Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [20 February 2017],

"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018." ‒ [Minister for Finance].

Question again proposed.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, like many of my colleagues in this House, I sought and received feedback and comments from residents and many others about the Budget. There are concerns about rising costs of living and great discomfort with the uncertain times ahead and the changes that Singaporeans are expecting to go through.

I think it is clear to Singaporeans that it is not business as usual. People are more aware of the deep shifts in the world with the advances in technology and the disruptions to traditional businesses and jobs.

The shopkeepers in my estate know that business is dwindling partly because people now buy online. Most of them are old and their children are generally not interested in taking over the business. They are not sure whether to continue to invest in the business, especially as they are uncertain as to how long more they can sustain the lease. Some shopkeepers are concerned about future income.

A resident I met recently sought help to re-enter a course he signed up for to upgrade himself. He failed to meet the grades required of the school and was terminated a few months into the course. He knows he has to work hard to keep up, but picking up a new skill and studying while still working are challenging.

I also know of a young couple with seven young children. The husband is the sole-breadwinner. He is keen to find a better paying job and his wife is also keen to work to supplement the family's income. However, they are saddled with bills and debts and have no alternative options for childcare. They are, therefore, struggling to survive and have difficulties making the time to upskill so that they can participate actively in the future economy.

These are some real day-to-day concerns and struggles faced by our fellow Singaporeans. I do not intend to paint a gloomy picture. In the cases I mentioned, some guidance and support are being given to the individuals and families. I also know of a lot of people who have overcome difficulties and I believe that people do need to take personal responsibility to improve their circumstances. But the point I would like to make is that we will always have to keep in mind the day-to-day issues people face and ensure that the translation of our policies can alleviate these concerns.

Budget 2017 sets out a broad roadmap for the way forward as a nation. It has been described by some as a Budget for the Uncertain Future. In his speech, the Minister for Finance, Mr Heng Swee Keat, said that Budget 2017 outlines how we can thrive in an uncertain and rapidly changing world. It is a call for all of us to pull together − the Government, firms, unions, community organisations and individuals ‒ with everyone doing his part. He added that our bonds will help us develop greater resilience in the face of unexpected shifts and improve our ability to adapt.

There are gems within the Budget with regard to the plans to re-energise the economy. I have faith that the efforts in industry transformation, internationalisation, improving capabilities of businesses and workers will go a long way in building a stronger economy. However, the Budget is not just about the economy and fiscal needs but should also be a roadmap on society's values and support network.

I am happy to note that the Budget had also covered plans on building a caring and inclusive society. I feel that it is important that we give a little more attention to this aspect and consider the development of our social policies in light of the changing trends in the world.

In this regard, there are three main areas I wish to address.

One, how do we help the vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community survive in the competitive economy?

Two, how do we rally people to care about one another and the environment while they face their own challenges?

Three, how can we harness existing resources within the community, in particular, amongst the young, to work together to build Singapore's future?

My first point relates to those who may be vulnerable or disadvantaged in our community. It is important for us to ensure that they do not get left behind in our race to develop our economy. This may sound cliche, but it is real.

Who will be disadvantaged? I am referring to the elderly who have to struggle with the technological and digital developments; the children from low-income families whose parents may not have the time and money to send them to enrichment classes; persons with disabilities which may inhibit them from participating actively in the competitive job market; caregivers of the elderly who have to stay home to care for their loved ones. There is a whole spectrum of people with varying needs. The Government needs to ensure that it does not lose sight of them in crafting policies and programmes.

The reality though is that it is unrealistic to expect the Government to extend help to every single individual. A more feasible way is to encourage the growth of a community network of support, with organised voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) as well as organic groups. These groups or people can help fill in the gaps by looking out for those who need support and provide the help when needed. I, therefore, support the plans in strengthening community bonds by enhancing the funding and development of capabilities to VWOs, charities and self-help groups. It is important to extend the support and funding to organic groups as well. Last year, there was mention of Our Singapore Fund. I would like to hear about the usage of this fund and whether there are plans to develop it further.

This leads me to my second point, about rallying people to help one another. It is very easy for people to forget about others when they are caught up with their own issues and difficulties. Most times though, people can support one another and there are always avenues to pay it forward. There should be efforts to create and promote a culture of giving back to the community through education and conversations with people in the community.

I laud efforts like SGCares and hope it gains stronger momentum amongst Singaporeans.

On the ground, we can continue to develop platforms for people to give a little time and support to others. For example, at Bukit Batok East, we have Project Giveaway Gateway initiated by the Youth Executive Committee. It is basically a platform for residents to make Requests and Offers and the Community Club will assist to match the needs and offers of support. At the end of last year, the team organised a Back-to-School edition and many residents came forward to purchase vouchers for school shoes which are then donated to children from needy families.

People should also be encouraged to continue taking care of the environment. In keeping with the theme of a Budget for the future, I am happy to see the initiatives which pave the way towards a greener Singapore. I trust there will be further efforts introduced to continue encouraging environmental consciousness. At this juncture, I declare that I am a board member of the Singapore Environmental Council. I am of the view that any future efforts need to be realistic and sustainable. The programmes need to connect with the people on the ground.

Two issues that have been raised in the past few years can be revived or rolled out in a more sustainable manner: (a) dealing with food wastage and (b) the over-use of plastic bags. I would like to hear more about the Government's plans in these areas and any future efforts to sustain environmental awareness in Singapore.

My third point relates to harnessing our existing resources in the community. In the past one and a half years as a Member of Parliament, I have been approached by several young people, some of them living in my estate and who are looking to do projects to help the community. This is heartening and such enthusiasm should be nurtured and encouraged. I note there are many existing programmes for youths and platforms for them to express their views and obtain grants to carry out community projects. At the local level, more can be done. Grassroots organisations, VWOs and charities can work together with youths within the neighbourhood to create solutions that can benefit the local community. Mdm Speaker, allow me to say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Over the past year, I had the chance to chat with and engage many people, including students, grassroots leaders, professionals, volunteers and housewives from the Malay-Muslim community. Initially, I was worried because I observed a lack of concern or sense of urgency about the ever-changing economic situation and the need to upskill to tackle the new economy.

However, recently, I have seen a change in the mindsets and attitudes of our community. Many of them frequently asked about opportunities to upgrade themselves and many have taken the step to acquire new skills.

This awareness should be increased and guidelines to understand and use the available resources should be made clear. In this regard, I feel that the Malay-Muslim bodies can play an important role in providing the assistance and platform for our community to prepare themselves in acquiring the knowledge and skills to face the new economy.

There are, indeed, efforts being done. For instance, the establishment of the Future Ready Unit at Majlis Pendidikan Anak-Anak Islam (MENDAKI) and the SkillsFuture Service Touchpoint at the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP). These efforts must be continued and expanded. My view is that every Malay-Muslim body needs to be aware of our nation's development and direction at the national level. Programme planning and framework structuring must be in line with the direction that our country is heading to, so that we can help our community progress and be able to compete together with the other communities in this large family that we call Singapore.

Another issue that I think is important for us to think about is the social changes sweeping across the world today. There are events happening in other countries that may have an impact on the lives of Singaporeans, for instance, and in particular, the spread of Islamophobia. Singapore is unlike other countries because our society is different. As a society, we treasure the harmony among the different races and religions. Nonetheless, we cannot take this sense of comfort for granted. Constant effort is required to foster inter-racial relations. We must always maintain a good relationship with our neighbours and colleagues so that we can rely on the strong bond that we built when we are faced with challenges.

(In English): I note that Minister Heng had said that we will take a learning and adaptive approach, try new methods, continue with them when they work well, cut losses when they do not and draw on feedback and experience to adjust and refine our plans. I believe this would also refer to our social policies as well. This is a practical approach and it is important in ensuring that we keep pace with the uncertain and changing world. I stand in support of this Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

12.35 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, I rise to thank the Minister for Finance for delivering a good Budget that can spur long-term growth in our economy during this challenging time. I am grateful to be given the opportunity to serve on the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE), whose recommendations are broadly reflected in this year's Budget.

This era is marked by rapid changes in technology, which is exciting because this presents many new possibilities for productivity. Indeed, this bright spot is, unfortunately, slightly clouded by the growing push from globalisation. It was the emblem of the United States (US) Presidential Elections. We may see more of it when other European countries go to the polls later this year. Concerns were raised of their impact on an already dull economic forecast. For Singapore, the policies of the Trump Administration may contribute to a slowdown in foreign direct investments from the US. Thus, it is good that we look at other areas for growth. CFE has rightly shifted its focus from just productivity to healthy sustainable growth by looking at new opportunities.

CFE identified seven strategies to achieve growth. Charting our route ahead will enable us to steer our ship clear of the reefs. It is imperative that we develop and implement the Industry Transformation Maps (ITM) for important industries in Singapore. I am pleased to note that 23 industries, and about 80% of the economy, are set to benefit from these maps. I would now like to discuss three areas where we can add to these maps, particularly from a social point of view.

First, inclusive and sustainable growth. Equality is key to promoting inclusive and sustainable growth. The political lessons from the US and United Kingdom elections point to a failure to reconcile the vast differences between the voters. Globally, policymakers will be hampered by widening chasms, how to meet the needs and aspirations of the middle class and the rise of populism. It is vital that we recognise and prioritise the need to reduce gaps in living standards.

In order to sustain public confidence in the various Government schemes, like the SkillsFuture Credit, that promote upscaling skills and continuing education, as well as various technological advancements, we must assure everyday Singaporeans that the Government is working to support the aspirations of all Singaporeans to have higher living standards and no erosion in social mobility.

The World Economic Forum commends Singapore for faring well in many areas. But we ranked low in gender equality in the workforce. We are still struggling to improve female participation in the labour force and narrowing the gender pay gap. Measures were introduced to encourage men to play a more active role in fatherhood, through paternity leave, for example. However, parenthood does not stop at the baby stage. More needs to be done in this area. Tax reliefs for working mothers are well and good but, ultimately, the root problem must be solved − in my view − by creating a family-friendly working environment, without compromising overall productivity and growth. We should lift some of the load off the mother's shoulders, so that she does not feel the need to resign or compromise her work to care for the child.

Other forms of assistance to alleviate childcare costs and measures to encourage enhanced flexible work arrangements in the corporate and public sectors for all mothers, including working single mothers with children, will go a long way to alleviate childcare concerns as they struggle to also bring food to the table.

My next point in this area is with regard to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP). Even as we talk about help for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) over the past one day − SkillsFuture training, job matching and others − I believe one basic bedrock and core business of Government that we need to enhance further is TAFEP.

As it is, most of us in Singapore or Singaporeans are employed, and not business owners. I am an active advocate for a stronger TAFEP. I believe it has greater potential to further eliminate workplace discrimination. In order to do this, TAFEP must be equipped with more teeth. Due to the changing social and global labour trends, we have a few groups of people vulnerable to workplace discrimination. They include expectant mothers, older workers aged 45 and above, blue-collar low-income workers and Singaporeans working for foreign companies.

I raised this last year and I reiterate my call to Government again to please give TAFEP more investigative and authoritative powers to keep errant employers in check, especially so in this current global labour market, and also one where the gig economy is taking form where we have a rising freelance and contract workforce of experienced specialised talents supporting businesses.

We need to ensure that these contract or part-time staff are treated fairly and are not exploited by employers. Eventually, this rising number of contract staff should enjoy mandatory employment benefits, such as annual and medical leave and other medical benefits, if possible. We also need to introduce wider laws to make discriminatory hiring and workplace practices illegal and punishable by law. Also, as we raise the retirement age for the older workers, we must also look into how in this age of digital transformation, they can be retrained to stay relevant to the workforce. We are a country that thrives on meritocracy, and this must be reflected in our labour market and labour laws, which is one of our most crucial propellers for growth for Singapore.

The next point I want to talk about is on helping employees − still within inclusive growth. Minister Iswaran has elaborated at length yesterday that SMEs are our central focus in transforming our economy. Minister Iswaran's speech yesterday has reassured SMEs, in my view. Indeed, some of the short-term relief and targeted help for some sectors were made in this Budget. However, broad social transfers to businesses are taking a backseat this year, as we all know, but I hope more can be introduced.

Over a decade ago, one of the measures included helping businesses to cope with various structural shifts and changes to key policies. This includes the SME Rebate Scheme, a two-year assistance to help registered SMEs to adjust to rising business costs due to − at that point in time − an increase in employer CPF contribution rate. I hope that, in the future, some of these one-off measures can be rolled out to help SMEs.

In the past year, social transfer to SMEs has also been generous. Some SMEs are still struggling to make sense of the schemes though, and some do not have the prerequisites to qualify for the schemes. For example, a lack of SME cash-flow visibility forces some of the banks and financial institutions to place greater emphasis on collateral requirements when assessing SME credit risk, but very often, SMEs are not able to provide such collateral, leading to their loan applications being rejected.

I applaud the new International Partnership Fund to help SMEs scale up and internationalise, which is good. But the concern is that it would tend to invest in more established or initial public offering-ready firms. It may not benefit smaller, less-established SMEs which are capable of going into the region as well.

I hope the relevant authorities can work closely with SMEs to help them realise their full potential. One direct area of help would be to defer the construction levy hike, and in the scheme of the working capital, to raise the SME loan minimum to $500,000 for Government co-funding, as I feel that the $300,000 amount is quite small for working capital these days.

The next point is about the tax system. It has been a while since we last reviewed our tax system. In fact, one of the CFE's recommendations is to review and reshape our tax system to keep in step with the changing times. Tax incentives should perhaps be given to the sectors that are favourable for our growth.

One question I have in relation to the tax review is the concern whether we are taxing the current generation disproportionately, relative to the savings set aside for future generations. The tax review mentioned in this Budget is timely as our funding for social spending is expected to continue to rise. In that sense, I hope the tax review will incorporate all options on the table. Also, the review should broadly not just include more taxes but also Reserves accumulation and formulation of the net investment income. For example, how much flow or revenue is going into Reserves each year and whether it is falling sharply?

For example, the possibility of considering a proportion of land sales and recurrent revenue from extension of leases of leasehold land into operating revenue rather than into Reserves, a situation we are seeing now.

I also hope there will be a similar Manpower Transformation Map II for our Singaporean workers to get guidance and help. I note that CFE has identified six favourable sectors that promote high growth − the digital cluster, advanced manufacturing, hub services, logistics, urban solutions and infrastructure and healthcare. Will more jobs be generated in these sectors, especially for the younger generation? How about the older employees who are not technology- or computer-savvy, but wish to do a mid-career switch? How will they be helped?

The second area is professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMET) stress. Moving on to the next topic, there have been a number of high-profile cases these couple of years whereby large companies have had to retrench some of their staff. Undoubtedly, there must have been more in smaller companies that flew under the radar. These are certainly tough times for businesses, but even more so for the retrenched employees. Our tax filing season is just around the corner, and this brings to mind that those who have just lost a reasonably well-paying job due to retrenchment may find it tough paying for the income tax and other forms of taxes. I would like to suggest tax relief of, say, 20% to 30%, for those who are in such a situation. Alternatively, allow the period for tax payments to be spread out over a longer period of time and allow for income tax payments to be deferred for unique circumstances.

My final area of focus is on overcoming global protectionist tides and having diversity in policies. With the more advanced western countries coping with problems of their own and turning inwards, I am, hence, pleased to note that the economic focus is shifting back to our immediate neighbourhood − countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. Now that the cards have been shuffled, we need to examine our approach and explore enhancing our various language policy options to make us the true global trader that we are in Singapore.

If we look at the protectionist rhetoric coming out of Washington, then the Indonesian economy is likely to be the least affected in the region, as they are not heavily dependent on the US. As such, I would urge the Government to bring back some element of the Malay connection in the primary and secondary school education system. The Malay connection as in the context of reinforcing the relationship with our neighbours, through language and cultural ties, by learning the Malay language.

Compared to the older generation, the younger generation are also becoming less adept at the Malay language and understanding the culture as an extra option. As for India, if we tap on the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, we could do well to also expose our students to learning Tamil and Hindi as a third language. Madam, in Malay please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For Singapore to remain adaptable and competitive, diversity in education and proficiency in three languages may be necessary.

And starting the learning process from a young age is one of the keys to proficiency. I hope the Government will encourage the availability of more language options in schools. Sharing a common language or lingo will go a long way in managing bilateral economic and people-to-people relations.

I would also like to suggest that the current work pass schemes for foreigners be reviewed, with a goal of facilitating the entry of more startups to relocate or to anchor their businesses in Singapore. With a growing number of technology startups, and with the US currently making it more difficult for foreigners to enter their country for work purposes, it is an opportune time to attract talent and investments, particularly in the technology sector. It would have a positive impact on our employment rates and upgrading efforts.

I am also encouraged to see the launch of the Global Innovation Alliance to help Singaporeans gain overseas experience, build networks and collaborate with others abroad. The Innovators Academy would allow our tertiary students to build networks and capabilities overseas.

I hope that within the next five years, we can also include students from our polytechnics and even our Institutes of Technical Education in this scheme. Society is at the stage where we increasingly recognise and encourage many different pathways to success and many students who select these institutions have high aspirations and career paths that they would like to pursue.

Some are even more confident and clear about their future compared to their GCE "A" level counterparts from the same cohort, for instance. Those who have studied abroad would appreciate that through our interactions overseas, we would benefit from cultural diversity and this would help to open our minds as a community.

We are all aware that if we want to broaden and deepen our perspectives on a particular topic, there is value in reading books by different authors on the same subject, and the same thing also applies in terms of policy.

(In English): Madam, we are expecting difficult, unpredictable times ahead. If we do not make changes now, many workers may find a bee in their bonnet, worrying about having a job tomorrow. By diversifying our economy, policies, supporting homegrown businesses and keeping the people's morale up, I believe that we will become more adaptable and resilient than ever. We have a bright future and this Budget puts us in good stead.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.

12.50 pm

Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Madam, the geopolitical uncertainty and shifts in policy impacting the international economy, balance of power around the region and free trade may not have fully sunk in yet for the man in the street. But in time to come, it will become a worrying concern in the minds of all Singaporeans, young and old.

What the future holds for our jobs, careers and cost of living upon retirement are questions that will creep up eventually. Budget 2017 is a reflection of the uncertain times we are living in today.

Although this Budget attempts to address some of the concerns and outlines measures for our economy and society to weather the uncertainties, there is just no certainty in dealing with uncertainties. Some measures may work and some may not. Some measures are judgement calls, calculated at best, clutching at straws at worst, all in the hope that some of them will bear fruits for the economy.

Some of the previous Budget measures have gone on to become permanent features of the fiscal policy. Some were given a makeover, hoping that the result will work better this time. But at the heart of all these measures, we must remain focused on what we want to achieve at the end.

This year's Budget introduces the SMEs Go Digital programme. The main push is to get SMEs on to the digital bandwagon to improve productivity. The target sectors are retail, food services, wholesale trades, logistics, cleaning and security. What does the Government hope to see at the end of this initiative? We have seen this initiative introduced in the past under different packaging. What did the Government learn from the results of the past initiative? Why are the targeted SMEs not embracing the digital revolution, despite the many opportunities to do so in the past? Does the Government want every SME to go digital? And is it even necessary to do so?

One of the measures introduced in 2010, the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme, has impacted the food services sector positively. The tablet computer has replaced the hardcopy menu in many restaurants. Customers no longer need to wait to be served to place their orders. The use of technology in this instance is motivated and meaningful.

In 2006, then Second Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, highlighted an example of a local businessman who had embraced infocomm to improve his business. He shared that the dessert stall owner has invested in the touchscreen system to allow customers to place their dining in or take-out orders at the Peoples' Park Complex Food Centre. He cited that the use of technology had brought the owner new business and improved productivity in tracking the stock of the dessert sold and the amount of ingredients left.

I visited the dessert shop at the old food centre to see for myself why the shop was worthy of a mention by the Minister at the Opening of 10th InfoComm Commerce Conference in 2006.

The dessert shop was manned by two persons: a lady at the counter and a gentleman to prepare the dessert right behind her. Both of them could easily take orders from customers, as the shop was very small. For those who have been to Peoples' Park Complex, you will know what I mean. I proceeded to order via the touchscreen and waited. The lady looked at me in anticipation. I looked back at her and tried to hint with my eyes that I have just ordered my dessert at the touchscreen system. There was a queue forming and she snapped suddenly and said, "Ai see mi", which means "What do you want?" So, the touchscreen system was not broken but it was not much of a use.

A decade on, and the use of the touchscreen technology in hawker centres has not caught on. It was more of a novelty than an enterprising productivity tool, as highlighted by the Minister. Madam, there is a lesson to be learnt in what the lady at the dessert shop asked me that day, "What do I want?" What does the Government want from the targeted sectors under the SMEs Go Digital Programme? Technology can cut both ways. It can be a productivity tool or a glorified novelty. This Government should not waste public fund on the latter. The fact of the matter is, for some sectors, going digital may not be the sole solution to improving productivity. Beyond automation and going digital, the cleaning sector, for example, needs a redesign in the way refuse and waste are being collected. The design of old HDB estates needs a serious relook because it takes too long to clear the many bin chutes for just one block of flats.

Going digital alone is not going to help the cleaning sector. It also needs the whole-of-Government (WoG) approach to educate or incentivise the public to generate less waste, because no amount of productivity improvements is going to help if we keep on generating waste at the current rate. It is important to embrace the digital economy, but going digital alone is not going to resolve the productivity issue. The digital economy needs "brick and mortar" support. It may need the Government to relook into all the compliance processes and to remove them if necessary. Getting SMEs to go digital is only one part of the equation. It needs a collective effort for the digital economy to function and flourish.

Next, most of the measures introduced under the objective to sustain a quality environment for the future will impact Singaporeans and the aggregate of their impact will add to the cost of living. The carbon tax, although scheduled to start in 2019, will hit households with an increase in electricity prices when the time comes. The volume-based diesel tax will impact the earnings of commercial vehicles when the rebate runs out in three years' time.

Madam, it is logical to harmonise the tax structure for all motor fuels, including diesel, to be based on how much it is used. Since the Government has taken the approach to incentivise users to reduce consumption and manufacturers to develop more energy-efficient vehicles, the special tax on diesel cars and taxis should be scrapped completely upon the implementation of the volume-based diesel tax.

Likewise, now that the tax structure for all motor fuels is harmonised, the road tax for vehicles should also be scrapped in favour of the more equitable volume-based usage tax, which was already in place for the longest time. Road usage is tied to the consumption of fuel. The more road you travel, the more fuel you burn and the more tax you will pay, be it petrol duty or diesel tax. So, why are motorists being slapped with a road tax that is based on the engine capacity of the vehicles? What has engine capacity got to do with road usage? The current road tax regime is beyond a misnomer to begin with. Let us compare two cars of the same engine capacity. If one owner uses his vehicle seven days a week while the other utilises his vehicle three times a week, why are both drivers paying the same road tax when one is obviously contributing more to road congestion and pollution? What is the relevance and purpose of keeping an engine capacity-based road tax which has no relation to road usage, on top of the volume-based fuel duty which, in my opinion, is the actual and fairer road tax?

Last, the quantum of the water price hike is perhaps the most puzzling measure in the Budget. Can the authority share how much losses it has made supplying water to Singaporeans since 2000 to warrant such a hefty increase? Minister Masagos has stated in his reply to my Parliamentary Question that the current national average water consumption has dropped about 11% as compared to 10 years ago. The number of households that consume more water than the national average today remains stable in the past decade at 40%. If we look at the per capita usage, water consumption in Singapore is about 5% to 70% lower than that of London, Melbourne, Tokyo, Hong Kong and New York.

What do all these numbers say? They basically say Singaporeans understand the scarcity of water and we have been doing our part to conserve this precious element all this while. The Minister also acknowledged that and he cautioned Singaporeans not to be complacent and to save more water wherever possible. Singaporeans have done that before and I am quietly confident Singaporeans will do just that going forward.

It was reported in the news that the cost of developing and operating Singapore's water supply system has more than doubled from $500 million in 2000 to $1.3 billion in 2015. The Public Utilities Board (PUB) said this cost included water treatment, reservoir operation, NEWater production, desalination, used water collection and treatment, and the maintenance of water pipelines. So, in short, it is the entire cost of supplying water to the masses. It was also reported that homes account for 45% of water use daily. Using simple ratio, the share of the cost of supplying water to households should be 45% of $1.3 billion or $585 million. This will roughly translate to an average cost of about $40 per month to supply water to each household in 2015. This is well below the average monthly water bill paid by households of 4-room flats and above and, I am sure, for most private housing as well, before the proposed price hike.

As highlighted by the Government, water prices have remained unchanged since 2000. What that means is that the margin of supplying water to households could be even higher in 2000 than what I have estimated for 2015. Using the same assumption, it costs about $21 per month to supply water to each household in 2000, since water consumption per household was fairly stable the past decade and water prices have not changed since 2000 and, based on available data, the Government could not have lost money supplying water to households for the past 15 years.

Madam, this Government needs to be more transparent with the justification for the 30% hike in water prices. Resident households are already facing price pressure in carpark charges, transportation to food. From the proposed carbon tax, volume-based diesel tax and the 30% hike in water prices, the knock-on effect will be felt by Singaporeans eventually one way or another.

No time is a good time to increase prices but if this Government is bent on raising the price of an essential commodity by 30%, it is certainly the right time to open the books to Singaporeans to justify the increase. Madam, I do not support the 30% price hike.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.

1.01 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Budget, which takes into account very large issues for Singapore going forward − water, environment, climate change adaptation.

I would like to speak on water first, making two points. First, why I think the revised water tariffs are a fairer mechanism than our current pricing system and should, therefore, be supported; and, second, why I think water pricing is a limited instrument in reflecting the true value of water, especially in the high uncertain future which lies ahead.

After 17 years, the PUB has finally recommended an increase in water price. In the past 10 years alone, the price of electricity has increased by 22%. The price of water has, in fact, fallen by 25% in real terms since 2000. In the meantime, the cost of supplying water has more than doubled.

The last time we raised the water price, it was against the background of an intense price negotiation with Malaysia over the price of water. At the time, it was truly an existential issue.

But I would argue it has been so since our Independence and will be so as long as Singapore remains a small island of no more than 700-plus square kilometres with not enough land for the graves of our ancestors, the training of our armed forces, and, yes, the large catchment areas needed to store water.

In 1963, we were dependent on Malaysia for three-quarters of our water supply. In that year, in his Fullerton Rally speech before the General Elections, then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew spoke of water. He had to because it was a hot issue during the elections, which were held in the middle of a drought. His opponents at the time accused him of not doing enough to provide for water and promised to solve the problem by quickly expanding pipelines to run more water from Johor − disregarding the fact that it takes years to build pipes and that thirst kills in those days. Of course, the fact that we live in the tropics also means that rains are likely to come before the pipes were completed.

During the speech, Mr Lee also spoke about engineering works, reservoirs and the need to ensure a long-term supply of water by negotiating water agreements. It was only after the agreements had been signed, he said, that works on expanding the pipelines began.

Water was, and remains, a long-term engineering and infrastructural public good but its impact can be felt in the very short term and is, in fact, a highly political good. In the time since the announcement of the water price, detractors have lost no time in politicising the issue.

I will address the two myths that have come up in the past two weeks, show how they are false and state my support for raising the water price, with the corresponding help extended to various households through the U-Save and Goods and Services Tax (GST) vouchers.

First, there have been accusations that the Government is making money off water. Some of us may have received messages that PUB is making $166 million of profits a year. Nothing can be further from the truth.

In 2012, the then-Environment Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan had said that the Government pays $1.3 billion a year to run the system but collects only about $1 billion in water tariffs − marginal charges − and water borne and sanitary fees − these are fixed charges. In simple terms, we could say that water is thus subsidised by at least 30%. At least 30% because prices charged do not reflect the capital costs of the water and the wastewater system. PUB has said that it will be spending $4 billion from 2017 to 2021 on water infrastructure.

The second objection is tied to the first − that raising the water price will hit the poor heavily while the rich will still be able to use as much water as they want. First, raising the price of water to reflect its true cost, I believe, is a fairer system than subsidising it willy-nilly. But we can and should raise tariffs without burdening the poor. In this case, the Government has proposed increasing prices in such a way that ensures burdens fall lightest on the poorest. One- and 2-room HDB flat owners will, in fact, see no increase in their bills at all.

Last, I want to address the limits of water pricing. As policymakers, we use price for many things − we use it as an incentive, as a tax, as a signal on how much we value things. But water pricing is quite difficult. A household of five in Singapore pays $30 a month for water − 0.04% of the median income. Each month, for many of us, our handphone bill costs more than our water bill. Using price alone to motivate people to save water, I believe, is not going to work.

Water consumption per capita has stayed roughly the same since the last price increase. It was 165 litres in 2003 and it has gone down a little bit to 151 litres today. It may be that the increase in price may reduce water consumption but I believe we would need something else to bring home the value of water.

I started my speech by referring to the 1963 speech by Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The year after, in 1964, Singapore held a water rationing exercise. It was to be our last such exercise. Since then, we have had no water rationing, not because we have not had severe droughts but because our systems are now far more resilient.

But research at the Institute of Water Policy at the National University of Singapore (NUS) has shown that such "resilience" should be interpreted with care.

In 2014, Singapore experienced a two-month drought. It was more severe, in fact, than 1964. In fact, that month of February was the driest month since 1869, with near-zero rainfall. In neighbouring Malaysia, water rationing was implemented in Johor, Selangor, Negri Sembilan, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya. In nearby Thailand, 20 provinces were declared drought disaster areas. In Singapore, there was no rationing and, in fact, water consumption increased by 5%.

The researchers found that this has crucial implications for the city's water security. Extreme weather events, including heavy rainfall and exceptionally dry periods, are projected to occur more frequently for the Southeast Asia region as a whole. Droughts will become more likely.

Historical data has shown that Malaysia and Singapore, as a region, has experienced severe droughts in 19 of the past 150 years. The probability of any year being part of such an event is 13%.

We need, therefore, not just to prepare for everyday scenarios, but to ensure that our people are psychologically strong. Resilience, therefore, not just in systems but in our people. Singaporeans born after 1964 have never experienced water rationing. I think there are a few Members of Parliament who have not gone through that experience. They do not know the experience of having to go without water or bear the weight of 130 litres of water that we would need if we take a long shower of 15 minutes.

Mdm Speaker, these things are not learnt by increasing water bills from $30 a month to $35 or even $40. They are learnt by personal experience and emotions. I, therefore, ask the Government, the Minister, to consider introducing periodic water rationing. It is not a new suggestion but one that has a special salience in the light of this year's Budget. I suggest we do this, not during droughts, but during "peace time" as it were, following the footsteps of countries, such as Australia, where they are called "water restrictions". This is an inoculation against the environmental realities that are to come.

This brings me to my second point. In 2016, Singapore joined more than 120 countries to ratify the Paris Agreement. It was a formal commitment to combat global warming and reduce climate change. Singapore pledged to cut emission intensity by 36%, that is, below 2005 levels, by 2030 and to stabilise emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030.

In this Budget, the carbon tax can be seen as part of a larger movement towards addressing the effects of climate change and other environmental challenges. Being densely populated and urbanised, Singapore is highly vulnerable to abrupt changes in the environment.

The carbon tax brings Singapore in line with other countries as well as our regulatory environment for businesses. But I urge the Finance Minister to think also of the impact of mass human behaviour in this and bring into play the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint two years ago.

The Blueprint takes a long-term approach to greening Singapore by committing $1.5 billion over the next five years, in support of the several programmes under the Blueprint. These include embedding towns and homes with smart technology and eco-friendly features, reducing reliance on cars by building up the public transport system and encouraging cycling, encouraging sustainable business practices and achieving zero-waste by encouraging recycling and reducing consumption.

Many countries have had to balance a trade-off between development and environmental sustainability. In China, decades of rapid growth have been accompanied by severe air pollution. Singapore appears to have achieved both economic development and environmental sustainability at the same time. But as our Prime Minister noted during its launch, a large part of the Blueprint's success will depend on the collective action among individuals to adopt green practices in their daily lives, as well as build up new norms of sustainability within their communities.

The environment is a common pool enjoyed by everyone. It can only be protected through the efforts of everyone. Environmental sustainability is truly a collective effort that begins with the individual but has important implications for our collective future as a community. There is no going round it. We must take the first steps in order to ensure a cleaner, greener and more comfortable living environment for ourselves.

Water can be priced, but clean air cannot. Clean gardens cannot. Trees cannot. Wild roosters cannot.

We cannot expect our children to grow up respecting nature and being willing to pay for clean air, clean water, to live together with trees and wild animals and insects if we do not, in our policy decisions, underline the importance of these voiceless stakeholders in the use of our public spaces and financial resources.

The Finance Minister has said that he will set aside funds for "diverse social spaces where people can come together, create shared experiences and forge stronger bonds." In that, money must go towards large projects, such as Jurong Lake Gardens. But I suggest that we also think of small spaces, of giving support to community green clubs, of allowing social groups and civil societies to flourish within their own homes, towns and districts, and to educate residents on the need to make room for trees, birds and wildlife within our urban environment.

In the age of the Anthropocene, where human activity can be seen as the dominant influence on climate and the environment, we need to grow even greener, to keep our waters even bluer. The alternative is to be breathing in more polluted air, greenery around us turning to brown dirt, and sweating in the heat of global warming. We should be ready to pay the price for our industrial actions, whether it be in the form of increased water tariffs or by changing the way we live and behave. Madam, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Randolph Tan.

1.15 pm

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this Debate.

Madam, I strongly support the current Budget proposals. They address ongoing challenges in the economic restructuring process and, despite the changes the last year has brought, reiterate the vision of a secure future that Minister Heng has set out from last year's Budget.

The circumstances we face are undoubtedly unique, but there are important lessons from the experience of other countries that we only ignore at our peril. We could just as easily become trapped in our own lost decade, exhausting our limited resources on a dispersed agenda without heed to strengthening our economic foundations. Our priority, therefore, should be to provide a footing for future generations that is even more secure than the one we now have.

Madam, to me, this Budget is about seeing beyond the uncertainty, taking leadership responsibility on issues that matter, and possessing the courage of our conviction to complete the restructuring task at hand.

This Budget takes a strong lead in shaping the environmental agenda. We have enjoyed our entitlements of clean air and clean water for as long as we remember. But the unwelcome reality brought about by changes in our world is that not only are both in short supply, the two are growing sources of contention in an increasingly fractious world. Singapore has developed a lead in clean water technology and we can do the same with green technologies in general. A fundamental element in managing the competing access to clean water and air is to correctly price their availability. The long-term consequences of mispricing water and pollution are severe and incompatible with the direction we intend to take for our future economy, as well as for our society. We should not leave future generations unprepared to confront a problem that is developing now.

The issue is not how much clean water we still have or where the current threats to our environmental air quality lie. The issue is much broader and has to do with our collective responsibility for the environment and societal development. Hence, I would like to urge the Minister to consider price corrections in other areas in urgent need of attention as well. Areas, such as electronic waste generation, should be incorporated into a comprehensive strategy for responsible environmental advocacy. By ensuring that pricing is imposed on both water and pollution, Singapore is not just taking a responsible leadership role in pushing forward the agenda for dealing with climate change, we will also be putting in place incentives for nurturing the development of technologies whose global economic potential is rapidly expanding. These lie in the path of our future economy.

Madam, there are some areas, however, where I feel that further clarification on how the long-term vision could be achieved would be useful. The first of these is our manpower policy. We should strengthen the connection between our manpower policy and our skills framework.

Foreign workforce growth has been slowing since 2011. Although the recent weakening in demand has been partly due to economic conditions, there is little doubt that the primary mechanism bringing about this shift is the system of levies and dependency ratio ceilings (DRCs).

Our policy on foreign manpower should not just be about restrictions. It should be about promoting long-term economic competitiveness for the benefit of our overall workforce. In order to realise this objective, we must be open to the type of skills we lack and incorporate foreign manpower contributions into a comprehensive strategy for filling our skills gaps.

The indications are that we have made promising improvements in this direction. In the third quarter of 2016, the number of Work Permit holders in manufacturing and construction declined, contributing to a rare quarterly contraction in total employment in Singapore. As a result, preliminary statistics from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) show foreign employment, excluding foreign domestic workers, shrinking over the course of 2016 as a whole, the first time this has occurred since the global financial crisis for the whole year. At the same time, labour productivity measures depict improving performance. Full year 2016 figures show real value-added per worker hitting 1%, after having remained stubbornly negative in the preceding two years. And the quarterly statistics show the improvement was sustained throughout, with fourth quarter real value-added per worker hitting 2.4%. What is reassuring is that these changes occurred gradually, despite the fluid environment and turbulent global backdrop.

The work is far from done and the productivity challenge is an ongoing one. The delicate balance of maintaining robust domestic employment, ensuring global standards of openness to deep and diverse skills, and injecting momentum into the productivity drive is a challenge that all countries face.

Given the limitations of our domestic labour market, the magnitude of the challenge we face in Singapore is far greater. That is why robust yet flexible policy instruments are so important. There is no doubt that our foreign manpower management policy has encountered enormous challenges. This should not detract from the tremendous success it represents as well. Compared to many other countries, we have taken a lead in this area and we should recognise its effectiveness.

Going forward, we should reorientate our policy to move away from restricting inflows and focus on growing skills sets that our domestic workforce alone will be too slow to achieve on its own. This idea is not new. The "triple weak" system promulgated by the Minister for Manpower for monitoring companies' with poor hiring practices already contains essentially the same key ingredients, which is that companies should be assessed on a multi-dimensional metric, rather than a single-dimensional measure.

The predecessor to CFE, the Economic Strategies Committee, originally proposed the system of levies and DRCs. CFE has developed the principle further. In its report, it recognises the need for foreign talent with specialised skillsets and calls to develop a more differentiated foreign workforce policy. To achieve this differentiation, instead of using the number of workers as the basic unit of measure, we should measure skills instead, and determine levies based on the extent of the skills gap that an employer encounters within the existing domestic workforce, as well as the changes in the gap over time.

The measurement of skillsets and skills levels should be carried out in coordination with the skills framework constructs being developed by SkillsFuture Singapore. The resulting system should be validated by the needs of the ITMs, merged with the current levels of foreign workforce passes, and used to assess the extent to which gaps at the company as well as sectoral level can or cannot be filled by the existing local workforce supply. Such a system can also be used to track whether the gaps are effectively closed over time through training, and how fast this is occurring.

The system of foreign manpower levies and DRCs forms a clear set of rules for managing foreign manpower participation. In recent years, including the current Budget proposal, the system has been used to moderate the impact of manpower cost pressures when economic conditions are poor. As a counter-cyclical tool, the system of levies and DRCs can be adjusted by sector. On this basis, levy rises in the marine and process sectors have been frozen, while those in construction have been allowed to proceed as earlier announced. And compared to alternatives, such as the Central Provident Fund (CPF) cuts that were used in the past, this approach is much more amenable to finetuning.

My second concern is about the challenges of scale that we, in Singapore, almost uniquely in world, face. Whether we are prepared for the reality of competing against countries much larger than us, this is something that we will have to deal with as a result of the proposals set out in this Budget. This Budget makes a significant push for internationalisation. This will increase the companies and local talent being given greater exposure to global competition and will serve us well in the long run. While programmes, such as the Global Innovation Alliance (GIA), can help Singaporeans gain a foothold in overseas markets, as well as a better appreciation of our global competition, there are adjustments that individuals have to make. Hence, the transformative impact of the GIA will take some years to become visible.

The issue of scale has always been something of a challenge for Singapore's economy. We have pushed near to saturation point in many of our efforts, but the competition can harness vastly larger numbers without batting an eyelid. This fact is visible in every aspect in which we compete internationally, from trade figures to our workforce composition, to even our robot density.

In 1984, China's share of manufacturing exports in the world's total, 1.1%, equalled ours. In 2015, as the world's leading exporter, China's share had grown 16 times, to almost twice that of its nearest rival, Germany. Our share, of course, has also grown, more than doubling to 2.3%. Between 1984 and 2015, the share of the US in world manufacturing exports fell by a third. These developments have redefined the global economic balance. They have also brought about the tremendous groundswell of reaction that ranges from the Brexit vote outcome to the repudiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

In 2015, world manufacturing exports shrank more than 8% in nominal terms. Singapore's trade performance suffered as a result.

The options we have in reacting to these changes are determined not just by our preference, but also by the choices made by the countries we compete against.

China is also the world leader in high-technology manufacturing exports. However, Singapore's share of global high-technology exports is about a quarter of China's, which makes this sector more important to us than general manufacturing.

Across all regions of the world and in many countries, the proportion of manufacturing classified as high technological activity is on the rise. A comparison across countries reveals a visible correlation between this rise and the increasing use of robotics.

As the Minister for Finance Mr Heng had already pointed out last year, China is the world's largest buyer of robots. And other countries are keeping pace, including Singapore. According to a recent update from the International Federation of Robotics, between 2010 and 2015, the operational stock of industrial robots in Asia rose 70%. The same report placed Singapore within the top ranks of countries in the world, in terms of robotics density, just behind South Korea, and nearly five times ahead of the average global density.

Robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) are just two of the things that are often mentioned in the same breath as Uber and Grab when discussing technological changes and disruption. These two groups are obviously very different. However, what concerns those who cite them as examples in the same breath is not necessarily their economic or technological novelty but the loss of control workers feel in facing the rise of these innovations. This fear of loss of control is the most important reason why ordinary workers today identify with the notion of being caught up in an industrial revolution beyond their control, no different from the original one.

Research supported by the International Federation of Robotics argues that while there have been job losses, their magnitudes are small, compared to the increase in employment over the same period.

Regardless of whether one believes in net gain or loss of jobs due to the introduction of new technologies, such as robotics, there is little doubt that existing jobs will have to give way to new ones and the workforce must, therefore, be prepared to adjust to this reality.

Although we cannot be certain about the precise rate and impact of the change on all jobs, the pattern of change and the nature of jobs of the future are becoming increasingly evident. Job creation is increasingly concentrated in domains requiring high intensity of knowledge and skills. In research and development (R&D), for instance, across countries and with very few exceptions, the number of personnel has seen strong upward trends. This is true both in absolute terms and as a ratio of the population.

Singapore, of course, as usual, faces the limitation of size that our competitors do not. Between 1996 and 2012, the number of persons employed in R&D in Singapore rose 265%, way ahead of the 50% gain in the US, 160% gain in China, and even 216% gain in South Korea.

But as a result of our population limitations, our R&D personnel numbers are already among the highest in the world on a ratio basis. China's ratio is only one sixth of ours, despite boasting the largest number of R&D personnel globally today. This means that in Singapore, we have a far smaller pool of workers from which to draw, and if we continue to grow the numbers in order to keep up with global competition, domestic sectors in need of skilled manpower will be squeezed further. The only solution is for our workforce to push beyond the existing frontiers of skills acquisition that other countries take for granted. To remain competitive despite our limitations, our workforce must be prepared for a continuing process of advancement and workplace transformation.

Madam, Budget 2017's push to develop Singaporean workers into regional and global leaders will take us out of our comfort zones. Singaporean workers, many of whom juggle their regular jobs with important roles, such as family caregivers, will have to add regular overseas postings to the list. This is what we have to do as an innovation in order to overcome the limits of scale.

Given our size, we are already at the boundaries of what we can reasonably achieve if we go by norms. Both in R&D personnel and in robot density, we are already at the limits. Countries whose sizes are multiples of ours have a lot more scope for expansion in absolute terms and will reap further economies of scale. Internationalisation will, therefore, expand the potential space within which our companies and workers operate, but not completely overcome the fundamental disadvantage of scale that Singapore has always faced.

It is not just workers who will be challenged. SMEs will also feel the discomfort in operating outside of their comfort zones. The question I am trying to ask is: are the internationalisation initiatives a realistic option for local companies which do not have the basic capacity to scale up beyond their setup in Singapore?

Madam, my last concern is about the timeline for restructuring. The timeline this time around will, I believe, turn out to be the greatest challenge. Many of the past restructuring efforts had tangible endpoints, such as the challenge of a recession, that it could take reference from.

This particular restructuring is a long drawn-out process and it is going to be challenging to focus minds on the intangible aspects of the strategy. Although the restructuring is aimed at addressing the challenges caused by disruption, as the timeline for restructuring lengthens, it will heighten uncertainty among companies and workers. For some, the distinction between restructuring and disruption could begin to blur.

The completion of this restructuring will not be readily marked by new buildings or highways. Instead, it is a process of transformation. Success will probably mean not just an endpoint but an ongoing process of change.

Hence, in closing, I would like to thank Finance Minister Heng for staying the course in this restructuring journey as well as for providing a personal model of resilience through adversity.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

1.32 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, technological advancement has changed the work environment that we are in quicker than before and it will continue to be so in the future. While it improves the way work is done and alleviates the issue of manpower shortage, it will have implications on our workers and they could become tomorrow's unemployed. The challenge is whether we can help tomorrow's unemployed today.

How technology impacts our work can be broken down into three broad categories: "Known-Known", "Known-Unknown" and "Unknown-Unknown".

The first refers to a situation where we know the technology and know its impact. One such example is the self-checkout kiosks found in supermarkets today. Just within NTUC FairPrice, almost half of its 130 outlets have self-checkout counters. Other supermarkets, such as Cold Storage and Sheng Siong, have also implemented such "do-it-yourself" services. The job of the traditional cashier is slowly replaced by new technology.

The next category is where we know the technology, but we are not sure when and how it will impact our current work. As we speak, trials of autonomous vehicles, like cars, buses and even trucks, are ongoing at different parts of Singapore. While we know that such driverless technology exists and is developing at a rapid pace, what we are uncertain of is when it can be adopted and how extensive will the adoption be. This will certainly change the modus operandi within the transport industry and have a direct downstream impact on our workers who depend on driving as a livelihood.

Another example is additive manufacturing, commonly known as 3D printing. With the rapid development of 3D printing technology in recent years, many applications have been developed in the food, medical, fast-moving consumer goods and other industries. With 3D printing, if our child outgrows his or her shoes, we can simply print out a brand new pair in a larger size! The potential disruption that 3D printing may have on our industries is significant. How and which industries would be affected by 3D printing? Your guess is as good as mine.

The last category refers to an unknown technology that may change our work in the future. Here, we could take reference and learn from the past "Unknown-Unknown", such as Uber and Grab. Today, Uber and Grab are providing new transport options to commuters but have disrupted the traditional taxi business. Did we expect Uber and Grab, which are mobile applications, to enter, disrupt and even revolutionise the transport industry?

The three situations above illustrate the challenges we face in the current economic landscape. Be it "Known-Known", "Known-Unknown" or even "Unknown-Unknown", there is an urgent need for both our workers and companies to brace themselves for the next wave of disruption, as business cycles get shorter and changes happen more rapidly.

First, our workers need to remain competitive amidst the changes. We need to embrace the concept of lifelong learning, continuously train and upskill ourselves and start preparing for future jobs even before the current one becomes obsolete.

To do so, companies, unions and Government agencies need to get together to identify future jobs, determine skills gaps and establish structured training programmes for workers. Industry partners can collaborate and develop sectoral level training to collectively raise standards across the industry.

The Singapore Bus Academy is a good example of a collaborative tripartite effort by the Land Transport Authority (LTA), the then Singapore Workforce Development Agency, NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2I), the National Transport Workers' Union and the public bus operators. Today, the Academy standardises basic training programmes for bus captains across the industry. But the Academy has the potential to provide continuous training for all bus captains, keep them updated with industry and technological changes, help existing drivers multiskill and be better prepared for tomorrow's driverless world.

We should explore setting up centralised training centres to promote training through the respective Sectoral Tripartite Committees even beyond the transport industry, like the lift, aviation and precision engineering sectors.

The Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) is another useful training platform for mid-career switchers looking to move into emerging and future jobs. Fifty-two-year-old Wayne Lin is one such example. He left the infocomm technology (IT) sector amid the global recession in 2009 and enrolled himself into a PCP to join the early childhood education sector. Although the transition was tough as he sought to overcome job challenges in a female-dominated industry, Wayne persevered through his traineeship, took up a diploma and subsequently completed his Masters in Early Childhood. Wayne did well and is now the acting principal of My First Skool preschool centre in Sengkang.

Hopefully, with the newly announced Attach and Train programme, we can look forward to hear more of such stories of success.

Employers, too, must change their mindset. If employers proclaim that their employees are the company's most valuable assets, they should step up training investments to upskill their workers and not view manpower as simply a cost. While some companies are afraid that workers might leave after acquiring new skills, other companies have established training centres, set aside dedicated training hours and sponsored training courses to support their employees in their upgrading efforts. For example, the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC) is one such company that is pro-training. OCBC topped up their employees' SkillsFuture credit and provided employees time off to attend shortlisted training courses. By grooming a competitive workforce can our companies remain competitive, productive and prepared for the next wave of change.

To boost productivity, centralisation and pooling of resources are avenues that companies can explore to raise their productivity levels. Centralisation of resources, in the form of kitchen facilities, warehousing or even training, can help reduce wastage and duplication of resources and help companies gain economies of scale.

Due to their small scale of business, SMEs sometimes find it onerous to go through the process of applying for productivity grants. For SMEs with similar products or services within or across industries, pooling of resources to apply for such grants could help them achieve productivity gains and cost savings. Multinational corporations (MNCs) or larger SMEs could help to champion sectoral productivity initiatives which other smaller-sized companies in the same sector can leverage upon. With the labour market expected to tighten further, businesses need to be supported in their efforts to raise productivity while adopting less labour-intensive practices.

The Sectoral Tripartite Committees can play an important role in identifying jobs to be redesigned and developing the necessary training roadmaps for each industry. In a fast-changing world, we can no longer depend on "one-size-fits-all" solutions. Industry-based roadmaps are very much needed to provide clarity to both our workers and companies on the new jobs and the direction in which the specific industry is moving towards.

Mdm Speaker, we cannot ignore nor escape disruptions, but we can learn to ride the waves of disruptions together. In Japan, 58-year-old Mr Kenji Takemura harnessed a wearable robot technology to help him lift 40-kilogramme boxes with ease. Like Mr Takemura, we need to learn to work with technology, collectively leverage new technologies, upskill ourselves and be forward thinking.

The success of the CFE report lies in its implementation and I am confident that with our strong tripartite partnership, we can overcome current and future challenges just as how we have done so in the past decades. Through tripartism at the national and sectoral levels, we must help our workers upskill ahead of time as our economy and our industries transform. We need to help tomorrow's unemployed today and ensure that no one would be left behind. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.

1.42 pm

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of this Budget. Madam, I am often inspired and moved by my residents and their stories. One of our young couples in Clementi had a baby girl at home. A beautiful baby with a proud mommy and daddy. But when it was time for the HDB's Home Improvement Programme − upgrading within the home − the parents were worried about noise and dust during the construction. The next-door neighbours opened their home, offered their own home as a place to babysit the baby girl. Today, the renovations are done. Baby is happy and the neighbours have grown closer together.

I am also moved, during times of sadness, when I meet with my residents at funeral wakes at the void deck, whether it is a breadwinner who passed away and the family is wondering what to do in economic challenge or whether it is an old parent who has passed on after a long illness. But I also see neighbours coming together in this moment looking out for one and another, supporting one another in this time of need.

Madam, each of these stories tells us a very deep truth: that there can be a special strength in a community and society, a strength that comes from a sense of fellowship, of being together, of being near to one another in life's journey. But I also hear stories from residents about how society is changing and how newer HDB estates seem to make it harder to meet neighbours and new friends.

Today, I will speak on how we build a stronger society and a stronger economy through stronger social cohesion and updating our social compact to keep pace with the future of jobs.

Madam, we must never take our social cohesion for granted. Our multiracial society is very special, very precious. It also helps us, as a country, connect economically to the West and to many parts of Asia.

But in many societies around the world, social cohesion is being eroded. Social media has made society more atomised: in some countries, people living in their own little world and not learning to see through the eyes of fellow citizens; watching only one side of a social media feed; becoming more vulnerable to "fake news" that sharpens prejudices while blunting human understanding; echo chambers, not just in politics, but in values and social mores, too.

Smaller family sizes are shaping societies. A child growing up in a one-child family has a different experience and may not learn the same social skills to get on with others until preschool or school begins.

So, if we lose our cohesion, Mdm Speaker, we are finished. Because we will not be able to organise to meet challenges, we will not be able to move as one, we will be less than the sum of our parts. Without social cohesion, we are less than a dot.

Even as we transform for the future economy and watch our bottom line, our fiscal sustainability, we need to keep on paying attention to social cohesion in all our policies across the whole-of-Government.

Mdm Speaker, let me speak a little on public housing. It is an important issue because design changes in public housing can be revenue-neutral, but they shape an entire generation of society and our heartlands.

We have the Ethnic Integration Policy today. But in the modern era of globalisation and wealth inequality, our Ministries should also look at closer integration of Singaporeans from different economic backgrounds within the same block.

For example, what if new HDB blocks were designed to have a certain proportion of units designated for rental within the same block? The design, proportion and distribution can be studied by the agencies, so that the effect is salubrious rather than divisive. It is something that I believe the Ministries should look into.

Or void decks, Mdm Speaker. Some of my residents feel sad that newer estates are devoid of void decks. Or the void deck is shaped such that people do not meet one another as naturally as before. I suggest, Mdm Speaker, that HDB should revive the older-style void decks or at least think of ways to channel people together, so that people meet naturally, grow to know one another, build friendships.

Likewise, the shape of our HDB blocks matters, too. Some of my residents said that our blocks today are not shaped the way they used to be. In some precincts, including award-winning precincts, the common corridors branch off. Little alcoves, little corners. It means fewer lines of sight for neighbours to meet one another, look at one another, start that conversation in the morning on the way to the lift; fewer chances for people to get to know one another spontaneously, day by day.

This is something our agencies should look at, Mdm Speaker. Urban design shapes who we live with; who we know; who we meet. How we build our homes, how we build our heartlands affect our social cohesion. Our estates are our home today, but they shape our society tomorrow.

Madam, I also want to speak about work, how work is changing and how that is affecting our social compact as well. We have seen many legal innovations in recent years. Temporary jobs becoming permanent temporary jobs where workers keep on rolling over new temporary contracts in what we call "perma-temps". Micro-jobs as well.

Today, people can do independent work for multiple hirers, using online marketplaces to match supply and demand. It is sometimes called "the gig economy". Many of us have spoken about this. I have raised it in this House and elsewhere.

There are opportunities in this brave new world. The gig economy can unlock skills and experience not yet tapped from the labour market. This is important, given our ageing population, demographic constraints and smaller families.

Madam, many of our older workers have a lifetime of wisdom and experience. I remember a retired nurse I met on my home visit in Clementi. She is 65 years old, or rather 65 years young, full of energy, still wants to make use of her skills. But because her husband is sick, she needs to spend extra time looking after him, which makes it harder for her to work a full shift or even a partial shift.

The gig economy can help our seniors and young families who have caregiver commitments. Singaporeans with caregiving duties can also work more flexible hours − a retired nurse can keep active, does not have to work a full shift, maybe helping at a clinic near her home or as a private nurse to fellow residents in the neighbourhood, changing a catheter, changing a wound dressing. Micro-jobs, but they add up to skills that can be tapped. Additional income, helping people who receive the service, helping the person who is earning.

It also helps SMEs which may not be able to afford a full-time department, whether it is a legal department, graphic design department, copywriting department. It helps people, it helps SMEs.

But, Madam, there are also big challenges when the nature of work changes. For decades, the relationship has been very much between the employer and the employee at the workplace. For a long time, this has been a focus for legislation, sick leave benefits, healthcare coverage or CPF. All these things have been coming together through that relationship between employer and employee and at the workplace.

But today, we see that being disrupted. It is possible for an employer to redefine the job at the stroke of a pen. A delivery driver may be doing the same work as before. But instead of being a payroll employee, he is now called to be doing a contract for service.

But Madam, this shifts responsibility and risk to the worker. Who pays the CPF contribution? Who covers the insurance? Who is responsible if an accident happens on the job while on duty? And these developments could have very profound implications for Singapore, because so many of our social and labour policies today are tied to that nexus − the employer-employee relationship or the workplace.

For example, the employer CPF contribution. If the CPF system is undermined by the gig economy, there are knock-on effects as well. Home ownership, healthcare because of MediSave, retirement adequacy. And all these, if they come to a head, will affect our fiscal policies as well.

Madam, we see employers shifting these labour practices because an employer may see economic advantage: privatising the benefits of having a worker but socialising the responsibilities of looking after the worker. Some have said that the market alone is enough. But Madam, I believe the market is not enough to impose discipline. Even in the tightest of labour markets, there can be segmentation. Some workers having a more difficult time than others. Some workers needing a job more urgently. And it is the vulnerable workers who are not able to find a job in the regular labour market who will have the least bargaining power in the gig economy.

Madam, this is happening to Singaporeans today. At my Meet-the-People Session, I met a resident in his 50s. He works as a delivery driver. He used to be on an employment contract. But recently, his employer called him in and said, "We are changing you to a new contract". So, he asked what is this new contract about? His employer said, "You are no longer going to be a payroll employee, you are now going to be a contractor, a solo contractor providing contract for service". He was not given much of a choice − sign the new contract or be terminated. Same work, different contract; less benefits, more vulnerable.

So, this is a real issue affecting our workers, especially vulnerable workers. And as more jobs become part of the gig economy, I worry more Singaporeans will be affected.

Madam, it is a serious issue, in my opinion. And I believe we need to address this sooner rather than later, before the labour market norms reach a tipping point as more companies join the gig and there is a race to the bottom. Otherwise, we risk having a cohort of gig workers who have been disadvantaged by this market failure. Our policies must keep up, so that our workers are not left behind.

But Mdm Speaker, there is hope. Singapore is small enough, nimble enough and organised enough that we can reinvent our policies for a new century.

We can build a better understanding of the job market to improve opportunities for all our workers. Imagine if our Ministries apply big data analytics to the job market, pulling data from multiple databases, getting data on how training leads to jobs. Who finds work fastest? Which course helps to find work fastest and best? How many people are using the skills they were trained for? Was the training provider selling hope or helping our workers to gain skills and opportunities? This can also help us understand how underemployment arises and how to prevent it.

Our Ministries can also pull big data to have better sensing of market trends. Are people from some backgrounds having more difficulty than others? Are there areas which need to be looked into through deep dives, drilling down to understand where and how best to intervene?

Better data, Mdm Speaker, also opens the door to new policy responses. I would like to suggest, Madam, that we testbed new ways to assess the CPF contribution responsibilities for an employer. This could be done on a testbed basis in sandboxed sectors of the gig economy where you can clearly define the nature of the firm and how the workers are being contracted.

We could have a formula that looks at the total wages from the gig employer or the number of hours spent on gig jobs.

We could find new ways to measure a unit of labour. The same online platforms that create an Uber, Deliveroo, Foodpanda, all these can provide new ways to measure and ensure that workers have the same protection and benefits they did in the traditional economy.

Together, the Ministries could develop an operating system to specify employers' responsibilities. For example, a minimum CPF contribution might be pegged per hour, task or unit of labour. Or even risk pooling among the gig employers so that the worker has insurance coverage for health benefits or sick leave, rather than falling between the cracks.

Mdm Speaker, every national economy exists within the fabric of that nation's society. Singapore is the same. A strong society is a prerequisite for sustainable economic development. It gives us the resolve and courage needed to overcome uncertainty, instead of waiting and seeing, and stepping forward, moving ahead, making a difference, moving faster than the competition.

A strong society also gives us the social consensus for fiscal redistribution, for broad centrist policies, for a fair and equitable society. It binds us as one in times of challenge and creative destruction, so that we can pull together and renew and be stronger after that.

So, Madam, even as we create the future economy, we must also ready our social policies for the future, strengthening our social cohesion with a whole-of-Government ethos, strengthening our social compact to stay ahead of disruptive innovation and strengthening our labour markets so that every worker can find their full potential throughout life. Mdm Speaker, may we always continue growing, growing stronger and growing stronger together.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

1.58 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Madam, in 2016, we witnessed two major events that surprised many: Brexit and the American Presidential election. Many expressed concerns on the possibility of a major global impact these two events may pose, especially on the economic front. Many see a future with uncertainties.

Madam, moving into an uncertain global situation, each nation must analyse and evaluate its own strengths and resources and find ways to strive and strengthen its utilisation of resources in a more prudent and most effective manner.

In this year's Budget, the two main themes or objectives are: one, a compassionate and inclusive society; and two, an innovative and connected economy.

Madam, Singapore is an island city state and only has human resource at our disposal. We rely heavily on our human resource to generate a strong and robust economy. However, we are also very aware that human resource is a challenging factor in the near future due to the drop in our total fertility rate (TFR) in a rapidly ageing population.

Apart from making efforts to increase our TFR, we should also find ways to empower Singaporeans, in particular, our workforce. With an empowered nation only can we achieve our objective of, one, a compassionate and inclusive society and, two, an innovative and connected economy.

Madam, in this year's as well as previous years' Budgets, many initiatives have been rolled out and implemented, such as SkillsFuture, to enable the Singaporean workforce to upgrade their skills so as to remain relevant and ready to face the challenges in an uncertain global situation. In addition to improving individual skills of the workforce through training, schemes, such as Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) and others, have also been introduced to equip companies and employers with technologies to further enhance innovation and productivity.

Madam, the introduction of technologies or hardware is, indeed, good and necessary. However, enhancement is also very much needed in the aspect of software or heartware. Technology, by itself, is not able to achieve better innovation and productivity. Its effectiveness relies on employees who use the technology. Only with a motivated workforce can we work towards enhancing our innovation and productivity.

Madam, a happy employee equates to a motivated employee. A motivated employee is obviously more innovative and productive and many studies have proven this. A study conducted by the University of Warwick in 2014 found that happiness led to an increase in productivity by 12%. The same study also found that workers who are otherwise unhappy show a decline of 10% in their productivity level. The Harvard Business Review, a magazine published by Harvard University, also produced analyses of several studies that showed an average increase of 31% in productivity level for happy employees.

Madam, the organisational and work culture has a very great impact on the level of happiness of our workforce. Many internationally renowned companies and corporations practise employee-centric work culture. Mr Richard Branson, Founder of Virgin Group, in an interview in 2014, mentioned that one business strategy that he used is employee-centric management, giving priority to employees. He said, and I quote, "It should go without saying if a person who works at your company is 100% proud of the brand, and you give them the tools to do a good job and they are treated well, they are going to be happy." In the same interview, Mr Branson also said, and I quote, "If a person who works at your company is not appreciated, they are not going to do things with a smile." Mr Branson further shared that the first priority is his employees, customers second and shareholders third.

Google, a giant Internet company, emphasises on organisational and work culture that focuses on satisfaction and happiness of employees. As a result, Google has consistently received the top spot in the list of Fortune's Best Companies to work for. Google believes that, on average, a person spends most of his time in the workplace and, hence, it is important to feel happy and calm. They believe, with joy and peace, it will spark innovation and productivity.

Amongst Google's initiatives are: one, their offices are designed with an open concept that allows the employees to interact openly in order to stimulate the mind and spark innovation; two, to provide facilities, such as gymnasium, fitness centre and games room. Google believes that a healthy workplace produces joy and happiness and, hence, this will further spark innovation and productivity. Google's office in Malaysia houses a cafe© that provides free food to employees. Google believes that spending on such is part of their investment cost because everyone knows that good food can boost employees' morale.

Madam, the questions are: what is the state of our workforce today? Is it a happy or unhappy one? What is the situation of our organisational and work culture in Singapore? Do employees feel happier while on assignment? Do they feel their employer cares for them? Are our employers making the employees as their top priority? To answer these questions, I will cite findings of a couple of studies conducted, addressing the issues of Singapore's employees' level of happiness.

Madam, in 2014, the Singapore Human Resources Institute (SHRI) and Align Group, a consulting firm, conducted a study, an overview of workplace happiness index. Their findings indicated that employees in Singapore are not so happy with their workplace. The index obtained is 59 out of 100 fell in the category under "happy". The study used a scientific method that contains 20 factors which were categorised into four main categories ‒ satisfaction, alignment, engagement and well-being.

The survey also found that happiness is related to employees' perception of their work and experience in the workplace. The report also stated that the ability of companies or employers in promoting pride, positive emotions, a sense of accomplishment and enhancing work culture will affect how happy their employees may feel.

In September 2016, JobStreet issued a report on a survey, Job Happiness Index, which was conducted in seven ASEAN countries. The result of the survey showed Singapore employees ranked the lowest amongst their ASEAN counterparts. Singapore only gained 5.09 out of 10. In the same report, it was said that the job happiness index for Singapore will continue to fall to the level of 4.93 in the next six months. The report further mentioned that, given such circumstances, employers have been advised to revisit and review their human resource (HR) practices and address the factors that caused employees to feel less satisfaction.

Overall, if we look at the studies and surveys conducted on Singapore's workforce for the last couple of years, our workers are unhappy. Arguably, the main cause is our organisational and work culture that does not give job satisfaction. The consequences of not being able to provide job satisfaction are hampering our productivity and innovation.

Madam, efforts to change our organisational and work culture must be made a top priority if we want to see positive changes in our nation's level of innovation and productivity. Changing a culture is not easy. It is a process that needs collective and continuous effort and participation of the Government, employers and employees, spanning over a period of time.

The Government must take the lead in changing the organisational and work cultures through programmes, its schemes and other initiatives. Programmes should be conducted for employers to enhance their knowledge on how to establish a conducive work culture that can make employees feel appreciated and, thus, feel more motivated to innovate and be more productive. In addition to these programmes, schemes, such as PIC, should be extended to the cost expended in transforming our organisational and work culture to be more conducive and employee-centric.

Employers have an important task in ensuring that the Government's schemes and initiatives are being implemented and practised in the most extensive manner to bring about an employee-centric culture. As for employees, they must strive to manifest the best work values. One way of doing so is to attend more programmes and training to improve both the hard and soft skills.

Madam, I am convinced that employees equipped with both hard and soft skills are the ones who are more motivated and display good work attitudes. I am of the view that we need to cater more programmes and training focusing on the development of soft skills. I would like to suggest that the learning on the topic of human psychology should be made the main thrust in programmes and training syllabuses. The reason is that self-awareness, as well as awareness and a better understanding of others around us, will allow the development of more positive and effective intra- and interpersonal skills.

Madam, I would also like to suggest that the learning of psychology be introduced in our lower secondary school curriculum to develop soft skills, both intra- and interpersonal, in our younger generation. We need not teach the whole spectrum on the subject of psychology. My suggestion is to include the following three components: one, personality; two, perception; and three, social psychology. It can be included as part of the Science subject, alongside Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

The learning of these three components will allow our younger generation to develop better awareness of themselves, family members, friends and others in our society. With such better awareness, our young ones will be able to establish good social and community values. And with such good values, and equipped together with skills and knowledge, our young Singaporeans will be more empowered when entering our workforce. Madam, I will switch to Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam, the organisational and work culture has an impact on the level of happiness of our workforce. Many internationally renowned companies like Google and Virgin Group and corporations, practise employee-centric work culture that gives priority to workers.

Madam, the question is: what is the reality of organisational and work culture in Singapore? Are our workers happy when they perform their tasks? Do they feel that their employers care or give priority to them?

Madam, if we look at the results of surveys done on Singapore workers in the past years, as a whole, Singapore workers are not happy workers and the main reason can be said that the organisational and work culture is less than satisfactory. Due to the absence of job satisfaction, the level of productivity and innovation cannot be improved.

Madam, efforts to change organisational and work culture must be given priority if we wish to see positive changes to our country's innovation and productivity. It is not easy to change culture. It is a process that will take a long time as well as a collective, comprehensive and continuous effort. It will need the participation of all parties: the Government, employers and workers.

Madam, touching on the issue of unhappiness, many people have voiced their displeasure, particularly via social media, about the 30% increase in the price of water as announced by the Government. Although the Government has provided additional assistance through U-save rebates, the increase in the price of water does not only comprise domestic users or consumption at home, but it also involves all aspects of water consumption like industries and businesses. The increase in the price of water, compounded with the increase in diesel prices, will result in increases in the cost of operations and doing business. I believe that this additional cost will, in turn, be channeled towards consumers.

For instance, the increase in the price of water will likely result in an increase in prices at coffee shops as well as hawker centres. The increase in the price of diesel will likely cause an increase in bus and taxi fares. Can the Government give an assurance that consumers will not experience price increases?

(In English): Madam, I will conclude my speech in English. Our nation's goals are to achieve: one, a caring and inclusive society; and two, an innovative and connected economy relies heavily on both components ‒ hardware, that is, technologies, and heartware, our values. Comparing both, the latter is more crucial and requires a tremendous and continuous effort as well as commitment. Mindset and culture need to evolve and be developed.

Madam, I am confident that empowered with the right and sincere hearts, followed by a determined, collective and consolidated effort, we can achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

Mdm Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.

2.14 pm

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Mdm Speaker, the global landscape is changing dynamically. As a small country, Singapore cannot afford to ignore the progression and challenges around us. The external environment will not slow down or stop in its tracks for us while we try to keep pace or reinvent ourselves.

I see three key trends that are here to stay and will continue to shape the world. To some extent, Singapore, as a country, we may have little influence on these global trends, but we must take actions to remain relevant. We must recognise the presence of these trends, be willing to change, adapt and always prepared to ride the wave.

First, the global political situations have altered significantly over the past two years. More of these changes are likely to follow. There is potential shift of economies towards protectionism and mercantilism. All these will create new challenges to global free trade and globalisation.

Second, disruptive technologies. Disruptive technologies have always been present. The key difference between today's disruptive technologies is the frequency and nature in which the disruption presents itself. Intensive emergence of the new technologies renders less predictability in our future markets, but it is also able to bring about new economies and business opportunities for us. With digitalisation, the impact and reach of any new technology will be much larger as the market can react more responsively. New technologies that constantly emerge begin to dominate the market spaces within a short span of months, not years, unlike in the past. Thus, time is of the essence in the process of us restructuring any industry as the clock speed of economic changes has accelerated.

Third, structural changes within industries and how our companies operate. A key topic to adaptation and change is: can we be competitive? Competitiveness has been and remains critical to all businesses. In current times, it becomes even more prevalent. Only those with the ability to differentiate and create value out of the basic solutions that address needs and generate demand will survive.

I believe a key question on many minds is: can Singapore transform and continue to create future economic opportunities and employment? I feel that we need to be realistic and not expect there is a silver bullet that can provide this possibility.

In this Budget, it does address some short-term needs where assistance is provided to those in need and who may be temporarily unemployed and for our vulnerable groups. But more importantly, we must seek to have longer-term directions; where we must get our fundamentals right on diverse education pathways for our future generations, readiness of our workforce, adaptability to new variation in economic models and sustainable approach to our social safety net.

Moving forward, I see the role of our Government shifting to one that facilitates and enables, instead of prescribing an end solution to everything. This does not mean our Government should stop forward-thinking, planning or putting elements in place for the future. Instead, with increasing dynamism of our economy, we need all the stakeholders as active contributors, be involved and play a part in shaping the requirements that we need to make things work for Singapore.

While it is widely discussed and we know that changes have to take place, but I believe we must focus on three areas to make a difference in the future. Let me explain the three areas.

First, innovate for growth. To me, innovation is a culture. It has to be reflected through our education system, the social environment and our workplace. It is not an object or a target that we create for a specified period of time. We have been investing in the past decade in R&D, creating more platforms to innovate. We have seen an increase in the number of innovative ideas, as evident by the 1,469 patents that were filed by Singaporean residents in 2015. That is a 12.7% year-on-year increase on the patents that are registered. But the corresponding number of ideas and patents from earlier batches that have borne tangible achievements, as in business returns, pales in comparison. I think the reason is that we still lack innovation and value creation deeply entrenched as a culture in Singapore.

If we review where this stems from, I think it begins from our education. I definitely agree that it is important to have an adequate foundation and understanding of fundamentals in all that we learn. But often, rigorous practice to manage examinations is not indicators that we have learnt. Usually, the most effective results are seen in our ability to actively learn and apply the knowledge that is learnt to real-life situations and challenges. Also, to create value out of limitations. Being adaptive, thinking out-of-the-box, accepting different ideas and challenges are all part of a process to innovate. We need to allow our younger generation to do so. There is no short cut to this. The challenge is: do we have the appetite to experiment and will the society accept different pathways in our education?

Our education and societal norms will eventually shape the workers in our workforce. The ability to continue learning and take risks reflect the will of our individuals. Without the culture, can we see the jewel in the rocks? Take, for example, we often claim that technologies have replaced and made humans redundant or made businesses sunset industries. Looking deeper, does the issue lie with a person's inability to transform with time or the emergence of improvements in the world?

In the most traditional industries, like the automotive industry, it has not disappeared and continues to bring about growth opportunities. With technology evolvement, the processes involved and the product variety that is available certainly has changed our views of possibilities in traditional forms of manufacturing. Producing different car components can now be done using additive or what we call 3D manufacturing, and less of moulding, welding and casting as in the past. The industry does not go away, but the technology involved has advanced. Likewise, if we cannot foresee, innovate and integrate new pathways in our economy, it is unlikely for growth to be sustained or even for new jobs to be created.

The second area, develop T-skills in lifelong learning. As the industries and economy undergo restructuring, workers who have skills mismatch due to inexperience or lack of training opportunities must now try to pick up new skills. It is not easy to learn new skills, especially when one is used to some level of comfort or in the way of how we do things. SkillsFuture is a good starting point for people to embrace the need to learn, but that cannot be the only reason why we are learning. Everyone must recognise the need to continuously learn as they study and work. This is the only way to remain relevant throughout our changing environment.

Realistically, it is impossible for everyone to learn and shift to every new industry as a new industry emerges. I do not think that is what we are trying to achieve with SkillsFuture. In my opinion, every individual worker has core capabilities and basic skills. Through our lifetime, it is critical for us to develop two sets of skills: (a) to deepen our core capabilities that further enable our expertise or develop fortes; (b) to develop broad-based skills that are transferable regardless of industry. Only with these T-skills will we be able to add on incrementally at each stage of our career and capture the new opportunities.

On the part of the Government, I would ask that moving forward, more focus be put on internships, encourage our public sector and our private companies to develop a learning culture, have more on-the-job training and for schemes to support the companies to enable job rotations. It is heartening to see this Budget enhancing the Adapt and Grow initiative and providing more accessibility for training. These resources would eventually be valuable to facilitate their staff to broaden and deepen their skills.

The third area, partnerships in employability. The term "iron rice bowl", does it still exist? The fact of the matter is that there is no job guarantee in today's world. Real jobs are what we make the best of it when it is available. The Minister for Finance has called for more partnerships in the workplace and I fully support that. This is absolutely necessary for the long haul, where especially the impact it has on the generation of our older workers. With time, our older workers will face different sets of challenges. Before the Baby Boomers become seniors, something has to be done now.

The challenges that the older workers face are: (a) preconceived mindset of our employers; (b) learning new skills over a short timeframe and adapting to the changing business landscape; and (c) accepting the new concept of productivity where less is more and being different is to value-add.

To effect any change, I feel that it has to take place at all levels, employers, employees and the Government, and in partnerships. Employers must be open and ready to accept helping our older workers through training, refitting their job and scope, and value each worker for their abilities. Employees have to keep learning and upskilling through their career and not only when the need arises. They must be participative and not hope to be valued due to seniority. I hope the Government can streamline their processes and review some existing exceptions with certain flexibility and enable new rules to adapt to the new economy. Mdm Speaker, I will do the next section in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Apart from our culture and economy, I am encouraged that this Budget continues to look at strengthening our social safety net, in particular, persons with disabilities (PWDs). Mental health awareness is an area that we cannot neglect in urban cities. Dementia is one category of such mental health issues and the most common being Alzheimer's disease. As dementia has no cure, this has long-term implications on the caregivers and our society as well.

In Singapore, the prevalence of dementia is about 10% amongst seniors aged 60 and above. The number of seniors with dementia is set to rise, especially with a rapidly ageing population. Countries like Japan and Taiwan have shown that dementia-friendly communities where PWDs living in their homes have resulted in lower cost to healthcare. Therefore, it is imperative to raise awareness and put in place initiatives that support persons with dementia to age in place.

I support this initiative and would like to ask the Ministry about the outcome of the first pilot trial of community-based dementia care efforts in Yishun. What are the lessons learnt from this trial and how long will it take to train resources to cope with the existing situation of 10% dementia patients?

(In English): Mdm Speaker, it is inevitable that Singapore will continue to face different challenges amidst the dynamic global landscape. The willingness to change, adapt and be always prepared has to take place across generations. We must get our younger and the future generations ready to think and act for themselves. In the short term, we have to address the needs to assist our existing workforce to make sure that they remain employable. But on the long run, we have to consider: do we take bolder measures to evolve a new culture or do we continue to move ahead to reinvent through incremental changes? On this note, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker: Minister Masagos Zulkifli.

2.28 pm

The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mdm Speaker, thank you for giving me the chance to speak. I would like to respond to the points raised by Members, particularly on the issue of the water price revision.

In Singapore, water is unlike any other ordinary commodity. We subsidise housing, healthcare, education, but not water consumption. Water is a strategic issue. It is a national security. We must price water fully. Even as we give targeted assistance to households, such as U-Save vouchers, to help them pay for their utilities bills, we must price water correctly. The consumer must feel the price of water. Consumers must realise how valuable water is to us in Singapore, every time he or she turns on the tap, right from the first drop.

Let me take us back to the time when the Government last revised the price of water, which was in 1997. We had not revised water prices for some time then. Elements in Malaysia were threatening to block our water supply from Johor. We were embarking on desalination to secure our water supply. We needed to register with Singaporeans the strategic importance of water and the importance of saving every drop possible.

The Government, therefore, decided to revise the water price substantially, to reflect water's true scarcity value. If we needed any additional water, where would it come from? How much would that additional litre cost? That is what we call LRMC. That is the cost which consumers must see.

At that time and even today, the Johor supply was fixed. Local reservoirs had been almost fully developed, maybe except for Marina Reservoir. NEWater was not even invented in 1997. It came way later in 2002. Apart from conventional methods of collecting water or rainwater, the only proven technology then was to produce water through desalination. But desalination then was very expensive, $3 to $3.50, through what we call multi-stage flash (MSF) distillation. This number did not even include the cost of pipelines.

There was no way for the Government then to move the water price to the true cost of the next litre, the price of desalination. So, it moved instead in steps, over the period of 1997 to 2000, to today's water price.

Since then, water technology has progressed steadily. The Public Utilities Board (PUB) itself invested in R&D. This resulted in NEWater, which was much cheaper than desalination. Desalination technology has improved from MSF to membranes. As a result, we have been able to keep our costs down, the cost of water, and hold water prices unchanged for 17 years.

But costs have gone up gradually over the years. At some point, a price revision became essential. Let me give a few examples of how costs have risen in the recent review.

Firstly, LRMC is a mix of NEWater and desalination costs. In the blend with NEWater and desalination, we have depended more on desalination for the next litre as water demand increases. There is also a limit to recycling used water in our NEWater plants. Therefore, to increase our water supply further, we must build more desalination plants. Indeed, we are building three desalination plants within the next three years.

Secondly, as we increase the proportion of water reclaimed for NEWater, effluent becomes more concentrated and, indeed, more difficult and more costly to process.

Thirdly, Singapore is becoming more urbanised, so it is costing us more to build new and replacement pipes to deliver water.

Here are some figures from our recent expenditures which can give an indication of how it will be in the future. Looking at the first year of desalination, for instance, while the first-year price for our first plant, SingSpring Desalination Plant, was $0.78 per cubic metre, the first-year price of our latest plant at Marina East was $1.08 per cubic metre, some 40% increase.

For conveyance costs, we now tunnel below the road to lay pipelines. This minimises inconvenience to road users and the public, but it costs two-and-a-half times as much as conventional pipe laying techniques. As our pipelines age, PUB will have to more than double the rate of renewal of old pipelines from the current 20 kilometres per year to 50 kilometres per year to minimise pipe leaks and disruptions.

All these point to the need to update LRMC which the 30% price increase has reflected. We are unable to provide details of its computation because of commercial sensitivities. We still need to build more desalination plants and NEWater plants; and as more desalination, NEWater and water reclamation plants are yet to be built or expanded, revealing the specifics of LRMC could prejudice future bids. But rest assured that LRMC reflects the best the market can offer.

Mr Pritam Singh asked whether technology is taken into account in the computation of LRMC. My answer is a definite yes. It has always been and is also the case for this review. Technologically, we have squeezed everything we can from the current water processing technology. It will take several more years to achieve the next breakthrough and bring it to a deployable scale.

I also thank Members for reminding the House that we have had a serious problem in the depletion of the Linggiu Reservoir in recent years. It is not clear whether the current situation is due to climate change, but we cannot discount the possibility of the dry weather to persist. And in the future, when climate change effects become more pronounced, it would be more severe. As Members are also aware, Johor is also drawing water from the Johor River, and Singapore is discussing this with Malaysia to ensure that Johor's actions do not compromise our ability to draw the 250 million gallons per day that Singapore is entitled to from the Johor River under the 1962 Water Agreement. What is clear is that Linggiu is operating today at a level way below what we are comfortable with and it will take years to build up to a reliable capacity again.

Taking all these together, there is, therefore, urgency to have our policies, including right pricing, in place so that we can moderate demand by both businesses and households while also building the infrastructure we need to have a secure water supply.

It is the job of my Ministry and PUB to plan and build the infrastructure, which we will do. But it is only through right pricing that we can have everyone valuing water as a strategic resource and consciously conserving it. With the 30% increase that we have announced, the price will be close to, though slightly lower than, the price of the next drop, or LRMC, today. This is the best way to emphasise the scarcity value of water.

Members have expressed concerns over the magnitude of 30%. Clearly, this 30% increase has generated a lot of discussion on water. I hope it also raises awareness of its scarcity, its strategic value where water is concerned. But in reality, what does 30% translate to?

For businesses, 75% will see an increase of less than $25 per month in their water bills. This is less than a dollar a day. Indeed, I am heartened that some businesses have taken this increase in context and have explicitly said that they would not increase prices. For households, the Government has provided additional U-Save rebates. One- and 2-room HDB households will not experience any increase in their bills. For other HDB flat types, monthly water bills will go up by $2 to $11 per month. Overall, water will still be affordable because it will remain at about 1% of household income. So, that is what 30% price revision translates to, $1 a day for 75% of our businesses, and still within 1% of household income for water expenses. Mdm Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] It is clear that people were taken aback by the 30% water price hike. This has caused a lot of discussion on the price of water and, at the same time, the importance of water in the context of its scarcity in Singapore.

The issue of water is highly crucial. It is a very strategic issue. Therefore, this discussion about the increase in the price of water is good because it raises people's awareness about the price and value of water to us.

But eventually, what is the real impact of the 30% increase? Do we need to scare people about the impact of the 30% increase?

For businesses, 75% of them will be seeing an increase of less than $25 a month, which is less than $1 a day. I am happy that many businesses have come forward to assure the people that they would not raise their sale prices just because of this water price hike.

I had coffee at Al-Azhar just now. I called up Al-Azhar's owner, "Have the prices of beverages gone up? Will the price of beverages go up?" He said, "It won't increase." So, if there are coffee shops that increase the price of beverages, have your drink at Al-Azhar.

For households living in 1- to 2-room flats, they would not be experiencing an increase, on average. The rest would experience an increase of between $2 to $11 per month. But this is still within 1% of their monthly household income.

So, we should see this 30% increase in the right context, which is to raise the awareness of the importance of water to Singaporeans, to our country. But we should also see the context in terms of the increase and its impact towards our daily expenditure.

(In English): Despite our investments in desalination and NEWater plants, the truth is this: we are still a water-stressed nation. Singapore was ranked first among countries with the greatest risk of water stress in 2040, according to the World Resources Institute. It is not a description of what we do. It is a description of who we are. We hope that through right pricing, everyone will cultivate the habit of water saving as part of our deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), Singapore's DNA, whether we are a household or business.

Just this morning, I attended a water rationing exercise at Woodgrove Secondary School. Many schools are participating this year to raise awareness of the value of water and the importance of water conservation among our young ones. Even during the prolonged dry spell in 2014, we did not face serious shortages because we had NEWater and desalination plants. There was no water rationing. But water conservation was something earlier generations of Singaporeans had imbibed. Singaporeans back then knew that every now and then, elements in Malaysia were threatening to turn off the taps. So, they bore with water rationing, supported water saving campaigns and even paid the cost of cleaning up rivers and their catchment areas.

Indeed, it is because of our obsessive focus on water and the collective determination of the earlier generations and, of course, our PUB officers, that we were able to manage our vulnerabilities. If we take this same approach, we will secure our water future for ourselves and our children, and that, I think Members will agree, is well worth doing. [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, do you have a clarification?

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Yes, Mdm Speaker. I have a few clarifications for the Minister. I thank him for the detailed speech that he gave. Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister how does PUB assess when to increase the price of water because, according to the PUB's Annual Report, the net income of PUB − after Government grants and contributions to the Consolidated Fund and tax − was actually higher between the years 2013 and 2015, compared to between 2010 and 2012. Between 2013 and 2015, it was about $550 million and between 2010 and 2012, it was $339 million. Notwithstanding the improvements that are required for the transmission networks and so forth, some clarity on that would be appreciated.

The second question pertains to a point that the Minister made in his speech, which was about the choice of building more desalination plants. How does PUB make that determination whether it should construct more NEWater plants, as opposed to desalination plants, because NEWater is obviously cheaper. Some understanding on that will be helpful as well.

And to that end, two follow-up clarifications: is PUB considering a proposal which has been discussed in public before, which is to deepen local reservoirs to increase our own local catchment and the possibility of directly supplying NEWater which, I understand, some years ago was raised in this House and the then-Minister clarified that only one country − I believe it was Namibia − which transmits such water directly? The reason is it would save costs by just having NEWater supplied directly, as opposed to going through another processing exercise through the reservoirs.

A few more quick clarifications, and I beg your indulgence. With regard to the Linggiu Reservoir, assuming that it does fail, can we anticipate a rise in water conservation tax? With regard to my suggestion about a differentiated tax regime to encourage savings among Singaporeans, in addition to water rationing that the Minister mentioned, would the Government reconsider how it prices water so as to encourage people to achieve real savings by conserving water?

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I thank the Member for asking these questions. On the issue of the books in PUB, I think it is very complicated for me to attempt to simplify what the numbers really mean. Our books are in accruals and our budget is in cash, and we have to reconcile them. What we will do is I will ask the Minister for Finance to look at the whole-of-Government approach in funding our water infrastructure. I think that makes more sense. Because there are some parts which are Government-funded and some parts which are PUB-funded, and it does not add up, if we look at each book separately.

On the desalination plant, why do we choose NEWater versus desalination? Desalination, as I have mentioned just now, is more costly than NEWater. But as you reclaim more of this used water to be processed, the concentration, as I have mentioned to you, becomes even more difficult to process and, therefore, more costly. There is a tipping point between when it is better to have a desalination plant, which is easier to convey the sea water to, and a NEWater plant where we have to convey the used water to. So, all these cost considerations give us a way to basically evaluate the best cost-effective model and also to spread our risks across technologies.

There was a question on whether we can deepen our reservoirs. In fact, that was the first question I asked when I joined the Ministry. It is very intuitive. Why can we not just deepen our reservoirs? Unfortunately, the answer is not as simple as the question. We have done studies and, currently, the studies show that there is a particular yield from the reservoir if you leave it as it is, and there is a risk this yield can be reduced if you start disturbing the bottom of the reservoir. So, we do not want to do something adversely affecting our yield of the reservoir by doing something which looks intuitive. I have asked our experts to study this further. They are still in the midst of studying this, but, right now, the prospect is not fantastic, unfortunately.

The fourth question which the Member asked is about whether we can directly send NEWater to our homes. Theoretically, we can, but we do not have to right now. Certainly, when we need to, we will have to put the right processes to ensure this can be done, because we must ensure that it is safe for our house to drink from end to end.

There was also a question on Linggiu Reservoir. May I clarify, is it "if Linggiu fails"?

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, Minister. If the Linggiu Reservoir fails and we cannot draw from the reservoir, would the water conservation tax go up because it is associated with not over-consuming water?

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The price of water, as it stands today, that we have proposed to increase, is LRMC, which is the price of producing the next drop of water. And, therefore, for whatever reason, the next drop of water that we need to draw will be coming from desalination as well as NEWater. So, it is already priced in. The problem is not the price. The problem is what will we do, what can we do, to prevent that from happening. Because it is not just an issue of supply; it is a very complicated issue should that situation ever occur to us.

Finally, on savings and water rationing, whether we can give a rebate to people who save water, it is a bit counter-intuitive because, in the first place, we want to make sure people pay for the cost of producing the water, which is LRMC. And to give back that cost means we are subsidising the use of water. Any way we change the structure of water that we have today either involves cost or will be counter-intuitive to trying to promote conservation of water. I think what we have today is achieving its objectives, and I am glad that everywhere I go, water is one of the things that Singaporeans are very aware of. In fact, during the 93.8Live discussion on water, there was a caller who was very upset because one of his colleagues was using water in the shower after work. It was given for free for, I do not know, half an hour, or for a very long time. And he got very upset because you do not do this at home, why you do this over here? Because it is free? This is the right DNA for Singaporeans − even though it is free, we cannot bear to see water wasted. And I think that is how we should move forward. Continue to price it properly to reflect the scarcity value of water and, with that, hopefully, we achieve a DNA of always wanting to conserve the use of water.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat. Please keep it short.

Mr Png Eng Huat: Thank you, Madam. Just a quick question to the Minister. The Minister said that water was never subsidised. Is it a Day 1 policy or only starting in 2000?

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: If I recall correctly, it was in 1997 when we decided to price water correctly. At that time, it was not only not priced correctly, the structure of the tariff was also very difficult to encourage conservation, conserving of water, to charge water according to its value. It was only in 1997 when we looked at really what we need to do to get that next drop of water, given the situation we were facing with our neighbours, given the expiry of the water agreement by 2060, that we consciously decided that we have to start thinking around how to make sure people understand the value of water. So, from 1997 onwards, we revised the water tariff and structure to reflect the cost of producing that water, LRMC, and, therefore, to make sure users know the price of what they use.

Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.

2.54 pm

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Madam, many in this House would recall the tagline: "You push the button, we do the rest". And also the song, "Do you remember? − Times of Your life". It was for "Kodak". By 1976, Kodak held more than 90% of film sales and 85% of camera sales in the US alone. They were the leaders globally. But when Steve Sassoon invented the digital camera and showed it to Kodak, he was told to keep quiet about it as it would kill the company's crucial film industry, Kodak's golden egg.

By 2012, we recall how Kodak filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. It is likely if you ask your grandchildren and members of Generation Y and beyond, they may never have heard of Kodak.

Fuji, on the other hand, realised the world was going digital. With a long-term vision and survival instincts, it invested in digital technology; diversified into new areas; started an in-house expertise development programme; participated in joint ventures, such as Fuji-Xerox; explored and actively innovated in new areas, such as nanotechnology, placing chemicals onto films, which was even later carried into the cosmetic industry till today, and medical imaging technology and equipment.

There is really no magic wand but effort, hard work and strategy, with a touch of flexibility and adaptability that is needed. Discovery is really seeing what everybody else has seen and thinking what everybody else has not.

As one of the smallest nations on the globe, that is how we need to be − changing, transforming, and change has to really be our only constant and it keeps us up there. This mindset must be our value and our gift from one generation to the next generation, just as this quote is from Warren Buffet. He said: "Someone sitting in the shade of a tree today is because someone planted a tree (with a vision) a long time ago."

Budget 2017 must leave us thinking about this, about our survival together, about Singapore's survival. If one reviews our Budget the last few years, you will notice it is a continuum of change and development, through new schemes, enabling us to adapt to the new world order that is upon us all. It comes from a combination of two elements: firstly, good and in-depth sensing of the changes and the external environment which have impact on our economy, politics and foreign policies, besides other factors. And, secondly, our internal "conversations that matter", heart-to-heart, Singaporean conversations and feedback, which were weighted and considered to effect policies and schemes.

It is not just about wait and see. It is really what I would call the five "Ps" − to predict, to have projection, to plan, and then, of course, to progress together. And, finally, it is practical − the fifth "P". It works and it is not viewed through rose-tinted glasses. It must also make us realise the hard facts and our challenges, and water is one of them, as we have just heard from the Minister, with only people as our resource.

In the words of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, I quote: "To survive, we need to be exceptional". Our biggest threat is really our mindset and complacency. Together, as one Singapore, putting our heads and hearts together, we have the ability to create choice by deepening and altering our interpretation of the world today, as it moves along so quickly. We have to keep shining, shimmering and glowing as the Little Red Dot.

Madam, we also need to strike a balance, an equilibrium. Thomas Friedman, in his book, Lexus and The Olive Tree, talks of two countervailing factors in globalisation. The "Lexus" stands for modernisation and "The Olive Tree" represents our need for identity and belonging. Whilst we stay open to trade, talent, ideas and inculcate deep intrinsic and global capabilities, our racial, religious values and cultural identity are just as important. We must learn to balance the two, just as the book states that Lexus has, indeed, provided a means to growing stronger and bigger olive trees. The future of our Singapore identity depends on the right mix that we choose together. In Malay, Madam.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to share the following scenarios. Uncle A is 70 years old. When I visited his home, I met him and we had a chat. Since retirement, he is usually at home by himself during the day, waiting for his eldest child to return around 8.00 pm.

When asked whether he does any other activities, Uncle A told me that one of his friends will drop by each evening around 7.00 pm and have a chat with him. After speaking to him for a while, I moved on to his neighbour's home. His neighbour informed me that every evening, Uncle A will stand outside his corridor and speak to himself.

We assisted Uncle A with the help of the Silver Ribbon team that collaborated with me in the Geylang Serai area. Together, we diagnosed and brought Uncle A for counselling and treatment and he is better now.

There is also a family of four who lived in an HDB flat, and when I visited them, the wife and mother of that family, who is in her 40s, sorrowfully and tearfully told me about her breast cancer, the pressures that she faces and many other things that are weighing her down. We spoke for a long while and I did referral for her in terms of counselling, assistance and other activities, and her depression improved.

The issue of mental health is becoming more noticeable and prominent. Balancing physical and mental as well as social health is very crucial in creating an individual who wants to function and mingle optimally in society.

Budget 2017 has presented ways to further strengthen the circle of treatment, counselling and the network for mental health, especially at the community level. $160 million will be channeled towards the mental health fund and new programmes and initiatives, including the dementia-friendly communities programme. With this increase in funding, all 10 organisations, which are part of my mental health Taskforce in Geylang Serai, are pleased with its announcement. They have commenced new initiatives and ideas that they will feature.

Mental illness in a multi-ethnic and plural country like Singapore is more diverse and there are different interpretations as to why someone is afflicted with mental illness. It should be handled sensitively and tactfully to avoid hurting the feelings of the community. In fact, in Geylang Serai, we always have open dialogues on mental health and sharing is done by people of all races.

We also implement cross-over referrals, which means that anyone who receives treatment and assistance from the Silver Support team, will also be directed to receive traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) treatment at Sian Chay Medical Association to learn how to use herbs, how to relax their minds and also about acupuncture. So far, this has proven to be very popular and effective.

(In English): In October last year, when Geylang Serai partnered Silver Ribbon to organise the Asia Pacific Mental Wellness Conference with the theme of advocacy, it was attended by many international participants and speakers. And during that meeting, I launched the Global Mental Health Alliance as well. With our Budget announcement recently, I would like to share with the House some of the comments from the global mental health fraternity and leaders.

Filipa Palha from Portugal, the World Federation of Mental Health Regional Vice President for Europe said, "In Portugal, we had similar promises from the government, but it never came through."

Another person, Hugo Cohen from Argentina, World Federation of Mental Health Regional Vice President for Latin America, said, "Bravo! Good example for our own governments."

Ellen R Mercer, from the US, President for Government Affairs said, "Fabulous news…an example for other countries."

Robert van Voren, World Federation of Mental Health, Vice President for Constituency Development in the Netherlands, said, "Congrats, great news indeed. Wish we could have this back home." And similar comments came from people from South Africa, Taiwan, Pakistan and the Mediterranean countries.

Madam, even as we are a tiny red dot, we can, indeed, set the example for others. Back in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Malay/Muslim community and organisations have organised many dialogue sessions and I find that they have benefited greatly from the schemes under our previous Budgets. They are more confident, reassured and understand our Government's strategies better. Many methods, programmes and schemes were implemented to help the community improve themselves, their abilities and the status of their families.

This Budget also allocates $6 million more for self-help groups like MENDAKI and this is also good news for our community.

If we look around, many countries are unable to come up with this kind of Budget, especially in the midst of a dreary and gloomy economic situation. We are thankful for this vision as well as for the firm, vigilant and prudent approach in the national expenditure, where all activities, projects and enhancements are progressing as announced earlier.

In fact, the Government has brought forward building and construction projects that were supposed to be done in 2019, to this year and the following year, in order to help our construction industry.

Change and transformation will always happen. Similarly, our mindset must also change, renew and adapt in order to move with the times.

If previously, we were told about this saying "Acquire knowledge everywhere we go", now we can acquire knowledge from laptops, smartphones and SkillsFuture easily from our own homes.

(In English): To end, Madam, in the Budget, let us look beyond "just asking what is in it for me". It is really beyond that. It is beyond just handouts, although there still are. It is really about us together as a nation, Singaporeans and Singapore, moving together. It is about our future, survival and sustainability. Madam, I support Budget 2017.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.

3.06 pm

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I welcome this year's forward-looking Budget.

It contains several initiatives to support and assist the growth of our economy by strengthening the industry sectors under the ITMs for 23 industry sectors through the tripartite alliance and partnership. The aim is to identify jobs of the future and preparing and equipping our workforce in deepening their skills, improving productivity with technology and automation, embracing innovation for better business opportunities and business sustainability, and providing market opportunities for internationalisation of businesses, especially for SMEs.

This is understandable as SMEs employ two-thirds of the workforce today. However, with targeted budget allocation and the introduction of both existing and new schemes, how do we ensure that these SMEs create better jobs for our Singaporeans? How many of such jobs are future-ready? To what extent will they succeed in improving productivity and, if so, where is the check and balance that SMEs will share the gains with the workers that thereafter translates into sustainable wage increases or profit sharing?

Some SMEs or companies are barely keeping themselves afloat with the funding support provided by the Government. Should these SMEs continue to suffer and prolong its losses, their workers will be adversely affected. With this in mind, the Government can perhaps work with the Labour Movement to explore ways to assist these potentially affected workers leverage programmes, such as the Adapt and Grow programme, and transit into new employment before the company winds down. These workers can plan and start to upskill and reskill to enhance their employability.

I also welcome the SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative to develop 800 potential Singaporeans for exposure to international jobs that are well-paying. As we welcome this, to avoid the situation of talent shortage, the Government could work with companies on job redesigning and rebranding of industries and jobs to attract more locals and Singaporeans working abroad to come back and work at home.

It was also announced that all Ministries would have a 2% cut and that the Health, Home Affairs and Defence Ministries will have a 2% cut in phases. Which part of the expenditure will the 2% cut come from? As manpower is often the big ticket expenditure of any organisation, will this cut affect the workers' jobs and salaries? Is it the right time to cut the budget for all Ministries, especially for Health, while we are confronted with challenges of an ageing society; and for Home Affairs and Defence with the increasing threat of terrorism globally? Will there be a fee increase passed down to Singaporeans consequently?

I wish to now touch on cost of living. It is notable that for both the diesel cost increase and 30% increase in water conservation tax, the Government has put in place mitigating measures for low-income families. It is, indeed, heartening to see several schemes made available to families to cope with the cost of living. However, Singaporeans, especially the middle-class families, will feel the brunt of these increases. Therefore, short-term help for such families would be welcomed, especially when companies are expected to be prudent with wage increases and bonuses. In fact, more should be done to help these middle-income families.

Some Singaporeans questioned the sudden huge increase in water price. I think the Minister has explained earlier. Should there be a gradual increase over a period instead? Can there be a systematic way or formula for increasing water price so that it is less painful for Singaporeans? Moreover, the increase would mean some sellers or outlets may take advantage of the circumstances by increasing food and drink prices, amongst many others.

I would strongly urge the Consumers Association of Singapore to help keep tab on this and act swiftly to normalise such behaviour. As for social enterprises of the Labour Movement, I believe that they will, as always, act to moderate the price increases to safeguard consumers from being exploited by those who often cite a compounded cost increase in the supply chain as an excuse.

One other industry that would see such impact is the healthcare sector. Will such increase result in an increase in the cost of healthcare services to Singaporeans? Because in healthcare, we use a lot of water for every step of the procedure. I hope the respective Ministries will not pass on the cost increases to its consumers. Also, with the increase in water price, will employers use this as a reason to reduce wage increases as well as bonus payouts?

With regard to U-Save rebates, perhaps the Government can consider having different subsidies for multi-generation flats and executive flats, instead of grouping them together and providing them with the same amount of assistance. This is because people living in multi-generation flats get the least U-Save rebates amongst other flat types when many are living as three-generation family units with elderly parents or grandparents and may require more assistance and support from the Government.

Enhancement of the CPF Housing Grant for resale flats encourages young families to buy resale flats. Are there enhancements extended to existing CPF Housing Grant for couples buying Build-To-Order flats?

Lastly, I applaud the Government's Budget inclusion for the expansion of infant care centres. Such support will enable younger women to stay in the labour market after childbirth and, for those who had stopped working, a reason to return to work. This is where the employers, those working alongside with them and the entire nation can show better understanding and support to these groups of women who often face challenges raising children.

Madam, notwithstanding the above, I support the Budget that is promising and exciting, to build a formidable economy and create good jobs for Singaporeans.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Ang Hin Kee.

3.13 pm

Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, this year's Budget is set to prepare us for the future and build an innovative and connected economy. To this end, there is support for both businesses and workers. I will touch on SMEs and their workers, as well as freelance workers and how Budget 2017 will impact them.

Organised by the unit for SMEs at NTUC, I met with SME owners from different sectors at forums and learning journeys. Some shared with me their challenges how to migrate into the digital space and needing a one-stop solution, among other concerns.

Thus, it is timely that there will be the SMEs Go Digital Programme and Technology Hub which can help SMEs tap on digital solutions, build capabilities and boost productivity.

Connecting the Technology Hub to the existing network of SME Centres, including USME at NTUC, will also help more businesses to receive advisory, access grant and get step-by-step aid on technology adoption and solutions.

Trade associations and chambers have also been identified as multipliers to lead industry-level initiatives and can support SMEs scale up and be more competitive. For example, recently, the Early Childhood and Education sector announced a centralised meal catering project. Meals for childcare centres are now prepared in a central kitchen and delivered to participating centres. The centres benefit from time and cost savings, properly prepared nutritious meals and, I am quite sure, healthy and less sugar and no fried food, and the jobs of cooks can also be redesigned.

This Lean Enterprise Development Scheme project is one good example of how industry can take the lead. In this particular instance, the Association of Early Childhood and Training Services worked in collaboration with the NTUC's e2I, Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) and Workforce Singapore.

Some SMEs may be members of informal groups. Can we also allow these groups to be eligible to receive the support if they have an innovative idea that can move and transform their sector?

In 2015, for example, the Earn and Learn Scheme was rolled out to attract more graduates to join SMEs. The coverage of industries was fairly small with limited places. I hope more sectors can be included and more vacancies generated for SMEs to attract more fresh graduates. Recently, I received feedback about the Earn and Learn Scheme for the logistics sector and the results for the polytechnic students have been more than encouraging.

So, with more millennials entering the workforce, some SME employers also express the need to be better prepared to guide and communicate with them. These young workers' perception of work and aspirations vary very differently from their older colleagues.

I hope SkillsFuture Singapore can provide training support to help line managers to do a better job at helping the workers assimilate into the workplace. Equally important is to help existing staff learn to effectively communicate and work alongside these young workers. We heard from many SMEs that they want to do more for training and have asked for some more support. They hope to see more being done for targeted in-house training programmes with bite-size modules. This will cater to their shortage of time and sometimes inability to release their staff for training at a particular centre.

Many SMEs which were early adopters of different Government schemes have benefited. The next challenge is to reach out to and extend assistance to many other SMEs to help them transform their businesses, innovate and scale up so that their staff at their workplace can also benefit. I will now move on to speak about how we can better support a new and emerging group of working people.

There are over 180,000 freelancers and the self-employed and, this figure, by many accounts, is expected to climb. Very often, individuals opt for freelance work to pursue their own passion and interests, or simply that is how some of the industries today operate.

With the rise of the gig economy, it is timely that we address challenges faced by those who choose freelance work, either on a full-time, part-time or project basis. This is especially relevant with some of them making it as a career choice. Some graduates I met even consider starting it as their first career, instead of going on the traditional employee/employer model. We have also heard of how traditional sectors, such as transport and services, are also impacted with the convenience of online apps and the sharing economy.

The way services are delivered is now transformed, with the likes of private hire services, cleaning, grocery shopping or food delivery services gaining traction. For some of these workers, they may hold the title of freelancer or self-employed in name. However, they have little control and/or bargaining power over their work. Some even have to put on uniforms of the buyers that they serve while on duty and carry the brand on their bikes or bicycles for the services that they render.

Very often than not, the payment structure and work arrangement are heavily controlled by the service buyers. Unlike that of a freelancer who can decide to pick up projects or do it anytime, this particular group find that they are strictly controlled by the service buyers. However, the onus lies entirely on the workers to ensure that they receive timely payment, manage their own medical and insurance, and contribute to their own CPF savings.

Unlike employed workers, freelancers do not earn a fixed salary and are also, therefore, not entitled to various statutory protections, such as annual leave, medical leave and so on. Common challenges faced by freelancers include payment, late or sometimes none at all; the need to have intellectual property protection; income instability and running the risk of not saving enough for medical and retirement needs.

Mdm Speaker, freelancers are working people who also deserve to enjoy protection. As we gear up for the future economy, our employment practices and laws need to be robust, inclusive and cover all groups of working people and to ensure that no one is left behind.

We can perhaps take a leaf from how the taxi industry has evolved. Taxi drivers who are self-employed are not covered under any Employment Act, although recently we have just announced that there is a group of them who can opt to take on the employee model with the new taxi operator HDT.

Together with LTA, the taxi operator works with the National Taxi Association to start up a mediation centre back in 2014. This allows the self-employed, such as taxi drivers, to come together to have disputes and issues resolved through mediation rather than through civil suits and other platforms. This is a good move by this taxi operator with the other stakeholders.

The union also work with the taxi operators to facilitate training, offer hardship grant and funds to aid taxi drivers in need. Moreover, taxi operators also co-contribute to their hirers' MediSave contribution on this drive-and-save scheme. This level of support, while not very extensive and comprehensive, still shows a stark contrast to what other freelancers in the market enjoy. We hope other sectors can at least take the first step and follow suit.

In fact, various Government agencies work closely with freelancers in their respective industry development plans. We hope that the Government can also take the lead and work with the freelancers and the various buyers in that community to ensure that measures can be rolled out to better protect and give support to the freelancers.

Recently, the Manpower Minister shared that his Ministry has started to gather information on the changing freelancing landscape in Singapore. The purpose is to better understand the profiles of these freelancers, to find out if freelancing is their primary or secondary source of income, as well as the various sectors and occupations they are in.

This information will be very helpful because, today, many people are drawing anecdotes and examples they hear and, therefore, we need to rely on official sets of information to guide us. We hope that the data will help us to monitor the workforce trends, study the needs and issues faced by freelancers, and thereafter effectively put in place appropriate measures to safeguard the interests of freelancers.

Madam, Budget 2017 is a budget for the future, and brings Singapore and our businesses and workers towards the next phase of growth. I hope we can continue to render targeted support for SMEs and their workers as well as freelancers to help them operate and thrive in the future economy. I am very confident that our SMEs, our SMEs' workers and freelancers can do their part to stay resilient, adaptable and be bold to experiment with new ideas. Madam, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Ong Teng Koon.

3.23 pm

Mr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mdm Speaker, I support the prudent Budget put forward by the Finance Minister. Today, I would like to focus on issues that have not been directly addressed in this Budget but which are, nonetheless, top of mind for many Singaporean workers.

From my interactions with residents and their industry, I hear a rising concern about their livelihood. At the policy level, I am confident that the Government is doing what it can to protect the welfare of our workers for the long term.

However, from my discussions, the man on the street has a different perception. The question is how do we communicate the meticulous efforts in this regard by the Government to the public? How do we assure the worker that his welfare is front and centre of the Government's priority? There is a perception on the ground that the Government is not as worried as it should be, that there is a disconnect between the fear that workers are feeling and the optimistic, forward-looking messages that they are hearing.

In my view, the Government needs to calibrate the message so that it is empathetic and realistic, that people can relate to, and to also serve as a rallying cry so that people can take the steps to prepare themselves for this future. It is not difficult to understand why people are worried about their livelihoods. Globally, 2016 was a year filled with surprises and, very often, not pleasant ones.

This has created a cloud of uncertainty over global economic growth. There has been a marked rise in protectionist and anti-trade rhetoric, and this discussion has alarmed Singaporeans who are acutely aware that their prosperity is intricately linked to global trade and economic growth.

Global uncertainty is not the only thing on their minds. Other local trends are also causing concerns. For years, we have been trying to raise productivity in Singapore companies. This is the critical step towards building resilience and robust businesses to try to allow businesses to thrive in tough times. However, for many workers, this can sound ominous. They think that they will be replaced by robots or do double duty as their teams are "downsized".

Looking ahead, technology will threaten other jobs further up the value chain, and at a much faster pace than anticipated. Autonomous vehicles will displace drivers, and that we know. But increasingly, trading algorithms have started to displace trading professionals, many armed with Masters and PhDs. And in the future, artificial intelligence might replace human lawyers, doctors, accountants and even civil servants. No one is immune.

According to one research, 50% of the jobs could be lost to automation within 30 years. Of course, history shows us that as old jobs disappear, new ones will rise to take their place. But this is cold comfort for each individual worker who worries about his job being replaced by robots. There is a parallel to the rise of protectionism here. Free trade benefits the economy as a whole, but specific workers lose their jobs, as they see their wages being depressed. To them, "the greater good" is mere words, whereas their own pain is immediate and tangible.

Given these concerns, it is not surprising that many are turning to what we now term as the gig economy, doing freelance or part-time work to supplement their income. There are even full-time part-timers who do a portfolio of different jobs. Already, in the US, 33% of workers are freelancers, and are expected to rise to 40% in 2020. Singapore is not there yet, but we are certainly moving in the same direction. There are some local part-time job portals like Freeboh or MyWorkSG that are gaining a lot of traction, as even more workers report their willingness to partake in the gig economy.

While the gig economy increases our resilience of the workforce as a whole by matching workers with new opportunities, there are some concerns. And we hear Deputy Prime Minister Tharman saying that he is not yet a fan of the gig economy.

For me, there are two concerns. The first is that these freelancers may not develop and grow their skills and end up doing the same role forever. There is nothing to incentivise them or there is nobody looking out for the freelancers in terms of their career progression. The other concern that I have is that the gig economy essentially transfers the risk from company to individuals. Freelancers do not enjoy statutory benefits like the full-time work people do, such as annual leave, maternity benefits, In-camp Training reimbursements or paid medical leave.

They also lack group medical insurance that most full-timers enjoy. Although MediShield Life provides hospitalisation coverage, freelancers still lack accident, life and especially outpatient benefits that many companies currently provide. The trend towards part-time and freelance work is gaining momentum. The gig economy will allow workers to work in a variety of roles and pick up new skills. This supplements or bolsters training or retraining like what we are trying to do in the SkillsFuture. But instead of the classroom, the gig economy will let them try and learn in real life.

Let me begin to draw my remarks to a close. The role of the Government here is to ensure that worker welfare is sufficiently protected in this brave new world. As The Straits Times recently argued, we need a future-ready social safety net for the future economy. Berkeley Prof Laura Tyson has described such a system as portable, attached to the individual worker instead of the employer, universal and prorated. Heading in this direction will hopefully also dispel some of the cognitive dissonance that we currently perceive on the ground. Madam, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

3.30 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as I am also a staff of ComfortDelgro, a holding company with subsidiaries in Singapore that employ more than 12,000 staff in Singapore, as I talk about how to help retrenched workers better.

Last year, 4,738 workers were retrenched, 100% more compared to the year 2015. Many of the retrenched Singaporeans are PMETs. As the economy slows down and as we restructure our economy, more Singaporeans will be out of a job and be retrenched in the coming years before we can finally see light at the end of the tunnel. This is a concern. It is alarming and it is worrying.

I understand that MOM, the Workforce Developoment Agency (WDA) and e2i are of the view that they have tried their best to retrain and redeploy displaced workers. But the perception on the ground, however, paints a different picture. When companies move out of Singapore, it can be very challenging to retrain displaced workers. When factories close down and production line managers lose their jobs, it can be very difficult for them to switch from supervising processes to supervising people. Some workers are still falling through the cracks and, despite their best efforts, they cannot find jobs.

This happened to one of my volunteers, Ross. She had a high-flying career as a Systems Applications and Products (SAP) specialist, working with Apple in Singapore and the US for about 10 years and she also worked for IBM as a managing consultant. Her work was valued by big clients like British Petroleum, American International Group and even in the US State Department.

She returned home to Singapore in 2011 at the age of 48. She believed that there were many jobs in Singapore available for her. However, she only managed to find a part-time contract job as a project lead security consultant with Jemena. It was owned by Singapore Power. Her contract, unfortunately, ended in 2014 as Jemena was sold off.

Since then, she has been jobless. But this is not due to a lack of effort. She has spent the last three years applying for jobs without success. When she approached WDA and e2i for help, she was told by both organisations that they organise job fairs but do not offer job search or job matching for individuals like her. In the few job interviews that she was granted, she felt that she was discriminated against due to her age and race.

In an effort to keep up with change, Ross diligently used her SkillsFuture credits to attend classes and upgrade her IT skills. She is now 54 and is still holding on to the hope to find a full-time job. I have come across many similar, heart-wrenching stories on the ground. We need to do more to help these people.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to recommend that the Government consider setting up a cross-Ministry working committee comprising representatives from agencies like MOM, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and the Head of Civil Service, which represents various Government agencies and their departments, as they are collectively the largest employer in Singapore. This committee should catch those falling through the cracks.

With a holistic overview of job demand and supply, we would be able to better address the anguish, disappointment and needs of the displaced workers, so as to give them hope, help and a new lease of working life. Madam, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In my English speech earlier, I said that Singapore is restructuring its economy and many companies are facing the issue of survival. Amidst the economic slowdown, the number of workers who were retrenched last year had doubled, compared to 2015. However, there are still many growth sectors, such as healthcare, social services and transport. Every year, these sectors need to hire a few thousand staff. Let me cite public transport as an example. As the demand for public bus services increases, the gross monthly pay of bus captains has improved dramatically from $2,000 per month in 2011 to more than $3,000 per month now. This is even higher than the $2,500 starting monthly pay of polytechnic graduates and $2,700 starting pay of private universities' graduates. The $3,000 gross monthly pay of a new bus captain is comparable to graduates from local public funded universities with a median starting pay of $3,400. While a new bus captain's gross monthly pay is $3,000, the chief bus captain's gross monthly pay can be as high as $6,000. This is a perfect example of "every trade has its master". Hence, I urge those who are retrenched to seriously consider taking up jobs in the services sectors.

(In English): Next, I would like to move on to the sports scene, Mdm Speaker. Before I proceed, I would like to declare my interest as the President of the Volleyball Association of Singapore. As a president of a National Sports Association (NSA), I welcome the news that $50 million will be set aside to match sports donations dollar-for-dollar.

Every year, in the past, many NSAs have to raise hundreds of thousands to promote our respective sports. Currently, all of us have to compete for the limited funds from Sports Singapore for the dollar-for-dollar matching grant which is capped at $40,000 per NSA on a first-come-first-serve basis. Last year, the fund dried up as early as September, barely six months from the start of the financial year in April. So, I hope that with the new allocation of $50 million, more NSAs can benefit from the matching grant.

However, having a higher quantum for the matching grant is not sufficient. We need Sports Singapore to work with various agencies to make available more training venues for national players and amateur players alike as interest in sports grows. Take volleyball, for instance. The Volleyball Association has groomed our indoor women's team to win a Southeast Asia (SEA) Games bronze medal in 2015 after a 32-year break. And last year, our combined school boys' team won a bronze medal during the Association of Southeast Asian (ASEAN) Schools' Competition for the first time in Singapore's history. And our beach volleyball Men's and Women's youth teams were invited to participate in the World Beach Volleyball Competition in Switzerland last year, again the first time in our history. During the Singapore National Games in 2014, prior to the SEA Games, the most number of teams that participated in a team-based competition was for volleyball. This shows the growing popularity of volleyball in Singapore.

Despite these efforts and our plea to Sports Singapore, many amateur volleyball players cannot find courts to train and to play. I hope that Sports Singapore can work with schools to make available more indoor volleyball courts during weekday nights and weekends. In addition, I hope that Sports Singapore can work with the National Parks Board to designate more segments of the beaches at East Coast, Pasir Ris and so on for beach volleyball.

These possible collaborations with Sports Singapore and other Government agencies will go a long way towards making Singapore a sporting nation, promoting healthy living, teamwork and better resilience among Singaporeans. With this, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.

3.38 pm

Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on the Budget. In the Budget, $2.4 billion will be spent over the next four years to implement the CFE strategies, in addition to the S$4.5 billion allocated last year for the ITM programmes. Without a doubt, a lot of effort has been put in to help workers in this transition for them to be future-ready, future-proof and future-forward.

Mdm Speaker, yet, I am still worried our low-wage workers may not be able to reap the full benefits of our relentless drive to be future-ready. This may hamper our efforts to narrow the income gap between workers in the bottom 20th percentile and those of the median percentile.

When I talk to low-wage workers, all of them would like to have better pay, better jobs, better working conditions and hope for better job security.

Over the years, the Labour Movement, together with our tripartite partners, advocated and pushed for Progressive Wage Model (PWM), Best Sourcing Initiative (BSI), Inclusive Growth Programme (IGP), Workfare and National Wages Council recommendations to ensure sustainable wage growth for our low-income earners and these are some efforts that have given a hand in helping our workers to future-proof themselves through better training opportunities.

However, these efforts are compromised by issues, such as cheap sourcing, wage resetting and high turnover rates. Unless we attempt to tackle these issues as well, we would take one step forward and two steps back. The low-wage workers will find themselves at the mercy of things beyond their control.

Mdm Speaker, my other Labour Members of Parliament have put forward various proposals to help different segments of workers to be future-proof and future-ready based on the Labour Movement's 4P framework: Placement, Progression, Productivity and Protection.

In my speech, I will be covering my proposals surrounding protection for our workers. As we continue to provide opportunities to train our workers for the future, it is also important that we provide protection for their livelihoods.

Firstly, I would like to urge the Government to encourage better and fairer procurement practices which could set the benchmark for the private sector to follow as well. While many contracts are typically independent of Government influence, the Government itself may want to take the higher moral ground to ensure that all of its contracts are reasonable and fair, based on the principles of proportionality and best sourcing.

The outsourced sectors have long been plagued by low productivity and stagnating wages as a result of irresponsible outsourcing by businesses. Cheap sourcing and the imposition of high liquidated damages which do not commensurate with the non-delivery of specific service have resulted in the industry being caught in a vicious cycle. Here, service providers find it challenging to embark on productivity efforts, given that their operating margins are very low. Service buyers are on the receiving end of cheap yet less than ideal service outcomes, and workers' wages are depressed as service providers find ways to cope with the increased cost by compromising on workers' welfare.

In one of my blogs, I have shared about contracts with one-sided clauses. Such contracts will impact the workers as the service providers find ways to cut corners, such as not giving workers their 13th month bonus, paying low basic salaries and, in the process, minimising any overtime payments as well. Some of them also deny workers their medical benefits outside the scope of the Employment Act. Moreover, it could also be challenging for service providers to embark on productivity efforts, given that their operating margins are very low.

Our Government procurement guidelines generally ensure strong financial governance. They are open and transparent to encourage competitive bids to ensure value for money, but it can be improved upon to ensure outsourced workers' welfare are not compromised by the competitive bids.

I am heartened to share that the Ministry of Finance (MOF) has been very proactive to engage the Labour Movement to improve procurement practices on the ground to promote authentic best sourcing and ensuring fairer contract clauses based on the principle of proportionality to create an environment that will benefit all parties, including workers who can enjoy better terms and conditions. With the Government taking the lead, other companies, including Temasek-linked companies, would be encouraged to follow their example and this trend will better the lives of our low-wage workers.

Mdm Speaker, the second area that I would like to touch on is ensuring PWM continues to be relevant as we transform the various industries and helping low-wage workers future-proof themselves.

I am involved in the sectoral ITM committees for the cleaning, landscape and security sectors. A common challenge identified is the difficulty to attract local workers to join these industries. In my engagement with the industry players, one of the things we can do is to improve the wages in these sectors. NTUC, with the strong support from the Government and the industry stakeholders, made significant progress in this aspect through PWM. I would like to thank the Government and our tripartite partners for their unwavering support to see through the implementation of PWM in the cleaning, security and green sectors.

PWM is a good start to give some protection to the workers to ensure their salaries are commensurate with the workers' training, productivity and responsibilities. However, moving forward, if PWM is to make a real positive change in the livelihoods of our low-wage workers, we need to be bolder.

Last year, the tripartite committee for cleaners recommended annual increases and bonuses to be part of the mandatory wage model. It was an unprecedented move that required a lot of determination from all the stakeholders involved to see it through.

I hope the tripartite committees in the security and landscape industries would demonstrate the same tenacity to ensure the same for the security and landscape industries. I also hope the Government will continue giving its strong support for the future recommendations to improve PWM.

Mdm Speaker, the third area of protection that low-wage workers need is when they are injured in the course of their work. In 1978, the Special Relief Fund (SRF) was set up by the Singapore Labour Foundation in response to the 1978 Spyros accident. I would also like to propose that the Government consider reviewing the criteria of the existing SRF to provide immediate relief to affected workers suffering from serious workplace injuries pending the outcome from Workmen's Compensation. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In the future, it is possible that many jobs will disappear due to disruptive technologies. For instance, the presence of driverless cars will definitely affect the livelihood of many drivers. Self-help kiosks to make payments at supermarkets and to perform check-ins at the airports will mean that fewer customer service officers will be needed.

There are many more examples about the impact of technologies that will create disruptions to the point that there will be no difference between PMETs and rank-and-file workers. But I reckon that low-wage workers will be affected more and experience a greater impact from these disruptive technologies. And the best chance for low-wage workers to adapt to these disruptive technologies is by obtaining new skills.

Unfortunately, some employers are hesitant to send their workers for training, due to concerns that their attrition rate will be high if the worker completes the training and decides to join another company.

While employers are given incentives to send their workers for training, some incentives should also be given to the workers after they complete their training so that they will remain in their jobs. This is something that is necessary and should be studied if the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme is being reviewed in the future, so as to encourage workers to stay on with their employers who have sent them for training.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, we have made steps towards brightening the future for the Singaporean workforce. However, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels because we have to think beyond tomorrow and ensure all workers have their fair share from gains of our economic growth.

I want our outsourced and vulnerable workers in their silver years to look back and not remember their helplessness but remember how they have contributed in their own special way to the development of the nation and the efforts we have, collectively, put in to better their welfare. I want them to remember that as they have helped Singapore, Singapore has thought about them, too. I hope they will no longer be called vulnerable workers but regarded as workers who have played a role as we chart our growth forward. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun.

3.49 pm

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I would like to first thank the Minister for Finance and the various Ministries for preparing this Budget for 2017.

I recall my experience last year, the first time I stood before the House to speak and about the Budget. That time, I had noted that culture was not mentioned much in the speech, but this year, I am thankful and happy that the arts and culture are mentioned, although in only one small paragraph. But it is good news about a boost for the Cultural Matching Fund.

So, for the next few minutes, before maybe we go for our break, I would make arts and culture my subject: upheavals, displacements and the art of resilience.

We are all acutely aware that we live in a complex world today. We have been forewarned that the times ahead will be difficult. There will be displacements to our seemingly orderly lives.

Last month, I attended a seminar organised by the Salzburg Global Seminar. This organisation was set up 70 years ago after World War II, gathering thinkers, practitioners and policymakers to consider world issues, articulate problems and propose broad strategies to deal with these problems. For the 2017 iteration that I went to, 40 fellows from various part of the world participated in the seminar, which was held in a beautiful palace, the Schloss Leopoldskron. I cannot speak German, but this palace is famous because it is the location site for one of the beloved musical films, "The Sound of Music".

During the seminar, while overlooking the idyllic lake, we shared and listened to stories and experiences that were at times harrowing, heart-breaking and deeply disturbing.

One fellow from Uganda shared that her brother was abducted by rebels, and how her family had to keep silent, despite knowing that he would become a child soldier. Another participant shared about the unbearable lightness of existence − the result of her experience of war and bloodshed.

Our American friends said they feared waking up to another executive order that would bring the US closer to isolation. Yet, within the same country, we heard about another crisis, this time from a Native American, through songs and rituals, demonstrated the solidarity of her relatives in their bid to halt the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline at Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

There were also stories about other urgent global issues, from climate change to social and income inequality. So many issues, so many crises and so many stories of upheavals, which resulted in a huge sense of loss and displacement.

As I listened to all these sharing, I realised that back in sunny Singapore, although we are cushioned from the immediacy of these crises, we cannot deny that they will undoubtedly impact us. For many Singaporeans, myself included, the Rohingya crisis seems far away when, in actual fact, it is really close − refugees in Johor needing help and support.

A community that is hurt and injured is a world that is not at peace.

Let us also not be complacent and imagine that such upheavals are too far away or will never happen to us.

For now, while we may not experience such gut-wrenching upheavals, we have our own issues of displacement. Migrant workers who have come to Singapore to make a living despite their personal sense of dislocation; single parents and their children who do not enjoy the same benefits of other traditional family units and who struggle to make ends meet; workers who feel that their jobs are at risk because technological advancements and artificial intelligence might make their roles obsolete and losing their sense of place at home, in the society and with themselves.

Displacements come with change. In physics, displacement maps out the relative change of the position of an object, moving from one point to another. But it does not reflect the total distance travelled and the time taken to reach there, which is just like real life.

For some, it is a straight line, quick and fast. But for others, it is a path with a lot of derailments, ups and downs, and some of them may not even reach there.

Naturally, we want the change that we experience to be good, that it brings us forward and upwards, in a straight line − in other words, positive displacement. But most of the time, negative displacement within our society is real and undeniable. With the widening income gap, the lower- to middle-income groups constantly feel the squeeze as they try to keep up with change.

At the same time, their lack of resources has resulted in derailment. When they are reminded to catch up or be left behind, it sounds as if the problem is that of a personal failing in their lack of trying, rather than a systemic one.

Change favours the privileged. Privilege comes in all different forms. All of us here are privileged because we have the power to effect change. Or so I would like to believe. You can be privileged in terms of wealth or education, or even as a race. It is thus the responsibility of those who are privileged to speak up for those who are not − those who do not earn as much, those who are not as educated, those who are sidelined by our system.

In a society that celebrates achievement and progress, no one wants to be seen as a failure. Failure results in alienation. People who feel alienated, who feel helpless, become angry. We see the outcomes of such unhappiness on social media, often resulting in an echo chamber effect, reinforcing collective discontentment.

The frustration that stems from material, emotional and psychological insecurity creates a further polarisation of society. We begin to fear the other. This pervasive sense of threat is dangerous. It not only prevents us from being empathetic and compassionate, but encourages selfishness, which can even make violence and brutality justifiable in extreme situations.

This Government is aware of these concerns and addresses them through pro-business policies and enhancing the safety net. In the immediate term, pro-business policies retain and create jobs, but it might not ensure a trickle-down effect on the economy to individuals. Standards of living may still stagnate. But the Government's extended social safety net will help. But with no substantial increase in income, the reliance on social support may be protracted. Self-esteem is directly related to self-reliance. Rather than hoping the safety net is wide enough to catch them, people would generally prefer to lead a self-sustainable, dignified life, earning a respectable wage that ensures their independence.

The late British sociologist, Peter Townsend, once said, "It may be worth reflecting, if indeed a little sadly, that possibly the ultimate test of the quality of a free, democratic and prosperous society is to be found in the standards of freedom, democracy and prosperity enjoyed by its weakest members."

I and many others believe this to be true. And in difficult times, we must be even more attentive to those amongst us who fall through the cracks.

As such, I wish to hear more from the Minister on how the real wages of the middle income and lower income can be raised. And this brings me to the next point.

While CFE focused on economic strategies, it is essential that a study on the cultural impact of these economic strategies be made. Every economic structural change affects individuals, family, society, politics, infrastructure, economy, environment, the tangible and intangible heritage, and the arts, in other words, the culture of our society and the city state as a whole.

We must take a proactive approach to anticipate the impact of these structural changes, rather than react to them when they arise. To give an example: technological advancement has progressed so rapidly beyond our imaginations that we, as humans, are trying to grasp hold of the changes and manage them well without falling behind. Another example will be the impact of the expansionary immigration policy of the 1990s to early 2000s, which could be mitigated if we had done a cultural impact study earlier. Studies of cultural impact of economic strategies will, therefore, put us in good stead to manage changes and their effects on society.

I would like now to unpack a term I have heard numerous times in the House since our Debate began, "deep skills". But what is "deep skills" without deep thinking?

What is crucial here is a culture of creative and critical thinking. Such a culture cannot be manifested overnight through new state funding schemes. There is no better time than now to scrutinise our current education system, incorporate opportunities for creative and critical thinking within it, develop our next generation and generations to come. The Government can create scaffolds and support structures for innovation, but the root source of innovation lies in the people.

We often talk about software or heartware, as opposed to hardware. Software is not just about skills, but it is about human interactions. How lacking are we these days in the art of conversations? We have reduced our exchanges to monosyllables: "Can", "Want", "K". I am not talking about language. I am talking about connecting.

How do employers and employees connect? How do strangers converse? How do we settle a public disagreement in a multiracial and multi-religious society? How do we manage the increasing moral panic? How do we not see ourselves as helpless individuals, alienated or a powerless observer to surrounding injustice? How do we see ourselves as active change agents for our society and the world?

This leads me to my next point on resilience. To manage change and displacement, we, as a society, must become stronger. We must develop the art of resilience. In trying times, resilience in individuals is key in helping us to repulse fear, resist and reject the injustice and oppressive status quo. Resilience embraces difficult yet transformative change. It takes courage and conviction; it encourages objective and critical thinking. At the same time, it enables empathy, compassion and a greater sense of hope.

I have attended a number of forums last year and there was always this call for artists to respond to these trying times.

In the Salzburg Global Seminar, policymakers, thinkers, non-government organisations (NGOs) and representatives from C40 Cities and so on, made the call for arts to be the active change agent and in building resilience. In Weimar, a conference on sharing and exchange, political scientists, economists, philosophers stressed the importance of collaboration and intercultural exchanges. In Malta, NGOs, chief executive officers of Arts Councils around the world made the call for resilience and more arts to heal, repair and imagine.

As an arts practitioner, I can attest to the fact that the arts can develop resilience because it opens up our critical thinking processes, be it as a spectator or audience, participant or creator.

To give an example: Mr Ong, an audience member of my community forum theatre play, once shared, and I quote, "I used to be a very impatient person. But after watching your forum theatre play, when I get into a disagreement with my spouse, I will remember you, Heng Leun. I remember you conducting a forum theatre play and, when a crisis happens, you will say, "Stop! Take a moment to think, to reflect." So, now, if I am going to quarrel with my staff, I stop. I think and I reflect. It makes me less impatient and, of course, with that, there are fewer arguments and more discussions."

For creators, the arts is a means for articulating difficulties otherwise left unvoiced and seething beneath the surface. Take, for instance, my friend from Uganda, Beatrice Lamwaka, who wrote stories that helped her heal from her pain and trauma of living through arduous times. I urge you to read her award-winning work "Butterfly Dream", which can be found on the Internet.

At home, we have witnessed the lyrical poetry of our migrant workers in Singapore, who have given us an unflinching glimpse into their lives here. Take Bikas Nath from Bangladesh, a poet and shipyard worker who won first prize at the 2016 Migrant Workers Poetry Competition. He shared that when he is lonely, I quote, "the pen and paper are my friends. So, when I have the time, I try to write down my feelings." And now, I quote from his award-winning poem, "Why Migrant?":

"I long to run back to the warm embrace of my homeland

Among loved ones

Laugh over a steaming cup of homemade tea to the sound of the impatient strumming of a guitar somewhere

Wearing my blue uniform

I want to lose myself

Back into my childhood

Like a stubborn child on a rainy monsoon day

Hiding under the safety of taro leaves in the swamp."

The arts offer a world of imagination and, in that, the seed of hope. In art making, an individual encounters the power of art to heal, repair and bring hope in difficult times.

Aside from individual resilience, we need to build on community resilience. By that, I mean a community that comes together to listen to differences, mediate and recognise that each differing point of view deserves respect and understanding. This resilient community will never neglect the individual voice within the sea of voices. Again, the arts compel us to be engaged through active listening and collaboration, which are essential building blocks that inform creation. Active listening allows us to develop empathy and to experience views beyond our comfort zone and echo chambers. I, therefore, urge the House that we continue to listen and give with respect. More communication, more openness. Less group think, less judgement.

Beyond our own communities, we must also build on inter-community resilience, so that we do not become insular and self-serving. We live in an interconnected world and we, therefore, need to look out for others because their circumstances will have an effect on us. To develop inter-community resilience, we must create platforms for active engagement among communities that allow for good, honest and deep dialogues. The arts are one such platform that not only entertains but also educates. It presents scenarios within safe spaces for the public, making us aware of narratives that are often concealed in our midst, and inspiring us to be the change we want to see in society.

Similarly, in building inter-community resilience, we need to build such safe spaces where rules of engagement are adhered to, to ensure that our dialogues remain respectful yet robust, critical yet compassionate, passionate yet measured and non-violent.

It cannot be stressed enough that leadership plays an important role in motivating and inspiring citizens to take greater responsibility for our shared growth, instead of just focusing on individual success stories. This means being politically motivated to gain a better distribution of wealth and success. It cannot be achieved merely through business-oriented measures or short-term handouts. Rather, in developing long-term strategies to reduce the income gap, our leaders can reignite self-belief, meaningfulness and dignity in the people.

Likewise, an enlightened leadership must respect the differences that exist within our society, not tolerating, not co-existing, but embracing and celebrating diversity and plurality of views, lifestyles and people. In an era where there is increased polarisation sparked off by religion, politics and class, our leaders have ever more important roles as beacons of reason and mediation. To be resilient is to never allow communities to splinter into us versus them ideologies but, rather, to make people see that there is a "u" in "us". We are in this together.

As our nation moves forward with the proposals by CFE, let us remember to become positive forces of change, to find new ways of seeing and listening, and to always be resilient and compassionate to those who fall through the cracks of the system.

If we are to become a community of hope in these difficult times, we cannot merely focus on straightforward success stories but must engage with those who feel most sidelined and marginalised, so that we can become more robust and resilient together, and never alone. In Pig Earth, part of the trilogy written by the late John Berger, about peasants trying to survive under capitalism, there is a scene of an old peasant training a mouth organ in his mountain while he was trying to save an old cow. And John Berger wrote, "All music is about survival, addressed to survivors." Hence, by extension, all arts are about surviving, addressed to survivors. And with that, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

4.08 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mdm Speaker, this Budget comes at a time when a myriad of challenges is confronting Singapore. Globally, there are uncertainties, consolidation and key developments. These are fueled by oil prices, the US' political and economic agenda, the future direction of the European Union, the Brexit journey and Asia's growth strategy, in particular, China. The developments in each will have effects, whether direct or collateral, on economic conditions across the globe and Singapore.

Locally, Budget 2017 and beyond will have to achieve a balance to address the short-term and long-term needs and challenges of the economy and our working populace. For a start, I am glad the overall Budget has a slight surplus to cater to any uncertainties and exigencies in this financial year and which may impact Singapore and for which we need to respond to.

From a manpower perspective, there are several challenges for us, I dare say not exhaustive, with the first being rising structural forces and unemployment. We saw a record 19,000 layoffs in 2016 since the last peak in 2009. What has been a worrying trend is that the layoffs affect especially professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) and the slower rate of re-entry into the workforce for this category of workers, especially those who are older.

This is largely due to what I have previously mooted or identified as the three mismatches of skills, expectations and jobs. There is also the phenomenon of, what I call, the "slow-burn" or "churn" in several sectors, fortunately not across the board yet, of our local economy, such as in the oil and gas, offshore and marine, foreign financial institutions and retail because of global uncertainties, restrategisation, consolidation, recalibration and the advent of digitisation, robotisation, mechanisation and the Internet of Things.

By the same token, we face the longer-term challenge and need of sustaining inclusive quality growth, bearing in mind we have an ageing workforce, relatively flat productivity in the past five years and a much slower employment growth in the years ahead.

Having heard the Budget and its initiatives fleshed out, I am glad that the Government has considered and adopted several of the key recommendations by the Labour Movement. However, all said and done, I submit that the execution and implementation or, what I call, the "follow-through" of each of the initiatives and programmes are most crucial.

In response to Budget 2017's plans and programmes, I have five suggestions and recommendations in the area of future jobs, future skills and future training, with a particular focus on the plight of PMEs, as they are most vulnerable and sandwiched during these times of uncertainty and structural challenges.

First, I am glad we are rolling out ITMs for 23 industry clusters and sectors. In the course of working out the blueprint, each sector and industry has painted an optimistic future of the new jobs and the jobs growth in each sector. Infocomm technology (ICT) and healthcare sectors have highlighted there will be 30,000 jobs each. We also need 3,000 precision engineers, 1,000 rail engineers and 22,000 data scientists and robot coordinators in the manufacturing sector by 2024. There is also a need for 4,000 early childhood educators.

All these sectoral manpower plans paint an extremely optimistic picture of the jobs market. I am not sure if there is duplication in the numbers as there may be overlaps, such as between ICT and the financial sector, when we talk of data science, analytics or cybersecurity.

To the person unemployed or retrenched, all these figures mean little to him or her if he or she cannot find a job in any of these sectors. It is, therefore, imperative to paint a realistic picture of the jobs market by identifying and sharing where the jobs really are, which companies are hiring and when they are doing so. Also, what skills and experience are required of these job openings and what training must we embark on to prepare ourselves for these future jobs?

It is, therefore, vital for the tripartite partners to work together with the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), industry partners and stakeholders as well as research and consultancy companies to better sense, synthesise and provide a clear signal so as to not just place the current unemployed into current jobs but the future unemployed into future jobs.

To this end, the Labour Movement has started looking into future jobs, skills and training and getting help and support from our extensive Labour Movement network, tripartite partners and various stakeholders and partners.

Second, even as we drive internationalisation and encourage Singapore companies and Singaporeans to venture abroad and be regional and global, it is important that we provide sufficient support and assistance to those who have spent time on overseas stints to assimilate and find jobs back in Singapore when they return. My biggest worry is how these Singaporeans who have gone abroad are able to adjust and adapt when they return back to Singapore in the future.

I say this because I have met PMEs at our NTUC's U PME Centre, including classmates of mine, who have returned to Singapore after spending some eight to 16 years abroad. Many have returned due to family commitments, such as because of elderly parents or children's education, or to really come back home. One such example is a PME in his 50s who has been working for a European MNC in the oil and gas sector for 20 years in the area of project management. He was retrenched and was out of job for a year before finally landing a job as a project manager now based in Saudi Arabia. I know some who have been back for more than a year and still have not found any job despite lowering their salary expectations. Some have resorted to doing freelance work or short-term contract positions. This is an area we need to pay particular attention to, and I hope the enhancements to Adapt and Grow and the many SkillsFuture initiatives to be announced will address this problem.

Third, all the talk on digitisation, the digital divide and disruption is good but what does it mean to the layman or worker? What does he need to do to stay ready, relevant and resilient?

I, therefore, suggest we come up with a digital disruption awareness or development programme for all workers, all Singaporeans, very much similar to the Basic Education for Skills Training (BEST) and Worker Improvement through Secondary Education (WISE) programmes we had in the 1980s and 1990s where we had to bring all Singaporeans and workers ahead in terms of literacy and numeracy. The future jobs in demand and future skills in demand components can be built into this programme to ensure all Singaporeans stay able, adaptable and agile. This programme can be spearheaded by the Labour Movement's e2i and NTUC Learning Hub and supported via Government funding.

Fourth, the SkillsFuture Credit utilisation has been promising and off to a good start. I have met workers who have shared how they have benefited immensely from picking up new skills via tapping on their SkillsFuture credits. With the rapidly volatile business environment and job obsolescence, workers globally are now concerned that their skills are losing relevance or what I call the "Fear of Skills Erosion". To address this, I suggest for the Government to provide SkillsFuture Credit top-ups of $500 in intervals every three to five years so as to encourage Singaporeans to take personal responsibility in their continuing education and training, embrace a spirit of lifelong learning and stay ready, relevant and resilient. The credits can go a long way for not just skills acquisition but should also include engaging professional career coach services.

Lastly, the Budget has announced proposed enhancements to Adapt and Grow funding, including the "Attach and Learn" programme which I welcome and look forward to hearing more during the MOM Committee of Supply. However, I hope as we execute the various fundings, we must bear in mind the need to be flexible, responsive in terms of speed to market and also cater to all segments of the workforce, from low-wage workers to PMEs. With about 70% of those laid off last year being PMETs, I submit that we need to pay particular attention to this group and, especially those who are long-term unemployed and mature PMEs. I am glad that PCP now supports redeployment of PMEs within the company.

However, one particular observation I have with PCP is that when PMEs move into a new sector or totally new job, he or she enters at the entry point of that new sector or job. I find this sometimes unsatisfactory, considering many mature PMEs have accumulated one to as many as three decades of work experience and that their other innate skills are not taken cognisance of. At our U PME Centre, we observed many PMEs would prefer to stay within their industries where possible or, at the most, move across into any industry by utilising their sets of skills and experience. There is strong inertia from many PMEs to explore new industries due to the high opportunity cost. It is with this in mind that I hope the Government can look into helping PMEs transit into second careers more seamlessly by exploring the adjacency of jobs and the adjacency of skills so that these PMEs can move into, move across or move up into new roles which capitalise on their acquired skills and knowledge so that they can even enter mid-career and be given credits for their experience. The public sector has successfully done this for certain job types and I suggest we replicate this to other sectors and companies. Mdm Speaker, in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] With regard to measures introduced in Budget 2017, the key lies in implementation. I have five suggestions.

First, our foremost task is to identify where opportunities are, which companies are hiring and what skills, experiences and training are required by these jobs. By doing this, we can better help our workers prepare for these future jobs. Hence, the tripartite partners must work closely together with higher learning institutions, industry partners and stakeholders, as well as research and consultancy firms to collect needed information and not just place the current unemployed into current jobs, but the future unemployed into future jobs.

Second, even as we drive internationalisation and encourage companies and workers to venture overseas and gain overseas experience, it is equally important that we provide sufficient support and assistance to those who come back to Singapore to assimilate back into our workforce and find jobs as soon as possible.

Third, I suggest that we come up with a digital technology development programme to help Singaporeans to improve their skills in the area of digital technology. This programme will be similar to the BEST and WISE training courses offered in the 1980s and 1990s.

Fourth, I also suggest that the Government top up $500 into the SkillsFuture credit every three to five years to encourage Singaporeans to take personal responsibility for their own career development, embrace the spirit of lifelong learning and stay relevant. In addition, the usage of the credit should also be expanded to include engaging professional career coaching services.

Fifth, while we introduce and execute the various programmes, we must consider how to look after all segments of the workforce, including low-income workers and PMEs. I hope the Government can explore how to help PMEs into adjacent jobs and adjacent skills, so that they can transit into a second career seamlessly.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, the challenge for Singapore in 2017 and beyond is how we are able to navigate the occasional gusty winds and flooding downpours. Although we have weathered a variety of economic calamities in the past decade alone, it does not mean we will automatically survive. The challenge that confronts us this decade will be somewhat different and diverse. The "killer app" is how we can, as one country and one people, stay not just ready, relevant and resilient but have the necessary ability, agility and adaptability to navigate and ride on the ebb and flow. We have always been on a treadmill. The only difference is the speed at which the treadmill is now moving, compared to previous years. With that, I support the Budget.

Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.22 pm until 4.45 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.45 pm.

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

DEBATE ON ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

Debate resumed.

The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mdm Speaker, since Minister Heng Swee Keat announced the Budget, we have heard many feedback from the public and also Members of this House. While a few have expressed concerns with our Budget status, most were concerned with our individual status. Common questions and comments heard were these: how much do I get? How much more do I have to pay? Why the price increase for carbon, diesel or water? For businesses, their reactions have also been largely similar: how much would I get? How much more must I pay? Will there be more immediate pain relief? Even amongst some civil servants, they were surprised, "Wow, you mean my Ministry's budget is going to be rebased, which means a cut of 2%?" But what are the core issues for this Budget? While we can all appreciate the concerns with our individual positions, this Budget must surely be more than these.

Our Budget is also, if not more importantly, about our collective future and that of our country, beyond what it means to us individually. And the core questions that we have to come back to and focus on in this Budget are as follows: how do we earn a living for ourselves and our country? And how do we take care of one another? These are the two core issues that we must return to: how do we earn a living for ourselves and for our country, and how do we take care of one another?

Many have asked and commented: if the Budget can be a bit more generous; if our Government can spend a bit more. I can understand these wishes. But let us take a look at our Budget position carefully.

This year, we have a Budget of about $70 billion. Out of that $70 billion, $14 billion comes from our Net Investment Income (NII), which means that for every five dollars we spend, one dollar comes from the savings, or the income from our savings, to be more precise. We are, if you like, living on the income of our savings: $1 out of every $5 that we are spending in this Budget comes from the income from our Reserves.

But I do not know if Members have also noticed something that is even more significant. I have been observing this for the last few years. The top four revenue streams of our Budget are NII, corporate tax, GST and income tax. This year, the number one income stream, out of these four, is NII. This was not the position a few years ago. NII has become the revenue stream that gives us the most to do for our Budget. And if we think a bit deeper, these top four buckets of revenue stream ‒ NII, corporate tax, GST and income tax ‒ out of these four, how many of them are really under our control? NII depends on the status of the world economy. Corporate tax and income tax will be similarly cyclical, according to the world economy. Even GST, to a lesser extent, will be cyclical.

So, the question that we should all pause and think for a while is this: is this a sustainable position, going forward, for our country? The top four revenue streams of our Budget, of which three are not entirely within our control, even if we do not take into account the competition that we have to face from other cities like Hongkong in how we set our corporate and income tax rates. I always joke with some friends that our corporate tax rate and income tax rate are not set independently by the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance has to watch like a hawk what our competitors are doing. So, this is the context that we are in ‒ $1 in every $5 that we spend today comes from our NII ‒ the four biggest buckets of our revenue stream, three of which are not entirely within our control. That is the backdrop for this Budget.

Some have commented that we are running a surplus. I think Minister Heng has explained. Is this a real surplus? Even after accounting for NII, we have less than $2 billion budgeted for. The question is this: will we realise this $2 billion surplus? And I hope Mr Leon Perera is right. I will be very happy if we are right and you are right. But what if we are wrong? What if the economy turns soft and we do not realise the full amount that we have budgeted for NII but, instead, we need more money to help fellow Singaporeans if the economy turns further south? How much can we afford and how much more do we have? One programme, like Workfare Income Supplement, costs us $600 million to $700 million. So, if the revenue comes down and the needs go up, I am not so confident that that $1.9 billion surplus that we have budgeted for will necessarily come true. But like I said, I hope we are right, I hope you are right. But what if we are wrong?

There are some comments by some Members in the House to say that this Budget is a political Budget, that we spend less so that we can time the political cycle. Guess what? Our system is designed such that every term of Government has to earn its keep. At the start of every term of Government, People's Action Party or otherwise, the Government must earn its keep. We precisely design the system such that no Government will come in and promise to spend before it has earned its keep. This is unlike other countries. This is the reason why we have been able to get $1 out of every $5 to support our Budget. If our forefathers had done otherwise ‒ to spend first before the term of Government even earned its keep ‒ we can forget about that $1 out of every $5 that we are depending on for our Budget now. So, we would rather err on the side of caution, and this is the reason why our forefathers had put in place this system, and this is the reason why this generation will also continue to uphold this system.

Then, there are suggestions that we are ignoring the pains, the short-term pains of the economy. Is that so? If this is so, why did Minister Heng Swee Keat announce targeted measures to help specific sectors like the offshore and marine sector, like the $700 million that we push into the construction sector? If this is so, why do we spend all the money that we spend for that increase in the U-Save rebates to make sure that even though prices may increase on average, we will take care of the lower income first?

If we adopt such a cynical attitude to budgeting, will we have done this? Just as one of my friends' feedback last night, if, indeed, this is a cynical Government, then we should not be giving anything at all. No, this is not a cynical Government and it will be wrong for us to impute our own perverse motive on the Government. It is targeted to help precisely because we feel the pain for our people.

Managing an economy is not like turning the thermostat in the air-conditioned room, that when you want it to go up, you just turn it down; when you want it to go down, you just turn it up. If this Government is not concerned with the short term, and if the economy goes down south, who can guarantee that in two years' time, when we want to turn it up, that it will go up?

We do not have to look too far. The competition across the world is intense. Some countries lose their footing, get into a downward spiral ‒ a death spiral, if you like ‒ and never recovered. Our job is to keep ourselves on a steady path, making sure that we address the short-term pains whilst establishing the conditions for our long-term success. It is never either/or; it is always both. Because if you have managed an economy before, you will know that no one can take a cynical attitude towards whether you can time it to go up or down. No one.

Next, I would like you all to focus on what this Budget has in terms of what is new. But I would like to remind all of us that it is not just what is new that is important. It is also what is ongoing. Every policy has a long tail. Every time we make a commitment to spend on a policy, it has a long tail, which means that there are future commitments that we need to adhere to, to keep our words to our people. Every time we have a long tail, it eats into what, in budgetary terms, we call the "white space" for the future, which means that the more we commit upfront with a long tail, the less degree of flexibility we have going forward to meet contingencies and to seize opportunities.

Some of the tails do not just wind down. Some of the tails, paradoxically, creep up. So, it is not a small feat for a government, any government of any particular point in time, to make a commitment.

While Minister Heng Swee Keat has announced various things that have changed, we must all bear in mind that many things are still ongoing: Workfare, U-Save rebates, the commitment that we have done for SkillsFuture, and so forth. So, it is not just the new things that are important. It is also what has been going on and will continue to go on that define this Budget. And I hope we see that in proper context.

Let me come to how we earn a living. In NTUC, we have three priorities for this year − jobs, jobs and jobs. Jobs for those people who are displaced today, and jobs for those people who might be displaced tomorrow. But let us be frank with ourselves. Grants and subsidies alone will not create jobs, especially sustainable jobs. Grants and subsidies, as Minister Iswaran said yesterday, enable and help, but the crux must come from our businesses, our access to markets and our innovation.

How good our businesses are depend on the following: how innovative we are; how bold we dare to venture beyond Singapore; how good our workers are to keep pace with the demand for the new skills; how good our regulatory environment is to groom and enable new businesses.

When we look at our Budget, this is what we see. MTI, MOM, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and many other agencies are all focused precisely on all these four basic fundamental issues to support our businesses: enable innovation, enable internationalisation, enable SkillsFuture and enable a more progressive regulatory environment for startup businesses.

So, the businesses are not alone in this. The workers must come on board. Government agencies must come on board. And this is where it leads me to CFE.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask for your permission to show a simple slide.

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [A slide was shown to Hon Members.]

Mr Chan Chun Sing: That is a trimaran sailboat. I found this to be a simple way to remember the seven CFE strategies or, as Minister Heng Swee Keat called them, the seven mutually reinforcing strategies.

The two sails are our engines to propel the boat forward. One of them is SkillsFuture − how good our workers can be. But SkillsFuture cannot be alone, we need the equivalent on the business side − the EnterpriseFuture as the other sail. These are our two enabling strategies.

NTUC, as the apex organisation, will mobilise our workers, work with IHLs, MOM, MOE to make sure that we train up a new generation of workers ready for tomorrow. And I hope that the Singapore Business Federation and the other trade associations will similarly perform the role for businesses, so that not only will we have a SkillsFuture programme, we will couple that with an EnterpriseFuture programme.

The three skiffs that make up the trimaran are essentially our three core strategies to make ourselves a more balanced, a more diversified economy.

The first, how to use our advantage in urban planning and city development as a marketable strategy to sell skillsets and relevant expertise to the rest of the world? How do we use internationalisation to broaden our markets to transcend our geography and finite resource limitations? How do we use digital to again transcend our geography, create new resources and create new competitive advantages for ourselves? But the thing that ties these all together is simply this − our ability to implement our ITMs well, because they cover 80% of our sectors. And we know that implementation is key.

Estonia also has a digital strategy. The challenge is not who comes up with a better plan. The challenge is who can execute the plan well, who can execute the plan faster, and who can adapt when conditions change.

Last, but not least, tripartism. Partnership. We work together. We solve the problems together. We will get there better than anyone else. How fast we sail, how good we are able to ride the waves depends on our teamwork, depends on how well we can read the waves of change over and beyond how well the boat is designed, or how well the plan is.

What about the jobs for tomorrow? NTUC will not come to this Budget and ask MOM for more money per se. MOM, MOE and MOF have been very supportive. Over and beyond money, what the Labour Movement wants to work with our IHLs and our businesses on are as follows.

One, we want to strengthen the job placement system for everyone. We want to challenge ourselves, that among NTUC, WSG, the Economic Development Board and all other Government agencies, including our partners in the Singapore National Employers Federation, to form that national database at the backend. It does not matter which career centre you go to, we will integrate the backend. We are even prepared to work with private agencies like LinkedIn to ensure that we do our placement well and do it faster.

But placement is only for today's job, putting today's employed into today's job. Most importantly, we have to prepare to help tomorrow's unemployed into tomorrow's job, and that we have to do well to overcome the potential structural unemployment.

This is the reason why NTUC is raising $200 million, on top of what we have in our NTUC Education and Training Fund, to work with our IHLs on national modules, stackable modules, and just-in-time modules. This will require a national effort. We need to do much better and we can do much better. I have always never been entirely satisfied with our speed-to-market for generating new modules that are relevant to industry needs. But this is not a finger-pointing exercise. This is a call for the Labour Movement to work closely with the Government agencies and the businesses to come together. If we are not satisfied with the speed-to-market, we work on it, improve and fix it because, at the end of the day, it affects the livelihoods of our workers not just today, but tomorrow.

So, we are not going to talk about theories. We want to get things done. Many of the Labour Members have spoken about protection. There are new forms of employment − freelancers, contract workers. We need new mental models to help these workers protect their legal rights, financial rights, help them to plan for their retirement and so forth. This is why MOM is initiating a workgroup with the businesses, with the Labour Movement to study the implications of such long-term structural changes to our employment market, and we have to get this right. The Labour Movement will fully support the MOM initiative to review our system to make sure that all working people, regardless of workers, freelancers or contractors can have peace of mind for today and tomorrow.

Finally, jobs for tomorrow will require us to work very hard on productivity. I visit one to two companies every week. There is no magic bullet to raise productivity just by macro-policy measures. Macro-policy measures enable, but what is most important is that each and every business has to re-examine its business processes together with the workers, and together with management to raise the productivity.

It is a hard slog. It is not easy. But we are committed to doing so. This is where the 23 ITMs come in. They are the amalgamation of the efforts of the Government, businesses and the Labour Movement. If we get this right, we move the needle for 80% of the market. If we do not get this right, there will be no productivity gains and no sustainable wage increases for our workers. So, we have to work hard on this, and the Labour Movement will do it with our partners in MOM and the Government agencies and our business partners.

Next, let me touch on the kind of society that we aspire to be. I think it is all very good and I am very proud that all Members in this House always mention these two words when it comes to the kind of society we want to be: inclusive and mobile.

We want to be inclusive to take care of one another, regardless of our starting position in life. We want to give everybody a fair chance. We want social mobility and that is what defines Singapore, that regardless of ancestry, connections, race, language and religion, we can all succeed, so long as we put in the effort and we have the necessary talent. Everyone has a fair chance. But every time when we talk about the difficult issue of tax increase or, for the matter, even taxes, we hear a lot of calls from many Members asking: can you give a bit more to some sectors of society?

On one hand, I am very proud that the Members of this House are representing residents in your community and speaking up for them. But on the other hand, we must also all have a care, because remember what we talk about in the Budget.

Going forward, for every dollar that we give more to someone, it actually means a dollar less to someone else. If we are all politicians, we will all speak up for those who need more. But if we are political leaders, then we have to face the issues squarely, that in every society, how do we distribute the finite resources that we have? How do we make that statement that we, as a society, will lean forward to help those who need a bit more help − the weak, the vulnerable and the poor? That we do not need to be apologetic. That we will lean forward for the weaker segment of our population.

And because we say we lean forward to the weaker segment of our population, the poorer segment of our population, it means that some of us who are more privileged will have to foot a bigger bill. Is that the right thing to do? I think so, but it takes courage. It takes political leadership to tell our people that we all aspire to a higher goal, beyond "what is in it for me?"

Or we can compare this to other countries. There is no shortage of examples near and far. When prices go up, or when prices need to go up, everybody pretends that we will subsidise everybody equally. But is it true? Is it fair?

We do not have to look too far. Take fuel subsidies as an example. Where has that gotten some of these countries? The rich got more subsidies than the poor.

Is that the kind of society that we want? No? We say that we let the prices float up to the market price. Whatever we collect, we concentrate and focus the help on those who need it most. But I can understand there will always be a quarrel as to who needs it more. But at least, let us get the principle right, and let us carry the ground. There will always be somebody who is more in need than us. And we can do our part for them.

But it is not just about workers, it is not just about businesses. The Government must do our part as well. And this is where the Ministries come in. The Ministries must also lead the way, tighten our belts, make sure that we get the bang for our buck, that we are stewards of the resources given to us, that it is the job of the Government and every civil servant to make sure that every dollar spent on anything achieves the goals that we set and it helps us to bring about a fairer society. Take it positively, I would encourage all the civil servants.

The best ideas do not always come with resource abundance. In my short little time of 20-over years in the Government, some of the best ideas paradoxically came during times of constraints. It is how we apply our minds to it. Having more resources must not lead us to a crutch mentality whereby we throw resources to solve a problem. We have to challenge ourselves constantly to do better.

In NTUC, we have a famous phrase. We say, "Avoid a sedimentation model", and I must attribute this to my comrade Mr Heng Chee How. Avoid a sedimentation model. What is a sedimentation model? First thing comes in, it gets the first bite of the Budget. When you do it once, it is an event. When you do it twice, it is a series. When you do it three times, it is a tradition, and thou shall not violate thy tradition. But is that the correct way to do things? We have to look at it afresh every year. What are the most important things that need to be done? How do we get it done, even if it needs to be done and done better?

We have to ask ourselves, as a Government, how do we challenge ourselves to not ossify? That every time when a problem happens, we do not have a knee-jerk reaction to clamour for more rules. Because every rule that we add has a cost − to business, enforcement and so forth.

We need to take the approach that everything that we do, we are inevitably managing risk. There is no way to have anything with zero risk. Everything has a risk-benefit analysis. And if we adopt a mindset like that, we will critically challenge ourselves where we can make not more or less rules, as Lawrence would say, but make smarter rules. Smarter rules that lead to better outcomes but not necessarily increasing the enforcement cost. That is a challenge for our Civil Service.

So, I have touched on businesses, individuals and the Government.

Let me round up by touching on this sensitive topic called "water". I feel compelled to talk about this because I have heard much over the last two days and the last one week. I can understand the angst of our people with the water price increase. I can understand and appreciate the angst that we all feel if it would feed through and, if so, how would it feed through to the cost of living.

I have heard many scare-mongering stories. I have heard many rumours. I have heard truths, half-truths and so forth. It will be too much for me or the Government to expect everyone to defend the price increase. It will be too much for us to expect that we will speak up for the price increase. And I do not expect that. But I think we have to get certain basic things right and do what is honourable, regardless of which side of the House we are on.

We have to start from this basic premise. As Members of this House, do we agree that water is existential to our country's survival? Let us settle that first. Do we agree that water is existential to our country's survival? If the answer is yes, then we can go on to the next one. The second question: do we agree that we should price water properly? If we agree on these two questions, we can go on to the mechanics of how to price it properly, what should we consider and so forth. But water is existential. It has been so in 1965. It has been so yesterday, it is so today, and it will be so tomorrow.

For the entire generation who have worn the uniform, you know what this means, including all Members in this House. Mr Pritam Singh used to serve with me in the same unit, a classified unit. We know the deal. That has not changed, and that will not change.

Yes, our tremendous efforts over the years have improved our situation. But we are nowhere near where we want to be. We spare no efforts to manage the risk all these years.

When I was in primary school and I first looked at the map of Singapore, I was taught to remember the three reservoirs in Singapore: MacRitchie, Seletar, Peirce. I wonder how many Members in the House today will know how many reservoirs we have today, and how many more of us will be able to name all the reservoirs in Singapore today, without Googling. The answer is we have 17 reservoirs today. We used to have three. We have 17 reservoirs today. How many desalination plants do we have today? How many NEWater plants do we have today? How many more desalination plants and how many more NEWater plants we must build in order for water to never be a weapon pointing at our head?

Two-thirds of the entire land area in Singapore today are water catchment areas. I dare say no other country has planned it such. No other cities have planned it such. Two-thirds of our entire land area are water catchment areas. It is not about the reservoirs. Every reservoir needs a catchment area. We have dammed up every river in Singapore. There is no river that flows into the sea anymore.

NEWater plants, as Members have heard from Minister Masagos, did not exist before 2000. Desalination plants are coming on-stream. The prices for desalination is coming down, but guess what? Our dependence on the higher cost water − NEWater and desalination − is going up. So, yes, technology has helped us and we will be in an even worse position if not for technological progress. But our demand has gone up the other side.

If in the 1990s our forefathers did not invest in the Linggui Dam, I do not even know where we will be today. Today, to expand our water supply, we only have two sources more. We cannot possibly increase the water catchment area in Singapore by much. And just as a point of illustration, Linggui Reservoir, the catchment area of Linggui Reservoir, is twice the size of Singapore − twice.

Going forward, we only have two ways to go. One, to depend more on technology, be it desalination, NEWater or any other new technology. Two, to work with the Johor authorities, the Malaysian authorities, to see whether we can have a win-win solution, because the water needs in Johor are also increasing. Some Members might have read that they are extracting water upstream from Linggui Reservoir. That affects our yield, but we want to and are committed to working with the Malaysian government and the Johor government, the Johor authorities, to see how we can develop the water system for both the benefit of Malaysia and Singapore.

We spent a lot of money, that Minister Masagos did not say, to make sure that we do not waste any drop of water. Some countries lose up to 5% to 10% of their water supply through leaky pipes. If we lose 5% of our water through leaky pipes, we need to build one more NEWater plant.

Mdm Speaker: Minister, if I can just interrupt for a while to ask the Leader to move a Motion to let you speak beyond 40 minutes.

Debate resumed.

Mdm Speaker: Minister Chan.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: This Debate over the last two days has also shown the following, and I agree with the Members of the House: we need to do much more. We need to do much more to socialise our people to the challenges that we are facing on the water front. The fact that we have such an intense discussion reflects that we have left this issue off our national psyche for too long. But there is never an easy way.

Thirty percent over 17 years is about 1.6% a year. We can do this every year, we can do this every five years, we can do this every 10 years, but regardless which way we choose, we have to make sure that we never forget that water is existential.

Let me round up with a story. In 2012, one year after I entered politics, I returned to the Singapore Armed Forces and talked to some officers. I asked them this question: what was the most significant thing that happened in 2011? The answers came fast and furious. The most obvious choice was the People's Action Party's performance in the 2011 General Elections. Then, some added, the Presidential Election of 2011. And some clever ones said, it was the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) breakdown, and there were even some who said that it was the ponding in Orchard Road.

I was disappointed and I let these officers who were with me know that I was disappointed. The most significant thing that happened in 2011, without it making to the headlines of The Straits Times, was the fact that on 31 August 2011, we concluded the first Water Agreement with Malaysia without it making to the headlines. I checked. It was on the front page of The Straits Times, but it was not the headline. It was a non-event. That took us 50 years to achieve.

Last year, I visited the Public Utilities Board (PUB) union and I spoke to the management and the workers. I similarly challenged them, that in 45 years' time, 2061, I hope that it will also be a non-event when our second Water Agreement with Malaysia expires. This is my hope, this is my challenge, and this is our work.

It is never easy to talk about price increases. It is never easy. But what is a responsible government? A responsible government is one that not only takes care of the short-term needs of our people but also the future. A responsible government is one that prices the essentials properly, and not distort the market, leading to more subsidies that will burden our future generations. A responsible government is not one that will raise the price and not take especially greater care of the poor.

A responsible government is not one that pretends that we will make difficult decisions but no one will have to bear the greater part of the responsibility to help those with less.

Finally, a responsible government is one which knows what is not sustainable and will put a stop to it now. This is not a wait-and-see Budget. If this is a wait-and-see Budget, we would not have to put in place the mechanisms for carbon pricing, we would not have to talk about diesel tax, we would not have to talk about water tax.

If this is a political Budget, we do not have to talk about any of these topics. So, I submit to the House that this is a government that has the heart of its people at its core. We know the pressures in the short term. We are doing what we can in a targeted manner. But more importantly, we know the long-term challenges facing our country and we will do what is right, what is necessary, to leave behind a better state for our future generations to build on. [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

5.31 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker. Once again, Finance Minister Heng has delivered a Budget that is squarely aimed at the future. I commend him for his far-sighted approach and the courage to take measures that might be unpopular. In this speech, I will first speak about innovation in the Government and industry and then touch on the impact on families.

First, let me speak about the Government. Minister Heng boldly introduced a permanent 2% cut on the budget caps for all Ministries and agencies. Can the Minister clarify what will be the implication of this? How will the Government ensure this makes it more effective?

Will this affect the budget for hiring and retaining civil servants and, thus, the quality of the Civil Service? I think the Civil Service in Singapore is generally corruption-free and competent and much better than many other countries. But there is room for improvement in some areas. Some civil servants focus more on the rules of their own agency, instead of looking at what outcome will benefit Singaporeans.

Let me give Members an example. I recently visited a newly completed Build-To-Order (BTO) development, Khatib Court, which is beside Khatib MRT. It is a beautiful development, but it has one very strange feature. It has a covered linkway that is hanging and not completed. To me, it is not completed. It comes from Khatib Court, and here is the MRT station, and there is a gap of 10 metres. So, I asked the Housing and Development Board (HDB) what happened. Are you training my residents to be 10-metre sprinters, especially during rainy days? Then, they shared with me that it is because they faced a lot of challenges and the requirements from the Land Transport Authority which they said they cannot meet. Therefore, they aborted that portion. I called a meeting, both sat together, and I told both parties, "Regardless of what happens, I must have this covered linkway." Everyone forgot about the hassle-free first-mile and last-mile connectivity. [Please refer to "Personal Explanation", Official Report, 3 March 2017, Vol 94, Issue No 38, Personal Explanation section.]

I can give you another example, another one of my new BTO developments, Palm Breeze. As usual, I asked HDB to construct a covered linkway from the nearest block to the nearest bus stop. HDB agreed and the consultants submitted the plans. And what happens? Part of the covered linkway sits on top of a drain. So, PUB said, "No. No structure is supposed to be on top of my drain. Shift your footpath out into the grass verge." And you know grass verge belongs to who, right? The National Parks Board (NParks). NParks said, "Nothing is supposedly to sit on my grass verge." So, I do not know what innovation solutions that PUB and NParks can think of.

Today, Palm Breeze residents have collected their keys, are shifting in, and the plans are still not approved. Maybe I should seek our Coordinating Minister's help. [Laughter.] These are only small projects and we meet so many obstacles. In bigger policy decisions, I am sure there are even bigger roadblocks. Can our civil servants not be more result-oriented and objective-driven instead of just guarding their own turf?

I note that some of the funds cut from agencies will be diverted to cross-agency projects. I hope this will improve cross-agency cooperation and reduce such problems, instead of creating yet another layer of bureaucracy.

I also hope some of the funds will be used to examine innovation in the Government and in shoring up our ability to give innovative solutions. There are many ways the Government can be more innovative, and I will suggest some below, especially with regard to the construction industry and the environment.

For the construction industry, I am pleased that the Government will bring forward $700 million in infrastructure projects, including construction of community centres and facilities for sports and the arts. At the back of my mind, I was thinking, hopefully, this would include a new swimming complex in Yishun which I have been asking for.

But ultimately, for the construction industry, $700 million is not really enough to make an impact. Can the Government increase this number? The construction industry has been facing lots of pressures from the economic slowdown and Government requirements. I have heard that some smaller companies could not pay their staff on time. In 2017, their foreign workers' levy will go up again and they will be affected by the diesel tax, too. Can the Government consider deferring their levy increase till better times, like for the marine and process sectors?

More generally, while there are many efforts to assist small and medium enterprises (SMEs), I hope our Government can support the construction sector more to adopt more efficient work methods, so that they can raise their productivity. I spoke about innovation in the Government. Is there anyone in the Government to focus on such efforts, instead of only implementing rules?

Let me give Members an example, building information modelling, which we have been talking about for many years in the construction industry. And what happens today? Architects do the beam modelling just enough for submission. Later on, contractors come aboard, they do their own beam model again because they cannot use what the architects have produced.

Next, I would like to speak on sports. As the past President of the Singapore Table Tennis Association and Adviser for Singapore Swimming Association (SSA), I have witnessed how challenging it can be, from administration to the pressure of ensuring that our athletes perform at the highest level. But I have to ask this very pertinent question.

Are our national sports associations (NSAs) given enough support for the retention of staff? The work which is done by the secretariat can be challenging and, what is worse, there is a lot of administrative processes which need to be completed before funding is released − all for good reasons.

However, are our NSAs' secretariat staff being remunerated well enough at least up to market rate? How will any, if at all, funding cuts affect the secretariat staff? Also, are our NSAs getting enough support from the Singapore Sports Institute on sports science, nutritionists, biomechanics and so on?

These are as important as funding itself. For example, the Singapore Sports Institute's (SSI's) biomechanic who is assigned to SSA does not look after just the needs of SSA but also has other NSA responsibilities. Likewise, for the physiotherapists. But this sports science support system must be almost around the clock, 24/7, including weekends, because the swimmers are trained and also taking part in competitions during weekends.

Joseph Schooling's gold medal at the Rio Olympics has only further proven how sports is an important component for nation-building. We should try to find more ways to support our athletes and NSAs.

Let me now turn to the environment. This Budget introduced some bold moves to change habits, like the water price increase, carbon tax and diesel tax. But there are more ways we can be more sustainable. One, I urge the Government to invest more in infrastructure for green energy, such as the use of natural gas.

Two, we need to do more to promote reduction of consumption, that is use less, reduce waste and more recycling, that is, reduce, reuse, recycle. We need to push the awareness of what will contaminate recyclables, so that nearly half of the recyclables collected do not have to be thrown away.

Every time I pass by the blue bin, I will peep into the blue bin. Almost every one of them is contaminated. I do not think our blue bins in our housing estates work.

Besides the recycling bins, how can we make it easier for everyone to recycle? More recycling bins in public next to trash cans, perhaps? Reward people for recycling? I urge the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources to think deeper about this.

Three, in Singapore, electric cars are still expensive, around three times as expensive as regular cars. What can we do to provide incentives to car buyers? For example, in the US, the federal government provides tax credits of up to US$7,500 for each electric vehicle purchased. Some states also allow electric vehicles and vehicles carrying two or more people to use special lanes, to beat the jam. All these encourage consumption and production of electric vehicles.

Four, ensure that foreign cars coming into Singapore are subject to the same emission standards as local cars, if they want to drive on our roads.

Five, the water price increase will have an impact on production costs, that is, 2% to 4% increase in production of semi-conductors, for example, I was told. Our companies are competing in the global markets. In Malaysia, China and Taiwan, for example, the price of water is negligible. So, we would lose our competitiveness. Many of our companies are already doing water recycling and I hope the Government can work with the industry to see how we can do more water recycling to retain our competitiveness.

I was told that, currently, about 40% of the water is recycled in the semi-conductor sector. Can we increase it to 70%, like in Germany and Taiwan? Will there be any tax rebates or grants for the cost of adopting water recycling? Speaking of water, let me briefly speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Earlier, Minister Masagos explained why the price of water was raised. I will not speak about it again.

But can the Minister provide an explanation, recently, in spite of the rainy season, if the reservoir in Johor can only reach one-third of its capacity, can we get a supply of water without any disruption when the dry season comes? Or will there be a water crisis? What steps will PUB take to help residents save water and reduce their bills?

Finally, I hope the Government can monitor cases where operators transfer their cost to their consumers. These could be delivery operators in connection with the diesel tax, or food stall operators in connection with the water price hike. The increase in their sale prices should not exceed the increase in cost.

(In English): Please allow me to summarise my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] There are many bold measures in Budget 2017 which focus on Singapore's future. However, I hope that the Government can see how these measures will impact families and companies. I would like to ask the Minister to explain whether our water supply is in danger. It is rainy season recently but the reservoir in Johor is only one-third full. Will we have enough water during the dry season? Will there be a crisis? How do we help our families to save water and reduce water cost? The Government should also keep a close watch on businesses to make sure that they will not pass on the increase to consumers or even take the opportunity to raise prices.

For the manufacturing industry, the water price increase, carbon tax and diesel tax will all lead to cost pressures. To keep our manufacturing industry competitive, how can the Government incentivise them to save and recycle water?

For the construction industry, although the Government has brought forward Government projects worth $700 million, with so many companies in the construction industry, the $700 million is not enough to be shared by them. Can the Government bring forward more projects and help the construction industry to adopt more efficient work processes?

Lastly, will the reduction in the budget for various Government agencies affect the services provided to Singaporeans? It is undeniable that a small number of civil servants insist on sticking to their agency's rules, making simple things complicated. I hope that the Government can make use of the money saved to improve cross-agency collaboration and cultivate creative thinking amongst civil servants.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.

5.47 pm

Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, this is a prudent Budget. It is reassuring to know that we are recording a Budget surplus of $5.2 billion, larger than the estimated surplus of $3.5 billion for financial year 2016, so that the Government will have the ability and, I am sure, the willingness, too, to step in with more assistance should the conditions turn further south in this volatile and uncertain environment.

The Government has been rolling out incentives to support innovation and get businesses to increase productivity to counter cost increases. However, as innovation and the adoption of new technologies to increase productivity take time, the progress has been slow.

One main reason could be that businesses, while raising productivity, have to continue to provide jobs for our citizens. In the domestically oriented sectors which hire more workers than export-oriented sectors, productivity growth is understandably marginal. The capital required for automation and productivity projects can be substantial, and Government grants and subsidies only offset a portion of these costs. While still coping with rising costs, in particular, labour costs, the impending increase in utilities cost due to the increase in water prices and the proposed carbon tax would be additional financial burdens.

With the proposed 2% downward adjustment to the budget caps of all Ministries and Organs of State, we can foresee a decrease in Government projects available for public tender. The profit margins on these projects will be lower and companies that cannot reinvent themselves or keep up with productivity may find it difficult to stay afloat.

Under such circumstances, would Singapore continue to be an attractive place for international companies to do business in? How will the Government continue to support SMEs to overcome these multiple challenges?

Any increase in cost of utilities, such as water, gas and electricity, has significant impacts on the economy. It may be that water accounts for a small share of overall business costs and consumer expenses.

Nonetheless, consider the knock-on and multiplier effects. A small SME may not be a large consumer of water. That would not stop their suppliers from raising the cost of supplies as a result of the water price increase. Neither would it prevent the management corporation of the SMEs' office building from raising their maintenance fees. The staff of the SMEs may need higher salaries to pay more to their respective Town Councils, children's service providers, and grocers. Eventually, the SMEs would have little choice but to pass on these added costs to end consumers.

We do not question the need to increase water prices. There are very good bases to justify the increase. The timing of the increase is of concern.

It is usual for price increases to coincide with the revenue recovery cycle of the economy. Businesses are experiencing slow to negative revenue growth. With the drive to push productivity in a tight labour market, every added burden to business costs could hurt the viability of the business.

For individuals, Government credits and rebates lessen the direct impact of the water price increase to the households. The indirect knock-on effects mentioned earlier are of bigger concern. We expect hawkers to up their food prices. What we are unsure of is the quantum of the increase. While coffee merchants had said that the higher water costs would not affect the coffee prices, the hawkers themselves may be faced with more expensive supplies and higher cleaning fees, and they, in turn, have to pass on these costs to the consumers.

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

The Government would have conducted an extensive study into the impact of the water price increase on all the economic and social sectors. Would the Government consider releasing the details to the public so as to prepare them for all the likely consequences and scenarios? The Government should also further reassure the public that they have mechanisms in place to prevent profiteering by businesses on the back of this increase. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The increase in water price can be complemented by a push to change consumer habits in water usage. In this regard and to further assist the families, could the Government consider giving incentives or introducing a lower tier tariff for households that consume less water either on a household or on a per capita basis?

Since water consumption depends on family size and not flat type, it might be more effective for rebates to be given based on the number of persons residing in the household. A larger household would need more support from the Government than a smaller household staying in a similar flat type.

(In English): Let me now touch on boosting demand for our economy. I applaud the strategies to bring forward or increase infrastructure projects. Bringing forward $700 million worth of infrastructure projects will certainly help the construction sector. These projects will also create demand for services and products downstream − contractors, engineers, designers, information technology providers and so forth.

The Government can do more to boost local demand by including a "Buy Singapore" requirement. "Buy Singapore" should apply to both goods and services. From locally produced fish and vegetables when catering for meals at events to engaging the services of a Singaporean infocomm technology company, as long as the specifications are met and fees are reasonable, we should support Singapore suppliers and vendors. I am sure that some level of support is already occurring in our Government departments but a higher level of awareness and a stronger official mandate will go a long way to boost demand.

Such a campaign will also send a signal to the market and individual consumers: if we do not support our own, who will? Supporting our local companies and encouraging them to keep improving is the only way to help them grow big enough to spread their wings beyond our shores to increase their revenue sources which shall help mitigate the ever-increasing costs.

We should also ask ourselves if there are local industries that may potentially have an advantage in serving the domestic market that can be encouraged, supported or better funded to help them to grow. This is an important question which merits further and urgent study.

In addition, the Government can award companies which meet prerequisite standards within their industries with an official "Proudly Made in Singapore" product stamp or "Proudly Singapore" service logo. This will incentivise our local companies to strive for higher quality. Hopefully, in time, the "Made in Singapore" label will be as trusted and respected as "Made in Japan" or "Made in Germany" labels.

"Buy Singapore" also ties in with another important national objective − environmental sustainability. Minister Heng has highlighted the importance of sustainability in his speech and introduced measures targeted towards more sustainable business practices and consumer behaviour with the increase in water pricing, introduction of carbon tax and promoting the use of cleaner vehicles.

These measures will no doubt increase Singaporeans' awareness of the importance of environmental sustainability. In fact, many customers now actively look for products that are not detrimental to the environment, with a lower carbon footprint.

Buying products that are made or manufactured closer to home would be one way of reducing one's carbon footprint. For example, we can have more locally farmed produce, fashion or household items using materials that are preferably locally sourced. Not all companies will eventually grow into large multinational industries but they can play a part in fulfilling our collective environmental agenda.

I am happy to note that our young are being inculcated with the right values towards our environment. Teachers of preschoolers use the "Preschool 3R Awareness Kit"; older children have the "Youth for the Environment Day" platform to showcase environmental activities. As a father, I noticed that even composition and essay topics from primary school up to junior college use environmental issues as a recurring theme. We, as adults, must set good examples and take the lead in our family lives and in our professions to protect our environment for our present and future generations.

I urge the Government to continue to provide more support to community-based projects that are environmentally beneficial. As the Government and people work together to ensure environmentally sustainable practices, we will lay the foundation for an even more beautiful and liveable home for our future generations. With this, I conclude my support for the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong.

5.57 pm

Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Budget is variously viewed. In some quarters, it is viewed as underwhelming. And there are some of us who question the timeliness of the imposition of tariffs. There are, of course, others who support the Budget and the Debate will just go on and on, even after the Committee of Supply (COS).

But to me, this is a Budget of hope because it is a Budget that tells us that despite the challenges and difficulties that have caused many a good man to stay awake and to worry, that this is an opportunity for us to move ahead for many years to come. With that, it also brings a caution that it requires us to understand what these challenges are, what the difficulties are, what they will morph into and what new ones will appear on the horizon, and how we may convert them into our strengths. That alone is already daunting.

But this is not surprising. We live in daunting times. So, we cannot live like we used to live. We cannot think like we used to think. I submit that the Budget would not achieve its objectives if we implemented and relied on the Budget measures without a mindset change. Without discarding all that we have learnt and built in our individual and collective memories and achievements, we must, nonetheless, recognise that our success yesterday and today could be our failure tomorrow. In other words, we must be prepared to say that something that has worked before may need to be changed before it is too late.

There is a saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". In times like this, I think we do not have the luxury of waiting for some things to break. But of course, unfortunately, something has already broken and this is something that bothers and troubles me a lot.

We hear a lot about the disconnect between the Government and the people. And I have spoken with businesses, friends and associates and they complain about difficult times and I asked them, "Why not try and seek the Government grants?" They say, "It is no use. It is too difficult. They do not understand." And I wonder why. Why do we have a disconnect?

We have heard it so many times. Is there anyone doing anything about it? Because if there is truly a disconnect, then whatever we are going to implement in our Budget is not really going to achieve what we want to achieve, because we are not going to be "one". We are not going to have that unity of vision and the unity of mind and the singleness of heart to move forward. I hear so much and I am concerned.

I understand that there are structural shifts that have caused unemployment and redundancies. But I wonder, as some people have asked me, whether some redundancies could have been caused because the Government overlooked certain trends and certain sectors. Was it because there were emerging sectors or fledging sectors that we did not, despite industries' feedback, nurture and grow?

I do not know, I do not have the answers. But I hope it is something that we can look into to address this disconnect that we now perceive on the ground. I am concerned because if we do not address the "disconnect", if we do not come across to our people as being willing to re-examine where we may have fallen short, that is very difficult to inspire confidence during difficult times. And now, I come back to the main point of this message which I am sharing today. I beg your pardon.

On mindset changes. A mindset change is what we need, because if we do not change our mindsets, the Budget will just be a bag of schemes and measures. But if we change our mindsets, it can be turned into a powerful game changer for Singapore. So, what do I mean by mindsets? I have nothing to share, nothing to define the mindset with. All I know is that there is a fear that, over the years, the universal values of compassion, empathy, of the ethos of hard work, of caring for one another, of the duty to country, community, family, self, and the respect for one another may have eroded.

We may need the change in mindset in each individual citizen for us to come back to where we should be. To know that we owe a duty to ourselves and to our country for the Budget to work. But we also need a change in the mindset of the Public Service and of the corporates. I say this with some consideration, not that I do not believe in the quality of the Public Service, but rather that I think, someone has to say some hard things.

I am very heartened that the Budget continues to talk about developing capabilities and employability of Singaporean workers. And I say the Government, employers and Singaporean workers must believe in that. You say, "Is it not odd?" The Government is the one that says we must develop the capabilities. And why do I say the Government must believe in that? It is because of that "disconnect" that I talked about earlier.

Whilst we hear in this House Ministerial speeches and Members' speeches about what we believe in, about the seriousness of the global situation and our dependence on other external factors, I fear that the seriousness of the message may not have filtered through to every level of the Public Service. I do not know. Perhaps, my comments are not fair. But I think that if people believe in what the Government wants, then the way they design their schemes will be very different. If they believe in the schemes achieving what the schemes are meant to achieve, then the way they implement the schemes will be very different. It will not be just a question, I hope, of checking checklists, ticking the boxes or keeping an eye on key performance indicators (KPIs). But it will be with that knowledge and that consciousness that every decision we make in matching and in granting a grant to an organisation, we are making a difference to our country and to our companies.

And I want to talk about developing the capabilities and employability of Singaporean workers because I believe in it. And quite frequently, when I talked about the Singaporean Core, well-meaning people would remind me, "Be careful, you could be misunderstood as xenophobic or protectionist". Let it be clear − I am neither. Companies will come and go. But the Singaporean Core will remain connected to Singapore and we need to develop the Singaporean Core.

Schemes and measures are critical. How do we develop a Singaporean Core? Just through schemes and measures, if the employers are not committed? And how can employers be committed if they are not so persuaded by the persons who grant them the grants and make the schemes and measures available to them?

I hope that all businesses, local or MNCs, will commit to developing the Singaporean Core. I want to say we welcome partners, but not raiders. I want to say that we must not be embarrassed to tell investors that we would like them to invest in Singaporean workers. This is because we also need to build our own industry movers and shakers. We should not be happy with big companies setting up facilities here only to build foot soldiers for us. We want them here because we want to develop our own people, and we must not forget that.

As I said, I am not a protectionist, but I want to remind ourselves that companies will only stay in Singapore if there are benefits to them. We must ensure that when they leave Singapore, we continue to have the human capital that made them successful, and that the human capital will be our Singaporean Core.

I want to touch on another subject that is also very close to my heart. At the last Budget, I spent half of my speech on that and, that is, on innovation. I understand that since then, there have been some changes. I have filed some cuts, so I hope to hear more. But I still hope that when our agencies are restructured, when our agencies reformulate the policies, we would be doing so in the context of what is good for our country.

I hope that we would lift ourselves beyond our historical baggage within each agency and reach out to our community partners. I hope that when we negotiate licences and ownership and partnership agreements with industries and companies, we will be thinking about what is right and what is fair, and what will incentivise creativity and innovation. And we will not try to win a greater share of the rights just for the sake of that. I hope that when we deal with people who are partnering the Government agencies, we will think about our country and not our KPIs.

In the area of employment, where again we need mindset changes, we have worked very, very hard to reach to private employers. We have also worked very hard to reach to the public sector. And we are encouraged that the Government continues to affirm its commitment to assist persons with disabilities to be trained for and find employment. There are many of us who have called on the Public Service, being the largest employer sector, to take the lead and to employ persons with disabilities. We do not ask for a compromise of the principle of meritocracy. We do not ask for an accommodation of our inability. We ask only for accommodation of our disability.

We were, therefore, encouraged when the Public Service Division (PSD) announced in 2016 its plans to recruit persons with disabilities. I met with Mr Peter Ong, Head of Civil Service, and his team. I was touched by Mr Ong's personal interest and commitment, as well as that of a couple of Permanent Secretaries whom I have interacted with over time, their commitment for the Civil Service to employ persons with disabilities.

I do recognise, of course, that the final employment decisions rightly are left to the respective agencies. Nonetheless, my observations are that unless the human resource teams of PSD and the respective agencies share the same values and commitment as the Head of the Civil Service, we will not be able to progress. I will await the replies to my COS cuts, but I think from my understanding, ground-up, this is another area where a mindset change is required. We need to be afraid not to change, we need not be afraid to change. When the Government sets the example, it stands on stronger moral grounds to urge the private sector to employ able persons with disabled bodies.

I speak at the risk of offending my good and dear friends in the Public Service, of offending those in the Public Service who have earned my respect. But I speak as a Singaporean, proud of our Public Service, and proud that our Public Service can be better. And I share this both with a heavy heart and with hope, that as we look at how people are reacting to the policies that we have, we will think about how we can improve.

In the same vein, I also would like to urge my fellow Singaporeans to take responsibility for our lives and our future. I think it is time for us to stop moaning that there is not enough assistance. I think there is time now for us to take our own future into our hands, take what the Government has given to us, but shape it with our own hands.

The Government can only do so much. The Public Service is made up of imperfect human beings like ourselves. And if we want them to be bold, to experiment, grow and lead, then we have to allow them to fail. And when they fail, we must be ready to support them.

What I want to say is that this is a Budget that gives us hope, but only if we decide that we want to move forward on our own two feet, with the Government supporting us. If we want to build a future for ourselves and our children, and we want to build a future for our Singaporeans and hold our heads high, then we must learn to stand on our own two feet, and we must learn to stand for one another. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Budget Statement. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

6.14 pm

Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I concur with our hon Member Ms Chia Yong Yong and what she just mentioned about paradigm shift and mindset change. And the mindset change should not just be about the Civil Service. It should extend to all private sectors and all Singaporeans. If all Singaporeans have the mindset to do the best they can for themselves, the country, their families, I think Singapore will continue to be a shining red dot for many more centuries to come.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me just thank the Finance Minister for putting up this Budget at a time when there are so many unforeseen circumstances amidst this changing political landscape globally. Many Singaporeans had waited with much anticipation for this year's Budget because some feared that there would be austerity measures, while others were hopeful for goodies that can be given for this Budget.

I stared long and hard at this Budget after the Finance Minister delivered this Budget last week. In fact, this is one Budget that I categorise as a caring Budget − a three "care" Budget - it cares for the future, it cares for the people and it cares for the environment.

I am happy to note that this Budget has a very strong focus on business, especially on all the recommendations by CFE. It is about jobs, long-term viability and the growth of the economy. Of course, there is also much social support to help the needy to tide over, as they are the most vulnerable group during these difficult times. But this is not the first time that this Government has been doing it. This Government has been doing it all along. Last of all, I am very happy to note that this Budget has much more for the environment this time round, compared to the last two years. These are important issues because environmental issues concern sustainability and our living standards in the long run. However, we should look at how, as we improve our environment, not to impose too much of a burden on our people.

I would like to focus on three things in this particular Budget. First is the inflationary impact of the water as well as the diesel tax. Second is the future carbon tax which the Finance Minister mentioned. Third is about globalisation of our students as well as our workers.

First, the inflationary impact of the water and diesel tax. Last week, as I was driving, I was listening to some of the talk shows talking about this water tax increase. Of course, there was a lot of public unhappiness about this water increase. Quite surprisingly, we heard one academic from one of the IHLs mentioning that the increase should be much more, that it should be more than 30%, that it should be 100%, to deliver a shock effect so that people will start to save water. I hope that is not the intent of the Government to deliver a shock effect. In fact, I think the Members of both sides of the House have helped to deliver this shock to everybody. And the Government is scrambling now trying to relieve this shock from everybody, to say that the impact is not that bad in the first place.

I would like to ask the Government whether before they considered this 30% hike in the water price over the next two years, particularly for the man-on-the-street, did they do an impact study as to what is the real impact on the economy. For domestic households, what percentage of their monthly utility bills does water consumption constitute on average? And thanks to public education efforts, in fact, many domestic households, on the whole, are quite streetwise with their water usage. In fact, the water usage trend has been trending downwards in terms of water usage per capita. However, based on feedback from my residents, many are still concerned that water consumption cost will make up a significant portion of their monthly expenditure with this increase. So, I hope the Government would dismiss that notion.

Water, like fuel, is something which has a very strong knock-on impact on the community as a whole. We need water to drink, prepare food, cook and wash, sanitation, and it applies to all, including eateries and school canteen operators, not to mention hotels. We need water to maintain a certain standard of cleanliness in public areas, homes, hospitals and buildings, and in keeping our public transport vehicles clean. We need water for factory production processes and a whole gamut of various industrial activities that we see in our industrial parks.

I dread to think about how this will impact the cost of living. This year, we started off by having to cope with the rise in electricity tariffs by an average of 5.7% or 1.07 cents per kilowatt hour for the period of January-March, compared to the previous quarter, as announced by power provider SP Services on 30 December 2016. This was due to the higher cost of natural gas for electricity generation, which increased by 10.6% compared to the previous quarter.

The big question is, so, why does there seem to be such an urgency to raise the water price after 17 years? Why was the water price not raised in between? Why wait until 17 years later, especially now when Town Councils have already revised their service and conservancy charges on households? In fact, the rise in water price could have also pulled the rug from under the Town Council, as they would be facing higher operating cost now arising from the revision of the price of water. The inflationary effect may well negate the various rebates and other schemes that were spelt out in the Budget. I know it is a tough call for the Finance Minister but I hope at least there will be some explanation given to address the public concerns.

The commonly heard complaint from residents is that the rebates are sort of one-off on a year-to-year basis, but the effects of the increase are long term and would stay long after the rebates have expired. But many had ignored the fact that the Minister had also announced a permanent increase in Goods and Services Tax (GST) Voucher and U-Save on top of the one-off GST Voucher special payment. May I ask if the price revision could have been considered to phase out in a longer period, such as increasing at 10% per year over the next three years? Or why not adopt an even more progressive water tariff to tax those with higher water consumption?

Major cities in many countries, such as the US, France, Australia and China, have adopted the use of multiple-tiered water pricing, alternatively known as progressive water tariffs, or increasing the block tariffs. According to a research study by Stanford University's Water in the West Programme, tiered water pricing is a critical tool in incentivising water conservation. Under such a pricing system, the first block with the lowest pricing usually corresponds with the amount of water that a typical household requires for basic needs, such as bathing, domestic cleaning and cooking. Each subsequent tier then commands a higher charge on excessive water usage that applies to luxuries like maintaining large gardens or swimming pools.

China is a country with a multiple-tiered water pricing system. Like us, their price of water is state controlled. Water prices are low by international standards, but there is a problem for them, because their water per capita availability is low. By raising water prices, the authorities feared would intensify the income inequality, as water consumption represents a higher share of income for low-income households. The local governments experimented with multiple-tiered pricing systems for urban households and industrial users, charging higher prices for higher water consumption. And these reforms have found to achieve their desired outcomes and, as such, from 2015, all localities started to adopt the new water pricing system for China.

However, the concern with a tiered water pricing system may not be of much help to low-income households with many, many family members. Certainly, no system is perfect. So, I hope the Government is continuously exploring ways to keep the cost of water affordable for low-income families, while discouraging excessive use of water.

Next is the diesel tax. This is another inflationary impact on the people and on businesses as a whole. There are about 185,000 Singapore-registered diesel vehicles on the roads. They account for about 20% of the vehicle population in 2015. Most are trucks, vans and commercial vehicles, rather than passenger cars. What can we expect? Another round of price increases by transport operators, including school bus transport for school children? Many businesses use their vehicles to transport workers and equipment to and from worksites. Not just that, but many of the diesel vehicles are used for transporting and delivering goods, from wholesalers to retailers, from retailers to consumers, especially for online purchases as well. These are diesel vans that are used for various purposes, as handymen also use them for delivery for plumbing services, carpentry and electrical services, even delivery of liquified petroleum gas to homes and eateries. I am worried that we may see an uptick in their fees when they are called upon now to do minor repairs for our households.

The knock-on effect would thus be across the board. I know the Budget is giving help to businesses to adjust by providing commercial diesel vehicles with a 100% road tax rebate for one year, and a partial road tax rebate for another two years. There is an additional cash rebate for operators for diesel buses ferrying school children. We should reduce the road tax for diesel vehicles further to be on par with petrol vehicles. What will the Government be doing to ensure that all these rebates will be filtered down to the consumers?

Taken together, may I ask the Finance Minister what is the predicted inflationary effect of both the water price increase as well as the diesel duty implementation on the Singapore economy in the near and medium term?

Next, carbon tax. I am deeply concerned about the impending carbon tax that has just been announced for 2019 which the Finance Minister mentioned. Although the proposed tax will generally apply upstream on power stations and other large direct emitters, it will have a knock-on effect on all electric users, both domestic and commercial. We signed the Paris Agreement on climate change at the United Nations last April and affirmed our support and commitment to the Agreement. Singapore ranks 123rd in emissions intensity out of 142 countries worldwide, but promised that the country will "continue to do more", to quote the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' statement. The introduction of a carbon tax in 2019 is a good move to stay in step with international standards on environmental conservation. We pledged to reduce emission intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030 and stabilise emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030. It is still in the early days, but I would like to know what is the Government's take on how challenging it will be to meet this goal.

I note that to encourage car buyers to switch to cleaner and environmentally-friendly models, the current Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS) will be replaced. There will be a new Vehicular Emissions Scheme. The new scheme considers four other pollutants, on top of carbon dioxide, so as to account more holistically for the health and environmental impact of vehicular emissions. The Budget states that the new Vehicular Emissions Scheme will run for two years, starting from 1 January next year and will be reviewed before it expires. In the interim, CEVS will be extended till 31 December this year. How bad are we performing or how good are we performing, in terms of the area of carbon emissions? How much more carbon have we emitted over the past two decades? Taking into account that we are a very small country with very limited potential to tap on renewable energy, what can we do to reduce our carbon emission? Is the Government considering the introduction of a Climate Bill in tackling this carbon tax?

I feel that we should spend more resources to explore the use of solar energy. There is a lot of scope and potential for us now to tap on solar energy as the cost of solar panels has dropped over the years. Another positive outcome of implementing the carbon tax would be that it serves as a motivation for companies and businesses to innovate with cleaner, greener energy sources. I hope the Government can use the revenue collected under this carbon tax to help businesses with this endeavour and also promote green innovation.

I think solar technology is something that we should tap on a larger scale. May I ask what is the Government doing to encourage and incentivise commercial, domestic and the public sector to harness the potential source of renewable energy so as to lower our carbon footprint? We should also look at how to help homeowners to use solar energy. And Town Councils should look at this as a source of energy for the future.

My last point is learning from overseas globalisation. In a globalised society, it is important to be exposed to foreign countries, whether it is culture, education system, the job market and so forth. I note that the Budget presents a slew of measures under the Global Innovation Alliance to help businesses and employees to operate overseas. One such measure is helping students in Singapore universities getting work experience in foreign startups.

I would like to propose to the Government to help local universities to establish tie-ups with universities in Europe. This is a region with huge cultural diversity. They are also accomplished in many important sectors, including technology, finance, medicine, the arts and so on. We should explore student exchange programmes with Grandes Écoles in France, and also many other design and engineering institutions in Germany and Scandinavian universities which are also known for their innovation. In the INSEAD Global Innovation Index 2016, Switzerland was ranked first, Sweden was ranked second, the UK third, with the US fourth, Finland fifth and Singapore sixth. Currently, many university courses offer exchange programmes, but these programmes are often short term, with a focus on academics. I hope partnerships can be developed with the aim of helping students establish a longer-term residence and also obtaining residency in terms of internship programmes and job opportunities in their host country.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Budget reveals the Government's foresight and meticulous planning for the future. With these measures to guide us, I am confident that we can look forward to a brighter, cleaner, greener and more sustainable future. I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Teo Ho Pin.

6.29 pm

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget.

First, building capabilities. I support the key thrusts of the Budget, namely: first, to build capabilities among our businesses and people; second, to seek new opportunities in the changing and uncertain global market; and third, to build a caring and resilient community in Singapore.

As proposed by the Finance Minister, there is a dire need for Singaporeans and our businesses to embrace digital technology so that we can seize opportunities to pursue a better quality of life in the future.

The proposed SMEs Go Digital Programme will definitely help our SMEs to enhance their digital capabilities and improve business operations, providing better customer services in turn. However, the key challenge faced by SMEs lies in training staff to go digital or recruiting and retaining staff who already possess the skills to do so. Due to the different learning abilities of workers, there is a need to adopt more standardised and industry-wide digital solutions. This will help to reduce the learning curve and ensure that the workers' new-found skills are applicable in various companies.

To further support a digital economy, we must also equip consumers to be digital savvy. Many Singaporeans, especially the elderly, are still facing difficulties using e-services and smartphone applications. Thus, I would propose that we provide free e-services and smartphone applications training at every Community Club (CC) to build digital capabilities in our community.

Second, construction ITM. Sir, I fully support the focus to transform our industries through close partnerships with trade associations and chambers. The construction industry is complex and comprises many stakeholders and trade associations. At present, there is a general lack of initiatives from the ground up, as well as the necessary leadership to bring the industry into the future.

Over the last 30 years, limited progress has been made to enhance professionalism, productivity and quality in the construction industry. To date, construction productivity is low, while its quality has struggled to meet clients' expectations. The industry's professional practices currently leave plenty of room for improvement as well.

Sir, the Construction Industry Joint Committee (CIJC) is a ground-up initiative formed by eight professional bodies and trade associations of the construction industry in 1997. Its main role is to provide feedback to the Government and be a think-tank to discuss strategies for industry development.

Sir, I have recently accepted to be the advisor of CIJC and have urged CIJC to take a more proactive role to spearhead the development of the construction industry. With that said, I also hope that the Government can co-chair with CIJC to jointly develop the construction ITM.

I am pleased to note that the Budget has provided a $150-million Public Sector Productivity Fund to allow Government agencies to procure innovative and productive construction solutions. Based on the findings of the Auditor-General's Office, there are often lapses in the procurement and project management of Government projects. This is mainly attributed to a lack of expertise in inexperienced staff with regard to procurement and project management in the public sector.

I would like to propose that the Government set up a Public Sector Construction Division similar to the former Public Works Department. As we move towards building a vibrant and connected city, we must ensure that the public sector has a core group of project managers and facilities managers to procure, implement and manage public sector projects. The public sector can take the lead to develop a professionalism and quality assurance framework that incorporates industry best practices to upgrade the construction industry.

Third, building a quality environment. Sir, I support the bringing forward of $700 million worth of public sector infrastructure projects, especially in the upgrading of community clubs and sports facilities. In line with the Government's push for environmental sustainability and the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES) programme, the North West Community Development Council launched its Eco CC@North West programme in October 2016, which focuses on two key areas of improvement for CCs, namely, first, the green "hardware", and second, the green "software".

Green "hardware" refers to infrastructural works to enhance the environmental performance of CCs, which include aspects of energy and water efficiencies, while green "software" refers to the promotion of green consciousness and adoption of green practices among the users of CCs, such as using sustainable and environmentally-friendly products, reducing the use of energy and water, maintaining a healthy indoor environment, practising effective waste management and general education on the topic at large.

Bukit Panjang CC was the first CC in Singapore to attain the Building and Construction Authority's Green Mark Gold Plus award under the Non-residential Existing Building Category after its installation of solar panels and retrofitting of its existing building. A CC Green Committee was also set up to promote green living among residents.

The Bukit Panjang CC incurred an expenditure of about $400,000 to install energy-efficient air-conditioning systems, light emitting diode (LED) lightings, water saving sanitary appliances, as well as a green wall to reduce heat transfer.

Sir, as community touchpoints, CCs can play a pivotal role in rallying residents to adopt a green lifestyle. However, one barrier which currently prevents CCs from going green is the lack of funding to introduce green technologies and features into the CCs. Thus, I would like to urge the Minister for Finance to consider providing a one-off Green CC grant to expedite the greening of all CCs in Singapore.

Sir, while I support the introduction of a carbon tax, which is based on the "polluter pays" principle, I am concerned that such a measure will further increase business costs which will ultimately be passed on to consumers. As an alternative to further encourage the adoption of green technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I would urge the Minister for Finance to also consider providing incentives or grants to companies or organisations which support such go-green initiatives.

Sir, since 2011, the 15 People's Action Party Town Councils have implemented the LED bulk tender programme to replace the less energy-efficient 2D, panel light, tubular (T)8 and T5 lightings to LED lightings. To date, we have installed 1.18 million LED lights at the common corridors, staircase landings and void decks of HDB blocks, and are presently installing another 730,000 LED lights to replace lightings at the outdoor open areas. The LED lighting programme will result in about 40% energy saving and, thus, a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Sir, in addition, HDB has been working with the Town Councils to install solar panels in our HDB blocks, thus adopting clean technologies. I would once again urge the Minister for Finance to consider giving grants or incentives to further expedite the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.

6.38 pm

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Sir, I concur with Minister Heng when he said in his Budget Statement that we are in a time of change. There is geopolitical turbulence in the international order. New technologies are disrupting the economies of many countries, including Singapore. Protectionist sentiments in advanced economies threaten the sanctity of Singapore's central economic strategy, that is, free trade.

The Government and our policymakers are very much aware of these macro, seismic global changes and are working tirelessly to ensure that Singapore continues to succeed and progress as a country. However, it is extremely important that we do not lose sight of the perspective of the individual Singaporean; the issues and difficulties that each Singaporean and their families face in their day-to-day lives.

Sir, how does a policy translate on the ground? Will an overall strategy aimed at the collective good result in unintended consequences for individuals? In fact, this is often the greatest complaint amongst Singaporeans, that the Government is too concerned with the big picture and often neglects the perspective of the individual. Is this true?

It is in this context that I rise to address two issues within the Budget Statement. As I am the Government Parliamentary Committee Chair for Transport, I will look at issues that relate to transport specifically. They are (a) the Tiered Additional Registration Fees (ARF) for motorcycles; and (b) the restructuring of the diesel tax.

Sir, at first glance, the new Additional Registration Fee (ARF) regime for motorcycles appears to be an additional tax imposed by the Government on higher end, more expensive motorcycles. Motorcycles with an Open Market Value (OMV) in excess of $10,000 are liable to pay additional ARF on a 100% basis for every dollar above $10,000. This is in addition to the $3,250 that is now payable on the first $10,000.

This represents a significant increase in price for higher end motorcycles. There have already been media reports that estimate that this will put prices of higher end motorcycles close to that of small cars.

Motorcycle enthusiasts say that they have been unfairly "targeted" by the revised ARF regime. Some argue that super cars, such as Ferraris, Lamborghinis or Porsches, should have been at the receiving end of such an increased ARF regime, instead of higher end motorcycles.

The gist of their argument is clear. Motorcyclists who purchase higher end motorcycles come from all walks of life with varying financial means. Owners of super cars, however, belong to the top 0.1% of income earners in Singapore. As such, why not increase the ARF regime on consumers who can better afford to pay? On its face, this is not an unreasonable perspective to take. But a closer look at the Budget Statement suggests that the position is misunderstood.

Minister Heng alluded to two reasons in his Budget Statement for the revised ARF regime for motorcycles. First, that there is a small but rising number of motorcyclists buying expensive motorcycles, and second, after the change in the ARF regime, more than half of motorcycle buyers will continue to pay the current ARF rate of 15%.

The inference is clear. The rising number of motorcyclists buying expensive motorcycles is pushing up the overall costs of all motorcycles. The rising trend of Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices for motorcycles bear this out. COE prices have risen from $889 in January 2010 to $6,412 in February 2017, a multiple of more than six times in seven years.

Owners of smaller motorcycles, who often use their motorcycles as a low-cost mode of transport for work or essential travel, are being made to pay higher COEs because of the increased demand for expensive motorcycles.

The revised ARF, therefore, serves this further purpose ‒ to reduce the demand for expensive motorcycles and, consequently, to lower motorcycle COE prices and lower cost for purchasers of smaller motorcycles.

Sir, the restructuring of the diesel tax is another controversial item for transport in this year's Budget Statement. Reducing reliance on diesel fuel to reduce pollution is an admirable objective. However, this policy has drawn considerable concern from some quarters. The loudest voice amongst them belongs to the class who consumes automotive diesel to make a living. Taxi drivers make up a significant group in this class.

Taxi drivers consume a larger quantity of diesel fuel than all other diesel-run automotive because they travel around continuously to pick up customers. A volume-based tax, therefore, implies that their overheads are likely to increase significantly.

The Government has offset this with a permanent reduction of the Special Tax for taxis. If taxi companies pass this cost saving to taxi drivers, it will go some way to allay their concerns of an increase in overhead costs.

However, if one is to stop and examine the pressures faced by a modern-day taxi driver in Singapore, one can perhaps appreciate their frustrations better. The entry of private hire cars in the point-to-point transport industry and the possible emergence of the automated self-driving cars in the not-too-distant future may give many taxi drivers in Singapore sleepless nights.

These new technologies have disrupted the transport industry considerably and it is important that the Government should manage the concerns of stakeholders affected by the disruption in order to assist in any transition that is necessary.

I shall address this further at the Committee of Supply Debate. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with that, I support the Budget.

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.

6.46 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Mr Deputy Speaker, this year's Budget theme "Moving Forward Together" is an important one. The world is filled with disruptions and the pace of change has quickened so much that nobody can be sure of what works and what does not in the future. We cannot control what happens around us, yet we also cannot passively wait for things to happen before deciding on what to do. What we can do right now is to ensure that we develop the agility to adapt and the willingness to learn.

Therefore, I wholeheartedly agree that we need to focus our energy and precious resources on transforming the industries to create new opportunities and on building the capacity and capabilities of our people, so that we are ready to make full use of the opportunities available. All of these are long-term investments for the future, to make sure that we have the right skills and knowledge for a changing and competitive world. We must get comfortable with change.

Moving forward, we will. The key challenge for Singapore is to respond and change together. The Government is sincere in wanting to move all Singaporeans forward, but it cannot achieve it alone, no matter how strong it is. To move forward together, we need greater support from the Government but also a concerted effort across the different sectors of our society and a willingness in each individual to give our best shot.

We live in a highly competitive world. The fittest amongst us will survive and get ahead, but the more vulnerable amongst us will need help if we are to complete this journey together. Our Government − the body that aggregates and redistributes resources − therefore, has an important role to play. To be fair, our Government has done a lot. But as opposed to giving out even more handouts, let us also look at other ways of giving the help to the more vulnerable ones amongst us and giving them the extra push.

There are a few groups of Singaporeans who could do more with the Government's support, but I would like to highlight just two today.

First, families of unstable income or retrenched workers. Economic growth is expected to slow down and there are uncertainties ahead. Already, retrenchments are going up. Unstable income workers, especially those in odd jobs or contracted without work guaranteed, will see their income fluctuating even more. Given these circumstances, I worry about how their affected families would be able to cope with the rising cost of living.

The near-term measures announced in this Budget, together with existing schemes, are helpful in relieving some of the living cost pressures. But I hope the Government will do more by proactively identifying families showing signs of distress, such as escalating arrears in rent, utilities and service and conservancy charges. Identifying distressed families early will allow the appropriate interventions to be made in a timely manner before the situation gets out of hand, when it would be even more challenging to resolve.

Over the years, I have seen families coming to seek help only after their arrears have compounded for many, many months. By then, the interest would have compounded, late payment penalties would have been slapped on and, perhaps, some families would have even taken personal loans which would just only add on to the liabilities that the family faces. Some of these families did not know that help was available, some simply panicked and went into denial when they saw their escalating arrears. And some were struggling to juggle multiple jobs and did not even have time to seek help. Hence, proactively seeking them out and offering timely interventions will help Singaporeans to focus on their jobs or studies, both of which are essential in ensuring their families' long-term independence and success.

Second, our elderly Singaporeans today and tomorrow. We face a rapidly ageing society in the midst of a rapidly changing environment. Even as we transform and apply resources to transforming our economy and workforce, let us not forget to take steps to help elderly Singaporeans live well into their old age. That means continuing to advance innovations in the eldercare sector so that our seniors today and tomorrow can enjoy a good retirement. With our seniors taken care of, we can then better focus on the big picture and take comfort in the knowledge that no one gets left behind.

We know that Singaporeans are living longer, but a longer life does not necessarily mean more years of healthy good life. This means one will have to spend more on healthcare as one ages. Already, on average, an elderly's out-of-pocket expenditure in healthcare is 7.9%, much higher than a younger person's which ranges between 4.4% and 5.5%, after taking into account Government subsidies and MediSave deductions. This is based on a household expenditure survey in 2012/2013.

The healthcare financial burden on an elderly is, therefore, heavier. The Government's healthcare spending per capita has also been rising from an average of $488 in 2003 to $1,962 in 2016. The old-age support ratio, however, is steadily falling from 9:1 in 2000 to an expected 2:1 in 2030. Not forgetting, infrastructural spending will also have to increase as we accommodate an ageing population. These translate into a greater cost burden on working Singaporeans in the future.

We cannot be building new nursing homes or hiring new people to do the caring on an indefinite basis. It is unsustainable and neither is it the best solution. But the demand for institutional care for the elderly, including the elderly who can actually be independent with a little bit more support in the community, keeps rising, partly because of shrinking family sizes and partly because of changing family values. Therefore, we need to change our thinking about eldercare, and there are several points that I would like to raise in this respect.

First, on manpower. The Ministry of Health has estimated that it would need an addition of about 30,000 more healthcare workers by 2020 and, of this 30,000, about one-third is estimated to be dedicated towards the aged care sector.

Currently, in 2015, about 75% of the healthcare workforce are Singaporeans. But looking ahead, as we need more healthcare workers with this projected increase of 30,000, I wonder if we can continue to maintain this 75% from now till 2020 and beyond.

With more Singaporeans leaving than entering the labour market, will we have enough to meet the rising demand for eldercare? How many and for how long more can we top up with foreign manpower? Could we find ways to recruit more volunteers and organise ourselves in the community better so that the community can step in to supplement manpower demand and fulfil needs?

Second, on digital eldercare. With land scarcity and manpower shortage, the eldercare model needs to shift away from institutions and reserve the residential institutions for the elderly who need highly intensive care.

We should consider leveraging more on technology. As it is, we know that there are technology solutions, such as sensors, assistive devices and telemedicine. Leverage technology to enable independent living at home, even for those who have moderate disabilities and little or no family support. There are already pilots being done with the deployment of the Elderly Monitoring System, for example. But this is just one aspect of an elderly's daily living. Could we look into a more concerted, holistic concept of using digital technology to enable independent living for the elderly? Some solutions are still being developed. Could we then accelerate the lab-to-market process? Could the Government take a point position and lead a nationwide implementation of smart homes for seniors? Could we facilitate the integration of these solutions, so that the elderly can enjoy the services at home in an easy and seamless manner?

In addition to enabling a more independent living for the elderly at home and ageing in place, we should also consider providing and encouraging the provision of digital platforms to link freelance healthcare professionals and caregivers or those with spare capacity, to facilitate on-demand provision of home care or other related elder care services. With the emerging gig economy, such platforms are the next new norm. But some of these platforms are privately run and the elderly who wish to utilise them may be deterred for fear that the subsidies that they may be eligible for cannot be applied via these platforms. Therefore, could the Government look into enabling this?

So, instead of investing money on building new institutions, could we redirect some of this investment to enable more elderly to live independently in their own homes, so that they can continue to go about their daily lives, continue to be part of the neighbourhood that they are so familiar with and truly age in place? Mr Deputy Speaker, if I may continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Deputy Speaker, we live in a world which is changing rapidly. It is not possible to predict what tomorrow will be like. Singapore is a small red dot. Of course, we cannot change the world based on our efforts alone. We can only go with the flow. However, we are not completely helpless. We can help equip companies and our people with the means and capability to keep up with the change. This year's Budget, which will help companies continue their transformation and the people to upskill, is one that takes care of our long-term interests. However, as the Government is working very hard to build our economy for tomorrow, I hope that the Government will not forget to continue assisting Singaporeans who need help, so that they can also keep up with the economy and continue on this journey together.

Let me now talk about our care of the elderly. As our society ages rapidly, our needs on this front will increase dramatically. Medical costs and infrastructure expenditure will inevitably rise. Rather than regarding these as costs that cannot be recouped, why do we not look at how we can help the elderly live more meaningfully? For example, the Government can quicken the pace of building smart homes for the elderly and promote technologies that the elderly will find friendly to use. This will allow the elderly, even those who are not very mobile or in good health or live alone, to continue to live independently and age in place.

The Government should also expand programmes similar to that of the Pioneer Generation Ambassadors, to encourage more elderly to be volunteers as well. As they become active in voluntary work, they will also keep their mind and body healthy. The elderly will not only live well but will also help ease the manpower shortages in the community. This will help ease our own worries and allow us to concentrate on working hard for our future. As the saying goes, having an elderly person at home is like having a treasure in the house. This also holds true for the community.

(In English): The Government clearly can do much to address the challenges we face and the needs we have. However, relying on the Government alone is not enough. Manpower shortage cuts across various sectors. Even with new workforce entrants, there will always be a stiff competition for manpower. There is demand for people in industries that drive Singapore's economic development and there is also demand for people in sectors that provide care for people. With the manpower shortage, what gives?

The community has so far demonstrated how we can organise ourselves and achieve many things without over relying on the Government or, basically, paid workers. If manpower shortage is likely to be permanent and there are still needs to be addressed, perhaps we should look more to the community as a new resource pool − gig volunteers, perhaps?

We have residents who have diverse sets of skills and knowledge and they may also have the capacity outside of work and family time to help. Can we leverage on them more? How can we rally them together and better organise ourselves to address unfulfilled needs? For example, can young retirees who drive help to ferry the older and frailer seniors to their medical appointments? Can housewives with spare capacity help to fetch children, whose families are for some reason unavailable, to and from school? Can well-performing students help to run enrichment and reading programmes for children of low-income or dysfunctional families on a weekly basis? Can physically fit residents form Citizens on Patrol to ensure the security, peace and quiet of the neighbourhood? Can neighbours step forth and be ready to respond to calls for help through the Elderly Monitoring System? These are not difficult things to do but impactful if done.

Of course, these propositions are impositions on Singaporeans who may prefer spending more time on activities they enjoy. But if everyone could just set aside a little of their time for the community, we will have a wealthy bank of volunteer man-hours and, in turn, achieve much more than what we see in the community today. Perhaps, on top of the grants to charities and schemes to encourage donations, we need to identify areas of unfulfilled needs, clearly articulate the roles that volunteers can assume, and devise a better way of recognising individual efforts in the community so that Singaporeans will find no reason to say no.

There is much that we can do at the Government level and across the different sectors of our society. But ultimately, it is also the individual willingness of Singaporeans to do something, to give our best shot, that will keep the momentum going and make the difference. Our economy, security and defence, all of these need each and every one of us to work together in order to succeed. And, most importantly, if we truly desire a caring and inclusive society, then let us show it through our actions. Let us give Singapore our best shot. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

7.02 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Budget follows closely after the report by the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE). In the course of our five decades since Independence, we had to reinvent ourselves many times, with the Government playing a proactive role in enabling the process. The CFE Report marks the plan for the next phase of our development.

The focus of CFE is rightly on economic growth, as this is the only way to meet the expectations of our future generations for better jobs and opportunities in an increasingly competitive and volatile global landscape.

CFE includes a broad range of plans to ensure Singapore remains linked to the global economy, our people develop the deep skills needed to stay relevant and our enterprises develop the means to compete. There are roadmaps tailored for the different industries, too. All these are welcome, and I look forward to the upcoming initiatives and changes to execute against the plans by CFE.

Equally important though is to ensure that our growth is equitable and sustainable and, on this, I would like to deal with a few matters.

The first is a sustainable fiscal base. In this Budget, we already see some of the strains that will face us in the coming years. Our spending on a wide range of areas is expected to rise, including, in particular, on health and social spending, as our population ages. At the same time, our working population is likely to fall, creating a double whammy as our income tax base grows narrower and our spending needs rise.

There are also limits to how much we can raise taxes, as we need to remain attractive as a business destination for the best companies and global corporations can simply choose to do business elsewhere if Singapore becomes unattractive, relative to other destinations.

We, therefore, have to be very prudent in our spending. Many sectors, for example, SMEs were also expecting more support from the Government. While I fully support the Government helping businesses to tide over difficult times, I am concerned about subsidies becoming entrenched.

In many other countries, subsidies to different sectors of the economy become entrenched, allowing them to continue operating inefficiently and preventing the redeployment of resources to sectors where they are more likely to produce more value.

In fact, I think the only principal justification for a subsidy to any segment is if greater welfare arises from that subsidy. Thus, if giving a business a small subsidy to tide over a difficult cyclical setback prevents substantial numbers of jobs being lost, then it is probably defensible. In short, there should be what are called positive externalities arising from Government support to businesses and not just private profit for the business itself.

Let me now touch on three very specific measures that relate to this. The first is support for seniors. In this context, one of the schemes that I support in principle is the Special Employment Credit scheme which encourages the employment of older workers. With the rising quality of healthcare, many of our workers are able to work even though they are older and, often, it is with some sadness that older employees tell me they have been "retired" by their companies.

The unspoken reason for this is often higher costs associated with hiring older workers, particularly in relation to matters, such as workplace insurance, as well as the availability of younger and cheaper workers.

Yet, there are numerous benefits with allowing older workers to continue working for as long as they wish. For the individuals, it allows them to remain economically active and independent, and there many studies showing that there are mental and physical health benefits for seniors who remain active in the workplace. From the country's perspective, this would ameliorate the strain on our fiscal base as economically active seniors will remain more able to take care of themselves.

Indeed, I would go even further on this front and suggest that both the Government and the unions look into the specific concerns employers have to employing older workers so as to eliminate structural factors contributing to age discrimination as much as possible in the workplace. Ultimately, it is my hope that older workers will be more able to stop work at a time of their choosing, rather than being forced into retirement that may be against their will.

The second aspect of the Budget that I am heartened by is the manner in which it deals with environmental concerns. In fact, this Budget specifically takes into account environmental consequences. One of the fundamental causes of environmental pollution and damage is that businesses, in their determination to maximise profits, do not adequately take into account the damage caused to the environment by their business practices.

The costs of environmental damage and pollution are often felt by the entire community, while the profit is enjoyed by the businesses themselves. This is a classic example of what economists call a "negative externality" where society pays the price that is higher than the benefit the company receives.

A carbon tax is one way to ensure that businesses pay a price for polluting as well. This will, hopefully, incentivise businesses to innovate or invest in green technologies to reduce their carbon footprint. I am also heartened that the revenues raised from these taxes will be used to support the growth of green businesses, as this is one way of reducing the private costs for socially useful innovation, and if these technologies are effective, they could also be something else Singapore could export to other parts of the world.

One matter that has received a lot of attention is the rise in water prices. This has been extensively discussed in many forums as the headline rise of 30% was seen as high by many Singaporeans. Following clarifications, I think most households have realised that the net impact on them will be manageable. For example, I think people mostly understand now that for most people living in 1-room and 2-room flats, the average water bill will actually be lower by around $1 a month. For those living in 3-room flats, it may rise by around $2 a month; for those living in 4-room flats, around $5 and, for those living in 5-room flats, around $8. So, although this is an increase, most people I have spoken to believe that this is manageable.

Everyone also agrees that water is a precious resource for Singapore and people should be encouraged to conserve as much water as possible. While nobody likes to pay more for water, I think everyone agrees in principle that water must be priced at a level that is sustainable for Singapore in the long term.

One suggestion I have in this regard is whether we can relook at water pricing to make it more flexible, so that, like energy prices, it, too, may go up or down depending on the costs of production. This may mean that we have small gradual increases every year, rather than a one-off lump sum increase after 17 years.

In fact, anecdotally, a few people I have spoken to were actually surprised that their water bill had not increased in 17 years. As many people received their water and power bills together, they had assumed that both prices were going up when, in fact, it was only the power component that was changing and the water component had remained the same in their bills for the last 17 years. So, what I would suggest is, in order to prevent sticker shock or surprise every 17 or 20 years, as the case may be, that we find a way to make the water price more flexible as well so that people can adjust their consumption patterns along with the rising cost, and our usage of water will remain sustainable.

One last area I wish to touch on is added support for parenthood. I should declare my interest here as I recently joined the Club of Parents with my first child, and I have to say that it is a wonderful joy to be a parent. But the reality is that many young people hesitate in taking the step both towards marriage and towards becoming parents, and the demographic time bomb I mentioned is a very real one, and the best way to diffuse it or at least reduce some of the pressures on it is to encourage more people to take on the challenge of becoming parents.

The other benefit, of course, apart from the personal joy of becoming a parent is that society as a whole benefits because, ultimately, the children are the ones who will take Singapore forward over the next 30 or 50 years, and they will be the ones to support the older generations, to support us when we are no longer able to work.

And there are tremendous benefits to society for encouraging parenthood. Of course, with parenthood, the economic issues are a bit reversed because the cost of parenting is largely borne by the individuals themselves, whereas the benefits are not only to the individuals but also to society as a whole. This is why I have always believed there are strong justifications for socialising the cost of parenthood more.

There are many measures in place already assisting parents to defray the cost somewhat. But there is always more that can be done, in particular, childcare is one of the areas where there is a great deal of demand. And if you go before childcare, there is infant care. So, in this Budget, we have a doubling of places for infant care over the next four years, which is a measure I welcome. This will help to take more of the strain off working families and working parents and grandparents.

But as we go forward, my suspicion is that there will be a correlation between the more we socialise the cost of parenthood and the more willing people become to take this plunge. I think costs are often a consideration for people considering marriage and parenthood and, sometimes, there is misinformation about the costs as well. But in countries like France, which is one of the few developed countries where they do not have a major issue with the population, we find the cost of parenthood being heavily socialised. So, I think this is one area we can look more at in future Budgets as well.

Broadly speaking, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think this Budget will put Singapore on the right foundation for sustainable growth in the coming years. What I am most heartened is that the focus is not only on growth but on sustainability and the measures taken to ameliorate both the demographic and environmental challenges we face in the coming decades. I will now speak in Tamil.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I had previously raised my concerns about the relatively lower participation in preschool by Indian families. In particular, there appears to be a correlation in lack of preschool education and difficulties in primary school, where some of our students lag in areas, such as Science and Mathematics.

In this year's Budget, I am grateful for the Government's initiative to increase infant care places to over 8,000 by 2020. This will be particularly important for working mothers and single-parent families. I would strongly encourage all Indian families to enrol their children in preschool and take advantage of the subsidies available. They should allow professionals to come in and assist.

At the other side of the educational range, there are also more grants for post-secondary education, particularly for those going to the Institute of Technical Education, polytechnic or university. I strongly encourage all our youths to strive for post-secondary education and to take advantage of the opportunities made available.

In an ever-changing world, education and relevant skills-based training will be important for us and our children to keep up with the new opportunities available. The Government will provide assistance and opportunities and we should, at the same time, not be afraid to learn and do so continuously.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.

Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the Budget. Our nation is at a critical transition point. We must seize the opportunities brought about by the disruptive technologies erupting all around us or risk being irrelevant. We must help our local companies, including our SMEs, survive and grow. The plans outlined in the Budget will go some way, but companies must also help themselves.

Our schools, companies and people have to be ready for change. Lifelong learning and training will be an integral part of our lives. Over the last two days, my colleagues have touched on these topics, so I will not go there. But I want to talk about something that is equally important from the medium to long term, something which bothers me and my residents and, that is, the issue of healthcare.

Our healthcare services in the public and private sectors are lauded around the world as progressive, high quality yet cost-effective. Our unique MediSave, MediShield and MediFund (3M) system and Pioneer Generation (PG) Package have served us well. Many more have benefited as the enhanced MediShield Life now covers everyone, regardless of age and health status. During house visits, my residents would chat about many things and one recurring topic is their worries about becoming a burden to their loved ones, especially when it comes to medical bills. Allow me to share some stories.

Last year, Mr Tok's mother was hospitalised for two separate brain tumour surgeries at Tan Tock Seng Hospital. She was hospitalised for 58 days and her medical bill was about $102,000. She stayed in a B2 ward and, after Government subsidies, MediShield Life and MediSave deductions, his family's cash outlay was zero. He is very grateful to the Government and the system. He and his siblings are all below 30 years old and starting out in their careers. It would have been difficult for them if they had to pay the full bill. His mother is now well and resting back at home.

Our 3M and PG Package have done well in helping families reduce their anxiety over medical bills. So, why are my residents so concerned about healthcare costs? Are our medical fees truly unaffordable? According to a study, global medical inflation in 2015 was 10% but, in Singapore, it was 15%. I believe there are several reasons why healthcare costs are escalating.

One is the moral hazard of health insurance. My concern is whether more comprehensive insurance coverage might lead to over-consumption of healthcare. Are patients tempted to use more resources than they otherwise would have, because they think someone else is paying the bill?

MediShield Life, which currently covers all Singaporeans, has a deductible and co-insurance portion. In recent years, more Singaporeans are enhancing their coverage with Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) for additional private insurance. Riders are available to cover both the deductible and co-insurance portion.

Here comes a potential problem: are Singaporeans with better IP coverage more likely to spend substantially more and consume more healthcare than those who merely have basic MediShield coverage? Let me give Members two examples.

A resident in his 40s recently hurt his knee while playing soccer. He was sent for a magnetic resonance imaging scan at a reputable private hospital. The scan revealed a Grade 1 sprain of the anterior cruciate ligament. He was given two options by the doctor. One was to undergo physiotherapy. Two, he could go for a relatively quick minor keyhole surgery with a night's stay in an A-class ward. He went for the second option − surgery. The bill came up to $24,000. He paid nothing because he had an IP rider.

Another spoke of his father's cataract day surgery for one eye. He showed me the bill. The Ministry of Health (MOH) website shows that the 75th percentile bill size in private hospital for this surgery is between $4,000 and $9,000. His bill was $27,000. I verified with two other eye specialists and they commented that, from the bill, it looks like a standard cataract surgery. I am afraid some people might wonder if doctors are charging more because the insurance companies are footing the bill and not the patients. With IP riders and patients paying next to zero dollars, the patients are less likely to scrutinise their bills as thoroughly and this is not helpful.

I do not doubt that doctors are specialists in their field and do offer the best medical advice. My point here is not to question their competence. It is also not a bad thing if wider and more comprehensive health insurance means patients could have more treatment options. What worries me is that additional treatment options are sometimes made available to the patients not because they are essential but because the patients are now able to afford them, thanks to their insurance coverage. If this happens on a large scale, will this over-burden our healthcare system and infrastructure and increase costs? Over-consumption and increased medical cost will definitely lead to an increase in insurance premiums.

Another concern will be, will this result in a widening of disparity between private and public hospital bills? If so, this disparity might cause more people to shift to public hospitals, leading to overcrowding and longer waits. May I, therefore, suggest that the Government look into the following: one, have more checks in place to control healthcare cost inflation. I understand there is no straightforward and easy solution. Perhaps MOH and the Singapore Medical Council can study and regulate doctors' fees and hospital charges. Two, educate patients on healthcare options so that they can be more discerning in their choices. Three, improve hospital productivity. During last year's Budget Debate, I spoke about coordinated care. We should streamline some of this care from hospitals to primary care for more efficiency and effectiveness. Our family doctors can play a greater role in the long-term care of the patient.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope we spare no efforts in ensuring that our healthcare system remains truly affordable for Singaporeans, especially when our people are ageing rapidly. With that, I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

7.23 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I am grateful we have a Budget which is long-term and one which is not only about the economy but also our environment, our families, about building an inclusive society and about strengthening community bonds.

I have 27 specific recommendations for the Government and have filed 27 cuts, speaking about protecting the environment, curbing smoking and helping smokers quit, strengthening responsible financing, helping divorcees, single parents and their children, tackling animal cruelty and wildlife crime, improving our rehabilitation process for inmates, strengthening our humanitarian aid, helping domestic workers, helping neglected children, helping stay-at-home mothers, tackling oil spills, enhancing ElderShield, helping couples with difficulties conceiving, enhancing our ElderShield and helping our Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) which internationalise.

But the key in our Budget, our policies and all the recommendations we will be making in this House will be in the implementation. Execution is crucial. A crucial player in the implementation is our Public Service. This year, I will focus my speech on how we can strengthen our Public Service.

As fellow Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has mentioned, there is no doubt that we have an efficient and corrupt-free Public Service. My concern is that in the pursuit of efficiency, we have compromised a key value − compassion. In our pursuit to automate most things, we now have a system without a heart. Our aim seems to be to process each case as fast as possible and to follow the book as strictly as possible. Do not deviate, do not rock the boat and do not question.

Unfortunately, many people fall through the cracks when the system is so rigid, when we view things in black and white and where compassion is not exercised regularly enough. There are the famous four words "case-by-case basis" but, in reality and based on my experience on the ground, we have to fight with all our might to get that "case-by-case basis".

Not long ago, one of my residents died in very unfortunate circumstances. Her husband was remanded and she left behind two very young children. Her sister was thrown into the deep water, while grieving the loss of her only sister and, still single, she suddenly becoming a mother of two. She needed help, she needed some compassion. I spoke to HDB on her behalf urging them not to chase her for the mortgage, give her some time to grieve, compose herself for a very difficult next chapter of her life and, in any case, both owners of the flat are no longer there.

HDB agreed, but later still sent a letter demanding payment. She came to see me in tears, worried that HDB will repossess the flat. I asked HDB why did they do that. The answer was that they did not know the letter was sent as it was computer-generated. Not long after, she received a letter from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore demanding tax payment for her late sister.

I appreciate that, on paper, we are right to demand payment. But, on compassionate grounds, should we do so, as our fellow Singaporean is trying hard to get back on her feet? Can we not afford to show some compassion? And this is just one out of the many cases I have encountered.

Sir, we have spoken a lot about how we need to adapt to a changing environment, be creative and innovate. These are the exact things our Public Service needs to do as well. We need them to think out of the box. We have now developed a mindset where a solution, which has been used for years, becomes the right solution. We think that if we change, it means we have been wrong all these years and we do not like to be wrong.

I spoke about chickens in Parliament last week, and now I will speak about monkeys. Our response to monkey issues is as "knee jerk" as it can get. We receive a complaint, a trap is laid, a monkey is caught and killed, and we put a tick on the box that something has been done. And in a lot of the cases, that is "case closed".

I was there when an Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) contractor was poaching monkeys from a protected area away from where he was supposed to be trapping monkeys. He was eventually fined. But when a trapper returns to AVA with a monkey, how can we possibly verify that he trapped the correct monkey or even a monkey from the correct location? Does the trapping even help? Professors at our local universities and non-government organisations (NGOs) have all voiced our concerns and, based on science, have concluded that the culling of monkeys actually makes the situation worse.

I asked an officer on the ground why do we do this when science says it does not work. The reply is that "This is what we have always done. I do not think it works too, but my director told me to do it". There are other ways of managing this issue, we can choose to think out of the box, innovate and choose to address the root of the problem, rather than the symptoms of the problem.

Perhaps the easiest way to come up with new ideas is to listen to suggestions from others, engage the wider community, create partnerships. I have been to too many dialogue sessions where we talk so much rather than listen attentively, we defend our policies rather than listen to ideas on how we can make our policies better.

We still do sessions where we explain a decision rather than get feedback to make a decision. The cross-island line saga is perhaps the best example of how we should have engaged the wider community and how we should have done sessions to get feedback to make a decision, rather than make a decision and then call for a dialogue. Is this process more tedious? The answer, without a doubt, is yes. But will people feel more engaged, more empowered? The answer, without a doubt, is also yes.

Sir, it is not my intention to paint the Public Service in a bad light, but I have worked with many outstanding public servants in the last 16 years of my life as a civil society activist and the last year and a half as a Member of Parliament (MP). These are a rare breed who devote their lives towards serving Singapore, but I see issues that we need to resolve urgently so that we can continue to have an efficient, committed, yet compassionate Public Service.

Moving forward, I have some suggestions to make. For a start, we need to cut some slack for our ground officers, our frontline staff members who will be the first to detect people who have fallen through the cracks, who can alert us. Many I have spoken to feel that when they bring such cases to their superiors, they are scolded for not following the books. We need to develop a culture where they are not penalised for being different and where they are giving some flexibility when processing cases.

I suggest that all Bills that we debate in this House are put on the feedback unit Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) for extensive public consultation before the First Reading. I suggest that Members of this House are also provided with a report on the suggestions made by members of the public. We should list all suggestions provided, whether we agree with them or not. This is not new. An excellent example is the report done by the Early Childhood Development Agency published on 20 November 2015 with regard to the Public Consultation on Proposed Early Childhood Development Centres Regulatory Framework, the Bill that we debated just a few days ago.

I suggest that senior public servants attend Parliament and listen to the debates so that they have a better understanding of the concerns we are raising. Like football, nothing beats watching a "live" performance than reading a report.

I suggested this last year and I will suggest it again. We should release a draft Budget Statement so the public has a chance to make suggestions before we finalise the Budget. I listened to Senior Minister of State Indranee on the radio last week, and there were so many good suggestions on how we can improve the Budget. But, of course, they were made after the Budget has been cast in stone.

It is a wasted opportunity not to be able to implement some of the really good suggestions to improve Budget 2017. It is a wasted opportunity to just have a one-way conversation. I suggest public servants who draft policies actually go down to the ground and experience different jobs related to their policies. In the past year, I have experienced what it is like to be a healthcare worker, a driver, a Town Council cleaner, a coffee shop cleaner, a Police Officer, a kindergarten teacher, a cardboard collector, a customer relations officer, a full-time father and, in December, a humanitarian worker.

As I had shared on Facebook, it has been an enriching journey, to say the least. And through these experiences, I have learnt a lot, seen the struggles they face and witnessed first-hand the sacrifices they have made. And through these experiences, I have seen how we can make the lives of our workers better and where we need to make changes.

I urge public servants to also embark on this journey and see how their policies affect the people on the ground. I suggest we set up more committees like the Animal Welfare Legislation Review Committee and the Active Mobility Advisory Panel. Committees made up of people who are on the ground and who perhaps might even have more experience on the issues than our public servants. These are committees which give the public servants a chance to listen and work with the community, to come up with new policies and even legislation.

And as pointed out by Prof Tommy Koh last week, I quote, "When we appoint people to boards, we can also appoint challengers who are subversive and who have alternative points of view. That's the kind of cultural change we want to see. It makes Singapore stronger, not weaker".

My last suggestion is for public servants to work more closely with civil society activists. Engage them, do not be afraid of them, these are people who speak up because they care. These are people who put the welfare of others before theirs and we should embrace this spirit rather than fear it, we should support rather than penalise them. We should work together rather than go our separate journeys when the end destination might be the same. This fear of engaging them is very apparent when I speak to public servants. But I urge them to start the dialogue.

There is nothing to fear. I have been and continue to be a civil society activist. I do understand that I look too fierce sometimes. So, as the Prime Minister requested when he introduced me at the last General Elections, I am smiling a lot more now. In fact, I smile so much that it hurts, it really hurts.

Madam, I trust that the Public Service will continue to evolve, improve and always serve in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans.

In the words of Martin Luther King Jr: "Everybody can be great. Because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve.... You don't have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love."

Sir, I hope that every public servant has a heart full of grace and a soul generated by love. Sir, I support this Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin.

7.33 pm

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): Finance Minister, it is very good to see you back. I was encouraged by the kind support shown to you by many Singaporeans, especially across political divides. Unity is one of the most precious assets any country can boast of. And I will always be grateful for every year that we still possess that in Singapore. It is one of the richest parts of the inheritance we have received from our previous generations and I pray we will never squander it.

Budget 2017 declares that our future lies in Moving Forward Together. But what does that really mean? Deputy Speaker, Sir, Finance Minister, America's motto is "e pluribus unum" − "out of many, we are one".

It is inscribed on every coin they have in circulation. It sat in the pockets of all their citizens as a daily reminder that unity was the very currency of their system. And yet, this is the very same country which just recently voted to take a massive hatchet to a system they felt was no longer trustworthy.

For a large swathe of the American people, the system was not even about Republicans versus Democrats anymore. Many voters had lost all belief in the story the leaders of both sides had told them about Moving Forward Together. Forty percent of voters were so disheartened that they simply stayed at home. And many who did show up at the polls placed all their bets instead on an outsider who pitched an audacious story of "Let's just Move Only Some of Us Forward Together".

A flood of articles has been written since then trying to understand why people would seemingly vote against their interests. And one common thread that was unearthed was this. To those feeling left behind, the story of prioritising Some over All was always the real story of the system anyway. They had simply decided to play the game that they believed had been played on them.

The true currency of any country is not in bills and coins. It is in trust. It has always been in trust.

The value of every country rises and falls according to the legacy of trust it still possesses and the level of trust it still inspires on the individual, institutional and international levels. In a hyper networked world, trust is the most important currency. This is not a new observation. Many smart chief executive officers (CEOs) working in the new economy can tell you that. Many well-educated policymakers can tell you that. But all that foreknowledge has apparently done little to arrest the huge crisis of trust that the world is now in.

The Edelman Trust Barometer has been tracking trust in four key institutions − business, government, NGOs and media – since 2012. And year on year, Edelman has seen public trust in these institutions decline across all 28 countries surveyed. The global rise of angry populism and pushback against elites that we see today are a result of unchecked erosion of trust from the past, coupled with present-day fears about the pace of change.

Last year, Edelman reported the largest-ever drop in trust across all four institutions. Trust in media is at all-time lows in 17 countries. Trust in government dropped in 14 markets and is now the least trusted institution in half of the 28 countries surveyed. The credibility of CEOs dropped globally to an all-time low in every country studied. People are now more likely to trust search engines over human editors, individuals over institutions, reformers more than preservers of the status quo. Globally, 53% of respondents believe the current overall system has failed them and is unfair, offering them little hope for the future. Only 15% believe it is working, the rest are just uncertain.

So, how did we do on the Trust Barometer? Apparently, Singapore is the fifth most high-trust nation, outranked only by India, China, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates. Compared to the global average of more than 50%, only 30% of respondents in Singapore believed the system was failing while 43% said they were uncertain. To be a country where public trust in all four institutions is still above 50% is now a thing of great value in an uncertain world. Our high-trust climate is a rare thing which presents us opportunities we can leverage on.

Deputy Speaker, it is not just deep reserves of financial capital from our past that we must invest in, protect and multiply; it is our deep reserves of social and emotional capital as well. Every country that hopes to ride out this global trust crisis must not only actively shore up trust in its system, it needs to also take a hard, honest look at where trust is being broken in its system and take noticeable, decisive steps to build it up again.

One of the insights in the report that struck me was the distinction between the responses from the informed public and responses from the mass population. The global gap between the level of trust felt by the informed public and that felt by the mass population has widened significantly, with the biggest disparities in the US, UK and France. So, if Edelman's findings are to be believed, we should not be surprised if the French elections see its own version of a Brexit or Trump shock result.

You might be surprised to also hear that actually, in America, the level of trust the informed public had in their system was almost as high as the level of trust our informed public had in our system. But it was the mass population respondents of America that ranked their system as deeply, deeply untrustworthy. That explains the genuine shock felt by Washington and the wealthier coastal cities at the election results.

In Singapore, the difference is still not so stark. Our mass population respondents still trusted Singapore enough to place it in the top five. But 2017 was also the first time when our mass population respondents slid from being in the category of Trusters to the category of Neutrals. It is a small dip but still worth paying attention to. These respondents worried most about losing their jobs to immigrants and losing business opportunities to foreign competitors. Overwhelmingly, 70% of them believed the pace of change in business and industry was too fast.

I do see the year-on-year efforts by the Government to mitigate the costs of that pace of change. The Silver Support Scheme, Workfare − these are all good, progressive moves towards strengthening our social safety nets. But what I also see is that those schemes still have much further to go to help Singaporeans who are feeling left behind. The Goods and Services Tax, U-Save Vouchers, conservancy rebates, education subsidies, weekly food donations − these are all good things, and these are all greatly, greatly appreciated things. But for some of our struggling families, all these good and helpful gestures still feel like drops in a constantly leaking bucket.

I am speaking especially for our working poor. The bottom 10% sandwich class who hold full-time jobs, who are making a real effort to support their family but still cannot seem to break their poverty cycle. The ones who feel left out and left behind by our yearly calls to "upskill", "internationalise" and "innovate". Not because they do not care. Not because they are lazy. But because they are just busy trying not to drown under wave after wave of new demands, new costs and new changes to their world.

To those who are drowning, even the calmest, most reasonable technocratic explanation about why a rise in water and motorcycle prices is justifiable will feel like salt on a wound. Because when you are drowning, all you want is for somebody to just stop talking, dive in and grab you before you sink. You do not care about the facts of the policies. Debates over what makes sense or does not make sense are all Greek to you. What is most real and relevant to you is simply how those facts are making you feel: I do not have enough. I will never have enough. I am not enough. And you do not care.

When you are in that claustrophobic space of anxiety and scarcity, you do not have enough mental bandwidth to deal with anything more than each day's demands. And having the breathing space to consider alternative choices or plan for the future, that is a luxury the working poor do not have.

That is why compassionate communication of available solutions rather than a "don't know, go talk to your MP" approach by frontline officers matters so much. That is why finding a way to provide universal support for childcare, eldercare, faster access to affordable housing, caregiver respite across all classes of people matters so much. Because all of these interventions go a long way to create bandwidth, a space for the drowning to feel like they can breathe again.

We are missing a big point if we say, "Well, people must deal with the facts as they are. Not where they feel they should be." But honestly, nobody understands their life just according to facts. It is an intellectual's fantasy to believe we are perfectly rational, fact-driven beings. Most people make their choices according to their feelings about the facts. If we care about making sure people hear us out on the hard facts about our country's situation, we must start all our communications with connecting with people where they are: which is how they feel, even if that feeling is disagreeable or irrational to us. If not, let us just accept that your words may never impact anyone outside your echo chamber.

We cannot effectively uplift our working poor if we do not connect our solutions more effectively to the deep narratives and emotional realities that they live in. We love the idea of being a Smart City that uses Big Data to solve our wicked problems. But I sincerely hope we will also fall in love with the idea of being a Wise City that looks at Deep Data as well, to make sure the policies we come up with are not just technical solutions but empathetic, human solutions that resonate with the communities they were meant to serve.

I am not an economist. I do not know enough numbers to put up an elegant fight to justify a request for $X increase in Workfare and $Y increase in Silver Support. There are far more convincing experts in this House and beyond who can make that case. But I will, nevertheless, go on a limb to state my assessment that if we do not want our system to slide into the levels of toxic distrust we see elsewhere, we must move away from safe, small, incremental steps and take larger paradigm-shifting changes on a systems level to help the least in our land.

And we should take those steps sooner rather than later. Because right now, we still have time.

All I want us to just consider is this: knowing what they know now, seeing what they see now, what would Washington's elites have done different for their poorest states if they could time-travel just four years, two years or even just one year back? If Downing Street could time-travel, what would they have done different for their most depressed regions to prevent Brexit? Some decisions that looked too high-risk, too ridiculous back then, I am sure, suddenly look well worth investing in now because they finally see the high-stake consequences at last.

But they cannot go back. They can never go back. Their time for intervention has passed them by.

But ours has not. What can we do? What will we do? What must we do to stave off a future shock scenario of our own?

The Budget Speech declared, "We can aim for quality growth of 2% to 3%…if we work hard to help everyone who wishes to work find a place in the labour force".

It also said, "On the social front, Budget 2017 supports families who wish to buy a home, experience the joys of parenthood and help their children towards post-secondary education."

So, what can we do for our working poor, especially those in single parent or sandwich class families, so that they may feel included in those statements as well?

Consider just one kind of life story, a composite based on real stories familiar to our local social workers: a woman gets divorced, she gains custody of her three kids but no promise of maintenance. She applies for a rental flat. The frontline officer tells her that $1,600 monthly salary disqualifies her under the $1,500 income cap. She is advised to beat the system by stopping work, applying for a rental flat and starting work again. But she does not quit her job because she loves her work, she needs her work. Giving up her salary even for a month is not an option. Her sympathetic MP advocates for her but after 20 letters back and forth, back and forth, and hours of Meet-the-People (MPS) sessions, no one is any wiser, not even her MP, about why an exception cannot be made for her case.

She cannot afford the downpayment for a flat. None of her relatives or friends has room to spare her little family. She rents on the open market but rents are high and leases are short. She moves four times in five years. Her savings drain down. When her boss offers her a higher paying job opportunity, she has to turn it down because she cannot work far away from her child's preschool. She knows she can never pick up her child on time. Not by bus, which is all she can afford. Plus they need her to work nights when she has zero childcare options.

And then the health issues crop up. First, her kids. Then, her parents. And then that damn electrical fuse box has to blow up, forcing her to choose between paying for the lights to come back on or buying better food for her kids. And some nights, at the end of some very, very, very bad days, she considers just giving it up. Because why try so hard? Taking up a lower paying job to at least get a rental flat of her own where her kids can study in peace, suddenly feels like the smartest and safest decision in the world.

Are you tired even just listening to that story? Because she sure the heck is tired living it. And you have to appreciate that for many of the poor, they believe that they will never not feel tired. All she wants is to move her life forward again, together, with everyone else she sees around her, but there are all these structural hurdles that keep coming up her way.

What is the Singapore of her experience? What is the Singapore we want her to experience? What is the Singapore story we hope she will pass down to her children? Does this user experience of the Singapore system matter to us enough to form a strategic team and warrant a complete overhaul of her customer journey? Is her trust, and her children's trust, equally worthy of winning as the trust of a university graduate or a corporate high-flyer?

If she still stays resilient all the way through, and if she still maintains her high trust in our system despite every trouble she has endured, is that not more of a testament of strength on her part, rather than ours? And should she lose trust in our system, whose job will it be to help her find it again?

I do not believe the answer is the Government alone. That is the easiest answer.

The hardest answer is that it is all of us. It always has been, and it always will be.

They say you become an adult the first time you realise that nothing is truly free and everything worthy comes at a price. Everything good costs someone something. We just seldom want to be the one footing the bill.

In every request for a right, there is always a correlated offer of responsibility. It is easier to say moving words about the equal rights we want every Singaporean to have, than to say the challenging words about the equal responsibilities those rights do require every Singaporean to take on. But if we who request for those rights are not prepared to take on some measure of the correlated responsibilities demanded of us − through taxes, donations or volunteering − then our request feels that much less honest and much less powerful.

So, just as much as I wish for the state to stay open to radical solutions, I also see we the people have to stay equally open to the radical responsibilities that those solutions may place on us. If there is a need to pay higher taxes someday, as the Minister hinted, in order to build a better system that moves everyone forward together, I think many Singaporeans will be prepared to bite that bullet because we are a far more generous people than we give ourselves credit for.

But that is the catch. Trust has to be very high for that to happen.

I believe there are many taxpayers and voters on the ground who will still need to be more honestly engaged and deeply convinced that this system's story is genuinely about moving everyone forward together and not just moving some of us forward together. We need more open and honest conversations on that front.

Let me close with a story. American author Ursula Le Guin wrote a provocative little parable called "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas". In that story, an unnamed narrator guides us through the fantastical city of Omelas, taking us on a dizzying tour of the city's amazing technology and wonderful people. But the journey takes a dark turn when we are led down into a basement tucked beneath this beautiful city.

Imprisoned in that basement is a weak and wretched child. And the narrator tells us to accept that, in some mysterious way, should this child ever be set free, the whole city's success will be utterly compromised. We are asked to accept that all the freedoms the many enjoy above is wholly and inarguably dependent on the oppression of the one beneath.

And the most disturbing part about Omelas' secret is that it is not a secret. We are told that every citizen there who comes of age has been ushered into this very room to see the truth for themselves. Though all get upset, most eventually accept that life is just about terrible trade-offs. And so, the status quo continues.

The tale ends on a mixed note, talking about a small handful of citizens who choose to walk silently away from the city, towards an unknown destination that the narrator warns may not even exist.

The story is disturbing because everyone who reads it knows instinctively how true to life that story is for every city in the world. Every city has a child in the basement and a nagging feeling that they all share in the complicity of keeping that child there.

I have always wondered whether the narrator of the story was meant to be an unreliable narrator, pushing out a narrative that deserves to be challenged.

When I think about the parallels to Singapore, I see narratives that need to be constantly questioned, rather than casually accepted as sacrosanct. Is it really true that once we give mandatory off-days to our foreign domestic workers, we will see the instant collapse of our work-life balance? Is it for real that if we free our children from the tyranny of early streaming and high-stakes exams, we will see our future workforce become that much less rigorous? Is it for certain that if we uplift our poorest through more generous welfare, we will see the decimation of Singapore's culture of hard work?

Perhaps. Or perhaps not. We do not know without engaging in honest conversation with everyone, especially the ones who respectfully but deeply disagree with us.

There are Singaporeans out there who ask hard questions. There are Singaporeans out there who even live out their hard answers to those hard questions, and some of them are still here, still open, still pushing the boundaries, but some of them have already reached their breaking points where they have decided they are done with this city. They are done with trusting, done with trying and done with the heartbreak of putting up with those who passively accept the unfairness. They may still be here in body but, in spirit, they are already walking away from their Omelas.

I do not know how and, certainly, I know I sound naive, but I will always hope that we can be that country where more of us are able to say to the ones who walk away: "Stay. Help me see what you see. And permit me to share what I see as well".

Because in a world threatening to grow apart, our small city needs more ones who walk towards than ones who walk away, more than ever.

The ones who dare to go where few want to go − towards one another, towards the conflicts, towards the problems, towards the solutions and, most profoundly, towards the children in the basement who still long to be free.

Our city needs us. It has always needed every one of us, perhaps more than we will ever know.

Finance Minister, I do support the Budget. But allow me also the space to hope that each new Budget you bring will be one that finds new ways to bring ever more help and ever more hope to the drowning ones and the ones in the basement that need it most, because this is their city, too.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Thank you for the passionate speech for the underprivileged. I am sure many Members have the same experience which you have just shared with us. Ms Joan Pereira.

7.52 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am honoured to have this opportunity to share my views on the Budget Statement.

It is reassuring to know that we will have an overall surplus of $1.9 billion, even though we are running an expansionary Budget. Such prudence in our fiscal management has served us well and will ensure that we will have sufficient resources to tide us over future downturns.

The most notable feature of this Budget is the line-up of initiatives to transform our economy. These measures are expected, coming on the heels of the recommendations by CFE. I am heartened that we are taking bold and swift steps to prepare for the changes new technologies will bring. Much is at stake as our economy moves into a higher gear.

However, the impending 30% water price increase has dominated most of the discussions on the ground instead. Residents and businesses alike were taken by surprise − "why so much so suddenly" − and worried about the impact from such a big hike.

Fortunately, numerous clarifications since the announcement have helped to reduce public anxiety. The feedback I have received from many residents has been quite encouraging. They do accept that a 30% increase after 17 years is not unreasonable. They support our efforts to be self-sufficient in water. They are also aware of how expensive water processing technology and infrastructure can be.

What they did not like is that there were no prior public consultations about the increase. Such discussions would have provided the opportunity for the people to share ideas about water conservation and sources of funding for water infrastructure. While price increases are never welcomed, periodic increments with justifications shared in advance would be preferable to a sudden jump.

This incident highlights the importance of good public communication. We need a better approach for communication between the Government and the public.

How well we communicate new policies and measures will affect the level of support and cooperation we receive from the public, especially for those which affect our daily lives.

In recent years, our Ministries have held many public consultation exercises on a wide range of issues with success. Valuable inputs from stakeholders and the public help shape our policies and legislation. Such dialogues also build trust and goodwill, which the Government will need to draw upon for unpalatable but necessary policies in the future. A similar exercise for water would have been useful.

While the increase in water prices should not lead to drastic increases in the prices of our food, I still see the need to appeal for rental rebates for our hawkers and stallholders who will have to incur higher costs due to higher water bills and, later on, electricity price hikes from the carbon tax, on top of a rising trend in food prices. Their profit margins are low and any assistance will be very much appreciated. Rental rebates also mean that they will not have to pass on as much of the cost increases to their customers.

While the new model of having social enterprises like NTUC Foodfare manage our hawker centres has made some progress in keeping the prices of certain food affordable, this remains limited to some basic dishes in these hawker centres and I believe more can be done to reduce overhead costs for the hawkers through some form of rental rebates.

Next, I would like to speak on behalf of a group close to my heart − the elderly. As we set about restructuring our economy, we must bear in mind that whatever changes we make, we must continue to make an effort to consider the impact on our senior citizens and ensure that they are accommodated in our plans.

Coming back to the topic of better communication between the Government and the people, seniors used to joke that the answers to their queries at Government departments always start with "www" − the website addresses which the staff shared helpfully, or so they thought. We have learnt since then that we need to reach out to our elderly through more interactive ways. Making adjustments to accommodate our seniors is a signature of a caring society.

Another example of an area where improvements can be made to be more elderly friendly would be our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations. Last week, I witnessed a horrific incident when a senior, who had difficulty walking, was going through the door of a train car. It closed on her hands while she was holding onto her trolley. Her trolley was out on the platform while her hands were stuck in between the doors inside the train. Luckily, the doors opened and she rushed out, very pale and very frightened.

Would it be possible for our MRT doors to stay open for a little longer during off-peak periods at stations where there are more seniors, for example, at Outram station which serves the Singapore General Hospital? How about designating a train car for the elderly, disabled and commuters with children in prams? Able-bodied passengers will be allowed to use it but priority will be reserved for the less ambulant. The train car should be the one nearest to the platform lift when it stops and have seats in a loud and contrasting colour, for example, ang pow red, to signal its function. This car will be an additional service to our current priority seats. If possible, a staff can be stationed on the platform nearest to this car so that he or she can provide assistance. This staff can also provide instructions to other passengers when necessary and help enforce order and security on the platform.

In addition, we should try to build flexible, adaptable structures which can accommodate the elderly since this is a rapidly growing group. For example, we build childcare centres to cater to children but, with shrinking family sizes and an ageing population, the childcare centres located in the older maturing estates which may experience falling enrolment in the future should be convertible into eldercare centres. This way, the Government will not have to look for a new space, nor incur heavy building expenses. Hence, when building new childcare centres, the Government should also consider that the design can accommodate changes to eldercare centres in the longer term.

The speed at which we are developing today can be intimidating for our elderly, particularly older women who are considering rejoining the workforce. I would like to request for additional course subsidies for them, on top of the SkillsFuture Credit, because many of them do not have much savings and would hesitate to ask for money from their husbands or children to attend classes. This is typical behaviour for many homemakers who are used to putting the needs and wants of their family members above their own. Since they have already embraced personal responsibility in picking up new skills, let us help them by lowering the barriers to learning as much as possible.

I am now on a personal quest to persuade more of the elderly in my constituency to pick up courses. Not all of them see the need to. It is not easy to convince some of them that learning is good for their mental and emotional health and would enhance their quality of life. How do we motivate them and get them excited about trying out new things? I hope the Government will conduct a study into the psyche of our local elderly to find what motivates them so that we can use the information to formulate attractive ways to run our courses.

It would also be helpful if the Government can support the recruitment of retirees for the care sector with subsidised training and training allowances. In the process, they may find their calling in certain areas of the care sector and want to develop further in these areas, carving out a new career in the process. These personnel will help to fill up the manpower shortage in the sector.

Finally, I would like to conclude with a proposal to engage private-hire car services, such as Grab and Uber, in community service for the elderly. Both companies have been viewed as disruptors in their sector. It would be good if they would consider giving back to the community through volunteer services, such as driving vulnerable seniors to and back from hospitals or dialysis centres. This is already done by taxi companies, such as ComfortDelgro, that have programmes in place to provide ferrying services for the elderly and the disabled. Grab and Uber should likewise consider doing so, and the Agency for Integrated Care can work with these car hiring companies to make good use of their spare capacities, instead of relying solely on ambulances. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Lily Neo.

8.01 pm

Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand to speak in support of the Budget Statement raised by the Minister for Finance, Mr Heng Swee Keat.

The Finance Minister struck a chord with me when he said, "We need to foster partnerships in the wider society so we can maintain a good balance between state action and community initiative". He also said that, "It is critical that we take decisive action to reposition ourselves for the future. Budget 2017 will outline measures for our economy and our society."

Today, I would like to base the rest of my speech on the above points concerning our society. I was most heartened when the Finance Minister said that: "We are building an inclusive and caring society − one where Singaporeans of all backgrounds can improve their lives, where the vulnerable are uplifted, and where people of all ages can look to the future with optimism."

I want to suggest the following action to reposition Singapore for better care of our ageing population. The title of my speech is "SAFEcare" which stands for Smart Ageing and Future Enabling care, through technology and preventive medicine.

As the Finance Minister said: "Our needs are growing. Our population is ageing, families are smaller and our social needs are more complex." There is thus an urgent need to consider an innovative way, with the help of technology, for preventive healthcare to keep disability away for as long as possible. This will ensure seniors improve their lives with graceful living, especially at the later stages, when their needs are at a peak.

The Finance Minister said that over the last five years, our annual healthcare spending has more than doubled to around $10 billion in financial year 2016. He also said that the healthcare spending will continue to rise as our population ages. Elderly healthcare costs here are projected to rise 10 times over the next 15 years to more than $66 billion annually. This means an average of $45,000 will be spent on healthcare for each senior by 2030. This is according to a report by Marsh and McLennan. This estimate also assumes that there will be continued ready access to cheap foreign labour, which may not be the case in the future. So, going forward, how do we care for our seniors better and at the same time reduce this steep cost curve? Let me suggest the following ways.

The concept I am suggesting is based on the tenet of prevention is better than cure. In this instance, it means it is better to prevent mobility difficulty and maintain independence, rather than treating the disability. For example, it is better to prevent fall and getting fractures, or having uncontrolled hypertension and getting strokes, rather than curing the fractures and strokes to gain back independence. The purpose is to facilitate independent living for the seniors, till ripe old age, in their usual dwelling places, without having to be admitted to nursing homes, community or acute hospitals. Presently, this is the only option available for many, although not all of them require the intensive nursing care. This is a pity, as it is not making wise use of our limited resources, which are increasingly expensive. Many older adults express the desire to age-in-place for as long as possible. Thus, the aim is to enable seniors to age gracefully in their own homes despite their frailty or medical conditions by preventing disability and to better manage disability.

How do we prevent disability among our seniors? The most common causes of disability among older adults are chronic diseases, injuries, mental impairment and visual impairment. Physical activities and keeping active can make our seniors stronger and lower their chances of falling, reducing fractures and injuries that result in disability. It is never too late to exercise even for seniors. The good control of chronic diseases, such as hypertension and diabetes, can prevent disability, such as stroke, and regular eye check-ups for seniors can diagnose cataracts and other visual impairments for early treatment. Facilitating social wellness to seniors helps prevent mental illness, such as depression, that can cause disability. All the above should be practised as early as possible before disability sets in.

The use of medical technology is the way forward. It can improve the quality of living. Technology-assisted centralised-control health monitoring can be deployed to check on the well-being of seniors. These monitors can screen many seniors for hypertension, pulse rate or heart rate, temperature and so on from seniors wearing medical technology wristbands. Monitoring devices using advanced sound event technology and long-range passive infrared motion sensors to detect abnormal sounds and motions inside the house are useful for detecting falls at home. Remote monitoring systems allow the care required by seniors to be significantly reduced, alerting caregivers to intervene early when necessary. The ideal scenario is to have one central monitor overseeing hundreds if not thousands of residents. The main aim is to have good preventive medicine in detecting emergency health conditions and preventing disability. Information technology can ensure a realtime flow of data between care recipients and providers and make administration, record keeping and reporting of data more efficient.

More collaborative partnerships with Institutes of Higher Learning can be forged to develop new technology, while researching and developing cost-effective systems that promote age-friendly living environment in homes.

In embracing technology, over time, it will be increasingly beneficial and affordable, when more advanced technology is launched with more competition in the market.

A living environment that embraces accessible design and fosters independent living can make a difference in terms of a good quality of life for seniors. The suggestion is to help seniors overcome their intrinsic disability through either the removal of environmental barriers or the provision of environmental modifications. The environmental hazards at home are situated about 60% in the bathrooms and 40% in the other rooms. Common hazards are the absence of grab bars in the bathrooms, dim lighting, slippery tiles, and absence of kitchen work surface at a height suitable for sitting and so on. The use of smart technology is useful for a safe kitchen that will help seniors to function with automatic turn-off for stoves and other electrical appliances. Thus, modifications and adaptations of the home environment or elderly-smart home for those with disability, according to the individual's need, will improve functional ability-related outcomes.

Environmental modifications are particularly important for those living alone. Today, those living alone with no family members to depend on are the ones who usually require nursing homes when they face disability. In 2012, about 7% of seniors older than 65, or 35,000 seniors, live alone. This will go up to about 90,000 by 2030. Living alone per se may not be such a bad thing. According to one study, of the seniors aged 85 and older who were found to be in excellent health, one in five or 20% lived by themselves.

What is the best avenue to practise "SAFEcare" through smart technology and preventive medicine? The main aim is to enable seniors to continue living on their own with graduated daily living assistance according to their frailty and keeping residents independent for as long as possible with the prevention of long-term disability by preventing the causes as mentioned earlier.

In these instances, the daily service delivery accessibility is important, as this will provide better management of service delivery and resources, such as helpers, nurses and doctors.

For this, accessibility to as many seniors as possible will be ideal. Cluster housing concept where many seniors live in the same block of flats is one example. Seniors live on their own in 1- or 2-room flats in such clusters. This will be better for planning and prompt delivery of services. This will also facilitate companionship for residents with their neighbours.

A team of several helpers will be able to provide daily living assistance, where necessary, such as food delivery, cleaning of the homes or bathing for the very frail seniors. Some may only need such daily assistance during short-term illnesses.

Nurses can assist in monitoring the well-being of the residents in such blocks of flats. The nurses can help to monitor the seniors' medical conditions and to refer them for early treatment when necessary before disability sets in. These conditions may include uncontrolled hypertension and diabetes.

We can build new HDB flats with the above concept or we can also modify and convert more HDB rental homes or the present 14 senior group homes, or some of the studio apartments with the above concept as and when the need increases. Instead of using the whole high-rise blocks, using the lower half of the blocks will suffice for ease of service delivery. The upper floors of flats can still be used for younger families and so on. The ground floors of such flats should cater for community services, for example, senior activity centres to enable those well seniors to come down daily for physical, social and mental wellness to prevent disability and to monitor their chronic diseases. This venue also serves as a coordinating centre, enabling concept partners like the grassroots organisations, voluntary welfare organisations and various corporations to volunteer their services. This is the concept of the many-helping-hands approach in the community. It is especially useful for disadvantaged seniors. Since we are starting the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) Sparkle Care centres to cater to the more dependent seniors, it will be good to plan such concept homes hand in hand with Sparkle Care in the same vicinity.

Presently, about 5% of seniors live in some form of residential aged care facility and this will translate to about 50,000 of seniors requiring assisted living by 2030. Despite a 30% increase in capacity since 2010, Singapore still had fewer nursing home beds per 1,000 people aged 65 and above in 2015. Besides focusing on building more nursing homes, perhaps MOH will consider my above proposal of smart cluster homes through technology and preventive medicine as a cost-effective alternative but, more importantly, to enable our seniors to remain in their own homes and to have better living.

Singapore's old age support ratio has been dropping from 7.4 in 2010 to 5.4 in 2016 and is expected to drop to 2.3 by 2030. How do we cushion the dependence cost curve impact? It is through preventive medicine to keep our seniors as healthy for as long as possible, and the use of technology to mitigate the manpower needs to enable independent living as I mentioned earlier.

The Finance Minister provided Enabling Masterplan 3 to support persons with disabilities and their caregivers in this Budget. In view of the urgency of our ageing population, will the Finance Minister provide another Enabling Masterplan to provide for seniors with disability next? I hope the Finance Minister would consider my "SAFEcare" or Smart Ageing and Future Enabling care favourably and to improve the lives of our seniors and helping them to age gracefully.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Azmoon Ahmad.

8.16 pm

Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, good evening and good evening to all Members of the House. First, let me deliver my speech in English and later in Malay.

First, let me express my appreciation to the Finance Minister for the delivery of Budget 2017. It is a Budget that I consider as targeted at ensuring continued employment and employability for our citizens by helping to keep our SMEs afloat and sustainable in this choppy and uncertain economic trend and yet, preparing the nation for the long-term challenges as recommended by CFE.

While I applaud the various measures and "goodies" that have been suggested, I would also like to highlight the worrying trend on the rate of job redundancies that has occurred in 2016. If my facts are right, there were several layoffs late last year which account to more than 10,000 jobs being lost. While this can be considered as small in percentage, it also means that the same number would have lost their income stream, which also means that the same number of families is now being impacted.

What would this mean if we are to relate it socially? What does it mean to those families who have school-going children? How will this impact us in the next 10 years, or will this, at all, have any impact? The biggest question is: what does it mean when someone loses a job today and, 10 years later, what will that be?

Before I proceed further, please allow me to share and relate the experiences which I gained whilst I was serving as a Board Member of the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) on many of the community activities there.

Many social issues which the Malay/Muslim community faced then and now, can be traced back to dysfunctional families as one of the several main root causes. Be it issues related to drugs, underperformance in academic studies, juvenile delinquency or even teenage pregnancy, and many more, one of the main root causes will often, more than not, stem from dysfunctional families.

A study made by AMP then showed a strong correlation between dysfunctional families and the financial instability of the family. The more unstable the financial position of the family is, the higher the correlation to dysfunctional family will be.

The difficult part with regard to this phenomenon is time. The whole process leading to the social problems is usually a long one. It is not immediate. When a family becomes financially unstable which can lead to social problems may take many years. The impact can only be seen much later in time. When this process starts and ends with a social problem, then a new vicious social problem cycle exists and even starts, unless we intervene. Simply said, a family with a sound and stable financial position will have a better chance to be not dysfunctional, hence will also mean a higher chance to stay out of the social problems, hence lower social issues. As such, being employed and staying employed are the best assurances to keep our social problems at bay. I guess you do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand this.

Thus, in our quest to eradicate, if not, minimise problems, it is best to ensure high employment as much as possible. And I am sure this sentiment is also strongly shared by Minister Lim Swee Say, I believe. The less social problem we have, the healthier we are as a nation. In my view, the worrying downward trend of the economy is expected not to get any better in 2017 and 2018. If this trend prevails, more job layoffs and retrenchments may occur, especially affecting the professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs).

Of particular concern are the middle- and low-income segments, which the Malay/Muslim community is a big part of. While I appreciate the slew of schemes and programmes that MOF and MOM have taken and embarked on, this may not be sufficient to circumvent the problems that it may entail.

In fact, anecdotally, it is said that there are not many Malay/Muslim clients who have come forward to MOM, after being retrenched, to seek help in finding new jobs, or even for advice to take up the various schemes and programmes that MOM has to offer. It could be due to many factors which led to this phenomenon.

Understandably, this is logical as it is quite normal that a person's self-esteem is negatively affected after such an experience, which may make him to react as such. However, I believe that the affected worker may be open to engagement to his or her own community organisation like AMP, Majlis Pendidikan Anak-Anak Islam (MENDAKI), Persatuan Pemudi Islam Singapura (PPIS) or Jamiyah. I guess they may be more comfortable to relate and be advised on the available options which MOM has to offer.

Hence, I would like to suggest the following idea. Can some of the work done by MOM in engaging the outplaced individuals be "outsourced" and handled and managed by some of the credible Malay/Muslim Organisations (MMOs) or even self-help groups (SHGs)? The chosen or appointed MMOs can play an important role in trying to ensure that the affected workers can be counselled and engaged so as to try to have them back in the workforce. This work must be done in conjunction with MOM.

As such, MOM will have a kind of mini-MOM at the various VWOs and SHGs. In doing so, we can expect a better outreach to the affected workers or PMETs, with the objective of placing them back in the workforce as soon as possible. This is with the belief that we should thwart future potential social problems by ensuring that our affected workers are unperturbed by the disruption in their job, leading to a stable financial position. Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall deliver the following speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Good evening. Firstly, I would like to thank Minister Heng Swee Keat for Budget 2017 which he presented earlier. It is a noteworthy Budget that aims to ensure job security for Singaporeans by proposing measures to assist the smaller firms (SMEs) and preparing our country for challenges in the long term, in line with the recommendations by CFE.

However, I would like to express my concern on the uncertain and worrying economic outlook in the coming years in 2017 and 2018. If this situation persists, I am certain that retrenchments will still occur, similar to what we have witnessed in 2016.

It is very important to look at the impact on families when a person had the misfortune of losing his job. It is very likely that this will affect the family's finances and stability and, hence, will result in a situation that is both significant and worrying.

The bigger impact is the likelihood that this will result in social problems, for instance, dysfunctional families, drugs, youth issues, children borne out of wedlock and so on. This phenomenon was observed in a short research conducted by AMP in 2015.

This process will take place over a relatively long period of time. Hence, the impact of job loss is very serious and can haunt us in the long run.

In order to eradicate the possible social problems that may arise, it is imperative for us to ensure that every individual who lost their jobs is helped and be able to rejoin the workforce as soon as possible. This will ensure that their financial situation will remain stable. We can, therefore, avoid the undesirable social problems that may appear in the future.

Although MOM provides various schemes and programmes, it was found that not many affected Malay/Muslim individuals sought MOM's help as compared to the other races.

Therefore, I would like to suggest that action should not be undertaken by MOM solely and, in fact, we should also mobilise the efforts of major Malay/Muslim bodies like AMP, MENDAKI, PPIS and Jamiyah. These Malay/Muslim bodies can play a role as agents of MOM and help those who are affected.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, the involvement of the self-help groups or VWOs and MMOs is a very important step in dealing with our social problems. Their involvement with MOM, in order to facilitate as an agent for MOM, to engage individuals who have lost their jobs and get back into the workforce is so important, in my opinion, which will help the country to avoid long-term social issues. I hope the Finance Ministry can look into this and provide the necessary financial help and funds to the self-help groups in order to be able to make this a success. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support Budget 2017.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Azmoon, I just want to assure you that the Senior Minister State for Finance Ms Indranee Rajah takes cognisance of the points made in your speech as well. Mr Yee Chia Hsing.

8.28 pm

Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of Budget 2017. First of all, I would like to say that I am very happy to see Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat back in the Chamber delivering his Budget Speech. The past year must have been difficult for him and his family and I wish him good health for many years ahead.

Sir, last year, our economy grew by 1.8%, which is above an earlier forecast of 1% to 1.5%. However, we have to accept that as a developed economy with labour force constraints, our target long-term growth of between 2% and 3% will be slower than what we have experienced in the past. Against a backdrop of slower growth and thus flat Government revenue, our spending on infrastructure, health and social support has increased and will continue to increase significantly, especially as the Baby Boomer generation is reaching their 60s and 70s.

Minister Heng mentioned that additional investment in our public transport infrastructure is expected to cost the Government more than $20 billion over the next five years. Our annual healthcare spending has more than doubled over the past five years to around $10 billion a year.

Over the past few years, we have also introduced and strengthened various social support schemes, all of which are necessary and welcomed by residents. For instance, the Silver Support Scheme, which gives up to $750 every three months to the elderly, has really helped reduce hardship for some of our most vulnerable elderly staying in 1- to 2-room flats.

The truth is that our overall expenditures will continue to grow with an ageing population and we have to prepare for it. As a responsible and prudent Government, we must maintain a balanced Budget and ensure that the Government's revenue can match the increasing social and health spending as our population ages.

As Minister Heng mentioned in his speech, we may have to raise revenues through new taxes or raise tax rates in future to meet the rising domestic expenditure needs.

On this front, I would like to talk about our stamp duties related to residential properties, which I believe there is room for us to be more progressive.

Buyers of residential properties are required to pay Buyer's Stamp Duty. There is also Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD), which was introduced in December 2011 and revised upwards in January 2013 to cool the residential market.

Sir, I have two suggestions for consideration. First, I would like to suggest replacing ABSD with a tiered Buyer's Stamp Duty. I understand that the objective of ABSD is to moderate demand for residential properties and to promote a stable and sustainable property market. Private residential prices in Singapore have slipped for 13th straight quarters and have fallen by 3% last year.

Because the ABSD scheme is seen as a cooling measure, it is viewed as a temporary measure which will be removed when the market has indeed softened. But we always run the risk that the property market may spike up when ABSD is removed.

Sir, to solve this conundrum, my suggestion is to remove ABSD for Singapore Citizens and add an additional tier to the Buyer's Stamp Duty. ABSD for non-citizens should remain but be adjusted to take into account the revised tiering of Buyer's Stamp Duty.

Allow me to explain. As it stands, the rates for Buyer's Stamp Duty are computed on the purchase price or market value of the property, whichever is higher. The Buyer's Stamp Duty rate for the first $180,000 is 1%, followed by 2% for the next $180,000. Stamp duty payable for amounts above $360,000 is 3%.

I would like to suggest adding an additional tier of 10% for transaction values above $1 million. With the higher threshold of $1 million, I believe this will not significantly affect most middle-income families and HDB upgraders. This would also be similar to having ABSD of 7% on top of the current Buyer's Stamp Duty of 3%. This change would also be seen as a permanent change to the stamp duty structure rather than the current ABSD scheme which is seen as a temporary scheme.

Sir, my second suggestion is for the Government to review its concept of ownership of residential properties which currently only applies to the registered owner but not the beneficial owner.

Currently, if a residential property is held under a special purpose vehicle (SPV), and if the SPV is transferred from seller to buyer, normal residential stamp duty is not payable. This is because the registered owner of the residential property still remains as the SPV and does not change. I think this is an anomaly which needs to be addressed since, for all intents and purposes, the beneficial interest of the property has changed hands.

In this type of situation, not only does the buyer of the SPV avoid paying Buyer's Stamp Duty and Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty, he also avoids paying Seller's Stamp Duty, which would have been payable if the new buyer then flips out the underlying residential properties within the four-year period.

Most of the time, transactions of such nature are carried out by property developers and property investment companies, and this change is unlikely to affect individual buyers and sellers of residential properties.

Moreover, the nature of such stamp duties is that they are discretionary in nature, as buyers and sellers already know the stamp duties payable beforehand and would have a choice of whether to enter into the property transaction.

I hope that with these additional revenue sources, we will not need to increase other taxes which may impact low- to middle-income families.

Sir, in conclusion, the initiatives for Budget 2017 are balanced and forward-looking, but we need to see how we can meet the fiscal challenges ahead while minimising the tax burden on the man in the street. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget.