example, could the Government refine the current Work-Life Grant to encourage employers to tap on technology more so that face-time at work is less necessary?

In conclusion, I concur with the overall direction and the themes of this year's Budget. We cannot have everything in one year's, Budget but I have confidence that over a few Budgets, much can be achieved. And with that, I support the Motion.